Archive for copyright
Ever since I started doing research on fashion design and copyright, I’ve been tracking the progress of 3D printing technology. The disruptive possibilities of this technology are abundantly clear in the fashion sector, and so I was thrilled to receive an invitation to attend fractal, a very unique conference in Medellin Colombia, where a diverse group of experts was asked to facilitate conversations about 3D printing, synthetic biology and other bleeding edge topics.
Hoping to shake-up the typical conference format, the instigators behind fractal – the intrepid Viviana Trujillo and Hernan Ortiz – decided to invite the audience to use “design fiction” to spin stories of the future that would reveal the key social, cultural, political and ethical quandaries that accompany the adoption of new technologies. The facilitators were a fascinating group: Reshma Shetty , an MIT-trained synthetic biologist; acclaimed artist and director Keiichi Matsuda, whose augmented reality installations have been featured at MOMA and the V&A, and Paul Graham Raven, a speculative fiction practitioner who uses narrative to solve engineering problems in the UK.
In addition to telling stories about how homes might be made out of living things and how augmented reality applications will fundamentally change the contours of our self-presentation to the world, we tackled the topic of 3D printing. Read the rest of this entry »
Yesterday, I joined “Project Runway” finalist Korto Momolu on an episode of “The Stream,” an innovative multimedia show on al Jazeera English. The topic? Cultural appropriation. Turns out that Momolu has gotten a lot of heat for incorporating African designs and textiles into her work . . . despite the fact that she’s from Liberia. I was part of the mix in order to clarify some of the ownership rules around cultural remix practices in fashion.
When I talk about copyright and fashion outside of the United States, I often get questions about the dangers of cultural appropriation. Shouldn’t it be illegal for Western fashion designers to steal traditional designs from Native American tribes or to appropriate design features from traditional Ethiopian garb?
My research on fashion and intellectual property has focused on the benefits – both to consumers and to the fashion business – of the lack of ownership of designs. Fashion is actually one of several industries that treat their creative output as a commons – shared resources that can be freely reused, recreated and recombined.
This is often music to the ears of free culture activists, libertarians and lots of people in the digital media industries, who have seen first-hand how difficult (and often counter-productive) it is to enforce copyright protections on creative work that can be copied perfectly with one click.
But for people who are concerned about cultural imperialism, this “free culture” sounds like just another opportunity to take advantage of the little guy. Read the rest of this entry »
The May issue of Vanity Fair features a great article about the “War for the Internet,” or, more precisely, the battles over Internet privacy, piracy and security. I found myself in alignment with the group of guys that VF calls the “forces of Organized Chaos,” including Vint Cerf, Jeff Moss, Joshua Corman and Dan Kaminsky. The article’s filled with quotable gems (e.g., “Anonymous is more like a brand or a franchise,”) but here’s a nice sum-up of the “Organized Chaos” vision for the future of the Internet:
…the forces of Organized Chaos, by and large, think that the Internet should be allowed to evolve on its own, the way human societies always have. The forces of Organized Chaos have a pretty good sense of how it will evolve, at least in the short term. The Internet will stratify, as cities did long ago. There will be the mass Internet we already know—a teeming bazaar of artists and merchants and thinkers as well as pickpockets and hucksters and whores. It is a place anyone can enter, anonymously or not, and for free. Travel at your own risk! But anyone who wishes can decide to leave this bazaar for the security of the bank or the government office—or, if you have enough money, the limousine, the Sky Club, the platinum concierge. You will always have to give something up. If you want utter and absolute privacy, you will have to pay for it—or know the right people, who will give you access to their hidden darknets. For some services, you may decide to trade your privacy and anonymity for security. Depending on circumstance and desire, people will range among these worlds.
In this context, structuring the Internet around authentication systems that make it impossible for anyone to remain anonymous seems as foolhardy as insisting upon only non-commercial usage of the Web (and, yes, I’ve heard serious people seriously suggest this.) Finding the right balance between order and chaos on the Web is the era-defining challenge we face right now.
Created by: Paralegal.net
Big thanks to Peter Kim for alerting me to this great new infographic about Hollywood’s convoluted history with piracy and its battle to embrace and defang new technologies.
I am delighted to have been invited to participate in a symposium about fashion and intellectual property law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School March 20. They’ve put together an excellent line-up, and I’m looking forward to discussing the many problems that I see with pending legislation that may grant copyright protection to fashion designs. (You can see some of my thoughts about this here, here, and here.)
If anyone affiliated with the symposium was wondering how the major fashion labels might enforce the new and unprecedented protections that the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act (ID3PA) would grant them, Louis Vuitton gave them their answer on Wednesday. In a condescending cease and desist letter, Michael Pantalony chastised Penn for misappropriating and modifying their trademarks in a promotional poster for the student-run event. Calling it an “egregious action” and a “serious willful infringement” that “knowingly dilutes the LV Trademarks,” Pantalony went on to say that the use would
mislead others into thinking that this type of unlawful activity is somehow ‘legal’ or constitutes ‘fair use’ because the Penn Intellectual property Group is sponsoring a seminar on fashion law and ‘must be experts.’
It doesn’t surprise me at all that an Associate Dean for Communications at the Law School quickly responded to the letter saying they would immediately stop using the posters and invitations: bullying cease and desist letters like this often work that way. When the General Counsel of the University of Pennsylvania, Robert Firestone, saw the letter, he had a very different response, citing several reasons why Pantalony’s claims were absurd.
Trademark protection is meant to protect consumers and companies like Louis Vuitton from imitators who hope to convince potential customers that their products were actually made by the famous brand. Quality control and brand reputation is crucial in the fashion industry and trademark protections are a perfectly logical way to protect customers from fraud and to give companies the tools they need to protect their valuable reputations. Firestone rightly argues that putting a parody of the Louis Vuitton logo on a poster for a student run event about issues surrounding intellectual property protection in the fashion industry would not constitute trademark infringement: obviously, the students are not selling a product of any kind that could be confused with a Louis Vuitton product. Harm done? None. And Pantalony’s additional claim, that people would be mislead into believing that Vuitton is a sponsor of the conference, was also dismissed by Firestone since all the conference sponsors logos are prominently listed on the poster (you can see the full poster here).
Thankfully, in this instance, the students had knowledgeable legal counsel to protect them. But, as you can imagine, that is not always the case. Just imagine the type of bullying that can take place if ID3PA passes: companies with deep pockets will have the ability to scare off lesser-known designers from creating any designs that seem substantially similar to theirs. Introducing design monopolies into the fashion business is a huge mistake that I hope our federal House Representatives will be canny enough to avoid.