HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

The fashion industry is another example of an area that has thrived because of a lack of copyrights, as argued is this TED talk :

"Copyright law's grip on film, music and software barely touches the fashion industry ... and fashion benefits in both innovation and sales, says Johanna Blakley. In her talk, she talks about what all creative industries can learn from fashion's free culture.."

https://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashi...

The reason for the existence of copyright is that authors can receive compensation for their work, to incentivize creation in a new world where copying costs almost nothing ("why would I work writing a book when anybody with a press can just copy me?"). Similar to patents. But it seems people forget this.

Disney won't _die_ if their early characters become public domain. If they're hurt it will be very slowly, with enough time for jobs to shift.

And it's not clear that copyright is necessary for creativity. In some ways it can hindrance sometimes. See the case of the fashion industry https://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashi...

I guess people somehow think that only the lowest quality versions of public domain works will be popular, when the opposite is frequently the case. Like it happened, for example, with Disney versions of the Brothers Grimm fairy tales. Which is rather ironic: Disney created an empire in big part thanks to public domain.

⬐ pbhjpbhj

It's worse in some respects in UK, we lost the right to format shift, it was briefly legal and the media corps quashed it. We don't have Fair Use (but a much more restrictive Fair Dealing).

So iTunes having CD ripping ability is facilitating infringement according to UK law, I wish they'd try and prosecute that!

It's not enough to pay creators to view their work anymore. Copyright legislation lets works get locked up eg by DRM and formats falling out of use; this subverts the creators part of the contract of copyright, we only grant it on the basis that works enter the public domain in a timely manner ... without that copyright should be void.

Meanwhile big businesses like Google get a special exception on "orphaned works" ...

I don't know how to make clothes (I guess very few of us do) but I do own them and I can somewhat fix them. Imagine if we had to go back to the manufacturer to sew on a button. We can even mod clothes and copy designs without being sued.

A couple of links about that

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100526/0039459578.shtml

https://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashi...

It would appear that "fashion's free culture" just ended.

http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

⬐ wahern

I dunno. SCOTUS reaffirmed the traditional rule, that to be copyrightable the elements need to be separable (as if lifting them off the clothing) and substantial (what you lift off must by itself meet the baseline requirements for copyrightability).

What SCOTUS did do was broaden the scope of the traditional rule by killing a narrow historical exception that would typically have rejected the dress' elements outright, without any serious analysis.

For the most part it's the traditional rule and how its typically applied that keeps the garment industry relatively unencumbered. This decision sucks[1] but I'm skeptical that it's particularly consequential. Their rejection of the Batmobile case last year, which in hindsight presaged this case, was arguably much more consequential.

As an side: any Ginsburg fans out there, know that she's rabidly pro-copyright. Her daughter is a famous and influential copyright scholar and author of an important legal treatise on copyright. Both of them eschew traditional, common law restrictions on copyright in favor of a more modern, abstract, and simplified conceptual approach that would on balance significantly enlarge the scope of copyrightability. Notice that in her concurring opinion in this case, Ginsburg side-stepped the separability condition applied to clothing. Her approach is more likely to induce a monumental shift that could engulf the fashion industry in an epic hell of law suits.

[1] Because brightline exclusions of copyrightability are easier and cheaper to apply by both laymen and judge alike. Even copyright proponents can appreciate how casting aside such well-established exclusions creates tremendous uncertainty and risk for everybody.

⬐ danjoc

>engulf the fashion industry in an epic hell of law suits

That is exactly what I expect will happen.

This is very interesting and Johanna Blakley has an excellent talk to fashion and other aspects of ideas and products vis a vis patent protection.

- https://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashi...

⬐ hackuser

That's actually where I learned about it. I'll second your recommendation: She knows her stuff and is very insightful; don't miss it if you are interested in these issues.

Do you know anything about the speaker (besides what it says at that link)?

⬐ bch

Hi.

She's (was?) the director of the Norman Lear Center[0], but that's about it.

[0] http://learcenter.org/about/

It seems counter intuitive and even foolish to suggest that you could increase innovation and creativity by getting rid of copyrights and patents. But there is a great great example of an industry that actually thrives in both sales and innovation, despite not having any copyrights or patents - the fashion industry.

This TED talk explains it quite well : http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

⬐ gaius

The elephant in the corner of your argument is trademarks, which are vigorously protected by fashion labels.

