Company's taking costume ideas?

Actually, clothing design is, to the best of my knowlegde, not copyrightable. If you have a logo or print incorporated into the clothing, that is copyrightable, but the actual design of the clothing itself is not, because it's a useful object. Imagine if someone owned the copyright for "forks" and you had to pay them $100 for an artist fork or eat with your hands. It's the same basic thing with clothing, and as far as I'm aware that also includes clothing design in art, comics, animation, etc. It's the basis of the entire fashion industry, ideas originate with high-end designers and the same styles trickle down to price ranges that the majority of people can actually buy and wear.

As for giving credit, that may actually get them into more trouble than not crediting. If they want to use the name of the series, they'd have to have the rights for it. If they want to sell it as a "Dark Butler" outfit then the owners of the manga & anime rights can't pursue them. It's why, if you go to a dollar store, you'll find toys or costumes that are obviously meant to be knock-offs of popular shows and toys, but using generic names. If they use the show or toy brand's real name, logos, or artwork, they can get into legal trouble. If they use a generic name they're just a look-alike.

 

Its ridiculous to go on Witch Hunts over doll costumes. And based on manga of all things.

 

-LuvPetdolls- I'm sorry, but that was incredibly rude in every aspect. This post was simply due to happening to coming across something that sparked one's curiosity.

She has stated that she just wanting to know if it was "ok" in legal terms to copy these ideas so closely. Therefore, leading to posting said questions on this board to find out an answer. To say that it was a witch hunt is implying that she went looking for this, when in fact it was far from it. And the fact that it happens to be copied from a manga is no different than if it had been copied from any other book. The facts are still the same. They created outfits with incredibly close similarities to another author's work, without giving credit. Wanting to know whether this was right or not is surely a just reason for posting on this board.

 

I think the one with the skull and the pink dress from dollmore are carbon copies. The red boy-suit one I can see how it may not have been and just been a coincidence, and I don't really see the similarities in the green one besides the color and the fact that it's victorian-age clothing, which is a very popular style. But, definitely the other ones, they're TOO close and I can't deny it. I've seen the true colors of a lot of companies come through lately where people buy and buy from them that they've become almost spoiled brats and think they can do anything and get away with it, IMHO.

I believe cosplay is different, because its sold, bought, and worn as a representative of the actual character and aren't claiming at all to be your artistic design. People who make their cosplay with detail and sew it, not the ones who put theirs together(no offense, I'm totally one of these people XD), are showing off their craftsmanship. I don't believe cosplay has anything to do with this because people who sell cosplay make it to worn as a character(not their own) and people buy it to look like the character. I think cosplay is selling of craftsmanship because it's already common knowledge that it isn't their design and buyers are trying to find best quality for cheapest price. Not best design(except for detail, accesories, etc.)

If a company's ripping off ideas and selling it as their creativity, that's wrong. And, just because they make great dolls and sell lots of them(and are successful), does not make them above the copyright laws. They have their creativity, and if they run out of outfit ideas, stealing is wrong.

They're taking others' ideas for profit, and it's not right. I can't believe anybody would be okay with this. I'm not saying this happens all the time, but it could make me not want to buy from a company and give money to them so they can turn around and take someone else's creativity.

 

OliviaJ, Chanel bags (patent leather quilted bags with chain straps) are extremely popular at the moment, but the amount of people I see buying bags are not buying a extremely expensive bag from Chanel. They're buying close copies from New Look, River Island and Top Shop. The only thing Chanel can patent is their logo & each of the three companies I mentioned replace the Chanel logo with their own. The concept of a quilted patent leather bag may have originated with Chanel, but they can't do anything about other companies making lookalike bags and selling them for profit - my Dollfie Dream has an SD-sized Chanel-style bag from River Island for goodness sake. Fashion has always, always worked this way, and it won't change because no one can copyright a bag or a tee-shirt or jeans. They're too useful to have to pay royalties to one person or company forever. Missoni-style print bikinis & Julien Macdonald-style knitwear are all over the high street. The big fashion houses originate a trend and then the high street copies these trends into a more accessable form for ordinary joes and joettes to buy No one accuses Top Shop of copying, even though Kate Moss' collections are basically her going through her designer wardrobe and picking out items she likes and reproducing them for Top Shop!

The way I see it, both Luts and Kuroshitsuji have been influenced by male EGL/EGA fashion. The colour choices are accurate for the modern reinterpretation of Victorian clothes and so are the cuts and embellishments. There are only so many ways you can make a jacket and pose a doll wearing a jacket. As far as I understand it, the mangaka who drew Ciel's outfit doesn't have any rights to challenge Luts because Luts' work is transformative (if it is indeed a copy, I see similarities but none of the outfits are identical), taking a 2D image and making a 3D outfit from that image where none existed before. There would be legal cause to challenge Luts if the makers of Kuroshitsuji either made 3D outfits for BJD or licensed another BJD company to make outfits from the manga, but they haven't.

It doesn't seem fair, but the fashion world isn't fair. I will agree that the photo shoots to advertise the burgundy outfit look too close to be coincidental, however the outfit itself bares very few actual similarities to the Kuroshitsuji outfit. Would anyone really go up to an EGA on the street and tell him that he was wearing a rip-off of a Ciel Phantomhive costume? What is more likely is that the mangaka liked the style of dress and incorporated it into the manga.

For the record, I do believe in artistic integrity and I dislike copying, however in this case I believe the original idea for the outfit didn't originate with Kuroshitsuji. I've seen far too many men in bustle suits with top hats to believe the style is unique to any particular source - its practically public domain.

