The only designers who are hurt by knockoffs are small independent designers whose designs get copied by large companies or popular designers. For instance, Khloe Kardashian stole designs from indie designer Destiney Bleu for her company Good American. Most small retailers have no recourse against huge companies and names. I'm no lawyer, but this ought to be illegal in some form. It's just wrong.
This by far is more of an issue. Many IG designers get robbed due to lack of protection from big companies. Like how Zara stole pin designs for one of their jackets from an IG designer...
while i agree that this is sad, i also want to say that you can't do anything with it, it's like a business idea, just because you're a small company doesn't mean that it is your and only your idea, everybody is free to copy, this world is kinda cruel i can't deny it
A lot of companies do do that! They knock themselves off by producing cheaper versions of the same things. It's why you can buy 400 dollar and 150 dollar bags of slightly different materials but same look, from the same brand.
@@xXSataniacXx dont remember bag brands offhand, not sure why i used that. But luxury watches are a pretty good example. You can frequently find in the top watch houses like Breguet, Patek Phillippe, and Omega, lowet priced models made out of stainless steel straps, or in the case of Omega/ Cartier, watches with quartz movements rather than the traditional automatic/mevhanical movements. These new basic models are introduced to reduce the prices and make it a bit more accessible. But of course, it is still priced far above a standard watch, well within the luxury price range, but at the bottom of it.
Most people who buy the knockoffs had no intention of ever buying "the original" this whole argument is classist at its core. A bunch of rich people are upset that the "peasants" are wearing the same clothes as them. As long as the product is clearly not "the original", then I see no issue with it. The only reason why people buy Gucci, Prada, Tory Burch, etc is for the label. It's for the clout and the "image" that those labels bring. Fashion companies already have protection over their labels. What they choose to put those labels on should NOT be copyrighted unless it is a unique avant garde piece that is one of a kind or not mass produced. Many of these companies sell plain white T-shirts for 10 times the price of a simple Hanes, should they get copyright over a white t-shirt? I don't think so.
Wayyyy more than 10 times Hanes. A plain white T-shirts with barely any design cost a couple hundred bucks at the VERY least. I don't doubt their quality, but I certainly don't think it's worth the price. But hey? I am just a poor college student lol.
K this is such a dumb argument. People should buy what they can afford and be satisfied where they are in life. Buying a fake product to put on a fake image of wealth is stupid. All you people do is support black market manufacturers who should be making their own original products than stealing off of others creations.
@sharinglungs see that's the difference knockoffs and fake products are not the same. Knockoffs don't say that they're Gucci they have a similar design
I'm not so sure about the conditions in which luxury clothing is made, but at least in the case of shoes, bags and accessories, most items from brands like Gucci (Chanel, LV etc etc and all the rest) are made in France, Italy or Spain or wherever the brand originates. They probably do this to ensure quality and consistency, but thankfully it also means that workers are protected by European workers rights.
Sarah Keating The word "made" is the key. How you define it is very slippery. From the NYTimes: "Some bypass the “provenance” laws requiring labels that tell where goods are produced by having 90 percent of the bag, sweater, suit or shoes made in China and then attaching the final bits - the handle, the buttons, the lifts - in Italy, thus earning a “Made in Italy” label." That applies to Gucci specifically but other brands follow the same loopholes. Most of the parts for some American cars are made in Mexico, then assembled in the US, allowing the carmaker to say, Made in America or Made in USA, the former being more accurate as Mexico is in America. So is Canada and Chile.
So do high-end brands. I used to work at a logistics company that oversaw out-source operations for high-end and mass-market brands. Trust me, all sorts of garments from Zara to Burberry are made at sweatshops in developing nations. Even if a high-end brand claims to have the garments made in say France, the truth is a lot of the preparation work - like cutting of fabric, preliminary welting/stitching, dying, embroidery - all of these steps are outsourced to people who work in deplorable conditions. Simply shipping these cuts and finishing the product in another country allows them to claim better manufacturing.
What do you want, a world where only the rich can wear vibrant interesting clothes and the rest of us can only afford dirt grey jumpsuits? Fashion designers take inspiration from the world around them, often from indigenous people or young fashionistas on the street who make their own looks. If they copyright certain looks, the places they originated from would be harmed. It's not like the fashion industry is struggling for cash. It's a horrible exploitative industry too, from toe to tip (sweatshop to New York intern)
Ru Raynor what they can do is form an organization that could be powerful enough to lobby politicians and introduce laws that protects them for at least one year, which I think is reasonable. These brands often follow strict guidelines in treating their workers, but not so much with the knockoff companies and that comes at an expense like wages and quality control. They could also encourage recycling where if you were to return a piece of branded clothing for recycle, you get store credit or something.
Intensified Failure, you can plagiarize art too, not just text. plagiarism = stealing that’s why its sometimes called art theft. sometimes its still plagiarism even if you ‘cite’ it because some don’t ask permission and make profit off of it
Yeah some are knockoffs, but can we talk about how expensive clothing brands also copy / inspire from traditional / cultural clothing and they give no credit? Yeah, the same situation.
2:46 "We create something from nothing at all, and we deserve protection." You don't redesign the wheel every time. You copy from your own previous designs, and others; as you improve them. This benefits all, and should continue.
No sorry, but this doesn’t benefit all. The only people who benefit are companies like Zara and Topshop, who use sweatshop labor and don’t pay designers. Small time designers and start-ups are totally screwed over by it because it’s impossible to distinguish your design when someone in China can copy it within days. As a result, clothing prices are driven up across the board as designers can no longer make as much money off their work. More expensive designer pieces then drive up the prices of their copycats. Rinse, repeat.
I think the point that Nathan is making is that the people buying the $30 version were never going to buy the $1000 version in the first place. It's highly probable that they don't even know the $1000 version exists. You can hardly call it a lost sale when you're a high end brand and budget-conscious consumers who aren't your target market are not buying your stuff. They weren't ever going to.
Well its not like the knock offs are hampering the customers of those high end brand products . Its for ppl like us who can't afford to buy it . I never saw a billionaire buying a knockoff !!
Md. Rifat 1. How could you tell a knockoff apart? 2. As someone who lives in SF Bay Area, I can confirm that a lot of these (tech) billionaires just wear whatever is comfortable (not necessarily the most expensive stuff).
randomguy5990 we must live in different bubbles. My bubble don’t even know the latest runway looks to identify what the knockoffs are copying. As far as I’m concerned it could be a new startup I haven’t heard about. In terms of fashion, we care about how striking it looks. Bonus points if it’s from a thrift store.
Cleo Abram, that's her name. Yes she is also a model. Here's the video I 1st saw her ruclips.net/video/I2U96Cct2Ao/видео.html It talks about sexual harassment and being decent towards models.
I love how people are so willing to support an industry that is trying to claim ownership of "designs." Going by there definition of a "knock-off" implies that 99% of people buy knock-offs. But no lets feel bad for this industry that abuses its workers and models because there exclusive $9,000 shoes aren't being bought by normal people.
I like how they point out how ppl can patent songs in the US when there is a ton of pushback about that being possible since each key has a limited amount of possible combinations and most songs are in C thus at some point soon it will become impossible to make music without violating a copyright.
Quit crying, you already making mountains of money, let knockoffs alone. Plus most people who buy knockoff won't buy the real brand anyway (even if knockoffs were outlawed) They are not 'lost revenue' or 'stealing'
Most people who buy knockoffs can't buy the real brand because price, thus the real brand has to raise the price to make a profit, creating a loop. Also, who buys $1000 shoes?
Knockoffs mean that the original maker can’t sell as many at the lower price they’d usually sell for. Because of supply and demand, the original maker has to price each unit higher to make the same amount of money from each design. Thus knockoffs make prices of the originals higher and the more knockoffs are sold, the higher prices have to be raised.
But consumers who buy knockoff products are likely not to be in the designer fashion market. Hence, designers are not truly being effected by the production of knockoffs since demand isn't effected. In fact, I would argue the it's not demand that is at the root of the astronomically high prices, but rather a shortage of supply. An fairly recent example of such tactics in the fashion industry involved Burberry and their burning of thousands of dollars in unsold clothing as a means of preventing discount prices.
If you're a new designer it can affect you tremendously. Imagine spending hours to get something made and having someone else steal it. Copyright is made for a reason.
Maybe, although the same economic scenario described above would still apply to small designers who charge designer prices. Frankly, I think the benefits of allowing knockoff fashion far outweigh the drawbacks.
I'm still not clear what they are seeking to copyright though? They say designs, but to what degree? The example they used for the shape of a garment, something to that degree, I think would be unreasonable. So the designer copyrights a dress with an A-line silhouette and NO ONE ELSE can make a dress with an A-line silhouette? Or would it be the combination of the shape, colour/print, fabric used, method of fastening and the stitching? So if it's a canary yellow dress with pink carnations on it, made of silk that zips up the back with backward stitching, no one else in the world could make a dress like that?