I'm guessing it was the ted talk by the same person.

http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

⬐ gcb0

There were some legal copying fights in fashion just like there were some in music... but that's not my field, so i will lack concrete examples.

Also, product design has very much copyright protection and you also find utilitarian design elevated to the form of art.

(and her example about some fashion clothes being inspired by avatar is pointless since avatar is inspired by american indian, so where do you draw the line from copying from the original source and copying from the derivative of that original source?)

http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

Also this TED talk by Johanna Blakley, shows how the lack of copyright and patent protection in the fashion industry actually works to benefit both innovation and sales: http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

Actually you are free to sell an exact copy of shoes or other clothing als long as you don't copy the trademark logo.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/johanna_blakley_lessons_fro...

⬐ nrp

Fascinating. Interesting that the courts deem fashion too utilitarian to copyright or patent, but purely utilitarian computer programs can be copyrighted and applications of algorithms can be patented.

⬐ lotu

Fashion has been around for a little bit longer the computer programs, the courts have had more of an opportunity to understand and make reasonable decisions about it. See what you think in 2112.

It extends to all clothing, and I think it should extend to the outer appearance of devices like phones as well. Johanna Blakley [1] made the astute point that in the fashion world, because it's legal to copy each other, the way the industry adapted was to make garments harder to mass-produce through intricate design and by using high grade materials.

Apple has already done this with the iPhone 4/4s - namely the antenna array composed of segments of high tensile stainless steel that can only be machined with very expensive, very limited availability hardware.

Apple already understands how to beat the copycats, they simply want to spite Samsung/Google.

Another point is that copying is good for Apple. Johanna Blakley again makes an excellent point: "One of the magical side effects of having a culture of copying is the establishment of trends." Apple needs the copycats in order to drive smartphone adoption, with Apple remaining the top tier innovator akin to high-end fashion labels.

[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

That style is very trend driven would argue otherwise. Once you reach a threshold suddenly it's unfashionable to wear hats or floral dresses.

There's actually some really interesting literature about how copyright would significantly hurt the fashion industry, because it is dependent on a large degree of 'copying' styles to create trends, which is key to creating planned obsolescence to keep people buying new clothes.

Edit: A nice TED talk on this, starting at 3:57 http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

I've always enjoyed creating analogies like to see why certain behaviors, mindsets, and tactics are okay in some industries and others not. To wet your palette a bit more here's a wonderful essay analogizing math education to music (Famously, The Mathematician's Lament) http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

And a TED Talk comparing the use of patents and trademarks in the fashion industry to software. http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

Both are quite insightful, and I think you'll enjoy them.

⬐ apu

FYI: "whet your palate"

All creative industries can learn from fashion's free culture.

Fashion and recipes,

http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

> In a world where everyone just copies everyone else freely (e.g. the desktop PC world) there is/would be much less innovation.

For a counterpoint, see e.g. Johanna Blakley's excellent TED talk on how the copyright-free fashion industry thrives despite rampant legal counterfeiting:

http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

⬐ Apple-Guy

When did a fashion house spend billions of dollars on R&D, a requirement for most significant tech products?

Please read "Are software patents evil?" http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/08/09/are-software-patent...

Here's an example of how lack of copyright can foster innovation and it's for the greater good of the society to not restrict access to "designs", or charge a lot of money to license them.

http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

EDIT: I found this one, too:

http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strang...

Fashion houses should somehow revise their chain of implementing creative work. I don't know how it is in UO, but afaik from other news from last years, where apparel companies sold copied flickr/blog/digart/etc creation, they don't do such stuff in-house, they buy it from outside (some sort of providers, companies or freelancers, don't know). I think it's a common practice for cheap modern apparell - well, creation and production must be cheap. Sometimes bought derivatives happen to be ripoffs, f.ex. look at this example (it's in Polish, but just look at the images on the left) http://wyborcza.biz/biznes/1,101562,8016144,Amerykanka_oskar...

Just look at those cases http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?cat=5 The case above is just one of dozens that are brought to daylight and probably hundreds that don't. Of course the brand has to take full responsibility, there's no doubt, so they made a good decision pulling back the jewelry.

On the other hand, fashion is an industry without copyrights http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio... , so I wouldn't bash them from a moral POV.

⬐ rbanffy

Minor nitpick: Linux is copyright protected, much like most of open-source. It's the copyright that keeps GPL products GPL'ed and open.

