California Apparel News

Congress Hears Testimony on Design Piracy Controversy

California apparel makers opposed to the proposed Design Piracy Protection Act before Congress had a voice in longtime Los Angeles clothing manufacturer Steve Maiman.

Maiman headed to Washington, D.C., to testify Feb. 14 before the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, headed by Rep. Howard Berman (D–Calif.). The subcommittee held hearings on the bill, which would extend copyright protection to fashion designs.

Maiman, co-owner of Stony Apparel Corp., flew to the capital with his business partner, Tony Litman, to testify for five minutes before the subcommittee, which then asked questions about how the act would affect manufacturers’ business.

“We all get design inspirations the same way,” said Maiman, whose company, with 140 employees, makes clothing for girls and teen-agers under the labels Eyeshadow and Great Escape. “All designs are reincarnations of previous designs. Fashion always reinvents what is old, which becomes new. And what is new needs to be renewed.”

Maiman was testifying on behalf of the California Fashion Association, a Los Angeles–based trade group headed by Executive Director Ilse Metchek. Maiman appeared before the subcommittee to give politicians a firsthand look at how the Design Piracy Protection Act would affect U.S. apparel makers.

Metchek said the whole economics of the business would be jeopardized. Factors that financially back apparel manufacturers would be less willing to loan money on goods that could be classified as copyright infringements.

“Beyond the economics of it, it is unenforceable,” Metchek said. “The U.S. copyright office is not in any position to verify the originality of the copyright.”

Proponents of the new legislation, introduced in 2006, maintain that if a new article of clothing closely and substantially resembles the original, it should be considered a copyright infringement. Designer Narcisco Rodriguez testified in support of the bill, which would extend copyright protection to a garment for three years.

Those opposed to the law argue they are interpreting trends and translating those trends into other segments of the market.

“Nobody designs in a vacuum,” Maiman said. “You can’t tell me the name-brand designers don’t shop Europe and Japan to see what is out there. If they don’t, they will certainly fall behind their competitors.”

But the Council of Fashion Designers of America has a different point of view.

“The Fashion Designers have always said that they do not want to prevent anyone from following a trend or picking up a look. A designer’s ability to create a trend is the mark of his success,” said Alain Coblence, an attorney who represents the council, which is supporting the Design Piracy Protection Act.

“HR 2033 will not apply to any design that has been publicly available prior to enactment. There will be a gigantic public domain of designs that will be available for what [some in the industry] call ’derivatives.’ The CFDA wants this bill to eventually provide that inspiration from a trend is a valid defense. Between following a trend and stealing a truly original design is where this legislation is meant to draw the line.”

Coblence dismissed the notion that the law would deter factors from financing companies for fear of copyright lawsuits.

“Factors will know for sure that legitimate clients will run no risk of running afoul of the legislation since it exonerates those who manufacture or distribute articles which were ’created’ without knowledge, or reasonable grounds to know, that they were copied from original designs,” he said.

Maiman pointed out to the subcommittee that the proposed legislation is unnecessary. It will reduce designers’ creativity and harm the fashion industry. The fashion industry, he said, has done well, growing into a huge and competitive industry, all without the help from any copyright law. “The clothing business is currently thriving in the United States, and from my perspective, nothing new has occurred in the recent past to cause there to suddenly be a need for copyright protection of the design of apparel,” he said.

He was asked several questions by the subcommittee members. They wanted to know if the copyright law had extended back to the 1800s when Levi Strauss came out with his blue canvas pant, should everyone be prohibited from making those pants. “I said, ’Absolutely not.’ Even today, if that law were in effect, should denim manufacturers be paying a royalty fee to Levi Strauss for 150 years?” Maiman said.

This was the first time Maiman had testified in a Congressional hearing, and he was exhilarated by it. “How often do you get to testify in a Congressional hearing and you’re not in trouble?” he noted.

—Deborah Belgum