4 ms·

How Twitter and a community put a smackdown on Urban Outfitters

58 points by monirz77 15y ago

fingerprinter 15y ago
I don't mean to steal the thunder from the poster, but I highly doubt it matters. At all. Just like the indignation with Apple over the closed iPhone, or the terms of service or a host of other things didn't really matter. Or all the flack given to MS (bing stealing search results), or Oracle (mishandling the community, Patent trolling) or Google (not releasing source code, ripping off open source) or IBM (offshoring nearly their entire workforce), non of it really seems to matter. Everyone loves these stories, the little guy calling out the big guy and showing them what's what. But does it change anything? Does it impact the bottom line of that company? I can't think of a single time that it did, either immediately or over time. Don't get me wrong, I would like it to matter, but in an age of millions of users, billions of dollars, 100s or even 1000s of people being aware of something and starting grassroots campaigns will result in a speedbump at best or a blip at worst for these mega corporations. Think of facebook and the guff they got about their TOS, twitter and their killing off of competing apps. Non of it mattered; people moved on continued to use those services because it was easy, because it was what they knew and because, in the end, people will default to cheap, cool and easy. Just the reality of the situation, IMO.
- coryl 15y ago
  Doesn't it matter to the artist? - Urban Outfitters apparently pulled their jewelry from stores - indie artist gets ton of free press and national attention cost = nothing. benefit = something.
- rmc 15y ago
  But does it change anything? In this case, Yes. The company pulled the infringing piece of jewlery.
  - fingerprinter 15y ago
    I would call that a soft win. Urban Outfitters is still in business, still printing money, still going to infringe in the future and people will forget their transgression in a matter of days. Great, they pulled the particular piece because they got enough negative attention. How many other things on their shelves are infringing that we don't hear about? The point remains that an even if this one case was "won", it won't change anything. Companies have, do and will continue to run over people because the vast majority of people simply do not care.
    - RexRollman 15y ago
      The effort changed what needed to be changed. I really don't know what you would consider a "win" but it was a win for the effected artist.
- DevX101 15y ago
  If an incident like this occurs two more times this year, the company could be in real trouble. Their target customers are on Twitter/Facebook and will probably hear about this fiasco.
- chopsueyar 15y ago
  http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=URBN+Interactive#chart1:symbol=urbn;range=5d;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=URBN+Interactive#chart1:s... It did not seem to affect their stock price.
  - RexRollman 15y ago
    Since the goal wasn't to effect their stock price that really doesn't matter.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- michaelhalligan 15y ago
  Yes, it hurts Urban Outfitters' case in court if the artist sues them for copyright infringement, and I really hope she does.
lurker19 15y ago
Ironic domain name "MyAimIsTrue", considering how off-base the accusation was: http://www.regretsy.com/2011/05/27/urban-outrage/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/05/27/urban-outrage/
adjwilli 15y ago
Maybe it will make the artist feel better knowing that in Uruguay there are fake Urban Outfitter stores in the malls.
araneae 15y ago
The irony is that it's not clear that the Etsy person that was "ripped off" didn't rip off the designs herself: http://www.regretsy.com/2011/05/27/urban-outrage/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/05/27/urban-outrage/
- lardvark 15y ago
  Exactly.
- joejohnson 15y ago
  Of course, all art is derivative in nature. This artist is hypocritical to claim that her idea is entirely unique.
  - woodall 15y ago
    I've built a lot of things I thought were "unique" only to find, after I'm done, that they were not.
zalew 15y ago
Fashion houses should somehow revise their chain of implementing creative work. I don't know how it is in UO, but afaik from other news from last years, where apparel companies sold copied flickr/blog/digart/etc creation, they don't do such stuff in-house, they buy it from outside (some sort of providers, companies or freelancers, don't know). I think it's a common practice for cheap modern apparell - well, creation and production must be cheap. Sometimes bought derivatives happen to be ripoffs, f.ex. look at this example (it's in Polish, but just look at the images on the left) http://wyborcza.biz/biznes/1,101562,8016144,Amerykanka_oskarza_Reserved_o_kradziez_zdjecia.html http://wyborcza.biz/biznes/1,101562,8016144,Amerykanka_oskar... Just look at those cases http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?cat=5 http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?cat=5 The case above is just one of dozens that are brought to daylight and probably hundreds that don't. Of course the brand has to take full responsibility, there's no doubt, so they made a good decision pulling back the jewelry. On the other hand, fashion is an industry without copyrights http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio... , so I wouldn't bash them from a moral POV.
GeoffWozniak 15y ago
> "A big corporation ripping off small businesses and independent artists is wrong." That's pretty specific. Why not "Ripping off is wrong"? I wonder the same thing when I hear "Violence against women is wrong". I tend to think "Violence is wrong".

