6 ms·

Because designers spend an entire year designing what they are going to sell as their line for the year and when they show it on the runway, Zara takes a photo

Because designers spend an entire year designing what they are going to sell as their line for the year and when they show it on the runway, Zara takes a photo and has it mass produced and sent to stores in two weeks. They do this consistently. It is dodgy.

rstupek 7y ago
The designer hasn't missed out on sales since it is unlikely to be bought at the prices they sell at. It's the same argument someone can make over downloading a movie instead of buying or paying for a streaming service, right?
LoSboccacc 7y ago
a luxury brand comes together with materials and manufacturing quality. if Zara or any other generic can compete on these, you never were a luxury brand to begin with. on the other hand Zara specific strategy of violating copyright deserves flack on its own. but it's unrelated with the problem at hand: a brand selling premium stuff at a quality point that's easily emulated is not premium, it's the equivalent of patent trolling in the digital world: they're trying to get a premium out of owning generic concepts like tote bags or high neck sweaters.
- chrismcb 7y ago
  What copyright is Zara violating? I'm not saying they aren't, I honestly don't know. If course clothes aren't copyrightable.
  - LoSboccacc 7y ago
    https://www.boredpanda.com/zara-stealing-designs-copying-independent-artists-tuesday-bassen/?media_id=zara-stealing-designs-copying-independent-artists-tuesday-bassen-9 https://www.boredpanda.com/zara-stealing-designs-copying-ind... as I said above, it's an unrelated issue with the clothes design issue itself.
cheonic728 7y ago
> Zara takes a photo and has it mass produced and sent to stores in two weeks. They do this consistently. Then perhaps Zara is the more strategically skilled company here? I think the phrase "git gud" applies here. In life, it's never been about who does the hard work. It's who gets credit that matters. This is politics 101.
xwdv 7y ago
It’s not dodgy, it’s capitalism. And thanks to this downward pricing pressure, we enjoy a lot of luxuries today at prices the masses can afford. If someone can make an Allbirds shoe for $5 that is basically 95% identical as the real thing then the consumer has won.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  This is an opinion, not a fact. It's not at all clear that design theft actually leads to better goods at lower prices. It is at least as valid and interpretation that design theft changes the coarse shape by parasitical copying of designer's work, without changing the quality.
  - xwdv 7y ago
    Being an opinion doesn’t make it untrue.
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      Being an opinion means you need to provide evidence if you expect rational folks to listen.
csallen 7y ago
Don't hate the player, hate the game. That's business. The fact that your designers worked hard is irrelevant. Capitalism is by its very nature competitive, and it's on you as a business owner to figure out a working model in a world with fast followers. It's a bit like complaining that someone blocked your shot in basketball. It's allowed, those are the rules, do better next time.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  Its funny because folks are arguing in this very same thread that we're also not allowed to hate the game, as they raise the hypothesis that capitalism makes "better goods cheaper". As in Basketball, there are things which are technically legal but will get your ass kicked if you keep doing them in a street game. Folks should be mad about design theft and they should do their best to buy goods that are quality and meet their requirements. The idea raised here and in other parts of a thread that shoveling cheap goods that superficially resemble high quality and well-designed goods is in fact good is very hard for me to process. We're supposed to have power as consumers. But then we're also subjected to constant misinformation by vendors, making that choice difficult. We should not be applauding those abusive vendors. They are abusing the players of the game.
  - csallen 7y ago
    You're shifting the goalposts. Presenting misinformation to consumers is generally illegal, and is also a completely separate concern from copying and building off of others' innovations. I haven't seen any comments here that support outright tricking unsuspecting customers into accidentally buying a cheap knockoff when they were looking for a higher-quality original. A common misconception creatives tend to have about business is that it's 100% about crafting a unique and/or valuable product or service. It's not. There are innovations and competitive advantages one can have in distribution, sales, branding, pricing, and many other areas. These can also drive business success, and it is not scummy or dodgy to put them to use. Some products are naturally defensible (e.g. the network effects of a social network) and some are protected by copyright and other laws (e.g. writing, photos, and logos, but not clothing or, in this case, shoe design), but the vast majority are wide open to competition, and it's your job as a business owner to either figure it out or avoid those industries. You aren't automatically entitled to overall business success just because you were the first to do X or you worked the hardest on it. Doesn't matter if it's wool shoes, v-neck shirts, autotune in your music, customer support chat widgets, a mobile operating system, or like buttons in your social app. Just because you're a designer who likes designing and works hard at it doesn't make design a defensible business strategy in your industry.
umvi 7y ago
Hopefully Oracle wins in their case against Google, then, that would set a precedent to stop interface copyright violations. In a sense, sunglasses could be considered an interface, and anyone who copies the same shape of the interface violates that copyright (even if the materials are slightly different).
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  That makes no sense. Glasses are not an “interface.” They are an accessory.
- cmcd 7y ago
  This is not how copyright works, depends on the exact application but material is typically not a determining factor.
colejohnson66 7y ago
I’m not going to argue the capitalism aspect as others already have, but there’s also things called copyright, patents, and trademarks. They can be used against people stealing your design.
baddox 7y ago
The obvious counterargument is that people like the designer clothing not because of the amount of effort spent designing it, but because of the designer brand itself.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  For what it's worth, I spend extra money on Ugmonk clothes not because I want you to go, "Wow, Ugmonk!" I do it because of the quality of the goods and design and because I want to support the designer. Originally I wore Allbirds because of this too. I don't know if I am normal nationally, but locally this is a big part of the culture around these more costly goods. It is in the same vein, I might add, as "buying American". Is this part of "brand?" Certainly. Does that divorce it from effort or quality? Certainly not.

rstupek 7y ago

The designer hasn't missed out on sales since it is unlikely to be bought at the prices they sell at. It's the same argument someone can make over downloading a movie instead of buying or paying for a streaming service, right?

