Consumerist: When you strip off the logos from your typical cheerleader’s uniform — especially in high school and college — you’re left with something that is still distinctly an outfit meant for a cheerleader. But can a uniform manufacturer copyright that basic uniform design? It’s a question currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, and one whose answer could have far-reaching implications.
15 comments:
While I don’t think that the look of a cheerleading uniform is important to its function, there is a distinct look. Cheerleading uniforms have changed over time, but that neither design in this case is unique. They both look like current cheerleading uniforms. A company shouldn’t be able to copyright an established style. This particular case aside, I really don’t know how I feel about copyrighting in fashion. Obviously, I want to respect and credit designers for their work, but a century of copyrighting is much too long. Inspiration, imitations, and clear knock-offs are part of trends that become eras in fashion history. The designer gets lost in that, but it means that there are more, less expensive clothing options. I just can’t see how clothing designs, constantly building off of history and each other, could be properly and effectively attributed without a mess of company lawsuits.
This is way more interesting than I thought it was going to be, but that probably has more to do with my bias against cheerleading and less to do with the not so catchy article title. I had never put much thought into how copyright works in the fashion industry. Obviously I understand that if someone designs something and then another designer comes out with the same exact thing it is against the rules but it's a fine line because clothes are so universal. If a cut of a dress sells really well with one company we cant expect other companies to just ignore that, there has to be some leniency with what we consider stealing. All that being said I have great respect for designers of all kinds and think that they too often do not receive the right amount of pay of credit for the work that they do, but 100 years is a long time, and it's too long to have a monopoly on a huge and very lucrative industry. Clothing has always been a form of art that build off of itself designers, while all unique have always used each other and their common world to create a look for the period that they work in. Clothing among designers is always a little similar, it's part of what gives us fashion and style in the first place.
This is a very interesting debate on the definitions of copyrightable material, and I have to say that I agree with the stance that you should not be able to copyright a common and near iconic design. I believe that if this copyright were made valid, there would be a monopoly on these clothing items for years and years and that other companies without it would have to pay the money to come up with all new, less classic designs while also having to figure out what to do with all the stock uniforms they own, but now cannot sell due to copyright. It is always interesting to see the ramifications of a Supreme Court decision, especially on other areas and industries you might not have thought were related. I would obviously be outraged if women’s clothing skyrocketed in price, and also I am curious as to what will come of pom poms?
I guess it makes sense to be able to copyright a style of clothing, like you could anything else, but that really would kill the mall. I went to the mall a few weeks ago with some friends with the mission to find a certain kind of jacket - and I was able to find a variation of that jacket in three separate stores, without really trying. The mall is a collection of stores copying each other. If designers or companies were able to do that, then everyone who wanted a ______ jacket would have to buy it from that one company. The range of options would decrease dramatically, and designers could charge whatever they wanted because there would be no competition. Do I think knockoff companies are bad? Kind of. But if you wear a knockoff, everyone knows you are. People of lower incomes should be able to find styles they actually like - so copyrighting styles would end that.
The fact that this case made it to the Supreme Court is incredible. I understand the fact that copyright laws are serious, but the thought of a clothing manufacturer having a monopoly on a “style” of clothing is terrifying for some of the reasons brought up by the Court – first of all, if clothing knockoffs are no longer viable products, clothing prices would increase an absurd amount. That would then make clothes potentially unaffordable to many consumers. Imagine if all the fleeces imitating those of The North Face were copyrighted and no longer able to be sold. Lower income families would not be able to afford warm clothing. The potential implications and consequences of Varsity winning this case are so dangerous and it’s pretty scary that Varsity has the potential to win this case. It also makes me wonder if other countries have implemented any copyright laws on clothing and if those laws have negatively impacted their poorer communities. Comparisons to other nations would be vastly helpful in this case since I know that, at least in China, smaller/less fortunate communities would not be able to afford most of their belongings without knockoffs/cheaper clothes. Additionally, while I understand that the two outfits in question may look alike, I do not think they are quite similar enough to have copyright accusations flying at them unless there was an interior connection between the two companies that would influence worries like copyright infringement.
I had not thought about copyright issues in the fashion industry before this. I guess I had considered that a functional piece of clothing with a specific purpose could be traced to one designer but it's interesting to me that there are " design patents" as well. I don't understand how the supreme court could draw a line in the sand that says this is infringement or this isn't. With clothing, even a small stitch could make them different pieces. I also think a cheerleading uniform is universal, almost like a tshirt, where there's no way to monopolize the market with one designer since the "rip-off" line is so fine. At the same time, the uniform is iconic, unique, and inventive for the purpose, so why shouldn't someone get exclusivity for their innnovation?
The clothing made by fashion designers follow a style and an aesthetic that is seen throughout the designs in their line of clothing. However, the argument can be made of what does it mean to be original in a world where almost everything is being influenced and inspired by something else? In that sense, it's hard to define what in the fashion industry can or cannot be copyrighted considering all new garments that are created are relative to some predeceasing design. Like how you can design your own dress but having it's integral shape be based off of the bias cut, which is a style of draping that already exists. But in the case of a uniform where it's main purpose is function over fashion it can almost be seen as an industrial product, thus making it open for copyright.