Cassidy Leonards typically the artistic design itself. For example, balenciaga was sued for copyright infringement after they released a New York City souvenir bag on their own runway. Also, fashion firms can get trade dress protections for certain characteristics unique to their own brand beyond their own logos eg. Chanel No. 5 bottles, Hermes Birkin bags, Louboutin Red. Those furry mules in the thumbnail are associated to Gucci but I Guess they have yet to reach a level of ubiquity where knockoffs would cause confusion to the ordinary consumer.
These very general concepts cannot be protected in European legal systems. Louis Vuitton (notoriously protective of its trademarks) recently lost a suit concerning the “Damier” pattern, being that it is too general to be protected.
I am confused because a Design Patent will still cover them. This is how we patent what our products look like and I think clothing is still covered. It is a much faster process but it still does take several months and costs a bit of money.
I mean.. luxury brands are expensive because their.. LUXURY brands.. whereas if you want cheap stuff, theres a big variation.. however you shoukd check how their merchandise is made, whether ir be ethically made and etc
@@kishinumaayumi trust me when I say big brands are still getting most of their clothes made in sweatshops. Even though it might say that it is made in Italy, for example, nowadays they move their employees overseas to work just as hard for the same incredibly small amount of money. They do this so they can say that is made in Italy and sell it at a 300 times more expensive price. That's how they fool the custumers. Google it if you're curious. The only thing that might be worth the money is Haute Couture, but even there i'm not sure how ethical the materials are.
I decided once to splurge on one of those high end shirts (brand unnamed). After about a month of normal wear and tear, the seams were coming undone and I'd lost a poorly sewn-on button. After that I stuck with the $20 shirts, some I've had for years and still look good. Designer label does not equal quality product.
stischer47 the tshirts with logos are cheap quality and are usually just sold to clout chasers. It’s an easy way for designers to make money. They make quite a bit less profit from their ready to wear. From a business perspective, it’s pretty smart.
@@bertschumacher2097 Yes if they screw people over, for example if nestle or Facebook got screwed over thats perfect. But if a company or person is doing things ethicaly and legally then they deserve compassion
Not more than anyone else did most likely. Children work for years in extremely hazardous factories, work at least as hard as the rich do, almost always even more work, and get pennies and a cup of boiled rice, if that.
If you wanted to design something it would suck for you because you wouldn’t be able to make money off of your designs since other companies might be more established and will be able to produce it far way cheaper than you
Cyril Fo nice, how is this comment “wrong”? It states a perfectly amicable opinion, it doesn’t state anything that could be perceived as a fact that would have to possibility to be right or wrong.
@@Ephemeral_Style985 he's saying that knock-offs do it exactly like high-end designer shops do it, while some scummy brands do that, not all. So, yeah, he is wrong.
@@splingusbugs that doesn't make the designer's ownership of the design that they themselves CREATED obsolete, you can protest about the factories owners, but the artists deserve every single penny they deserve.
most luxury brands are actually ethically made... I feel like you might think this would harm fast fashion, which actually is I assume you mean, a big portion of fast fashion use sweatshops and pay very little for the labour work and overall, the workers have very bad work environments.. based on the video itself on that little montage of side to side items of the original and the knock offs, the knock offs are mostly from fast fashion brands and they are benifiting from this.. fast fashion btw would be like Zara and H&M
Technology and medicine is copyrightable because companies spend millions of dollars on research and development over many years so the copyright gives them time to recoup their money. This DOES NOT apply to the fashion industry...
cassi farcas Na, Gucci quality is still really good and easily distinguishable between counterfeits and originals. Yes Gucci is overrated now, the new generation of kids love Gucci because of the stupid Gucci gang song. So many teenagers walk to the shop and they always mumble 'Gucci gang' while looking at the products. Gucci new designs are odd for people who live outside of Italy and are in fashion in Italy.
lol, did they think the copyright would help Gucci sell more ? People that buy Gucci wont buy knockoff product. and people that wear Gucci knockoff have no money to buy originals its obvius choice for people with tight budget - buying a pair of Designer shoes or some mass produced shoes + this month rent.
pristinemirage true, but no one is saying that designs should be protected for eternity like Disney movies are. I think copyright should be applied to design but with very limited rights such as a very short copyright period and mandatory licensing (meaning that holders can’t deny anybody copyrights and copiers have to pay licensing and royalties). Copyrights to design should also be limited to assemblages of visual characteristics such that if the product looks visually distinct in at least one way, then it’s not copyright liable. So an all-white sock sneaker made of leather instead of neoprene and cotton wouldn’t be violating Balenciaga’s copyright.
I get why companies get mad about knockoffs, but there's this thing called "competition" that they pretend to engage in and get mad when they're beaten at it by someone who wants the market more. Plus, if their prices weren't absolutely outrageous, it would probably be less likely that their designs would be copied.
Having tons of copycats is great sign of success. Their problem with that is that anyone being able to have something that looks like their luxury item makes the item not so luxurious.
2:47, he is wrong. Designers take “inspiration” from many things, thus the statement “something from nothing” being false. Imagine if you keep an fashion designer in a white blank room for a while, I guarantee he can’t make new designs easily
Knock offs can even be made in the same factors, with the same material. One dress will just have the label, and one won't. Most high end shops don't want to stop this as it's free advertising.
I used to think this way, but it isn't true. I explained this to someone in another comment. A Lot of these brand are meticulous with their work and these high-end designer brands also have their own factories where they produce everything and they usually pay their workers well, because if you pay your workers well they have less incentive to leave and make their own knock-offs. The materials also don't compare to the higher-end pieces, a good product will last you years and will age well. With other pieces from H&M, Zara, Gap, will only last you for so long before it starts to lose it's shape, have loose threads, and will just lose it's whole aesthetic, the conditions where these products are made is terrible, and usually the pieces that "fast fashion" pushes are ripped off from the higher-end brand.
The reason I said this is because this is what my parents did. They owned a factory and worked for high end labels. They would just order double them materials that they needed for the order. Half would get the label, half wouldn't. Half went to the shop, and half to the market to be sold at a 10th of the price. I agree that not all is like this, and some copies are worse quality. But not all of it is. Buying a label also doesn't guarantee that you'll get a good product either.
Kheso oh please... you used to think this way? And then you continue to repeat the same slogan literally every "high end" brand, or your favorite youtuber is trying to sell.. Give me a break. I have a lot of "cheap" clothes incl shoes, talking 10-20 bucks each, and they're all fine 6yrs+. Sure you can make supr cheap fabric, but most clothes are on a technical level that is hardly any different than "high end". It's all marketing, just like in the food industry, or computer chips for that matter. One is binned slightly worse and the other can go 500mhz higher, so its given a different name has a software based function enabled and priced $200 more..
@@fetB Yes, I mention high-end brands because they do care about the products. There's no way wordings this without sounding pretentious, but I own some of these pieces, Acronym, WACKO Maria, Balenciaga, Burberry, and they can't compare to the items you see on Gap, H&M, Zara, or the clothing you see at Target. It also depends on what you're looking for. If you just want clothing just for the sole purpose of wearing, then you can get clothing that isn't expensive, nothing wrong with that. If you want a certain look, want clothing with functionality, or care about detail, you'll usually find that it more expensive clothing. Acronym for example, they're known for their functionality and utilize a monochromatic pallette. Balenciaga and Wacko Maria aim for a certain aesthetic or look with each of their seasons, they try to push the boundaries and try to set new trends. Burberry is known for their detail and the quality of their products. I also just consider this a hobby of mine, much like someone who spends money on modifying their car, upgrading their computer for gaming, photography, or collecting art. It got to a point where I started to look into more expensive brands, albeit I started slowly but eventually I realized there is a difference between "fast-fashion" and designer clothing. That's the reason why I even say there's a difference because I've worn and felt these type of pieces.
+Kheso tbf, nearly every company who isn't in the scam market, cares about the product, especially today when news, especially bad one, spreads like a wildfire. Anyway, monochromatic palette makes me giggle. In other words, it's universal. So, as a seller, you can't possibly go wrong and will always find a buyer. Very few eccentric people go around in bold colors. Functional clothing is a different matter. There is more work involved and typically stress tested. But even then. I just went to the Acronym site and the first random item i see is a "functional" jacket. Nothing extraordinary and made from (70% PA, 30% ePTFE). That fabric doesn't stop a bullet, protects from rain just as much and is virtually indistinguishable from the lower cost item because its the same synthetic material as affordable equivalent. Then, the whole thing is accompanied by a bunch of trademarked terms for a slightly unusual cut/zipper and some pretentious slogans, sold for 1,294.00 €. That is plain insanity. R&D and production of this item, probably amounts to a retail price of 100, or lets give it even 200 bucks. It's fine if you enjoy it, but it just goes to show by the way you talk about it. And i dont necessarily mean pretentious, but fooled by notion of getting something special regardless of how true it really is. At the end, all that matters you're happy, though. So good luck.
