This Steve Madden shoe is already the subject of a lawsuit, but that could just be the beginning once a new copyright law for fashion is enacted.

The opposing argument has always been that a today’s designers aren’t generating completely unique pieces anyway-drawing inspiration from many different places.

According to Johanna Blakely, the Deputy Director of the Norman Lear Center (a media-focused think tank at the University of Southern California), “Designers pore over vintage magazines and patterns and visit museum archives in order to find inspiration for the next season’s look, cherry picking design elements that feel fresh and in line with the current zeitgeist. It’s a refreshingly open process unhindered by legal consultations. Those archives could become battlefields where litigants try to find evidence to support their assertion that a design is or is not unique. It is worrisome that powerful people may attempt to limit access to particularly rich collections of design history and some unscrupulous types may destroy or hide rare materials that prove that their new design isn’t as unique as they claim. But just because copying is legal doesn’t mean it’s acceptable. In order to succeed, designers have to develop a signature style — a look that everyone will instantly recognize as theirs. Designers who have reputations as innovators don’t want to be accused of copying, so they have a strong incentive to come up with something new every season that’s unique to them and their signature style.” {Tech Dirt}

We couldn’t agree more. The fashion industry has always “innovated creatively” without copyrights and many hugely popular chains like H&M and Forever 21 have succeeded by imitating haute couture designs minus the runway price tag.

For now, designer labels and logos are legally protected through trademark law, however the shape and fit of the design are not. This gives retailers like Steve Madden (notorious for his almost identical shoe knockoffs) free-reign to copy, copy and copy some more. Admittedly, consumers on a budget thrive on stores like these because they care less about the name brand and more about being stylish and trendy. That doesn’t include consumers who can afford designer items, but just aren’t interested enough to pay designer prices for the style.

The breaking news is that Senator Charles Schumer recently submitted a revised copy of a bill called the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act (the original was rejected a couple of years ago), supported by the AAFA (American Apparel and Footwear Association) and CFDA (Council of Fashion Designers of America). The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously passed it yesterday, which clears the way for a vote that would make it law. {NY Mag}

We aren’t sure where it will go once heard by Congress but the fashion community is abuzz about what this could mean for fashion as we know it today. What do you think about granting designers rights to everything they design?

At top, an image from the Cadbury commercial, at bottom, an image from Alexander McQueen's FW2006 show

In a recent ad for the chocolate company’s Flake candy bar, the woman’s layered, ruffled dress is shown blowing in the wind and eventually turning into the layers of the candy bar. A spokesperson for the company acknowledged, “we were aware of Baillie’s work with Alexander McQueen and others when we commissioned him to reflect the delicacy and fragility of the folds in the Flake bar. We felt Baillie’s unique house style was exactly what we were looking for.” {Stylelist}

While the approach seems similar, the end product is by no means identical. Beyond that, it seems overreaching on the part of the Gucci Group to try to claim ownership of an artistic style – particularly when it’s being used in a different industry to represent a completely different product. We understand the fight against counterfeiters, but this seems to go entirely too far.

Most things in fashion are inspired by previous designs and outside influences. And for many of the people who contribute to the fashion ecosystem, lending creative expertise or services isn’t done for large amounts of money, but for recognition to appeal to larger companies and advertisers who will be able to reward their creative contributions financially. While Walsh may have gained more recognition for his work with McQueen, it seems massively unfair to restrict him from modifying his ideas or techniques for anyone else. Not to mention, the risk of someone confusing the Cadbury commercial with anything representing McQueen seems highly unlikely.

Either way, The Gucci Group does plan to take legal action in the matter. How far should copyrights on creativity extend?