 |
| 1946 | 2014 |
Every once in a while a great fashion house will reproduce one of its older designs, much like how the big sewing pattern companies re-release vintage patterns. (Sort of like how Schiaparelli released a dress in 2014 that seems to be inspired by a 1946 dress that I've pictured above.) There are also times, especially back in the decades we vintage lovers are fond of, when a fashion house or designer would sell the rights to a design and allow others, usually department stores, to make licensed copies of them. These authorized copies were perfectly legitimate and a great source of income for couture fashion houses. (You can read this article for more in-depth info on this.)
Other times, the designs were blatantly stolen and reproduced. One such case is the Jovon-Lilli Ann wars over suit designs that Jovon pretty blatantly copied. (You can read about them on the No Accounting For Taste blog here!) Lilli Ann sued Jovon for this kind of design theft.
So enters the controversial question of the day: What do you think of copying and recreating vintage pieces? Do you consider this design theft or a legit way to preserve vintage style?
Here I'll attempt to present the case of both sides, then I'd love to hear from you guys!
So one side says, no way, copying vintage--especially name brand designs--is still plagiarism. The design house receives no money or recognition from the copy, so it isn't fair. Copying a vintage piece is just as wrong today as it was when Jovon did it back in the 50s. Not to mention, it dilutes the exclusiveness and rarity of vintage pieces. Designer labels are meant to be more exclusive, and copying them left and right takes away from the uniqueness of owning a true vintage couture piece.
Another side says that copying vintage pieces, even labeled ones, is perfectly fine. For many vintage designs, like Lilli Ann, the house or designer that created them no longer exists. There is no one to ask for a license to copy or a place to buy the pattern or finished garment. Even for design houses that do still exist, like Chanel, they are no longer producing that garment for us modern people to buy. (If they were.... I'm sure we would!) Copying actually preserves vintage style by making it available to more people, especially as supply continues to dwindle over the years.
So what are your thoughts? Is it okay to "copy the greats" or not? What sort of impact do you see copying having on the vintage community?
As usual, please keep your comments respectful and avoid accusatory or rude language. Thank you!
Personally I often copy vintage designer pieces for myself as I'm sure house wifes have been doing for a long time. I would not sell someone else's designs though, creating something new is part of the fun.
ReplyDeleteIt is worth remembering that everything has already been done in terms of design so technically we are reusing the same ideas over and over in different combinations.
I recently went to a talk where I learnt that design copyright only lasts for 25 years for fashion, so if a piece is older than that, you can copy it without fear of reprisals! BUT this doesn't apply to pieces that have been patented or copyrighted, such as Liberty prints. Interesting article here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dezeen.com/2012/05/23/uk-copyright-law-changed-to-protect-design-classics/
Ooo, I didn't know that! I'm going to have to check out that article! Thanks, Porcelina!
DeleteOh that is interesting!
DeleteI am definitely for copying vintage, i.e. the second argument you put forward. I think if you are copying a garment for yourself, as opposed to sell to others, it is all well and good. I might have slightly different thoughts if I was making a garment to sell. I typically like original garment ideas, based on vintage designs, rather than an exact copy of a vintage garment, for selling to the public.
ReplyDeleteBrigid
the Middle Sister and Singer
I think copying vintage for your own personal use is just fine. House wives and designers alike have been copying designs from by gone years for ever. I often see vintage articles that explain to the average Jane how to look and dress like movie stars but on a budget. Recreating big name designers like Schiaparelli or Dior, or being heavily influenced by them, for your own wardrobe I think is just fine. It's when you start copying to sell or in trying to pass a creation off as something it's not that you run into a bit of trouble.
ReplyDelete-Emily
Emily's Vintage Visions
That's very true. It can be very tricky, can't it? I think you're right on claiming things as you're own; that's definitely gotta be bad news bears!
DeleteI would have to say that I don't see anything wrong with an inspired piece. If you're copying a specific item stitch for stitch and using the same fabric, buttons, everything, then it's plagiarism. But really, isn't all fashion plagiarizing someone else? The fashion world goes in circles constantly reinventing old ideas.
ReplyDeleteNatasha
A modest fashion blog: www.natashaatkerson.blogspot.com
Engaging, wonderful topic to bring up, dear gal. I veer towards giving copying my vote. I think that after a certain amount of time, especially is a designer or design house is no longer operational, there is something of a Creative Commons element to fashion and that that it's usually fine to embrace a strong degree of inspiration from fashions of the past and celebrate them again today though emulations like.
ReplyDelete♥ Jessica
I once took an English class where the instructor said that everything that will be written has been written, we just rewrite it in new packages. Take the movie Avatar, very similar to Pocahontas, they even both have magic trees. While I still believe there must be some original thought out there, I understand that there are only so many ways to tell a story. Fashion is no different, there are only so many ways to fashion a pair of pants, until it's not a pair of pants. Also, imitation is the biggest form of flattery, so why not copy from great fashion icons.
ReplyDeleteI'm a dressmaker, I love fashion from 30's to 50's and sometimes I sew reproductions of vintage clothing. Sewing is an "savoir faire" that begins to disappear. I think it is important to keep this knowledge. Sewing retro clothing takes a lot of time, there is full of hand stitching. The fabric is expensive and hard to find... It is work that is done for love and not for money. (I am not rich it is actualy the opposite.) The vintage community is a passionate community. And I work for my passion.
ReplyDeleteYou are very right, whether people agree with copying or not, that doesn't make reproducing a design EASY. I'm sure you do awesome work!
DeleteI think it's okay to copy designs if you're only sewing for yourself or a close relative or friend but not if you're making clothes to make money. I have never copied anything exactly myself. I prefer to be inspired by a design and add my own personal touches.
ReplyDeleteOooh I'm so full of thoughts and so glad you posted about this!
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I think that if it is not for sale then there is no issue. If it is for sale, then I think there is a lot of grey area on a few issues.
How old is the item? I'm definitely ok with copying a museum piece from the 16th century, and not ok with copying a designer piece from last year, but I don't know where exactly to draw that line. With time, designs sort of become a part of our design heritage and, in my opinion, pass into acceptable territory.
How unique is it? Would you find a bunch of similar items with similar features, or is it a distinctive creation that obviously comes from a particular designer?
How close a copy is it? I consider it ok to take inspiration from the work of others, and combine elements from other designs in a new mix in your own work. Actually I find that even if I am trying to reproduce a design exactly (even my own), they always end up at least a little bit different. I tend to just try to copy a particular shape or trim or something but not the whole thing. Having said that, I would like to do some accurate copies, particularly from old movie costumes.
I'd be interested to know the legal stance, since I think that designs are the hardest intellectual property to legally protect (at least, that is what we were taught in an engineering context anyway.)
I have no idea on the legal part (any lawyers out there?!), but I think you bring up some good points. Where is the line where it shifts from being wrong to copy to being perfectly acceptable? I'm not sure.
DeleteI am speaking from an "art" point of view because to certain degree fashion is a form of art. Sadly, patterns is a slippery slope and copying is still hard to sue people for even in modern fashion designs. Truthfully I am super supportive or trying to make copyright laws more relaxed. Most of them are so strict because of Disney who lobby to get new copyright laws to be passed. I think there is something to be said about a classic piece to be reworked and reimagined by an artist. This about the BBC show Sherlock, if it wasn't for the fact that it was so old that it became public domain, we might not have have that show. Or think about all the new releases of Alice in Wonderland with great new illustrations. People would make the argument that you are trying to get the attention of a new audience who might of ignored these stories.
ReplyDeleteMy general stance is copying is okay if it isn't for profit. I am a vegan which means I avoid wearing wool, leather, and sometimes silk. So fashion wise it can cut me away from designs that I like. (vintage I am much more relaxed about) So if I find a cute purse, I have no problem mentally buying a vegan knock off or recreating it because hey, it's their loss for their choice of material. BUT it isn't like I am always going out of my way to buy knockoffs. I generally think it is bad to try and steal a modern in production product and try and make a fast buck off of it. It is quite another for me to make my own purse because I didn't want to support a leather industry.
But as Tanith has mentioned, even pros have a hard time replicating something 100%. Even if I ripped apart a dress and traced the pattern, the end result wouldn't be 100% perfect. And I think I could tell the difference between a $1,000 dress and a $100 knockoff. It is one of those you get what you pay for. And if you can't tell the difference, then maybe the original company should be re-evaluating their product production and cost.
I'm a bit late chiming in on this, but I think this really is an interesting question. I'm kind of glad to see that a lot of other people seem to agree with my stance - particularly after some time has passed, it's not really an issue anymore. As other people have said, if you're not selling the items (or even if you are, so long as your clear that it's a reproduction and not an authentic original), I don't see the harm. Of course, if you are trying to pass it off as the real thing, that's a whole other can of worms, especially if it's a rare or expensive item.
ReplyDeleteWhile I absolutely respect the rights of designers to make money, I also think that fashion is all about judiciously copying other peoples' designs. Maybe not down to the last stitch or anything, but what's how trends work, isn't it? Someone comes up with something ground breaking and original, someone else likes it enough to make something similar, and all of a sudden it's everywhere.
I read every comment, so I'm glad you still posted! I wonder about copying really iconic designs. I agree with you, but I wish I could hear from a design house like Chanel or Dior to hear their thoughts on it!
Delete