Idk. It feels like these fashion designers are made at knockoffs because poor people are able to wear them. If there were really concerned about copyright they would complain about how they are stealing sales but the congress guy complained about how fast they can be produced. It feels like knockoffs spread it to the lower class which the high end fashion world does not want
satherandfon thats the whole point of a luxury good though.. poor people arent able to buy em. Thats why they so attractive to rich people. U think if gucci dropped their prices rich people would still buy it? Hell no they would move to another luxury brand still charging alot
@@splingusbugs honey, most of the luxury goods are also made in the same factory the counterfeits are produced. They just slap a label on em and charge you 50x the price of the generic brand.
I love fashion and I shop a lot, however I never understood high fashion, so expensive and ugly, I can understand expensive and nice but they are so ugly. Like how this pair of slippers are nice? So fugly. Anyways, different tastes for each own I guess,but don't get brainwashed just because you see it on a celebrity or runway or in a trend.
@@PabloEscobar-gu8sd worst generation ever? Do you really think wealthy people in middle ages didn't buy themselves clothes from the most famous/expensive craftsmen? Think again.
It's challenging because so much of fashion is referential. Even luxury designers draw inspiration from past designs and styles. For example, this year Moschino released a collection that was heavily inspired by Jackie O and her Chanel suits. And there are cases of parallel thinking, just like in the comedy world. If designers has the ability to copyright certain elements of their garments, it would create a legal nightmare and kill a lot of creativity. I understand why they would want to protect their work, but it seems like it would be so hard to define and enforce.
Well it's kinda just like buying a print of a (famous) painting, isn't it? Like you like the "design"/how it looks and want to have it but you can't afford the real thing 'cause it's super expensive, so you just stick with the knockoff/print .^.
It seems to me that wearing Gucci has nothing to do with you liking the garment but with proving that you can afford it. And for that reason people who can afford it pretend to like it
Imo the quality of branded leather is much much higher and durable than the typical leather used in other brands. My LV bags and gucci wallet are more than 7 years old and still have not worn out and stitching still intact. You won't see this quality in other brands.
@@wugabriel3465 The brand is protected. Clothes are clothes. Might as well have the inventor of the tee shirt rise from the dead and sue everyone that makes shirts that use a hole for the neck, two for the arms and one for the torso. You do realise that even Oreos are knockoffs... right?(Look it up)
@@ChachinAKAChino if the inventor of t shirts if there is one, had applied for copy right. So many years have passed the designed would've been in the public domain anyway, what's your point.
@@ChachinAKAChino also whats the most important is the desings of the t shirt, the picture on it, the logos, the patterns, no one is copyrigbting the shape, it's about the stuff printed on the t shirt.
mhm and that's pretty much the aesthetic of it.. I personally like it tho.. at least their pricey pieces.. and I absolutely cannot afford it however creative expression is lovely to me and I do genuinely find a lot of their tracksuits and coats enticing
Cyril Fo It’s true. Gucci designs are like certain artists who throw random paint on a canvas and call that exquisite art. Majority of their designs are simply overly colourful and messy. LV, Burberry, Goyard on the other keep their designs organised, clean yet detailed and sophisticated.
Absolutely true at least in my mind Gucci is incredibly hideous and gaudy. The only reason people buy it is to prove they can afford what some celebrity with no taste has.
@@noelblash4669 they're more known for their cut & sews. The Gucci that you see in the mainstream is just marketing, and it works. They have their couture Gucci which is more about the quality of their products and they have their mainstream where it attracts the younger audience.
I had an artist friend find her paintings listed on redbubble, and websites the like with people making money off her artwork. They stole her artwork from her online portfolio in art school, none of the websites took any actions on her claim. She had to email all of the profiles individually claiming copyright on her art pieces. They all said they were admires of her work, and wanted to make her art more available/accessible to everyone... which is a total scam. ** It took a lot of threats of international lawsuits, for people to take the images down... But a lot of the guilty parties were adults, who didn't think taking credit, making money of someone's else's art was harmful. Or discredits the orginal artist's personal value for their talents/works of art. ** Lesson Learned, watermark all your images. No matter what stage of art career you are in. There will always be someone out there is gutsy enough; who thinks it's permissible to make money, off your talents.
Can't help but feel like intellectual property is a thing of this time period that'll just not be there in a far enough future, dropped in favor of a more natural and self-enforcing approach to business. Something along the lines of "if you can do it, and it works, do it".
It surely is losing grounds. IP is hampering innovation of "others", but without it, it wouldn't make sense to invest at all in a new technology. It may sound like some corporation losing "commercial secrets" is a "good thing", but behind the IP is a long, long, time and money consumed, so that, what? one day someone wakes up and takes the results of your years of work, for free, and improve upon it? Imagine, Mendel, spending years (seasons) of cross-breeding, to prove a pattern, and someone else snatching all the results and flash-printing it to take all the credit (and funds)? In WWII, and prior, there were just a few good aircraft engine designs which lots of companies "licensed" and improved upon. Why would giving that sturdy designs away for free seem like a good idea at all? Who could build engines/airplanes, afforded licensing the designs, and (if they had the R&D), they could develop it. All fair and regulated. Investments should yield returns. Instead, we thrive upon the lowest of the lowest prices consuming ever more and that is truly the only reason IP has a hard time.
That is assuming that most innovations have been made by private entities, which they haven't. And even those that have often receive massive amounts of money from the government into research.
Justine McCloud- I'm gonna need a citation for that. For stuff like medicine, I can imagine the government putting money into research for the greater good. But without IP protection, who in their right minds would spend money on creating exciting new products like the iPhone or the automobile (back in the day) or any of the technology we've come to expect in our everyday lives? Would you let the government waste your taxes on developing never-seen-before technology that sounds crazy and will never work?
It is quite new. "The Statute of Monopolies (1624) and the British Statute of Anne (1710) are seen as the origins of patent law and copyright respectively,[8] firmly establishing the concept of intellectual property. " From Wikipedia.
“The rich are getting richer, and the clothes that they are wearing are getting more expensive.” Sigh🤬 I better get rich fast then...just kidding...sort of..
Angelo they don’t, usually the knock offs that people find just out of dhgate and canal street are low quality replicas. there is an underground scene of high quality replicas but they are still not exact to retail.
meh, you cannot copyright clothing. you may get right that your model from the show get advantage of lets say at least 3 moths before anyone else can get out with its knockoff and thats all i can see as reasonable solution. on the end, people who actually buy designed clothing or accessories, they will continue to do so and will not allow them self to purchase knockoff... with copyright you will not gain new customers anyway, they will just pass and purchase something in their range of financial capabilities...
As someone who is going into fashion studies you enter this career knowing about knockoffs. You can’t complain especially if you’ve gone to school for it or taken a simple business class. They tell you about it. You choose that career
@@JacobChrabaszcz I mean High fashion in shows is not something they will even sell. They are essentially just conveying ideas for their lineups that are actually coming up for the next season. They are for the industry people, not consumers.
As an artist and a consumer I see both sides, but for most things that are copyrighted, you can still use them for inspiration, you just have to change it enough to be considered different. I could easily see guidelines being set about which part of a design are copyrightable/how much a design needs to be altered to be considered original. Of course it won’t always be cut and dry, but it isn’t in other industries either
As a professional designer, and as someone spends a good part of the week filing copyrights, I'm not sure what she's upset about. There are literally copyright laws and rules about how different a design needs to be from any other design. Between me and my partner we have 25+ years experience in designing apparel and home accessories and neither of us feel like we aren't protected enough legally.
I honestly do not care about what is 'fair' for the designers when they charge 149 USD or more for a freaking t-shirt. You are then asking to be ripped off and a lot of people will always be willing to do that.
@@rosez6737 They are allowed, that's not the problem. Your explanation for those prices is however nonsensical, the needed technique to realize those clothes represents an almost negligible portion of the price.
Vox this was such a good watch! I love fashion, especially the business aspect behind it, and I’m always curious as to how the big fashion houses handle fast fashion. I make a standard American salary but I’m also young and fashion forward. While I would love to ball out at Gucci, I can’t afford it but I can afford the version ZARA or H&M gives me
@@Q_QQ_Q what? Did you ever hear think before you speak? Well in this case you should have thought a lot longer. If you use RUclips as a platform to insult people based on looks, not only does it show and intrinsic and security that you somehow managed to maintain, but also the fact that you think you can change any of that I simply commenting on other people's looks. I know it sounds tacky, but God gave you a brain, so use it.