Here's a good TED talk about IP in other industries, it's pretty interesting. http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

⬐ jules

That's not really relevant to other industries though, for several reasons:

- It doesn't cost zero dollars and almost zero effort to copy a piece of clothing.

- It's not even allowed to make a perfect copy of a piece of clothing, because of trademarks.

- People decide which clothes to buy primarily based on the brand. Much of the value to a lot of people of a piece of clothing is in the little brand name on it, which you are not allowed to replicate.

If everyone could copy and distribute her clothes verbatim including the brand name instantly and for free, and distribute them to millions of people, then I think her opinion might be just a tad different.

A) As mentioned, -ly is a terrible naming convention.

B) This reminded me of this: http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

High fashion frequently succeeds on brand name alone. Knockoffs are allowed to completely copy a style - but since they can't take the brand name, they fail. People buy Se7en jeans because they're Se7en jeans - and that's about 80% of it. The other 20% is because they look good. This startup completely ignores that thought process.

⬐ None

None

⬐ tjriley82

Oh, we're not ignoring brand name at all. Our first mini-collection is by a relatively established upcoming British label that only has very limited exposure in the US. We have exclusive collections from several other labels coming up. Small labels can find themselves in very precarious financial positions as they try to grow, even after many "successful" seasons. Fabricly is about providing a very low risk route to putting out a collection. Almost like a book publishing model for fashion.

⬐ andreasklinger

Hi Tom, Congrats to the launch! Isn't the upcoming british label ari's brother?

Looking forward to see how you guys will progress. Good to see we are with www.Garmz.com not the only ones tackling this industry problems.

>Is that really true?

Yes. Or more precisely because clothes and food are too "utilitarian".

"Lessons from fashion's free culture"

http://ca.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion...

"Copyright law's grip on film, music and software barely touches the fashion industry ... and fashion benefits in both innovation and sales, says Johanna Blakley."

⬐ sandipagr

thanks for the link. That was very interesting. It's really amazing how the entire fashion industry even without any sort of protection is running well.

⬐ mhd

While the fashions themselves aren't protected, the names of the labels etc. are trademarked. That's why you're seeing the Gucci and Dolce & Gabbana names on everything. And the Luis Vuitton luggage pattern contains their logo. A lot of stuff produced is basically nothing but a vehicle for the logo itself, without much fashion/innovation around it.

⬐ metamemetics

True. However analogously software companies also have trade-secret protection from employees divulging source code independent of the software patent process.

⬐ nickpinkston

So then music, software, books, etc. - all requiring low capital, should be in the same realm of fashion - right? If you don't believe that's true: please compare capital of an industrial bakery to a software company of the same revenue/profit.

⬐ astrodust

The important distinction between fashion and software is that clothing is useless unless properly manufactured. The materials and manufacturing process are an integral part of the final product. To duplicate a garment is to reverse engineer it, source the materials, and then remarket it as a knock-off, or as some imitation item under another brand.

Fashion doesn't need strict copyright enforcement because by the time you've reverse engineered something and put it into production, it's already wildly out of date.

You can see how Apple applies this principle to their main products, aggressively innovating so that by the time their products are copied, which is inevitable, they have already obsoleted them.

Software can be duplicated at effectively zero cost to produce an identical copy. It also has a much longer lifespan for mature packages (Office, XP, etc.), where people will use the same software, plus or minus patches, for five years or more.

There needs to be some kind of reasonable limitation on what people are able to do with software that they purchase, so at the very least a form of copyright is required, not unlike protections offered to books.

The real thorn is that software patents are mostly preposterous, with very few requiring actual innovation to produce. It's like trying to patent a plot twist or a character quirk and then suing all authors that use it.

⬐ metamemetics

Copywright != patent

copyright protects the expression of an idea, while a patent protects the idea itself

You can learn about IP protection in different countries here: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/johanna_blakley_lessons_fr...

Checkout Johanna Blakley's talk on how the free copy of design in the fashion industry hasn't in any way hampered the creativity coming out of it -

http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

Apprently copyright law doesn't apply to fashion designs because clothing is considered "utilitarian".

⬐ nailer

You need a number of 'points of difference' which varies between jurisdictions in most parts of the world. People can and have paid out significant amounts of money to companies whose designs they've ripped off and not sufficiently altered. Ask someone who actually works in the industry.

I'm most familiar with Australia, so one case: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/19/1026898914955.h... . I understand there's been a few others with Bettina Liano jeans (which are known for a particular cut that fits wide hipped girls).