LoSboccacc 7y ago

a luxury brand comes together with materials and manufacturing quality. if Zara or any other generic can compete on these, you never were a luxury brand to begin with. on the other hand Zara specific strategy of violating copyright deserves flack on its own. but it's unrelated with the problem at hand: a brand selling premium stuff at a quality point that's easily emulated is not premium, it's the equivalent of patent trolling in the digital world: they're trying to get a premium out of owning generic concepts like tote bags or high neck sweaters.

chrismcb 7y ago
What copyright is Zara violating? I'm not saying they aren't, I honestly don't know. If course clothes aren't copyrightable.
- LoSboccacc 7y ago
  https://www.boredpanda.com/zara-stealing-designs-copying-independent-artists-tuesday-bassen/?media_id=zara-stealing-designs-copying-independent-artists-tuesday-bassen-9 https://www.boredpanda.com/zara-stealing-designs-copying-ind... as I said above, it's an unrelated issue with the clothes design issue itself.

cheonic728 7y ago

> Zara takes a photo and has it mass produced and sent to stores in two weeks. They do this consistently. Then perhaps Zara is the more strategically skilled company here? I think the phrase "git gud" applies here. In life, it's never been about who does the hard work. It's who gets credit that matters. This is politics 101.

xwdv 7y ago

It’s not dodgy, it’s capitalism. And thanks to this downward pricing pressure, we enjoy a lot of luxuries today at prices the masses can afford. If someone can make an Allbirds shoe for $5 that is basically 95% identical as the real thing then the consumer has won.

KirinDave 7y ago
This is an opinion, not a fact. It's not at all clear that design theft actually leads to better goods at lower prices. It is at least as valid and interpretation that design theft changes the coarse shape by parasitical copying of designer's work, without changing the quality.
- xwdv 7y ago
  Being an opinion doesn’t make it untrue.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    Being an opinion means you need to provide evidence if you expect rational folks to listen.

csallen 7y ago

Don't hate the player, hate the game. That's business. The fact that your designers worked hard is irrelevant. Capitalism is by its very nature competitive, and it's on you as a business owner to figure out a working model in a world with fast followers. It's a bit like complaining that someone blocked your shot in basketball. It's allowed, those are the rules, do better next time.

KirinDave 7y ago
Its funny because folks are arguing in this very same thread that we're also not allowed to hate the game, as they raise the hypothesis that capitalism makes "better goods cheaper". As in Basketball, there are things which are technically legal but will get your ass kicked if you keep doing them in a street game. Folks should be mad about design theft and they should do their best to buy goods that are quality and meet their requirements. The idea raised here and in other parts of a thread that shoveling cheap goods that superficially resemble high quality and well-designed goods is in fact good is very hard for me to process. We're supposed to have power as consumers. But then we're also subjected to constant misinformation by vendors, making that choice difficult. We should not be applauding those abusive vendors. They are abusing the players of the game.
- csallen 7y ago
  You're shifting the goalposts. Presenting misinformation to consumers is generally illegal, and is also a completely separate concern from copying and building off of others' innovations. I haven't seen any comments here that support outright tricking unsuspecting customers into accidentally buying a cheap knockoff when they were looking for a higher-quality original. A common misconception creatives tend to have about business is that it's 100% about crafting a unique and/or valuable product or service. It's not. There are innovations and competitive advantages one can have in distribution, sales, branding, pricing, and many other areas. These can also drive business success, and it is not scummy or dodgy to put them to use. Some products are naturally defensible (e.g. the network effects of a social network) and some are protected by copyright and other laws (e.g. writing, photos, and logos, but not clothing or, in this case, shoe design), but the vast majority are wide open to competition, and it's your job as a business owner to either figure it out or avoid those industries. You aren't automatically entitled to overall business success just because you were the first to do X or you worked the hardest on it. Doesn't matter if it's wool shoes, v-neck shirts, autotune in your music, customer support chat widgets, a mobile operating system, or like buttons in your social app. Just because you're a designer who likes designing and works hard at it doesn't make design a defensible business strategy in your industry.

umvi 7y ago

Hopefully Oracle wins in their case against Google, then, that would set a precedent to stop interface copyright violations. In a sense, sunglasses could be considered an interface, and anyone who copies the same shape of the interface violates that copyright (even if the materials are slightly different).

colejohnson66 7y ago
That makes no sense. Glasses are not an “interface.” They are an accessory.
cmcd 7y ago
This is not how copyright works, depends on the exact application but material is typically not a determining factor.

colejohnson66 7y ago

I’m not going to argue the capitalism aspect as others already have, but there’s also things called copyright, patents, and trademarks. They can be used against people stealing your design.

baddox 7y ago

The obvious counterargument is that people like the designer clothing not because of the amount of effort spent designing it, but because of the designer brand itself.

KirinDave 7y ago
For what it's worth, I spend extra money on Ugmonk clothes not because I want you to go, "Wow, Ugmonk!" I do it because of the quality of the goods and design and because I want to support the designer. Originally I wore Allbirds because of this too. I don't know if I am normal nationally, but locally this is a big part of the culture around these more costly goods. It is in the same vein, I might add, as "buying American". Is this part of "brand?" Certainly. Does that divorce it from effort or quality? Certainly not.