Debating Design Piracy: A Manufacturer's Take on the Proposed Law
I read Kevin [Burke’s] editorial [“Protection for Fashion Design: How We Got There”] in the [Sept. 24 issue of] Apparel News. Here are my thoughts: At issue is the cost to defend yourself before a case goes to court. It is very easy to spend $100,000 to $200,000 to prepare a case for trial. If a pampered designer has a Barry Diller or a Harvey Weinstein in their corner, they have endless amounts of money to support their delusions of themselves and their creativity.Kevin’s description of the bill tries to make a positive out of a negative. Kevin states [italics added for emphasis], “A new design may enjoy a short, three-year term of protection, so long as it is truly original” and refers to “only deliberate copies that are substantially identical” and a “high level of protection for never-seen-before fashion designs.”
Let us dissect Kevin’s verbiage:
bull; Short, three-year term: Three years is an eternity in the apparel business.
bull; The wordage “a new design,” “truly original,” “only deliberate copies,” “substantially identical” and “never-before-seen fashion designs”: The meaning and understanding of these words and terms can only be defined by a court of law.
So as much as Kevin tries to tell us the legislation protects us from frivolous lawsuits, he is absolutely wrong. Only courts of law will define this legislature and, in the end, determine what you can and cannot manufacture.
Lonnie Kane is president of Vernon, Calif.–based Karen Kane Inc. and chairman of the California Fashion Association.
