Fashion Piracy: Fuel for Innovation
(Excerpt: Historical Overview and Insight into Co-Branding and Diffusion Lines)
Andrea Pace
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Imitation is not always the most sincere form of flattery. From a designer’s
perspective this has been the case for centuries. This issue can be dated back to the
1800’s. Designers such as Charles Worth, Paul Poiret, and Madeleine Vionnet were all
victims of fashion piracy (English, 2013, p.29). House labels, which essentially acted as
the artist’s signature, were introduced at The House of Worth as a means of identifying
his genuine designs from copies (English, 2013, p.30).
With the consumer goods market expanding it became necessary for copyright
laws to protect designer’s designs (English, 2013, p.30). Fashion counterfeiters were
producing and selling unauthorized copies of designs by Vionnet, Poiret, and Worth in
department stores in the United States (English, 2013, p.31). These European designers
were now in a position of having to take action and think of new ways to be authentic, in
order to protect themselves. Vionnet was particularly involved in the fight against piracy.
She even began incorporating her fingerprint into her designs as a means of
authentication from copyists (English, 2013, p.31). In 1921 Vionnet put a notice in
Women’s Wear warning the public that her designs were copyright protected, and as such
could not be copied (English, 2013, p.31). In 1923 the Association for the Defence of the
Plastic and Applied Arts was formed by Vionnet’s business manager, Louis Dangel
(English, 2013, p.31). The group demanded the French government intervene and impose
international copyright laws in order “to protect the creative intellectual property of Paris
fashion designers” (English, 2013, p.31).
Fashion piracy was not just a plight felt by the European designers. Fashion
designers in America were also having their designs knocked off (Surowiecki, 2007).
Their designs were not protected by patents or copyrights, as is the case today
(Surowiecki, 2007). In an attempt to better protect their interests, a group of American
designers formed the Fashion Originators Guild of America to monitor and protect
original designs (Surowiecki, 2007). Garments would include labels reading “A
registered original design with Fashion Originators Guild” as a mark of authenticity and
protection (Surowiecki, 2007). The organization would also “red-card” retailers who
were selling counterfeit goods, as an attempt to hamper copying and the sale of knockoffs
(Surowiecki, 2007). Unfortunately these attempts made by the Guild were found to be
illegal in 1941 by the Supreme Court, stating that these actions violated antitrust law
(Surowiecki, 2007). As such, copying continued.
With the growing global market, fashion piracy only became more rampant and
complex as time went on. With this expansion the need for better copyright protection
grew, as well as the thrust for more innovative and original designs.
Co-branding & Diffusion Lines
With counterfeit designer goods being so readily available in the marketplace,
designers must energize their brand and expand their product offerings in order to
compete with this illegal market of knock-offs. Co-branding, and diffusion lines are
examples of positive reactions designers have had to piracy that in turn have benefited the
fashion industry.
Co-branding is accomplished through agreements made between a designer and a
mass-retailer (Garner et al., 2012, p.54). Both the designer name and retailer name are
included in this exclusive offering (Garner et al., 2012, p.54). In this scenario designers
are making use of “budget conscious stores” to create less-expensive items that are
produced quickly through the fast-fashion process (Jana, 2007). This allows designers to
make their signatures styles more accessible to consumers looking to pay less for
designer goods (Jana, 2007). In this way designers are offering a product to replace the
knock-offs these consumers may be seeking. Co-branding allows a designer to gain
control and gain the profit that may have otherwise gone into the hands of the “copy cats”
who are knocking off the runway designs (Jana, 2007).
Co-branding between designer labels and mass-retailers are becoming extremely
popular. Examples include collaborations between 3.1 Phillip Lim and Target, as well as
Isabel Marant for H&M, both seen in 2013. Both collections sold out completely, while
at the same time creating buzz (Dishman, 2013). Co-branding collaborations offer an
opportunity to create an advertising blitz centered around the label (Holmes, 2013),
which have the ability to capture the interest of much of the public, including those
unfamiliar with the brand and individuals who purchase knock-offs (Dishman, 2013).
The retailers recognize the value of making designer garments available through these
agreements, which is ensuring designers are getting paid for their “innovation and
creativity” (Doucet, 2009). Co-branding serves as a means to offer legitimate
alternatives to knock-offs while helping to increase revenue within the fashion industry
(Karklins, 2013).
Diffusion lines are moderately priced fashion lines that are created and sold by the
original fashion house (Karklins, 2013). These lines, such as Marc by Marc Jacobs, See
by Chloé, and Armani Exchange, all aim to make high-end designers more accessible to
the public (Karklins, 2013). If the consumer has real designer fashions at their fingertips,
then this creates another alternative to counterfeit goods. These diffusion lines are aimed
at the same consumers naively participating in fashion piracy: a younger demographic of
individuals who are savvier shoppers (Zegheanu, 2013). Diffusion lines also serve as a
means for designers to experiment with new ideas that stem from their runway
collections (Doucet, 2009). Diffusion lines act as a way for designers to compete with
knock-offs, while creating collections for a broader range of consumers (Doucet, 2009).
Co-branding and diffusion lines are essentially an instance of designers knocking
themselves off (Jana, 2007). These lines allow the designer an opportunity to be
innovative and creative in their designs in an attempt to appeal to a wider market
(Karklins, 2013). The process is essentially the same as what a counterfeiter is doing. The
product is created with keeping the designer’s aesthetic in mind, but made more
affordable by altering the fabric and technical choices (Jana, 2007). The difference and
advantage lies in the fact that the designer is reaping the financial benefits and market
visibility (Karklins, 2013). These opportunities of brand expansion serve to energize the
brand, expand the brand’s market, and most importantly decreasing the public’s need to
turn to knock-offs in order to attain designer apparel.