When I determined fashion counterfeiting to be my “hot topic” that term was in reference to the interest displayed by my peers in the class poll. The reality is, it is a “hot topic” among fashion industry leaders and consumers, as the subject makes some people really ‘hot under the collar’. (Pun intended.) The heat comes from both sides of the argument, as designers feel robbed of their designs, which are a result of their significant investments in time, talent, and money. On the other hand, some consumers see a disconnect between the designs and the physical knockoffs. Those consumers feel they have the right to own designer goods even if they cannot afford the luxury versions produced by the real author. We will take a look at the professional perspective by reviewing the 2009 proposal by three United States Congressmen of legislation called the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, and the 2011 hearing before the Congressional Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet, of House Bill 2511, the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act (ID3PA). Then we will examine the claims by the consumers via reports from the New York Times and Internet blogs.
The Professional Point of View -
In the first professional appeal Congressmen Bill Delahunt (MA), Bob Goodlatte (VA), and Jerrold Nadler (NY) begin with the point that a driving force for the economic recovery of the US is the creativity and success of its businesses. This opening statement is hardly one that can be argued with, as it has been one of the cornerstones of the nation. In order to aide in that process we need to protect our innovators with laws that provide legal protection of intellectual property. There are trademark laws in the US that provide protection for brand names and logos. Congressman Nadler pleads the case specifically for his own district pointing out that the fashion industry in New York not only produces billions in monetary revenue, but also creates hundreds of thousands of jobs, and brings in a wealth of tourist and cultural dollars to this international fashion capital. Something that may not be thought of by many people is wide range of job sectors that are involved. Steven Kolb, the Executive Director of the Council of Fashion Designers of America is quoted as saying, “…with today’s technological capabilities, [pirates] can make a copy on the other side of the world and make it available in our country before America’s designers can sign a deal and make the garment here.” American designer Thakoon Panichgui points out that his costs of doing business include money for research, pattern makers and runway shows, while pirates copy his work and are able to sell a knockoff of his design free of any of those inherent costs.
The second source of professional perspective comes from the Judiciary Subcommittee meeting held in July 2011. The appeal for the passing of the ID3PA is one hundred and forty-six pages of informative testimonies on the issue of pirating fashion design. Just one of the testimonies comes from a young designer named Lazaro Hernandez. Mr. Hernandez is one of the co-founding partners of the high-end design firm Proenza Schouler. According to his testimony, the US and China are the only two developed countries in the world that do not have laws to protect the intellectual property of fashion designers. As such, the US has become a safe place for pirates to steal and sell designers’ work. He goes on to say that his company creates four collections a year, which cost them about $3.8 million each. A typical runway show costs them about $320,000. Advances in technology have escalated pirating since with digital imaging their designs can be photographed on the runway, sent to China, copied, and for sale on the Internet within a matter of a days of one of those shows. Meanwhile, it takes the true designers months to take the orders, produces the goods, and have them in the stores.
In both of the professional documents referenced the point is made that there can be successful partnerships between high-end designers and discount retailers, which could be the solution for the average consumer to obtain true, but affordable designs. Target is a good example of a large corporation that has partnered with several designers in creating lines that allow designers to retain ownership of their designs and at the same time protect the consumer from poorly made, pirated copies.
In evaluation of these professional perspectives, each deals with the facts of the issues. They are true ethos (ethical) appeals, excluding any emotion. Even at a point in his testimony when Mr. Hernandez refers to the repeated knock-off of a satchel that is iconic to their brand, he makes no reference to what must be a very frustrating circumstance, but instead uses the example to make his point about America being such a safe haven for pirates. For the reader these organized, factual presentations lend to the credibility of and even the sympathy toward the struggles that designers must constantly face over this issue. As both were presented to governing bodies it would be critical that they be presented in these factual formats.
The Consumer’s Point of View –
In the New York Times interview with Ms Cabrina Whitman, a frequent buyer of knockoff goods, the reader immediately becomes aware of the emotion she has connected to this issue. Her responses about her rights as a shopper, her non-support of “child labor” and “supporting terrorists” were protests derived from her own thoughts on the matter as there were not references to those issues anywhere else in the reporter’s story. That would tend to make me think that she had some feelings of guilt about making the purchases, but evidently not enough to stop her. This article was as a result of a legislation being proposed by a New York City Councilwoman, Margaret Chin, which would me fines and potentially jail time for shoppers caught purchasing counterfeit merchandise. Ms Chin, who is councilwoman for the Chinatown area said that she would like to see the area known for things like museums and restaurants rather than fake merchandise. She proceeded to ask what happened to the idea that people should live within their means and if they really want something they should save up their money and buy the real thing. In contrast, another shopper interviewed for the story pointed out that if the legislation is intended to protect the jobs of people in the legitimate industry, the number of people selling the knockoffs, who would lose their means of income, might offset it. The final two comments in the article were that if the economy is down, why stop people of spending money, and that as long a person knows what they are buying isn’t authentic, then they should be able to buy it.
A second coverage of the consumer’s point of view was drawn from a yahoo.com blog asking, “What’s wrong with carrying a fake handbag?” Though the forum contained a few hints toward the ethical idea that maybe it’s not right to copy somebody else’s idea, not one of the twenty-one postings made the conclusion that there was anything wrong with buying a knockoff. For the most part the point was made that if that’s what you want, you should have it. Defensiveness seemed to be the overwhelming sentiment.
In contrast to the professional presentations, the consumer’s statements were almost completely pathos (emotional) appeals. There seemed to be a lack of knowledge or even awareness of the perspective of the designer or any ownership of intellectual property. I know that there have been a few anti-fake campaigns over time, but the conclusion of the limited research done for this paper would be that the public needs to be educated much more about the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment