A bill to extend copyright protection to clothing has been introduced in every congress since 2006 (109th Congress). We hope it never passes.
Not only does congress have more important things to be focusing on, but if this bill ever passes to become law it will be used by corporate apparel companies as a cudgel against independent designers.
If you are unfamiliar with how the law is used as a weapon to stifle small businesses, here is a short primer:
1. a large corporation sends a cease & desist to a small business; the cease & desist usually extremely overstates the corporation’s legal rights. In some cases, the asserted legal rights are outright fabrications or are asserted by a party that actually has no authority to be asserting the corporation’s alleged rights.
2. the small business, which operates on razor-thin margins, barely has the resources to investigate the legal claims and has neither the time nor the resources to engage in a legal battle with a big corporation.
3. in an effort to try to resolve the issues without litigation, the small business may agree to some sort of settlement with the big corporation.
4. the settlement agreement will be drafted by the big corporation and will include provisions that require the small business to give up far more of its legitimate legal rights than the big corporation could ever hope to win even if it engaged in extensive litigation and won a judgment against the small business.
In addition to being used as a weapon, a law extending copyright protection to fashion designs and clothing will also increase operating costs for independent designers because it will require copyright searches, new clauses in contracts, and chain of title paperwork for designs before a designer can “safely” bring their product to market.
Copyright is a temporary monopoly granted by the constitution to promote the progress of science and the arts. Clothing does not need copyright protection. The utilitarian aspects of “useful articles” (like clothing) are not eligible for copyright protection. Truly novel and non-obvious designs already have legal protection: design patents.
Surely there are many lawyers who anxiously await the passage of this bill. If the bill ever becomes law it will be an opportunity for law firms to divert resources that should be going into design, manufacturing, and employment to legal fees instead.
We couldn’t agree more with Kal Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman, professors of law and guest opinion contributors at the New York Times:
But the greater risk is that once it’s in the hands of lawyers and judges, such a law would expand in a way that harms many designers and consumers. Plaintiffs’ lawyers would make creative arguments, and judges would tend to interpret the bill’s language expansively. This has been the pattern in copyright for decades. Indeed, lawyers (and those designers who could afford them) would be among the biggest beneficiaries, as disputes would likely erupt into expensive, time-consuming lawsuits featuring designers squabbling over ownership of allegedly unique styles.
In any case, a legal mechanism already exists to protect a truly novel design: a patent. But instead of a specialized federal agency determining what is novel, Senator Schumer’s bill would require that the novelty be assessed by a judge, whose sole experience with fashion might consist of a semi-annual trip to a department store.
To make matters worse, the bill would allow plaintiffs to pursue the wealthiest manufacturers and sellers of fashion. Retailers, for example, could be held liable for any copies they sold. Unlike earlier proposals, Mr. Schumer’s bill contains no requirement that copyrighted designs be registered so that retailers and other designers are put on notice.
There’s no doubt that some designers suffer losses from copying. But Mr. Schumer’s bill is a cure that would be worse than the illness. With copyright protection fashion prices would rise, and the creative cycle would slow down.
CA prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional under both the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the US constitution.
“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.”
Here is a link to the copy of the decision:
It is a 138-page .pdf document (342kb) (<- right-click to download).
Heraty Law client Matthew Langille is interviewed in Vogue:
A nice roundup of 101 books that will hook kids on reading.
Preschool Primers
Read these books with a preschooler or young child to hook them on reading early on.
Young Readers
School age children will fall in love with these books.
Illustrated Classics
The beautiful pages of this book will keep kids engrossed.
Poems and Rhymes
Help kids develop a love of poetry early on with these great books.
Series
These series of books will keep kids reading books one after another.
Chapter Books
Older kids will get hooked on these books.
Young Adult
Kids in middle school and beyond will find these books hard to put down.
Unmissable Classics
Kids and adults alike will love these literary classics.
Fun and Funny
Silliness is one great way to get kids to love books. These books have it in spades.
Tearjerkers
These books will tug at heartstrings and are hard to forget.
Heraty Law client and web/politics editor for The Onion, Baratunde Thurston, talks about the future of news.