Ramblings

Bloviating: to you, from me. Chide me if you will. algot@runeman.org

All photos in this blog are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license, unless specifically stated otherwise. If something written seems worth your time and effort, use it under the same license.

This is an archived blog. Those interested in my current blogging, feel free to visit
Runemanations where new posts will go.

Sat, 06 Jun 2009

Unfashionable Laws

I thought software patents were silly, and now I find that there is also a move to "protect" consumers from ripped off fashion designs. House Bill HR2196 ('Design Piracy Prohibition Act') seeks to protect original designs of fashion. There is a Fashion-Incubator blog entry which gives a complete (negative) assessment of the proposal.

I admit freely that I am not fashion savvy. I am one of those guys who says, "Nice outfit, honey," when I am asked, but really don't notice if it is new or something my lovely wife has worn before.

Upon reading the bill, I found an odd statement, though.

"The presence or absence of a particular color or colors or of a pictorial or graphic work imprinted on fabric shall not be considered in determining the originality of a fashion design under section 1301 or 1302 or this section or the similarity or absence of similarity of fashion designs in determining infringement under section 1309."

Does this mean that all of Vera Bradley's terrific fabric designs don't matter a hoot? I have purchased several pocket books (handbag...term in bill) with different printed patterns. Is only the specific combination of straps, pockets, thread pattern, etc. the important part? Can anybody just duplicate the beautiful printed graphic on a similar pocket book with one less side pocket and get away with that?

I don't write Congressional bills for a living, but design industry heavyweights must have had some hand in what the bill says unless the staff of Massachusetts Congressman William D. Delahunt made the whole thing up themselves. To my untutored eyes, most of the difference between one "dress" and another seems to be the pattern of colors and graphic design which are impressed on the fabric. Sure, the sleeve is longer or shorter, puffier or ribbed, and so on, but at what stage does the modification of such elements become a matter of "new design"?

Frankly, I believe that a normal shopper wants a garment or accessory that looks good. Most would probably like to have a "designer original" but couldn't afford one. It doesn't seem to me that this proposed law protects the consumer in a significant way. It might protect a designer with a big reputation and enough clout/income to afford lawyers to go after the small designers, cutters, sewers, etc. that make up the bulk of the real clothing/accessories industry.

And, if I didn't make it clear, I think software patents are a bad idea, too.