@@Q_QQ_Q out of my whole statement, you just pick that one piece? You didn't even come up with an argument against the fact that you shouldn't be flapping your mouth speaking insults at nothing. I swear, you what are all insults and a baby simply because you think it's for it is too big. And that type of sheer ignorance needs to stop, from everyone, including yourself. But go ahead, tip your Fedora some more and see what insults you can come up with. I bet your mom will be very proud. SMH
I agree with some of these points. Fashion wouldn’t exist without knockoffs and people changing and creating different things. Fashion doesn’t just happen, people take what they want and people can copy style become popular too.
I'm an independent designer based out of Los Angeles and other than my personal site and Instagram, I use Etsy to sell my products. Which vary from clothing to accessories. About two weeks ago, I got a notice from Etsy Legal that I was being dinged for trademark infringement and because of that, two of my wallets, made from vinyl, were removed from my site. Apparently, Paul Frank's rep issued that I was infringing on their trademark over these wallets. Which, as this video states, trademark refers to the logos and symbols, not the product itself. And seeing as though our logos and symbols look completely different and even my wallets look nothing like anything he's made or is known for, I was confused as to why they'd even bother claiming trademark infringement via my wallets. I called them out and still haven't heard back from his rep. Paul Frank and his team should view this video as it would be of great service to them lol
Following fashion is for simpletons... There is already far too clothing in the world and it damaging the planet! It's all about status! Anyone who pays $1000 for a pair of shoes (that have no more specific practical use than any other pair of shoes) is just a reflection of how selfish and self obsessed the world is! People need to stop buying clothes, or at least go to Charity Shops!
Everyone has their hobbies computers, fashion, cars all harm the planet in some way but it keeps us happy but I do agree some times fashion gets a bit ridiculous but I’m ok with it I just don’t like fast fashion because of all the water that’s wasted and waste it produces Oh btw it takes 3000 litres to make a t-shirt 4.5 litres = a gallon
I appreciate that in the hearing on copyright of fashion designs, the camera panned to four men in functionally identical outfits. Yes, this is obviously the ideal audience to judge the artistic merits of clothing.
to be real honest people who want Gucci will buy Gucci because of the brand, not just because of what the design is. I really don't think it would affect the sales of luxury clothing items because you will never convince a broke woman to buy a $700 handbag if she never have the intention to spend $700 on the bag, even if the design of the bag is not available anywhere else.
When she started painting those mountains on that canvas, I thought they were chevrons, a reference to Star Athletica v. Varsity, where it was ruled that useful articles (cheerleader outfits in this case) can be copyrighted
It’s good that they can only copyright the design/logos. If they copyright the silhouette of a button up shirt, they can sue companies using a similar button up silhouette resulting in production to stop. If that happens then our shopping choices will be limited to the originators who can definitely mark up the price since they have no competition or even produce lesser quality.
Please do more video about Copyright infringement in all other areas... i find this subject rarely discussed yet very important to merchandisers and customers altogether...
The only designers who are hurt by knockoffs are small independent designers whose designs get copied by large companies or popular designers. For instance, Khloe Kardashian stole designs from indie designer Destiney Bleu for her company Good American. Most small retailers have no recourse against huge companies and names. I'm no lawyer, but this ought to be illegal in some form. It's just wrong.
This by far is more of an issue. Many IG designers get robbed due to lack of protection from big companies. Like how Zara stole pin designs for one of their jackets from an IG designer...
Exactly
:((
*THIS.MUST.GET.MORE.ATTENTION.*
while i agree that this is sad, i also want to say that you can't do anything with it, it's like a business idea, just because you're a small company doesn't mean that it is your and only your idea, everybody is free to copy, this world is kinda cruel i can't deny it
plot twist gucci creates knock offs just to sell more
A lot of companies do do that! They knock themselves off by producing cheaper versions of the same things. It's why you can buy 400 dollar and 150 dollar bags of slightly different materials but same look, from the same brand.
lol literally outlet stores
@@hoihoi12250 which brand does that? gucci isnt for sure
@@xXSataniacXx dont remember bag brands offhand, not sure why i used that.
But luxury watches are a pretty good example. You can frequently find in the top watch houses like Breguet, Patek Phillippe, and Omega, lowet priced models made out of stainless steel straps, or in the case of Omega/ Cartier, watches with quartz movements rather than the traditional automatic/mevhanical movements. These new basic models are introduced to reduce the prices and make it a bit more accessible. But of course, it is still priced far above a standard watch, well within the luxury price range, but at the bottom of it.
@@hoihoi12250 if something is easy to get, it aint luxurious. please tell me a easy accessable patek phillipe model, ill wait
well when you pay distant factories $12 to make a garment and then sell it for $1500... I don't think I am going sympathize a lot.
Facts 💯 u 👈A Real 1
alot of them are made in europe...
Rosez most of the production takes places in sweat shops
Balenciaga is made in China yet they claim its made in Italy
Alper source?
Most people who buy the knockoffs had no intention of ever buying "the original" this whole argument is classist at its core. A bunch of rich people are upset that the "peasants" are wearing the same clothes as them. As long as the product is clearly not "the original", then I see no issue with it. The only reason why people buy Gucci, Prada, Tory Burch, etc is for the label. It's for the clout and the "image" that those labels bring. Fashion companies already have protection over their labels. What they choose to put those labels on should NOT be copyrighted unless it is a unique avant garde piece that is one of a kind or not mass produced. Many of these companies sell plain white T-shirts for 10 times the price of a simple Hanes, should they get copyright over a white t-shirt? I don't think so.
K THIS 👏👏👏👏
Wayyyy more than 10 times Hanes. A plain white T-shirts with barely any design cost a couple hundred bucks at the VERY least. I don't doubt their quality, but I certainly don't think it's worth the price. But hey? I am just a poor college student lol.
K this is such a dumb argument. People should buy what they can afford and be satisfied where they are in life. Buying a fake product to put on a fake image of wealth is stupid. All you people do is support black market manufacturers who should be making their own original products than stealing off of others creations.
Preach
@sharinglungs see that's the difference knockoffs and fake products are not the same. Knockoffs don't say that they're Gucci they have a similar design
Imagine if Gucci made the first pair of pants and patent that design. What would 90% of the world be wearing now??? Skirts?
B c lmao you summed up the whole video
You can't copyright that
*feel the breeze*
@@Criiiesyes you could if you were the first one who invented it, and also copyright isn't the same as a patent
We would be rocking gucci
I don't feel sympathetic for luxury brands like Gucci but knockoffs are fast fashion and use sweatshop labour, which i don't support.
Which Cat and so does high end brands so
so do the originals
I'm not so sure about the conditions in which luxury clothing is made, but at least in the case of shoes, bags and accessories, most items from brands like Gucci (Chanel, LV etc etc and all the rest) are made in France, Italy or Spain or wherever the brand originates. They probably do this to ensure quality and consistency, but thankfully it also means that workers are protected by European workers rights.
Sarah Keating
The word "made" is the key. How you define it is very slippery. From the NYTimes: "Some bypass the “provenance” laws requiring labels that tell where goods are produced by having 90 percent of the bag, sweater, suit or shoes made in China and then attaching the final bits - the handle, the buttons, the lifts - in Italy, thus earning a “Made in Italy” label."
That applies to Gucci specifically but other brands follow the same loopholes.
Most of the parts for some American cars are made in Mexico, then assembled in the US, allowing the carmaker to say, Made in America or Made in USA, the former being more accurate as Mexico is in America. So is Canada and Chile.
So do high-end brands. I used to work at a logistics company that oversaw out-source operations for high-end and mass-market brands. Trust me, all sorts of garments from Zara to Burberry are made at sweatshops in developing nations. Even if a high-end brand claims to have the garments made in say France, the truth is a lot of the preparation work - like cutting of fabric, preliminary welting/stitching, dying, embroidery - all of these steps are outsourced to people who work in deplorable conditions. Simply shipping these cuts and finishing the product in another country allows them to claim better manufacturing.
It's like music. You can't copyright a chord progression.
Cool cool cool, I’m going to act like I get what you said 😂
@@nqobilemsomi3656 😂😂
Doesn’t stop some from trying😂
Holy heck reminded me of the time they DID try to copyright that! Remember the whole Katy Perry Dark Horse situation?
Please don’t remind me. It was a mess. One big mess
What do you want, a world where only the rich can wear vibrant interesting clothes and the rest of us can only afford dirt grey jumpsuits?
Fashion designers take inspiration from the world around them, often from indigenous people or young fashionistas on the street who make their own looks. If they copyright certain looks, the places they originated from would be harmed.
It's not like the fashion industry is struggling for cash. It's a horrible exploitative industry too, from toe to tip (sweatshop to New York intern)
Ru Raynor I think it became more expensive because there are too many copycats, so with every loss of sale, they have to increase the price per item
Ru Raynor what they can do is form an organization that could be powerful enough to lobby politicians and introduce laws that protects them for at least one year, which I think is reasonable. These brands often follow strict guidelines in treating their workers, but not so much with the knockoff companies and that comes at an expense like wages and quality control. They could also encourage recycling where if you were to return a piece of branded clothing for recycle, you get store credit or something.
