California Apparel News

The Design Piracy Protection Act, which extends copyright protection to fashion designs, was reintroduced on April 30 by U.S. Reps. Bill Delahunt (D–Mass.), Bob Goodlatte (R–Va.) and Jerrold Nadler (D–N.Y.).

Originally introduced in 2006, the bill has been hotly debated, with several national organizations lining up on either side.

The Council of Fashion Designers of America has been a highly visible supporter of the measure and recently brought a group of New York designers—including Narciso Rodriguez, Thakoon Panichgul, Jason Wu and Maria Cornejo—to Washington, D.C., to meet with lawmakers and urge their support.

On the other side is the American Apparel & Footwear Association, which has been arguing against the bill, saying it introduces “a legal element” to the design process and will give rise to a flurry of lawsuits.

The CFDA argues that the bill will end the common practice of reproducing original designs as low-priced “knockoffs.”

“We believe the DPPA addresses the very real problem of fashion piracy,” said Steven Kolb, CFDA executive director. “Pirates steal American fashion designs, make low-quality copies in Asian factories with cheap labor and import them back into the U.S. to compete with the original designs. Knockoff garments are now often marketed before designers can market their originals and are even advertised by the pirates as being a copy of the designer’s work.”

But the AAFA warns that the measure will halt the free flow of trends and will place an added burden on designers and manufacturers to ensure they are not infringing on others’ copyrighted designs.

“Fashion is about inspiration, and, in my view, this would kill the inspiration in fashion,” said Kevin Burke, president and chief executive of the AAFA. “It brings in a legal element to design. Designers will now have to review everything they make with legal counsel to make certain they are not making somebody else’s design. Anyone in the apparel industry knows that fashion trends come and go. Trends that have been renewed have been based on things in the past.”

Burke added that existing U.S. copyright law—which covers print, pattern and surface embellishment—and trademark law, which protects brand names, is sufficient protection for designers and manufacturers. “There are copyright laws that protect designers,” he said. “There are trademark laws that protect designs. They can use these mechanisms now.”

But Kolb argues that the United States’ copyright laws fall short of those in other countries and regions—including Europe, Japan and India—in protecting fashion designers’ creations.

“America is the world fashion leader, and yet it is the only industrialized country (other than China) that does not provide protection for fashion design,” he said.

According to Kolb, the concerns from the different sectors of the industry were taken into consideration when drafting the current version of the bill.

“This bill is the culmination of two years of long and sometimes difficult cross-industry discussions between different sectors of the apparel industry,” he said. “It addresses major concerns that have been raised in those meetings, and while it isn’t a compromise, it goes a long way toward bridging the gap on a number of key issues.”

Among the changes are efforts to prevent frivolous lawsuits that could result from the legislation, he said, adding that penalties for false representation have been raised from between $500 and $1,000 to between $5,000 and $10,000. In addition, applicants who are found to have made false representations will “forfeit design protection hellip; for instance, if a designer tried to register a simple white T-shirt as original,” Kolb said.

In addition, the wording of the bill has been changed to address the concern that the law will prevent trends from filtering throughout the industry.

“New language clarifies that reproducing a trend does not infringe the protection granted under the bill and includes a defense for independent creation,” Kolb said.

If the Design Piracy Prohibition Act becomes law, Burke said, enforcement of it “would make our industry cautious about proceeding on design and hurt designers, who will be overly cautious on what they design.” —Alison A. Nieder and Deborah Belgum