Imitation: the sincerest form of flattery or stolen profits?
The debate over Design Piracy continues in the blawgosphere this week. Princess Dominique highlighted a Steve Madden shoe inspired by Christian Louboutin and asked her readers:
- Should there be limits to copying? and
- Would your view change if your living came from a business where knock-off's were ramped?
The commentators made an interesting point.
After clearly distinguishing between the two types types of goods commonly referred to as "knock-offs" -- imitations, copies or inspirations compared to counterfeits, which violate trademark law -- to most, imitation shoes were not as disturbing as imitation purses.
I wonder why?
Could it be the price tag, the visibility or the status each alleged gives the owner? What do you think?
photo credit: princess dominique
p.s. h/t The Manolo
Comment A:
I was at NY fashion week talking to a model, he told me that no matter what you do "inspiration designs" will always prevail because there are manufacturers in China who can promise STEVE MADDEN or XOXO similar designs of Christian Louboutin for a fraction of the cost. Unless IP lawyers step up to the plate, they will keep on getting away.
Comment B:
I find that more often than not, when a garment is copied by multiple companies the design protection weakens greatly.
Comment C:
It is simple consumer economics to pay less for something that looks nice but is built poorly. So that with the left over money the consumer can buy more low quality (forever 21) clothing!
You wrote:
"to most, imitation shoes were not as disturbing as imitation purses. I wonder why?
Could it be the price tag, the visibility or the status each alleged gives the owner?"
I think it's directly related to signaling and indirectly related to sizing.
Consider: Increased sales and interest in designer bags coincided with an increase in disposable income (people using their homes as ATMs) meaning, women who "had the money" to buy designer clothes were too heavy to wear them -they don't cut in those sizes- but they *could* buy designer bags. This is signaling; visibility of the bag to perfect strangers could attest the purchaser had made it or were hip or whatever. It logically follows that people who could buy the good bags were unsettled by pretenders carrying the fakes because it diminished their positions. So sure, wanting to ensure their social positions, they'll resent people who buy the fakes because it undermines them.
Shoes are less of an issue for two reasons. First is sizing. Unlike bags being purchased by a demography for which these products were not intended, they can't buy these designer shoes because they won't fit. (I wouldn't be surprised if more people in this population bought knock off shoes themselves because they are more generously or loosely sized -along with quality etc). Anyway, since the first population isn't buying the designer shoes and having to worry about being usurped by people a level below them buying fakes, they don't care. Second, shoes aren't as useful to signal. Shoes aren't as obvious, they're not as visual as bags.