58 points by monirz77 15y ago

I don't mean to steal the thunder from the poster, but I highly doubt it matters. At all. Just like the indignation with Apple over the closed iPhone, or the terms of service or a host of other things didn't really matter. Or all the flack given to MS (bing stealing search results), or Oracle (mishandling the community, Patent trolling) or Google (not releasing source code, ripping off open source) or IBM (offshoring nearly their entire workforce), non of it really seems to matter. Everyone loves these stories, the little guy calling out the big guy and showing them what's what. But does it change anything? Does it impact the bottom line of that company? I can't think of a single time that it did, either immediately or over time. Don't get me wrong, I would like it to matter, but in an age of millions of users, billions of dollars, 100s or even 1000s of people being aware of something and starting grassroots campaigns will result in a speedbump at best or a blip at worst for these mega corporations. Think of facebook and the guff they got about their TOS, twitter and their killing off of competing apps. Non of it mattered; people moved on continued to use those services because it was easy, because it was what they knew and because, in the end, people will default to cheap, cool and easy. Just the reality of the situation, IMO.

coryl 15y ago
Doesn't it matter to the artist? - Urban Outfitters apparently pulled their jewelry from stores - indie artist gets ton of free press and national attention cost = nothing. benefit = something.
rmc 15y ago
But does it change anything? In this case, Yes. The company pulled the infringing piece of jewlery.
- fingerprinter 15y ago
  I would call that a soft win. Urban Outfitters is still in business, still printing money, still going to infringe in the future and people will forget their transgression in a matter of days. Great, they pulled the particular piece because they got enough negative attention. How many other things on their shelves are infringing that we don't hear about? The point remains that an even if this one case was "won", it won't change anything. Companies have, do and will continue to run over people because the vast majority of people simply do not care.
  - RexRollman 15y ago
    The effort changed what needed to be changed. I really don't know what you would consider a "win" but it was a win for the effected artist.
DevX101 15y ago
If an incident like this occurs two more times this year, the company could be in real trouble. Their target customers are on Twitter/Facebook and will probably hear about this fiasco.
chopsueyar 15y ago
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=URBN+Interactive#chart1:symbol=urbn;range=5d;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=URBN+Interactive#chart1:s... It did not seem to affect their stock price.
- RexRollman 15y ago
  Since the goal wasn't to effect their stock price that really doesn't matter.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
michaelhalligan 15y ago
Yes, it hurts Urban Outfitters' case in court if the artist sues them for copyright infringement, and I really hope she does.

lurker19 15y ago

Ironic domain name "MyAimIsTrue", considering how off-base the accusation was: http://www.regretsy.com/2011/05/27/urban-outrage/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/05/27/urban-outrage/

adjwilli 15y ago

Maybe it will make the artist feel better knowing that in Uruguay there are fake Urban Outfitter stores in the malls.

araneae 15y ago

The irony is that it's not clear that the Etsy person that was "ripped off" didn't rip off the designs herself: http://www.regretsy.com/2011/05/27/urban-outrage/ http://www.regretsy.com/2011/05/27/urban-outrage/

lardvark 15y ago
Exactly.
joejohnson 15y ago
Of course, all art is derivative in nature. This artist is hypocritical to claim that her idea is entirely unique.
- woodall 15y ago
  I've built a lot of things I thought were "unique" only to find, after I'm done, that they were not.

zalew 15y ago

Fashion houses should somehow revise their chain of implementing creative work. I don't know how it is in UO, but afaik from other news from last years, where apparel companies sold copied flickr/blog/digart/etc creation, they don't do such stuff in-house, they buy it from outside (some sort of providers, companies or freelancers, don't know). I think it's a common practice for cheap modern apparell - well, creation and production must be cheap. Sometimes bought derivatives happen to be ripoffs, f.ex. look at this example (it's in Polish, but just look at the images on the left) http://wyborcza.biz/biznes/1,101562,8016144,Amerykanka_oskarza_Reserved_o_kradziez_zdjecia.html http://wyborcza.biz/biznes/1,101562,8016144,Amerykanka_oskar... Just look at those cases http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?cat=5 http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?cat=5 The case above is just one of dozens that are brought to daylight and probably hundreds that don't. Of course the brand has to take full responsibility, there's no doubt, so they made a good decision pulling back the jewelry. On the other hand, fashion is an industry without copyrights http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio... , so I wouldn't bash them from a moral POV.

GeoffWozniak 15y ago

> "A big corporation ripping off small businesses and independent artists is wrong." That's pretty specific. Why not "Ripping off is wrong"? I wonder the same thing when I hear "Violence against women is wrong". I tend to think "Violence is wrong".