Adventures in Copyright Infringement, Part 11

Apr 25, 2007 @ 9:30am

To the left is a limited edition print by Lola Faturoti, who sells her clothes at Fred Segal.

Lola based her dress on a tribal design but modified the colors for a Western audience, and ended up with something quite cool.

In fact, it was so cool that Red Sugar seems to have totally ripped her off.

Check out these chunky wedges from Urban Outfitters, featuring the exact same print, and now discuss:

Is there a difference between copying a million dollar brand, and stealing prints from an emerging designer? And should Lola's designs be protected by law? Right now, they're not...

posted by Cesca

Apr 25, 2007 9:52AM

Not cool at all... but then, did she in a way steal the design from an african seamstress????

discuss!

posted by Betty

Apr 25, 2007 9:58AM

Actually, some fabric designs can be copyrighted, so Lola's patterns may be protected by law.

That's how Diane von Furstenberg has gone after Forever 21--not for line-by-line copying, but for using DVF fabric designs without permission.

posted by COACD

Apr 25, 2007 10:00AM

Honey. Lolas been aroud for ages. Like 10 years.

posted by COACD

Apr 25, 2007 10:01AM

Honey. Lolas been aroud for ages. Like 10 years.

posted by Faran

Apr 25, 2007 10:03AM

I still think she counts as an emerging designer... unfortunately a lot of independent labels take 15 + years to kickstart!

posted by guest

Apr 25, 2007 11:07AM

If I could prefer to buy the original designers creations I def would, BUT some of us are poor entry level salary fashionistas who still love beautiful designs. I think it's a compliment to a designer to have their brand mass produced. If never looks QUITE as good as the original but makes it more accessible.

posted by ...

Apr 25, 2007 11:12AM

In some of these cases, the prints may not be being ripped off at all -- many designers don't design their own prints -- they buy them for the season from a print house. That means that the next season, it's totally up for grabs to anyone willing to pay for it. In cases like the one above, the color way may be proprietary, but the print itself is not.

posted by COACD

Apr 25, 2007 1:26PM

that is so seamless of you. anyway i remember going to her show w jack and laz when freshman. Is she still dating coleman?

posted by i dont just like you. i like you, like you

Apr 25, 2007 4:42PM

i agree with Cesca, the pattern was inspired by a "tribal" (i hate that word used to refer to african prints) print. so who is ripping off who?

food for thought.

also, those shoes are hideous. designer print and all.

posted by persimmone

Apr 25, 2007 5:36PM

Her design looks like typical West African fare, with the only difference being color and the meshing on top, so I wonder if makes sense to defend it as 'original' in the way you're implying. Just because Westerners aren't familiar with it doesn't mean if hasn't existed for some time. In fact I would say that the design is dated. Reminds me of my mom's stuff from the 70s.

posted by persimmone

Apr 25, 2007 5:41PM

Also, I'm with the previous poster on the questionable use of the term 'tribal' to refer to african prints, especially if the design can't be linked to a specific origin (more specific than saying African or West African).

posted by christine

Apr 26, 2007 5:47PM

Urban Outfitters has a long and well-documented history of blatantly stealing the work of small and indie clothing designers.

One of the most notable examples, at least locally, was the t-shirt design they stole from Boston-based Johnny Cupcakes. This was compounded by the fact that they first approached him, asking for samples, under the guise of considering his designs for sale at their stores.

In fact, there's even an entire blog about their shady fakes: http://urbncounterfeiters.blogspot.com/