Copying company outfits

Yea I understand what you are saying but if 100 people copied an outfit and made it for themselves, that is 100 less sales if a company decided to rerelease the clothes. Companies do limited designs for a reason. To keep them special and unique. How would you feel if you spent the money on a limited outfit for your doll, knowing they only made like 50 of those outfits and then you see 100 other people with the same or similar outfit?

With most people here thinking it is okay to copy if it is a limited or discontinued outfit, would they also think it is okay to recast or to pay someone else to recast a bjd doll that was limited and no longer made? To me it is the same thing. People can't think one is okay but not the other. That is part of the reason doll clothes and clothing in general is becoming more and more expensive, because you have to make as much money as you can while you can, because give it a month and someone else will be making and selling things very similar.

 

No limited vs non limited doesn't make a difference.

And as for why not, how can it be okay to copy one thing, but not another? If you are against recasts and copying an artists work, then you should also be against copying an outfit because you would be copying another artists work. It is the same thing.

 

Someone in this thread pointed out that when one copies an outfit the 'copy' is never exact - if one is a good seamstress & experienced costumer one adds their own unique touches to it. This is true whether its a designer outfit or a cosplay.
I personally refuse to pay outlandish prices (this pointed mainly at human fashions) for things I can make myself. & I CAN make them - whether others can or not. So of course I will make my own doll clothes. I will use patterns and alter them to suit myself & the doll - I will copy what I like on fashion sites (doll or otherwise). Most people can't do what I can.
Slavishly mimicking an outfit seems to me to be limited to those into cosplay - it is what it is. I personally find that boring. My cosplays always have that personal touch.
BTW its the big companies copying designers that might hurt the couture business but I'm thinking not so much. With the doll outfits possibly more since they are small operations.

 

How do I not offer much insight? If you read my previous post I offer much more insight than most others posting here. I just didn't think I needed to re-explain my stance and feelings on the issue when it is clearly laid out like 3 posts before.

And many artists get inspired by other artists to get their foot in the door. I don't know any artist that made it big by copying the works of Van Gogh or Monet do you? In the art scene someone copying another artist is called a forger and no one likes art that is a forgery.

Yes there are bands that do covers of other people's songs, but do you know why that is okay? Because you have to buy the rights to the song in order to cover it, there for the original artist still gets money for what they created!

And what does cosplay have to do with this discussion? I'm really confused by this. There is nothing wrong with cosplaying and still dont understand why you think that i would think partaking in cosplay is the same as recasts... Cosplay doesn't involve copying specific outfits that are available to buy. Cosplay is about creating character outfits based on what you can find and is available to you. The outfits aren't available in stores. Also for instance if you are cosplaying as Cas from supernatural, you aren't going to sew a trench coat, a button up collared white shirt, etc, you are going to buy them because white dress shirts are readily available, but if you are cosplaying as a more of a sci-fi character ofcourse you will make your own because it isn't like you can find a metal corset or whatever you need premade for you. You aren't taking money away from a designer by doing that.

The only reason I brought up recasts is because it is the most similar to copying limited and unavailable clothing. Recasts are bad because the cost the companies and artists money and make the dolls not as unique. That is the same exact thing copying outfits does too. I still don't understand the point you were making by comparing recasts to cosplay? Pretty sure that is becoming off topic.

Why am I so passionate about this? Because this is my job. I worked in the fashion industry I have seen the consequences of copying garments first hand and it is the same for doll clothing from the companies. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but as an artist and designer this is an issue I am extremely passionate about.

 

This is turning out to be quite an interesting conversation!

About legality.. ^u^; My own reaction is usually to harden my stance. My principles aren't dictated by law, which is a fallible and often abused system created by men. Law is what allows rapists and child molesters to walk after a few years in Canada, amongst other things in many countries, seriously off-topic , but there you have it as an example; I don't think such things could be so easily forgiven. Thus, law has little to do with how I choose my principles. If laws agree with my principles, then I'll support it, if it doesn't then I won't. It doesn't hold much sway with me personally.

On unavailable outfits...My stance remains the same. I'll explain it as such; just because I WANT something that is no longer available to me, does not excuse forging/copying/what have you. My personal desires are ephemeral and usually meaningless when it comes to obtainment of material goods. You could say that I am aware it is a tiny thing and there are more important things in life, more important moments in my life. I'll eventually forget about it, or I'll pine for a while and the feelings will go away as I'm swept up by other things in life. I love my dolls, but if it ever came to a situation where I had to sell them to preserve myself or something more important than a material good, I wouldn't hesitate. If I REALLY WANT something, I will find it, I will buy it. Doesn't matter how long it takes or what the price is, I'm capable and determined, so I'll find a way to achieve my goals within my principles. Or I will ask the artist if they would make an exception and remake it for me. If the answer is no, then it is no, I forget about, and move on with my life. Asking the artist to remake something has worked in many cases for me, where what I wanted was not a clear/public option. Might have to pay a bit more, but I'd rather work hard and save than copy ^^

