239:. Furthermore, because distributors of accused designs can be penalized as well as the designer, distributors of clothing will become very wary of new designs unless the designer has adequate funds, influence, and power to hire skilled and effective lawyers. Pattern companies frequently utilize prevailing trends; so they too are vulnerable. Because of the legal risks of producing fashion patterns, fewer people will sew their own clothing, and fabric and sewing stores will suffer losses as well. As evidence of the bill's hypocrisy, critics point to how one of the most vocal supporters of the bill,
211:
new, original and non-obvious. The United States Patent and
Trademark Office website (www.uspto.gov) has a searchable database of patents, and includes patents on apparel in class D2, carrying articles in class D3, and eyeglass frames in class D16. Technological advances to the means of textile and garment production, as well as increases in the number of distribution channels and the availability of cheap labor in emerging economies have enabled those who would copy these designs to do so quickly and inexpensively. Legislation targeting design piracy has already been enacted in
243:, was recently caught copying and distributing a piece of clothing originally designed by an independent Canadian designer. Critics also argue that the industry is already thriving commercially and encourages innovation. They point attention to the concept that originality in fashion design is too insubstantial for copyright law to distinguish protected elements from non-protected elements, and that extending copyright protection would stifle independent designers while giving powerful, big-business fashion houses a near-
141:
301:
items that would be protected by this Act include women's, men's, and children's clothing as well as luggage, handbags, wallets and eyeglass frames. A "fashion design" under the IDPPPA would be defined as an entire article of apparel including its embellishment and also includes elements of the original apparel that are the creative work of the original designer and are unique.
284:
designers' ability to compete with the products of lower-cost countries, because the distribution of images of new designs and the automation of copying and manufacturing could occur within hours. They additionally pointed out that the United States was the exception among western nations in failing to protect designs.
300:
Under the IDPPPA, a copy of a design would have infringed if it was found to be "substantially identical" to the original work with little to no changes to set that design apart. Penalties for false representation would have been increased from $ 500 to $ 5,000 and from $ 1,000 to $ 10,000. "Apparel"
210:
do provide some protection for designers, this is so only when the trademark is used and not when merely the design is copied under a different label. In addition, fashion may be protected by design patents if the requirements for patentability are met. To be patentable an ornamental design must be
54:
for a period of three years. The Acts would have extended protection to "the appearance as a whole of an article of apparel, including its ornamentation," with "apparel" defined to include "men's, women's, or children's clothing, including undergarments, outerwear, gloves, footwear, and headgear;"
304:
Supporters argue that this act would create more protection for fashion designers. Opponents have argued that the bill would "bring more lawyers into every step of the design process," outlaw "inspiration and creativity," prevent "unrestricted use of works in the public domain," and "slow down the
308:
Some designers have supported the IDPPPA for protecting their current and future fashion designs. For example, Kurt
Courtney of the AAFA has praised the bill as a "great compromise and a product of hard work," but added that its effects will largely be seen in court cases involving the bill.
283:
The subcommittee held a hearing on the bill on July 27, 2006, at which there was disagreement among legal experts as well as representatives of the fashion industry as to whether there was a need for copyright protection. Proponents of the Act claimed that new technology threatened
American
277:
99:
76:
205:
only to the extent that its shape is non-utilitarian enough to qualify as a creative "sculpture," or to the extent that a design, pattern, or image on the clothing qualifies as "pictorial" or "graphic." While current laws against
489:
296:
with ten co-sponsors. On
December 1, 2010, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary voted unanimously for the bill to proceed to the Senate floor. This is the furthest that any of the design bills has progressed since 2006.
126:
H.R. 2196 was introduced on April 30, 2009, by
Representative Delahunt and twenty-three co-sponsors. The bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on the same day and then stalled in committee.
330:
Sara R. Ellis, Copyrighting
Couture: An Examination of Fashion Design Protection and Why the DPPA and IDPPPA are a Step Towards the Solution to Counterfeit Chic, 78 Tenn. L. Rev. 163 (2010),
465:
306:
353:
162:
441:
55:"handbags, purses, and tote bags;" belts, and eyeglass frames. In order to receive the three-year term of protection, the designer would be required to
321:
with ten co-sponsors. On
September 20, 2012, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary voted for the bill to proceed to the Senate floor without amendment.
462:
273:
95:
72:
382:
235:. The majority of independent designers do not have the litigation funds to effectively challenge big business should they be accused of
41:
188:
429:
265:
399:
71:
H.R. 2511 was introduced July 13, 2011, by
Representative Robert Goodlatte with thirteen co-sponsors. On August 25, 2011, the
166:
118:(D-NY) with ten co-sponsors. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary but progressed no further.
151:
345:
170:
155:
438:
240:
484:
256:
H.R. 5055, 109th
Congress: To Amend Title 17, United States Code, to Provide Protection for Fashion Design
236:
56:
37:
60:
450:
261:
25:
29:
21:
207:
232:
111:
102:. A hearing was held February 14, 2008, but the bill never made it out of the subcommittee.
