Side by side comparison: DVF's original dress and Forever 21's copy.
First, I want to thank Stephanie for
her excellent comment about H.R. 5055. She makes many points that I agree with (particularly about vintage "inspiration"), and I will post a full response soon.
But first, a correction to
the original article. The mistake:
A point of clarification: Counterfeiters violate trademark laws, not copyright, by placing
designer logos or names on non-designer goods. However, the cheap design knock-offs found at popular retailers like
H&M, Zara, & A.B.S. are all perfectly legal under current law.Obviously, the last statement is incorrect, given
Diane von Furstenberg's current lawsuit against Forever 21.
Here's the deal: while U.S. law does not extend copyright protection to fashion designs, it does protect certain design features. The key is that those design features must be extricable from the useful object (the clothing) itself.
Copyrightable fashion elements include writing, art, removable decorations (i.e. belt buckles), and fabric designs. Also, trademark laws protect some design features (for
example, Nike's symbol, Adidas' stripes, Burberry's plaid, and
Levi's pocket design).
In DVF's case, DVF copyrighted the two
fabric patterns above, which Forever 21 then copied (is it even a question?). That's how DVF is going after Forever 21; even though the dresses are identical, DVF currently cannot sue Forever 21 for stealing the dress's design.