They copy stuff from religions and small tribes all the time. Yet they say it is original
They're fighting to take a product which costs $10 to make, slap a fancy label on it, and resell it for $1000.
What a great way to put it. love this!
Knockoff = Parody
Counterfeit = Plagiarism
FRISHR except plagiarism isn’t pretending to be the original author, it’s just using their text without citing it.
That’s. That’s not what parody means.
That’s NOT WHAT PARODY MEANS.
this is completely wrong lmao. did you watch the video? how does this comment have 330 likes
Intensified Failure, you can plagiarize art too, not just text. plagiarism = stealing that’s why its sometimes called art theft. sometimes its still plagiarism even if you ‘cite’ it because some don’t ask permission and make profit off of it
@@boomcrayon It's because it's clean and simple. I even had a moment of "hey, wait a minute...hold my blunt" reading it.
Yeah some are knockoffs, but can we talk about how expensive clothing brands also copy / inspire from traditional / cultural clothing and they give no credit? Yeah, the same situation.
my thoughts exactly!!
Nothing today is completely unique. These designers take inspiration from previous collections over the decades.
J Mulيس
Gucci is out. Crocs are in.
you're becoming justin y
that is the goal
This reminds me of Arrested Development
Gucci crocs will be fire
Why do I imagine Paris Hilton saying that?
2:46 "We create something from nothing at all, and we deserve protection."
You don't redesign the wheel every time. You copy from your own previous designs, and others; as you improve them.
This benefits all, and should continue.
very good point
you could make the same argument about art. What writer has never been inspired by previous literature?
@@mememan9890 being ispired is different from making different variations on the same design
No sorry, but this doesn’t benefit all. The only people who benefit are companies like Zara and Topshop, who use sweatshop labor and don’t pay designers. Small time designers and start-ups are totally screwed over by it because it’s impossible to distinguish your design when someone in China can copy it within days. As a result, clothing prices are driven up across the board as designers can no longer make as much money off their work. More expensive designer pieces then drive up the prices of their copycats. Rinse, repeat.
*"Ah yes, i'll buy this $30 shoe and save $970, perfect"*
*Literally how the fashion world thinks people think*
Nathan Jones that's how I think
who pays 1000$ for shoes that look like that ??
That’s actually how people think
I think the point that Nathan is making is that the people buying the $30 version were never going to buy the $1000 version in the first place. It's highly probable that they don't even know the $1000 version exists.
You can hardly call it a lost sale when you're a high end brand and budget-conscious consumers who aren't your target market are not buying your stuff. They weren't ever going to.
It's how I think lol, when $1,000 is literally a 20th of what I make in a year and then it's a lot of money.
Those shoes look like they belonged to a 15th century banker with a wardrobe that made him look like a certain lord that rules over the land of Duloc.
You’ve basically nailed the Gucci aesthetic, whether you’re aware of fashion or not.
Lord Farquaad???
That was the inspiration.
Well its not like the knock offs are hampering the customers of those high end brand products . Its for ppl like us who can't afford to buy it . I never saw a billionaire buying a knockoff !!
Md. Rifat 1. How could you tell a knockoff apart?
2. As someone who lives in SF Bay Area, I can confirm that a lot of these (tech) billionaires just wear whatever is comfortable (not necessarily the most expensive stuff).
How often do you hang out with billionaires?
@@flipmaya The trademark, they said it in the video
randomguy5990 I love it when people comment questions that the video answered :D
randomguy5990 we must live in different bubbles. My bubble don’t even know the latest runway looks to identify what the knockoffs are copying.
As far as I’m concerned it could be a new startup I haven’t heard about.
In terms of fashion, we care about how striking it looks.
Bonus points if it’s from a thrift store.
Is this Keira Knightley Knockoff totally legal?
More like Natalie Portman
Aren't they the same person???
she's an homage
looking for this comment
U won with that 🤣🤣
Is it just me, or does she look like Natalie Portman?
Marc Shanahan she does, is she a model?
no she looks like keira knightley XD
I hate sand
yes but it's totally legal
Cleo Abram, that's her name. Yes she is also a model.
Here's the video I 1st saw her ruclips.net/video/I2U96Cct2Ao/видео.html
It talks about sexual harassment and being decent towards models.
I bought the same house slippers for $11 , who in their right mind would spend 1k on slippers
Peeps who are so rich they their imagination to buy things
you really didnt
@Citizen 1
Nope republican, republican are the rich people.
I love how people are so willing to support an industry that is trying to claim ownership of "designs."
Going by there definition of a "knock-off" implies that 99% of people buy knock-offs. But no lets feel bad for this industry that abuses its workers and models because there exclusive $9,000 shoes aren't being bought by normal people.
Cahit H their
I like how they point out how ppl can patent songs in the US when there is a ton of pushback about that being possible since each key has a limited amount of possible combinations and most songs are in C thus at some point soon it will become impossible to make music without violating a copyright.
Quit crying, you already making mountains of money, let knockoffs alone.
Plus most people who buy knockoff won't buy the real brand anyway (even if knockoffs were outlawed)
They are not 'lost revenue' or 'stealing'
Most people who buy knockoffs can't buy the real brand because price, thus the real brand has to raise the price to make a profit, creating a loop. Also, who buys $1000 shoes?
Knockoffs mean that the original maker can’t sell as many at the lower price they’d usually sell for. Because of supply and demand, the original maker has to price each unit higher to make the same amount of money from each design. Thus knockoffs make prices of the originals higher and the more knockoffs are sold, the higher prices have to be raised.
But consumers who buy knockoff products are likely not to be in the designer fashion market. Hence, designers are not truly being effected by the production of knockoffs since demand isn't effected. In fact, I would argue the it's not demand that is at the root of the astronomically high prices, but rather a shortage of supply. An fairly recent example of such tactics in the fashion industry involved Burberry and their burning of thousands of dollars in unsold clothing as a means of preventing discount prices.
If you're a new designer it can affect you tremendously. Imagine spending hours to get something made and having someone else steal it. Copyright is made for a reason.
Maybe, although the same economic scenario described above would still apply to small designers who charge designer prices. Frankly, I think the benefits of allowing knockoff fashion far outweigh the drawbacks.
I'm still not clear what they are seeking to copyright though? They say designs, but to what degree? The example they used for the shape of a garment, something to that degree, I think would be unreasonable. So the designer copyrights a dress with an A-line silhouette and NO ONE ELSE can make a dress with an A-line silhouette?
Or would it be the combination of the shape, colour/print, fabric used, method of fastening and the stitching? So if it's a canary yellow dress with pink carnations on it, made of silk that zips up the back with backward stitching, no one else in the world could make a dress like that?
Cassidy Leonards typically the artistic design itself. For example, balenciaga was sued for copyright infringement after they released a New York City souvenir bag on their own runway. Also, fashion firms can get trade dress protections for certain characteristics unique to their own brand beyond their own logos eg. Chanel No. 5 bottles, Hermes Birkin bags, Louboutin Red. Those furry mules in the thumbnail are associated to Gucci but I Guess they have yet to reach a level of ubiquity where knockoffs would cause confusion to the ordinary consumer.
These very general concepts cannot be protected in European legal systems. Louis Vuitton (notoriously protective of its trademarks) recently lost a suit concerning the “Damier” pattern, being that it is too general to be protected.
Nyc souvenir bag was an issue because I ❤️NY is copyrighted
I am confused because a Design Patent will still cover them. This is how we patent what our products look like and I think clothing is still covered. It is a much faster process but it still does take several months and costs a bit of money.
Cassidy Leonards well when it comes to paintings, they have experts decide whether something is too similar or not
if the fashion didn't charge an arm and a leg for items, then their designs wouldn't get copied.
Phantom Warrior nope. wrong. Margins and exclusivity keep them alive. If they moved to mass market they would die
In a way "We are so cool others copy us, but YOU can afford to be with us." is their marketing.
I mean.. luxury brands are expensive because their.. LUXURY brands.. whereas if you want cheap stuff, theres a big variation.. however you shoukd check how their merchandise is made, whether ir be ethically made and etc
@@kishinumaayumi trust me when I say big brands are still getting most of their clothes made in sweatshops. Even though it might say that it is made in Italy, for example, nowadays they move their employees overseas to work just as hard for the same incredibly small amount of money. They do this so they can say that is made in Italy and sell it at a 300 times more expensive price. That's how they fool the custumers. Google it if you're curious. The only thing that might be worth the money is Haute Couture, but even there i'm not sure how ethical the materials are.
@@hipporage18 zara?