I'd like to start this comment with a "lol" because lol. Wow. If I draw 2 lines on a piece of paper and sell it for $1, and then someone else draws 2 identical lines and sells it for $2, they aren't infringing on my "design." The argument that Varsity Brands makes is basically like saying "Oh we made a Polo Shirt first, so you can't make any" and that isn't how copyright works. This absolutely falls under general use and I'm pretty sure this is just Varsity Brands trying to stick it to their competitor, Star Athletica. I even read some of the court documents and the arguments they are making are just simple-stupid and downright absurd. It continues to amaze me all of the things you can get put in a court case these days. I don't think they have any legal standing to be wasting the time of the courts with an argument that a generalized design is an individuals property. This is, again, like saying that if two designers made a lighting design that had a red wash on the stage, and then a blue wash, that one was infringing the other.
I find it interesting that the article makes a comparison between cheerleading uniforms and that of the tshirt. The reason for this is due to the fact that I feel both are style of clothing that marks the function of what the clothing is for. The idea that there could possibly be copyrighting of different cuts of clothing I feel opens up a giant rabbit hole legally where other industries will try to make similar arguments to monopolize the field.
My biggest problem with this controversy is that it is absolutely insane that corporate copyrights can last more than a century. I mean, for fucks sake, that means the model T’s original patents would have just expired in 2008. Now certainly Ford’s research and design needed to be protected for a while but can we be real about what copy protection is designed to do. It’s supposed to provide incentive to research and develop knowing that your product won’t immediately be matched by a competitor who has none of the sunk research costs you do and can therefore sell the same product for cheaper. I for one think 15 years is probably more than enough for this to happen in almost all industries with possible exceptions for some but a decade to protect the look of a uniform? Sounds like you need to get off your ass and create a compelling product.
Copyright laws are put in place to protect a company’s idea from being stolen by some other manufacturer or business. I couldn’t agree more with John-walker’s statements in his response to this article. How someone can start a lawsuit over a design that surfaced so many years ago is beyond me. Copyright laws have a clear purpose in our justice system and when people bend those rules to get money out of another company is just wrong. I feel like this entire problem boils down to a non-existent argument. I have a feeling that the same argument could be made about a winter jacket. There are so many companies that make clothing to serve the same purpose and at the end of the day it is pretty much just the logo that makes the difference. I mean come on people, these uniforms are obviously going to have some similarities across the board and to be quite honest I don’t think that classifying it as copyright infringement is going to change anything.
Personally, I found this article to actually be an engaging read about the discussion held in the supreme court, even about something as mundane as cheerleading uniforms. I wish there was more analysis of current political events like this one. As it relates to the theater industry, this could be huge, but I would have to say that it probably wont be. Theater has always been running up against, and then skirting around copy write law, and in the vast majority of cases, no one cares. But I can imagine that it is the supreme court ruled in favor of Varsity there might be some huge problems in specific cases. What if an exec of the Gap goes to a community theater production of some contemporary play, and sees their clothes onstage because that’s what was cheap, and fit the look of the world. Would the Gap not be within their rights to sue the theater for misuse of their copy write article of clothing?
Unless the design of the uniform was so profoundly different that it would cause the need for outcry because of its design, I’m not sure how you can create justification for copyright. I’ve seen different cheerleader uniforms over the years, and there are some with a distinct flair. However like the article stated, if you took the color away, it could almost look like someone was playing tennis. Then why wouldn’t other companies with a similar design take issue I would guess the obvious reason would be that the uniforms they make are for a different purpose and not for cheerleading. The uniforms all do the same purpose of having to allow flexibility and wick away moisture. The fashion industry is one I know little to none about. The best I could throw out there is that there are different brands, each trying to make money, and this is probably another one of those issues. Someone feels that someone else is taking money by taking a design that looks similar in style to one they already have.
After talking about Copyright in production personnel management, I have become increasingly interested in it. This issue of copyrighting a cheerleading uniform is an interesting one. On one hand, it seems like the basic uniform shouldn’t be able to have a copyright because it is a basic article. On another hand, it seems like the things that make each team or organization’s uniform unique should be able to hold a copyright as it is a unique product of intellectual property. On yet another hand, it is an incredibly gray area. I’m not entirely sure where I stand, but I would agree with McKeague about what makes a cheerleading uniform unique. I have spent a lot of time thinking about copyright since talking about it in PPM, and I can see now where there are a lot of grey areas and I find it fascinating.
I understand why Varsity feels they may have a legitimate case but they really don't. A style of clothing of is a style of clothing, you can't copyright that. There was absolutely nothing intrinsically unique about the design, and Star Athletica's version has enough different details (i.e. the order of meaningless decorative stripes) that still doesn't make it an exact copy. What I see are two basic cheerleading uniforms. If Barsity had created some kind if knew swear slicking technology I'd understand a copyright. Or if they designed a uniform that was so unique in firm or function then I'd again understand, but there is not much pull here. Varsity needs to stop being so lazy and embrace the competitive market that forces companies to keep thinking bigger and better.
Post a Comment