I won't risk my own principles over a silly thing that is material. Some materials may be sentimental and have great value, but it would cause no great loss of life, no unfathomable stress to me, to lose it. I've been robbed before, and while people can take away material things, they cannot take your memory, your feelings, or the time you spent with your doll, for instance. Rounding this all back on topic, I guess I've just never thought of myself as so important that I "deserve" to have the outfit, no matter what. :V

I disagree that imitation is the highest form of flattery. That is an oft-quoted, ill-abused phrase, in my opinion. RESPECT is the highest form of flattery, to me. Just as I would wish others to respect me, I should also respect others. Earnestness if nothing if learning is ill-applied. I do not believe a person learns art by copying, I believe they learn by simply DOING. Copying is a practice of non-creativity. There is no art in that, I'm sorry to say. Every time someone copies, they practice shunting an opportunity to be creative, they practice not applying themselves fully. I did not learn to draw by copying other artists, I learned to draw by applying my mind to study anatomy, light, etc... I did not learn to paint by copying a painter, I simply dipped my brush and went at it.

I pay my respects to greater artists by acknowledging their skill, thanking them if they share knowledge with me, and working hard to meet their level, not by taking their creative efforts and claiming them as my own [crediting or not].

^^ This is turning out to be quite a long ramble, but such an interesting topic.

 

I figured this part of my original post made it clear why copying any clothing design that is for sale or once was for sale is wrong and bad:

And as for the cosplay, you are not making clothes that are available for sale on the mass market. You aren't taking money from the designer by making your own, because there is no designer that designed those clothes for mass market. We are getting into a completely different territory. Because if you make costumes from tv shows or movies, and then sell them even to a friend, you are getting into licensing issues, which are covered by law.

And speaking out about something that affected my job and my creativity makes me sound like a cynic. I don't think any artist or designer wants someone completely copying what they create and I don't think that view is cynical. And it does hard to a company because even if one or 1000 people copying that outfit, that is 1 or 1000 less sales they will have if they decide to rerelease it.

There is a difference between being inspired by a design and outright copying a design. Taking elements from one design to create your own design is fine. What I have been talking about is outright copying someone's design.

You keep asking me questions but never answering the ones I pose. Why do you feel it is okay to copy an outfit but not recast a doll you can find anymore? How do you feel they are different? And bringing cosplay into it is completely different and doesn't question the argument about copying things that were designed and created on the mass market.

 

This is indeed a very interesting topic!

Laelen, and CrippledCuriousity, I must acquiesce to your wisdom here and admit to agreeing wholeheartedly with your points of view. Just because something isn't strictly against the law does not in any degree remove it from being deemed morally unacceptable. I think we can all agree that laws don't always protect the people or things that need them most. It's very important, in my estimation, to conduct oneself with as much integrity as possible. If something feels unethical then no matter what anyone else is saying about it, I will most likely stay firmly on the side of what feels right. In this case, what feels right is taking the opportunity to be creative and design something, instead of finding ways to mince around what is essentially knocking off a product.

I can't help but feel like sometimes in this hobby we get so caught up with having what we want when we want it that we try and fetter the rest of the details away with contrite and mostly unrelated debates on the ethics of unrelated topics. :\

 

So buying and making your own patterns is okay, but copying someone else is not okay.

: ( does this mean I am not allowed to make my own patterns for skirts and shirts that I like, simply because someone else made one first? Many "limited" clothing items that I have seen are fairly generic! Lolita dresses with lace trimming, or Victorian gowns, or corsets, are all fairly common limited outfits I have seen. Also school girl outfits. If you say someone can't recreate an existing limited outfit because that would be copying... there are probably a lot of almost identical copies of some limited things out there because they are such a simple design. Are these people who wanted to make a fancy lolita dress on their own without knowing about the fancy lolita dress limited copiers? And how is that different from people who set out to copy that specific dress, when all three dresses end up looking similar?

In fact saying that one should not copy existing doll company clothes means that anyone who wants simple pants or a skirt or a shirt and has the ability to make one should not because they can be bought.

Volks makes anime cosplay dolls. By default, anyone who wants to dress their doll up as one of these anime characters is "copying" a Volks limited because Volks did it first.

Racast doll parts are different because to make a recast doll, someone actually has to take the physical doll, make a mold, and use that mold to make copies. Recasts can't be made by going "I like that skirt! I'm going to make something similar, in a fabric I like better than the fabric that skirt is made of!"

 

Totally leaving my opinion out of this, I just want to point out that there is a world of difference between sitting down and making a pair of jeans that happens to end up similar to say these...



And sitting down with the intention to replicate say, this...