I decided once to splurge on one of those high end shirts (brand unnamed). After about a month of normal wear and tear, the seams were coming undone and I'd lost a poorly sewn-on button. After that I stuck with the $20 shirts, some I've had for years and still look good. Designer label does not equal quality product.
stischer47 the tshirts with logos are cheap quality and are usually just sold to clout chasers. It’s an easy way for designers to make money. They make quite a bit less profit from their ready to wear. From a business perspective, it’s pretty smart.
Designer also get inspired by other ppl so do those ppl deserve to be rewarded if their ideas are making those fashion houses billions?
So true!
You want me to feel sorry for the rich?
If a rich person gets screwed over, he doesn't deserve compassion? (Not talking about the video, pure your comment)
@@bertschumacher2097 Yes if they screw people over, for example if nestle or Facebook got screwed over thats perfect. But if a company or person is doing things ethicaly and legally then they deserve compassion
Not more than anyone else did most likely. Children work for years in extremely hazardous factories, work at least as hard as the rich do, almost always even more work, and get pennies and a cup of boiled rice, if that.
If you wanted to design something it would suck for you because you wouldn’t be able to make money off of your designs since other companies might be more established and will be able to produce it far way cheaper than you
Rich people don't work for their money. They get it from their parents, they get it from exploiting others.
no sympathy for a designer that wants to charge you $1000 when someone can do it the exact same way for $50
Just plain wrong lol
Cyril Fo nice, how is this comment “wrong”? It states a perfectly amicable opinion, it doesn’t state anything that could be perceived as a fact that would have to possibility to be right or wrong.
@@Ephemeral_Style985 he's saying that knock-offs do it exactly like high-end designer shops do it, while some scummy brands do that, not all. So, yeah, he is wrong.
@@splingusbugs that doesn't make the designer's ownership of the design that they themselves CREATED obsolete, you can protest about the factories owners, but the artists deserve every single penny they deserve.
@@splingusbugs and you think Gucci or high end items are handcrafted by a man sitting somewhere in a small warehouse by the streets?
Thank god it is. I hope these companies die out. Sell extra high. Employ extra cheap.
seem2002 I think brands like Zara and H&M are more harmful than big fashion houses, those brands are the ones employing cheap labor overseas
That's what luxury goods are for you
I don't think you understand, they are actually getting richer even though knockoffs are a thing.
most luxury brands are actually ethically made... I feel like you might think this would harm fast fashion, which actually is I assume you mean, a big portion of fast fashion use sweatshops and pay very little for the labour work and overall, the workers have very bad work environments.. based on the video itself on that little montage of side to side items of the original and the knock offs, the knock offs are mostly from fast fashion brands and they are benifiting from this.. fast fashion btw would be like Zara and H&M
All fashion brands that produce on the wide scale use shoddy labor, but fast fashion brands are even worst.
Lol why am I watching this, I literally couldn't care less
It's legally informative though, could make you think how they argue this so I guess that's something
Same.
Thanks for reminding me to click off the video
Technology and medicine is copyrightable because companies spend millions of dollars on research and development over many years so the copyright gives them time to recoup their money. This DOES NOT apply to the fashion industry...
You mean patent.
Gucci is so overrated now, it has lost all of its heritage and now we’re just left with the empty carcass.
It's just trash with a logo that makes it ridiculously expensive
cassi farcas Na, Gucci quality is still really good and easily distinguishable between counterfeits and originals. Yes Gucci is overrated now, the new generation of kids love Gucci because of the stupid Gucci gang song. So many teenagers walk to the shop and they always mumble 'Gucci gang' while looking at the products. Gucci new designs are odd for people who live outside of Italy and are in fashion in Italy.
There are brands like Prada,Gucci isn’t the only Italian Luxury Fashion House
What about _"supreme"_ ?... they are just like Gucci but more edgy
ma gucci e sopravalutato pure in italia
lol, did they think the copyright would help Gucci sell more ?
People that buy Gucci wont buy knockoff product.
and people that wear Gucci knockoff have no money to buy originals
its obvius choice for people with tight budget - buying a pair of Designer shoes or some mass produced shoes + this month rent.
Trying to copyright the shape of the shoe seems like trying to copyright the shape of a phillips screwdriver.
Oh, you mean like this patent for the phillips screw and driver? patents.google.com/patent/US2046837A/en
Unfortunately there is a difference between copyright and patent protection.
pristinemirage true, but no one is saying that designs should be protected for eternity like Disney movies are. I think copyright should be applied to design but with very limited rights such as a very short copyright period and mandatory licensing (meaning that holders can’t deny anybody copyrights and copiers have to pay licensing and royalties). Copyrights to design should also be limited to assemblages of visual characteristics such that if the product looks visually distinct in at least one way, then it’s not copyright liable. So an all-white sock sneaker made of leather instead of neoprene and cotton wouldn’t be violating Balenciaga’s copyright.
I get why companies get mad about knockoffs, but there's this thing called "competition" that they pretend to engage in and get mad when they're beaten at it by someone who wants the market more. Plus, if their prices weren't absolutely outrageous, it would probably be less likely that their designs would be copied.
Having tons of copycats is great sign of success. Their problem with that is that anyone being able to have something that looks like their luxury item makes the item not so luxurious.
2:47, he is wrong.
Designers take “inspiration” from many things, thus the statement “something from nothing” being false.
Imagine if you keep an fashion designer in a white blank room for a while, I guarantee he can’t make new designs easily
Knock offs can even be made in the same factors, with the same material. One dress will just have the label, and one won't. Most high end shops don't want to stop this as it's free advertising.
I used to think this way, but it isn't true. I explained this to someone in another comment.
A Lot of these brand are meticulous with their work and these high-end designer brands also have their own factories where they produce everything and they usually pay their workers well, because if you pay your workers well they have less incentive to leave and make their own knock-offs. The materials also don't compare to the higher-end pieces, a good product will last you years and will age well. With other pieces from H&M, Zara, Gap, will only last you for so long before it starts to lose it's shape, have loose threads, and will just lose it's whole aesthetic, the conditions where these products are made is terrible, and usually the pieces that "fast fashion" pushes are ripped off from the higher-end brand.
The reason I said this is because this is what my parents did. They owned a factory and worked for high end labels. They would just order double them materials that they needed for the order. Half would get the label, half wouldn't. Half went to the shop, and half to the market to be sold at a 10th of the price.
I agree that not all is like this, and some copies are worse quality. But not all of it is.
Buying a label also doesn't guarantee that you'll get a good product either.
Kheso oh please... you used to think this way? And then you continue to repeat the same slogan literally every "high end" brand, or your favorite youtuber is trying to sell.. Give me a break. I have a lot of "cheap" clothes incl shoes, talking 10-20 bucks each, and they're all fine 6yrs+. Sure you can make supr cheap fabric, but most clothes are on a technical level that is hardly any different than "high end". It's all marketing, just like in the food industry, or computer chips for that matter. One is binned slightly worse and the other can go 500mhz higher, so its given a different name has a software based function enabled and priced $200 more..
@@fetB Yes, I mention high-end brands because they do care about the products. There's no way wordings this without sounding pretentious, but I own some of these pieces, Acronym, WACKO Maria, Balenciaga, Burberry, and they can't compare to the items you see on Gap, H&M, Zara, or the clothing you see at Target. It also depends on what you're looking for. If you just want clothing just for the sole purpose of wearing, then you can get clothing that isn't expensive, nothing wrong with that. If you want a certain look, want clothing with functionality, or care about detail, you'll usually find that it more expensive clothing. Acronym for example, they're known for their functionality and utilize a monochromatic pallette. Balenciaga and Wacko Maria aim for a certain aesthetic or look with each of their seasons, they try to push the boundaries and try to set new trends. Burberry is known for their detail and the quality of their products. I also just consider this a hobby of mine, much like someone who spends money on modifying their car, upgrading their computer for gaming, photography, or collecting art. It got to a point where I started to look into more expensive brands, albeit I started slowly but eventually I realized there is a difference between "fast-fashion" and designer clothing. That's the reason why I even say there's a difference because I've worn and felt these type of pieces.
+Kheso tbf, nearly every company who isn't in the scam market, cares about the product, especially today when news, especially bad one, spreads like a wildfire.
Anyway, monochromatic palette makes me giggle. In other words, it's universal. So, as a seller, you can't possibly go wrong and will always find a buyer. Very few eccentric people go around in bold colors.
Functional clothing is a different matter. There is more work involved and typically stress tested. But even then. I just went to the Acronym site and the first random item i see is a "functional" jacket. Nothing extraordinary and made from (70% PA, 30% ePTFE). That fabric doesn't stop a bullet, protects from rain just as much and is virtually indistinguishable from the lower cost item because its the same synthetic material as affordable equivalent. Then, the whole thing is accompanied by a bunch of trademarked terms for a slightly unusual cut/zipper and some pretentious slogans, sold for 1,294.00 €. That is plain insanity. R&D and production of this item, probably amounts to a retail price of 100, or lets give it even 200 bucks. It's fine if you enjoy it, but it just goes to show by the way you talk about it. And i dont necessarily mean pretentious, but fooled by notion of getting something special regardless of how true it really is. At the end, all that matters you're happy, though. So good luck.