A final point I'd like to make is; if it bothers you (general you) to the point of boycotting a company, why not inform the copyright holder of the copy? Surely that is more valuable to the copyright holder than not knowing anything at all. They can mount a legal challenge if they want or they can choose to ignore it. Either way its much better to tell the people directly involved than flounce and boycott an internet store who will have many, many more customers waiting to buy from them.

 

Some of them are just down right NOT simular....I don't see how those are examples...but the first two, I see some thing going on.

 

At first I thought they were a complete rip off, but having looked more carefully, I agree with earlier posters that they just have a common influence. The third design looks like a straightforward hacking jacket, as seen in any tailors - it's not even double-breasted like the drawing. Pic two is more suspect as the eyelet design at both side waists is unusual and common to both. Gold piping with maroon fabric isn't particularly unusual. Pic one, the pose is stolen, the outfit completely different. Far more dodgy, to my mind, are the common pattern catalogues' rip-offs of movie outfits -Simplicity, Butterick and others have PLENTY of fancy dress patterns for the Matrix, LotR and Star Wars without giving ANY credit!

 

If they gave credit they would have to LICENSE the designs, which would cost huge amounts of money. Whereas they can have their designers make up a design that is very similar and not have to license anything.

 

Heh, I totally agree with this, especially the pattern comment - I can basically look through the Halloween section, and find the Star Wars page, the LotR page, the PotC page, the Harry Potter page... So blatant, and yet, so useful for cosplay. [/offtopic]

On the specific topic of doll clothes, I think it's part of the problem that pretty much EVERYTHING has been done before. Look at anime itself - it's full of repetitive character motifs. The debate on exactly which magical girl series is a ripoff of which other magical girl series is a scary, scary thing. And as in the case of the pink dress, it's possible to look at a common source, in this case perhaps My Fair Lady. There was one Volks DD shoot (showing off eyes, not clothes) where I was almost sure the dolls looked exactly like some anime character - but I realized that they were really more stylistically similar than an actual ripoff.

 

I don't remember what thread it was in, but this has been discussed before. Copyright laws are different else where, and even so, unless you have it cover all areas, you have no control if some one makes clothes off your drawings. Is it any different than asking someone to create it for you? How about all the costumes? And I don't know, but it would be interesting to know, was the Full Metal Alchemist doll by Blue Fairy given credit to the artist? (They did actually use the FMA name and all, I'm just asking if anyone knows, not accusing.)

 

OH SNAP @ the 1st 2 pics

 

It's not the cosplayers that should be having words with doll manufacturers making costumes that are clearly copies from known Animé characters without proper accreditation / financial recompense, but the makers of the Animé films themselves. If, say, Dollmore was to make a cute girl outfit with a Totoro hat, then I would hope that they get a license from Studio Gibli to do it legally.

Phil.

 

I agree. It's like saying Person A created the T-shirt so no one is allowed to make T-shirts.

 

This is a bit of a tricky matter, I'd have to say, as it always is when it comes to issues of copyright & / or intellectual property.
I too, as a Kuroshitsuji fan, have noted the number of companies selling BJD outfits of varying sizes that seem to take influence from the Manga & / or Anime series (especially Ciel's trademark blue outfit ... it's everywhere in various deviant forms).
In the end it comes down to the original creators... what does Yana Toboso, for example, feel about this?? Offence that such companies have produced these outfits without first consulting her / obtaining licence to do so or the quiet joy that such imitation can be the best form of flattery?
Then too it comes down to the fact that if so many of such outfits of blatant fandom are out there being sold, someone must be buying them...it's the buyer's choice in the end that drives the market.

 

It should be noted that these are all simi-historical clothing renditions, and there are only so many options. crud, even if you would be doing modern clothes, would it be fair to say that making a regular old t-shirt would be copying Calvin Kline. there are only so many colors, cuts, and accessory options when it comes to clothes. there is no such thing as complete originality in the clothing industry... for people or dolls. The choice of modeling in your first example is the only thing that is uncanny. everything else is FAR to different to be considered copying. Everything from the type of hat, sleeves, collar, trouser style and length and tailoring. they are plainly two different outfits completely. In your last example, well, that would be completely normal dress for young upper class boys in the past, even down to the choice of colors. You can't say they are copying an anime, just making a period piece.

As for Miss Tink, there is no way that that's not a coppy, and yes, it's not compleatly ethically sound.

 

Right when I first saw Tender Sha and Shall, I thought, oh dang, they copied Trinity Blood style clothing.... someone else had this feeling?

 

I'm pretty sure that, as with a lot of other media, as long as there's a 10% or greater difference, nothing can be done... I had a "Welcome to the Black Parade" inspired jacket I made a few years back that was my own design. I wore it to several MCR concerts and had many people take my picture. Not 6 months later, Hot Topic was selling almost a carbon copy of MY jacket. The only real difference was theirs had pockets. Could I sue or at least get credit? No, because not only was my own work inspired by the work of another, but they had changed my design by adding pockets, therefore making it their own.

Pretty much everything is inspired by something else... Even if it's a direct copy, international laws aren't really clear on this and I doubt they would be at all concerned with prosecution because they have much bigger fish to fry.

I guess I could put it this way - If I made, say, a replica of a character outfit from a well-known Anime series and didn't say "This is from X series" when I sold it, I think most people wouldn't care much about it and even the original designer probably wouldn't care much. Then again, I'm not a company.

 

Hehehe... I thought Trinity Blood meets D-Grayman :P