Fashion Copyright

The mission of copyright, as stated in the Constitution, is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by giving creators a temporary monopoly on reproduction of their works. The theory is that this monopoly acts as an incentive to creators to create, and the public gets more creativity than it would without government intervention.

This makes sense, but is it true?

We can look at a couple of arts that rather inexplicably have never been copyrightable to see how this lack of protection has prevented innovation. Like fashion: the artistic design of clothing, handbags, belts, and eyeglass frames.

If I invent a new look for clothing, once I put it in the public, everyone in the world is free to duplicate that look. What's more, they can mix different looks together, extrapolate, and create any derivative fashion they want.

This appalling lack of protection explains why fashion has not had a significant change in almost a century. With no monopoly protection, our fashion industries have lacked incentive to change, so we're stuck with the same apparel our great-grandparents wore. If only copyright applied to this art , we'd see a vast profusion of creativity. Perhaps an entire industry of fashion could be born, giving a vast public benefit, instead of today's complete stagnation.

Oh, except it hasn't worked that way. Fashion changes constantly. Designers are famous and well-paid. It's difficult to imagine the fashion industry, with its vast array of magazines, television shows, and pundits, getting any more vibrant with greater monopoly power.

Would the public benefit from fashion copyright? Portions, for sure would benefit. In particular, the fashion lawyer part of the public.

Filed Wed - August 29, 2007, 08:10 AM in

Return to: |  



.