Idk. It feels like these fashion designers are made at knockoffs because poor people are able to wear them. If there were really concerned about copyright they would complain about how they are stealing sales but the congress guy complained about how fast they can be produced. It feels like knockoffs spread it to the lower class which the high end fashion world does not want
satherandfon thats the whole point of a luxury good though.. poor people arent able to buy em. Thats why they so attractive to rich people. U think if gucci dropped their prices rich people would still buy it? Hell no they would move to another luxury brand still charging alot
@@splingusbugs honey, most of the luxury goods are also made in the same factory the counterfeits are produced. They just slap a label on em and charge you 50x the price of the generic brand.
Just bought a Surpreme brick a few days ago and now I know that I could have bought a knockoff brick. Dangit.
Dennis Prüne and you could get it for free!
Be a homosexual, you’ll get free ones through your window.
I love fashion and I shop a lot, however I never understood high fashion, so expensive and ugly, I can understand expensive and nice but they are so ugly. Like how this pair of slippers are nice? So fugly. Anyways, different tastes for each own I guess,but don't get brainwashed just because you see it on a celebrity or runway or in a trend.
This is just modern art in clothes version.
Yea fashion these days are based on brands not looks. We are living in the worst generation ever
@@PabloEscobar-gu8sd worst generation ever? Do you really think wealthy people in middle ages didn't buy themselves clothes from the most famous/expensive craftsmen? Think again.
the beauty of Fashion just like in Art is in the eye of the beholder, what you might think its ugly its the most beautiful thing for someone else
Lie to me and tell me the gucci leather loafers are not beautiful!!!!!!!!
Gruuci Gamg
poor man
It's challenging because so much of fashion is referential. Even luxury designers draw inspiration from past designs and styles. For example, this year Moschino released a collection that was heavily inspired by Jackie O and her Chanel suits. And there are cases of parallel thinking, just like in the comedy world. If designers has the ability to copyright certain elements of their garments, it would create a legal nightmare and kill a lot of creativity. I understand why they would want to protect their work, but it seems like it would be so hard to define and enforce.
To be quite honest, the knockoffs are afforable when the bank doesn't allow you to get what you want. It's a win-win for the consumer.
Blue .Barrymore I think he just meant when you don’t have enough in your checking account, not credit.
Blue .Barrymore
Eye roll at the semantics of “bank”.
@Blue .Barrymore unless you have a card that gives you a discount and you pay it off instantly
Blue .Barrymore r/whoosh
Well it's kinda just like buying a print of a (famous) painting, isn't it? Like you like the "design"/how it looks and want to have it but you can't afford the real thing 'cause it's super expensive, so you just stick with the knockoff/print .^.
Well to be fair, whether or not you buy a print or the real painting they both goes back to the Artist.
And the artists have to allow others to profit off his creative work? What kinda bullshit is this.
@@wugabriel3465 they don't. That's why there are copyright laws.
So, how about Kim Kardashian attempting to copyright the word "Kimono"?
2:52 this dude's face is me sitting through a lecture in the morning
It seems to me that wearing Gucci has nothing to do with you liking the garment but with proving that you can afford it.
And for that reason people who can afford it pretend to like it
Garment not gourmet
@@mauriceestelle4619
Damn... sorry. English is not my first language
@@cassif19 it's completely fine
Imo the quality of branded leather is much much higher and durable than the typical leather used in other brands. My LV bags and gucci wallet are more than 7 years old and still have not worn out and stitching still intact. You won't see this quality in other brands.
cassi farcas lol you’re learning this now?this is the concept behind most luxury businesses
isint that ryland adam's shoe?
panda danish yup
this shoes has been created before so what makes them own it??? Gucci crying about the same thing they are doing lol
@@black10kevin Ryland Adam bought the gucci shoe is what panda danish is saying.
AH💀😭
@@black10kevin i meant this person bought the shoe
ID RATHER BUY RUBBER FLIP FLOPS
I can't look at the word "Gucci" without remembering that horrendous song...
Gucci is not my style anyway.
The fact that someone might even think that intellectual property rights should apply to clothes shows how warped the whole concept is.
You do realise cloths are designed by people, and as a result art right?
@@wugabriel3465 The brand is protected. Clothes are clothes. Might as well have the inventor of the tee shirt rise from the dead and sue everyone that makes shirts that use a hole for the neck, two for the arms and one for the torso. You do realise that even Oreos are knockoffs... right?(Look it up)
@@ChachinAKAChino if the inventor of t shirts if there is one, had applied for copy right. So many years have passed the designed would've been in the public domain anyway, what's your point.
@@ChachinAKAChino also whats the most important is the desings of the t shirt, the picture on it, the logos, the patterns, no one is copyrigbting the shape, it's about the stuff printed on the t shirt.
So by your logic anything designed by people is art?
Gucci has ugly fashion tbh
mhm and that's pretty much the aesthetic of it.. I personally like it tho.. at least their pricey pieces.. and I absolutely cannot afford it however creative expression is lovely to me and I do genuinely find a lot of their tracksuits and coats enticing
You know nothing if you comment "Gucci has ugly fashion" lol.
Cyril Fo It’s true. Gucci designs are like certain artists who throw random paint on a canvas and call that exquisite art. Majority of their designs are simply overly colourful and messy.
LV, Burberry, Goyard on the other keep their designs organised, clean yet detailed and sophisticated.
Absolutely true at least in my mind Gucci is incredibly hideous and gaudy. The only reason people buy it is to prove they can afford what some celebrity with no taste has.
@@noelblash4669 they're more known for their cut & sews. The Gucci that you see in the mainstream is just marketing, and it works. They have their couture Gucci which is more about the quality of their products and they have their mainstream where it attracts the younger audience.
1:44 lmao copyrighting shoeshape... FineBro$ instantly come to mind.
2:52 he speaks for all of us
I had an artist friend find her paintings listed on redbubble, and websites the like with people making money off her artwork. They stole her artwork from her online portfolio in art school, none of the websites took any actions on her claim. She had to email all of the profiles individually claiming copyright on her art pieces. They all said they were admires of her work, and wanted to make her art more available/accessible to everyone... which is a total scam.
** It took a lot of threats of international lawsuits, for people to take the images down... But a lot of the guilty parties were adults, who didn't think taking credit, making money of someone's else's art was harmful. Or discredits the orginal artist's personal value for their talents/works of art. **
Lesson Learned, watermark all your images. No matter what stage of art career you are in. There will always be someone out there is gutsy enough; who thinks it's permissible to make money, off your talents.
I get more knowledge from youtube than in school
That says more about you than school.
velvetwicexo then i’d search a new school you do know vox is a republican liberal media outlet i wouldn’t rely on that for good information
nah ,Alicia vakander
Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell
You're supposed to learn "how to think" in school.
Can't help but feel like intellectual property is a thing of this time period that'll just not be there in a far enough future, dropped in favor of a more natural and self-enforcing approach to business. Something along the lines of "if you can do it, and it works, do it".
It surely is losing grounds. IP is hampering innovation of "others", but without it, it wouldn't make sense to invest at all in a new technology.
It may sound like some corporation losing "commercial secrets" is a "good thing", but behind the IP is a long, long, time and money consumed, so that, what? one day someone wakes up and takes the results of your years of work, for free, and improve upon it? Imagine, Mendel, spending years (seasons) of cross-breeding, to prove a pattern, and someone else snatching all the results and flash-printing it to take all the credit (and funds)?
In WWII, and prior, there were just a few good aircraft engine designs which lots of companies "licensed" and improved upon. Why would giving that sturdy designs away for free seem like a good idea at all? Who could build engines/airplanes, afforded licensing the designs, and (if they had the R&D), they could develop it. All fair and regulated.
Investments should yield returns. Instead, we thrive upon the lowest of the lowest prices consuming ever more and that is truly the only reason IP has a hard time.
That is assuming that most innovations have been made by private entities, which they haven't. And even those that have often receive massive amounts of money from the government into research.
You don't got to wait until the future. "If you can do it, and it works, do it", is exactly the attitude in modern day China
Justine McCloud- I'm gonna need a citation for that. For stuff like medicine, I can imagine the government putting money into research for the greater good. But without IP protection, who in their right minds would spend money on creating exciting new products like the iPhone or the automobile (back in the day) or any of the technology we've come to expect in our everyday lives? Would you let the government waste your taxes on developing never-seen-before technology that sounds crazy and will never work?
