Something that’s been on the back burner of my mind (which, yes, resembles an overworked kitchen stove) is the interesting issue raised by threats of new legislation that would create copyright protection for fashion designs. A story in Techdirt puts it really well, so I’ll be lazy and simply quote:
For many, many years, we’ve pointed to the fashion industry as a great example of a creative industry that thrives despite widespread “piracy” and greatly reduced intellectual property rights. Contrary to what copyright maximalists claim will happen in the absence of such copyrights, the fashion industry is highly competitive, highly innovative and highly creative. Also, contrary to the maximalists’ claims, it hasn’t “devalued” the creators at all. In fact, it’s only helped to increase the value of original works by the best designers. The copycats have actually pumped up their value, rather than decreased it.
Research has shown that it’s because of this lack of IP that the industry has been able to thrive. That’s because it does a few things: the copycats help spread the word about the designs, getting them spread to a much wider audience than the high end fashion designers would alone. On top of that, it increases the value of authentic works by those top designers, since the reputation increases the overall value. Finally, the rapid copying pushes designers to keep innovating and keep bringing out new things, so that they’re always seen on the cutting edge — ahead of the copiers.
For anyone interested in this idea — that an absence of copyright protection can encourage creativity in certain fields — there was another good story in Techdirt called “Why Copyrights Would Kill The Fashion Industry” which references yet another good take on the idea:
“David Levine now points us to another analysis, suggesting how adding copyrights to fashion designs could kill the fashion industry, by killing the biggest thing that helps the industry thrive: trends.
Levine references an article by Christopher Springman in the New Republic, but that link seems to be dead. He quotes from it, however:
By allowing the copying of attractive designs, current law fits well with the industry’s basic mission–to set new fashion trends and then convince us to chase them. And the trend-driven copying of attractive designs ensures that those designs diffuse rapidly in the marketplace. This, in turn, makes the early adopters want a new style, because nothing is less attractive than seeing your carefully chosen clothes on the backs of the hoi polloi. In short, copying is the engine that drives the fashion cycle.
So there, in Russian-nested-doll fashion, is a fairly decent summary of the issue. In case you were looking for one. Mike Masnick at Techdirt seems to be a bit obsessed with the subject, so there’s more by him on the site. Worth checking out.
(Further reading: James Surowiecki’s 2007 article in the New Yorker, The Piracy Paradox, which is an excellent look at the issue from the viewpoint of economics.)
