Sizing up the spat over red carpet copycats

Leading fashion designers lobby to copyright their work to curb the knockoff industry.

By Gloria Goodale | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the March 2, 2007 edition

Page 1 of 3

SHERMAN OAKS, CALIF. - If you thought the red carpet at Sunday's Oscars was merely a fashion show, think again. For millions of American women who aspire to celebrity style, it was a shopping preview. Any minute now, low-priced versions of the gunmetal gray Armani sheath worn by Cate Blanchett or the ethereal feather and chiffon confection sported by Penelope Cruz will show up online or in a Bloomingdale's or Macy's near you, courtesy of firms like ABS, the acknowledged knockoff champ. Couture originals that went for a pricey five figures will retail in the $200 to $500 range.

ABS and a growing number of other companies can copy these designs, most with minor alterations – different ruffles on the Versace skirt, for instance, or a single dress instead of two pieces on Blanchett's outfit – because unlike music and movies, fashion apparel cannot be copyrighted. Some industry analysts, and some consumers, applaud this, calling imitation the life-blood of the fashion world. Designers call it bad copyright law, and say even if it's legal, copying someone else's designs is at least unethical. A new federal bill, sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R) of Virginia in 2006 and backed by the Council of Fashion Designers of America, would allow individuals to copyright a design for three years. CFDA executive director Steven Kolb expects the bill to be reintroduced this month.

But as battle lines are being drawn, many cultural observers say this is more than a struggle over the future of a trillion-dollar global industry. It's also a window into changing American ideas about ownership and ethical behavior.

"We can't view the issue of fashion being copied in isolation," says David Schmidt, professor of business ethics at Fairfield University in Connecticut. "There is something happening that runs across all these activities, such as downloading music or sharing videos." In previous generations, he says, ownership was clear. "If you had it on your shelf, you owned it. And if someone copied it, there was always a degradation from the original that made that original valuable."

In the digital age, however, copies are often identical by every meaningful measure.

Beyond that, the sheer availability of the replicated items lends to a sense of confusion about fundamental ethical values, such as what it means to "own" something that isn't the original item.

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page