It is quite new. "The Statute of Monopolies (1624) and the British Statute of Anne (1710) are seen as the origins of patent law and copyright respectively,[8] firmly establishing the concept of intellectual property.
" From Wikipedia.
Cardi B has to be in every Vox video...
Why?
@@MalaysianTropikfusion same question
Ezehelm because she's a 🌿
Atlantic Records paid good money to get her in these videos
“The rich are getting richer, and the clothes that they are wearing are getting more expensive.” Sigh🤬 I better get rich fast then...just kidding...sort of..
Lol I've never bought a knock off but I have seen some and some of them just looks better than the original 😹😹
no they dont
@@rosez6737 yes they do.
Angelo they don’t, usually the knock offs that people find just out of dhgate and canal street are low quality replicas. there is an underground scene of high quality replicas but they are still not exact to retail.
*Why would you wear a shoe that has fur in it which has to be constantly cleaned and that no one would see?*
It's nice for house shoes, but not much else.
when you can buy slippers that cost $1000, you can afford someone to clean them for you.
Austin Mayan death toad
Wearing Gucci is basically a sign saying how insecure you are
BIG MAN TYRONE no havin a shrek profile does
Rob Spagrenetti wrong, shrek display pictures signs the user's massive self respect like how massive their dong are.
Wow so deep 🤦🏽♀️
Just like using an iPhone
Praba Garan Debatable
meh, you cannot copyright clothing. you may get right that your model from the show get advantage of lets say at least 3 moths before anyone else can get out with its knockoff and thats all i can see as reasonable solution. on the end, people who actually buy designed clothing or accessories, they will continue to do so and will not allow them self to purchase knockoff... with copyright you will not gain new customers anyway, they will just pass and purchase something in their range of financial capabilities...
As someone who is going into fashion studies you enter this career knowing about knockoffs. You can’t complain especially if you’ve gone to school for it or taken a simple business class. They tell you about it. You choose that career
What about how Bollywood makes Hollywood movie knockoffs 😂😂😂
I believe there’s something that says that fashion designers are exempt from this because we need clothes.
Honestly, "intellectual property" protection laws have ruined so many things nowadays that I can't help but feel sympathetic to this situation.
Modern day fashion looks garbage, change my mind.
Máté Gautier nah you’re 100% right
Not modern fashion, high fashion. High fashion is all the garbage in the shows, modern fashion is just our everyday clothes
What if i made a dress out of cash?
@@JacobChrabaszcz I mean High fashion in shows is not something they will even sell. They are essentially just conveying ideas for their lineups that are actually coming up for the next season. They are for the industry people, not consumers.
As an artist and a consumer I see both sides, but for most things that are copyrighted, you can still use them for inspiration, you just have to change it enough to be considered different. I could easily see guidelines being set about which part of a design are copyrightable/how much a design needs to be altered to be considered original. Of course it won’t always be cut and dry, but it isn’t in other industries either
CONGRATS ON #3 ON TRENDING!! 😍😍😍 love this!!
😍
Can't comment anything smart because I have to comment early.
("that's better than saying , "First" " )
At lest you're honest
As a professional designer, and as someone spends a good part of the week filing copyrights, I'm not sure what she's upset about.
There are literally copyright laws and rules about how different a design needs to be from any other design. Between me and my partner we have 25+ years experience in designing apparel and home accessories and neither of us feel like we aren't protected enough legally.
I honestly do not care about what is 'fair' for the designers when they charge 149 USD or more for a freaking t-shirt. You are then asking to be ripped off and a lot of people will always be willing to do that.
Lots of people can get away with copying someone else’s designs in the fashion industry.
One of the very few Vox video I seem to like. Cool.
0:51 knockoff nicer than original
The problem with fashion is that people can't afford the designer items. Designers are at fault when they pice the items only for the rich.
clothes are difficult to make, they are allowed to charge whatever they want for there designs just as painters are
@@rosez6737 They are allowed, that's not the problem. Your explanation for those prices is however nonsensical, the needed technique to realize those clothes represents an almost negligible portion of the price.
I just have one question...
WHAT ARE THOOSEEEE?!!
This girl should do all the Vox videos. What a doll
Vox this was such a good watch! I love fashion, especially the business aspect behind it, and I’m always curious as to how the big fashion houses handle fast fashion. I make a standard American salary but I’m also young and fashion forward. While I would love to ball out at Gucci, I can’t afford it but I can afford the version ZARA or H&M gives me
She looks like Natalie portman, so there is no trademark, patent, or copyright on that face?
@@Q_QQ_Q what? Did you ever hear think before you speak? Well in this case you should have thought a lot longer. If you use RUclips as a platform to insult people based on looks, not only does it show and intrinsic and security that you somehow managed to maintain, but also the fact that you think you can change any of that I simply commenting on other people's looks. I know it sounds tacky, but God gave you a brain, so use it.
@@Q_QQ_Q out of my whole statement, you just pick that one piece? You didn't even come up with an argument against the fact that you shouldn't be flapping your mouth speaking insults at nothing. I swear, you what are all insults and a baby simply because you think it's for it is too big. And that type of sheer ignorance needs to stop, from everyone, including yourself.
But go ahead, tip your Fedora some more and see what insults you can come up with. I bet your mom will be very proud. SMH
@@Q_QQ_Q also you need to earn one. So I don't think God can suck something that doesn't exist
When the knockoff is cuter than the original
I’d rather wear my Lightning McQueen crocs, thank you!
i can’t believe i got an ad for “luxury items” before this video
I agree with some of these points. Fashion wouldn’t exist without knockoffs and people changing and creating different things. Fashion doesn’t just happen, people take what they want and people can copy style become popular too.
In my country knockoffs and replicas are all over the place. Those mega high fashion houses over priced their stuffs. Tbh
Who else would flip if they got a crese in their shoes 😂😂
Axtra If I payed 1000$ for it I would hope that those shoes were able to endure a lifetime.
My $400 y3s got scratched. Ruined my day
if it were'nt expensive, would there be knock-offs?
I'm an independent designer based out of Los Angeles and other than my personal site and Instagram, I use Etsy to sell my products. Which vary from clothing to accessories. About two weeks ago, I got a notice from Etsy Legal that I was being dinged for trademark infringement and because of that, two of my wallets, made from vinyl, were removed from my site.
Apparently, Paul Frank's rep issued that I was infringing on their trademark over these wallets. Which, as this video states, trademark refers to the logos and symbols, not the product itself. And seeing as though our logos and symbols look completely different and even my wallets look nothing like anything he's made or is known for, I was confused as to why they'd even bother claiming trademark infringement via my wallets.
I called them out and still haven't heard back from his rep.
Paul Frank and his team should view this video as it would be of great service to them lol
My high school teacher used to smack me for Plagiarism. No one should be allowed to copy someone else's hard work and idea.
Competition drives down prices. So let it!
Erik Tiber clearly not did you not watch the video? Price is increasing. God people are so infuriating sometimes
Following fashion is for simpletons... There is already far too clothing in the world and it damaging the planet! It's all about status! Anyone who pays $1000 for a pair of shoes (that have no more specific practical use than any other pair of shoes) is just a reflection of how selfish and self obsessed the world is! People need to stop buying clothes, or at least go to Charity Shops!
Goodwill all day
how much money did you spend on your car?
Sorry I need flex my Euro drip💧
@@SL-vw7ix drip or drown
Everyone has their hobbies computers, fashion, cars all harm the planet in some way but it keeps us happy but I do agree some times fashion gets a bit ridiculous but I’m ok with it I just don’t like fast fashion because of all the water that’s wasted and waste it produces
Oh btw it takes 3000 litres to make a t-shirt
4.5 litres = a gallon
I appreciate that in the hearing on copyright of fashion designs, the camera panned to four men in functionally identical outfits. Yes, this is obviously the ideal audience to judge the artistic merits of clothing.
to be real honest people who want Gucci will buy Gucci because of the brand, not just because of what the design is. I really don't think it would affect the sales of luxury clothing items because you will never convince a broke woman to buy a $700 handbag if she never have the intention to spend $700 on the bag, even if the design of the bag is not available anywhere else.
Loved the section with the fabric painting! Definitely got the point across
I'm surprised the original is even legal 😁🤢😁
When she started painting those mountains on that canvas, I thought they were chevrons, a reference to Star Athletica v. Varsity, where it was ruled that useful articles (cheerleader outfits in this case) can be copyrighted
*IM BROKE SOOO*
It’s good that they can only copyright the design/logos. If they copyright the silhouette of a button up shirt, they can sue companies using a similar button up silhouette resulting in production to stop. If that happens then our shopping choices will be limited to the originators who can definitely mark up the price since they have no competition or even produce lesser quality.
Please do more video about Copyright infringement in all other areas... i find this subject rarely discussed yet very important to merchandisers and customers altogether...