231:
Critics claim that, contrary to the bill's claims, the bill will actually harm independent
80:
494:
469:
445:
433:
115:
456:
426:
51:
478:
403:
318:
293:
91:
140:
46:
288:
S. 3728, 111th
Congress: Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act
33:
341:
Witnesses Clash on Need for Granting Copyright Protection to Fashion Designs
202:
278:
U.S. House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
100:
U.S. House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
77:
U.S. House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
269:
244:
272:), with six co-sponsors from both parties. The bill was referred by the
354:
Intellectual property legislation pending in the United States Congress
386:
358:
212:
334:
220:
216:
490:
United States proposed federal intellectual property legislation
453:: Index to the United States Patent Classification (USPC) System
383:"Bill Summary & Status, 112th Congress (2011-12), S. 3523"
134:
260:
H.R. 5055 was introduced March 30, 2006, by Representative
90:
H.R. 2033 was introduced April 25, 2007, by Representative
313:
S. 3523, 112th Congress: Innovative Design Protection Act
317:
S.3523 was introduced on September 10, 2012, by Senator
81:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-2511
427:
Full text of Design Piracy Prohibition Act, H.R. 5055
63:
within three months of going public with the design.
292:
S.3728 was introduced on August 5, 2010, by Senator
463:Will the Fashion Copyright Bill Stifle Innovation?
94:with fourteen co-sponsors. On May 4, 2007, the
459:: Guide to Filing a Design Patent Application
110:S. 1957 was introduced on August 2, 2007, in
8:
348:'s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal
169:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
131:Current Status of Fashion Design Protection
189:Learn how and when to remove this message
369:
201:Currently, fashion may be protected by
274:U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary
96:U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary
73:U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary
7:
167:adding citations to reliable sources
36:of the same name introduced in the
42:Title 17 of the United States Code
14:
335:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1735745
139:
1:
18:Design Piracy Prohibition Act
343:, Anandashankar Mazumdar.
305:fast-paced design process."
511:
389:. Accessed on 19-12-2012.
122:H.R. 2196, 111th Congress
98:referred the Bill to the
86:H.R. 2033, 110th Congress
75:referred the Bill to the
67:H.R. 2511, 112th Congress
40:that would have amended
106:S. 1957, 110th Congress
237:copyright infringement
38:United States Congress
241:Diane von Fürstenberg
61:U.S. Copyright Office
163:improve this section
262:Robert W. Goodlatte
468:2011-02-13 at the
444:2007-08-07 at the
432:2008-10-09 at the
350:, August 4, 2006.
233:fashion designers
208:counterfeit goods
199:
198:
191:
502:
415:
414:
412:
411:
402:. Archived from
400:"Thomas.loc.gov"
396:
390:
380:
374:
194:
187:
183:
180:
174:
143:
135:
112:Washington, D.C.
510:
509:
505:
504:
503:
501:
500:
499:
475:
474:
470:Wayback Machine
446:Wayback Machine
434:Wayback Machine
423:
418:
409:
407:
398:
397:
393:
381:
377:
371:
367:
327:
315:
290:
258:
253:
229:
195:
184:
178:
175:
160:
144:
133:
124:
116:Charles Schumer
108:
88:
69:
52:fashion designs
12:
11:
5:
508:
506:
498:
497:
492:
487:
485:Fashion design
477:
476:
473:
472:
460:
454:
448:
436:
422:
421:External links
419:
417:
416:
391:
375:
368:
366:
363:
362:
361:
356:
351:
338:
326:
323:
314:
311:
289:
286:
257:
254:
252:
249:
228:
225:
197:
196:
147:
145:
138:
132:
129:
123:
120:
107:
104:
87:
84:
68:
65:
50:protection to
30:H.R. 2196
22:H.R. 2033
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
507:
496:
493:
491:
488:
486:
483:
482:
480:
471:
467:
464:
461:
458:
455:
452:
449:
447:
443:
440:
437:
435:
431:
428:
425:
424:
420:
406:on 2008-10-07
405:
401:
395:
392:
388:
384:
379:
376:
373:
370:
364:
360:
357:
355:
352:
349:
347:
342:
339:
336:
333:
329:
328:
324:
322:
320:
319:Chuck Schumer
312:
310:
307:
302:
298:
295:
294:Chuck Schumer
287:
285:
281:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
255:
251:Related Bills
250:
248:
246:
242:
238:
234:
226:
224:
222:
218:
214:
209:
204:
193:
190:
182:
172:
168:
164:
158:
157:
153:
148:This section
146:
142:
137:
136:
130:
128:
121:
119:
117:
113:
105:
103:
101:
97:
93:
92:Bill Delahunt
85:
83:
82:
78:
74:
66:
64:
62:
58:
53:
49:
48:
43:
39:
35:
31:
27:
23:
19:
408:. Retrieved
404:the original
394:
378:
372:
344:
340:
332:available at
331:
316:
303:
299:
291:
282:
259:
230:
200:
185:
176:
161:Please help
149:
125:
109:
89:
70:
45:
26:S. 1957
17:
15:
179:August 2015
114:by Senator
47:sui generis
44:to provide
479:Categories
410:2007-09-06
365:References
457:Uspto.gov
451:Uspto.gov
227:Criticism
203:copyright
150:does not
59:with the
466:Archived
442:Archived
430:Archived
325:See also
245:monopoly
57:register
276:to the
171:removed
156:sources
32:, were
495:Design
439:Bc.edu
387:THOMAS
359:THOMAS
219:, and
213:Europe
28:, and
221:Japan
217:India
34:bills
154:any
152:cite
16:The
346:BNA
270:Va.
165:by
481::
385:,
280:.
247:.
223:.
215:,
79:.
24:,
20:,
413:.
337:.
268:-
266:R
264:(
192:)
186:(
181:)
177:(
173:.
159:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