I think we can all agree that 12 different people creating a basic t-shirt is probably going to breed at least a couple duplicates in colour or fabric choice or structure. Hell, maybe even a combination of those things. When creating a fashion basic there is really only so many things you can do before it stops being a basic. So some duplication is inevitable and expected. It is not the same as sitting down with the intention of replicating a more detailed limited outfit created and offered by a company: which is what is the topic at hand.

 

The contrast on my phone is not so good, but if you remove the frilly collar, it looks like that dress also boils down to "strapless dress that has buttons on the front."

I would never want a strapless dress that has buttons on the front, but I could see where other people would want and make one. The neckline is one of two necklines I have seen used for strapless dresses very often. The waist looks to have some fancy details but those seem like something that a lot of people would add "to make it fancier than the generic pattern"... just like the buttons.

 

So it is okay to do a recast of a head if you are sculpting the head by looking at photos of a head sculpt and making the details the same? So it is okay to copy as long as you don't have the thing you are copying in your physical presence?

Okay, you are obviously missing the point of everything that has been said. Making things from patterns is fine because that is what they are created for! Patterns are made for you to create your own and sew your own items. Outfits from designers and companies are made to be worn and copying them exactly is like copying any other artists work exactly. I don't understand how you don't see a difference between using patterns and copying an existing outfit exactly. I feel like I am repeating myself and do not know why specifically you are arguing with my experiences and not taking issue with any one else that has the same viewpoint.

You can make regular pants, tshirts, etc with any pattern that is out there, but we are talking about copying a specific outfits, with specific looks. Like I said in last post I am talking about copying outfits completely and exactly is wrong. There is nothing wrong with taking elements of a design and combining them with other elements to come up with something on your own.

Making a simple shirt or pants is not copying because you can find those patterns anywhere. Now doing a specific cut to the pants and specific stitches and seams so they look identical to a pair you saw by a company, that is copying and wrong.

I don't know how else to explain this and my position to you, but you aren't understanding. You saying that according to my definition someone can't make a simple pair of pants because a company made it, is like saying a piece of art is a forgery just because it has paint on canvas.

This topic is about copying a specific outfit completely, not about creating an outfit similar to an outfit you see and like. And i have explained why it is wrong multiple times and multiple ways, not sure what you arent understanding or why trying to convince me otherwise, but you are picking at slight things i have said and ignoring other explanations. You are moving this off topic of the original post.

Thanks for posting this. I hope people see that this is an example of what I am trying to explain.

 

I'm moderately confused about why this topic isn't located in the Debate forum...but oh well!

Its interesting that I found this thread, because I've been debating the new outfit, specifically the hat, that comes with the new Vampire luts doll. http://www.eluts.com/shop/step1.php?number=7263 I flippin love that hat! But its becoming really obvious that I'll pretty much never get to own it, because I don't like that doll, and it doesn't look like existing splits involving these limiteds are going very well. The hat reminds me of the hat worn by Maleficent in Disney's Sleeping Beauty. I have considered attempting to replicate the design, or even trying to commission someone to make the hat specifically for me. Its such a fun hat!

Anyway, I guess what it boils down to for me is: I'm not making it for profit, and I've already decided I'm not buying that full doll just for the dang hat, so I don't see a problem with seeking an alternative method - making it myself - to acquire it.
I contrast this to Blue Fairy Patricia from Who Stole the Tarts? While I didn't get this opportunity when she was released, if I saw her for sale TODAY I would buy the full set and sell the doll, because I don't care for white skin but I love everything else about the full set.

 

Except when the specific outfits are generic prom dresses with slight alterations, it's hard not to copy the specific outfit if you want something that looks like a generic prom dress... with a few alterations

My point is that with recasts, you can tell if something is a recast because it copies everything including flaws. With clothing, since so many things are variations on simple concepts, it is very hard to tell the difference between something that was an attempt to copy exactly that has a few differences, and an attempt to make something similar, not knowing the original exists, that turned out identical. Everything has been done before, and the only difference is the use of new materials

 

And that is why there are patterns for you to use for those generic items!

 

And when you tweak the pattern slightly and get the same thing as a designer thing that made thr slight tweak, how can you be at fault? I am fairly sure that if you hold a contest, and tell people to make a strapless dress with a lace collar as an accessory, at least one entry will be extremely similar to the example limited dress that was posted! And again, Volks makes anime character dolls. Does someone who wants their doll to cosplay as one of those anime characters copy Volks when they make an identical outfit because that is what the character wears?

 

I thought maybe a clear example of a basic clothing item and a slightly more detailed dress created as part of a limited set might help some people understand the actual point of this thread and illustrate the difference between something that's pretty standard and can't really be considered replicating, vs. something you would more likely be intending to replicate. Obviously it sort of back-fired on me though given people's propensity to make arguments that aren't the point and attempt to insult and talk down the examples used like it will make their argument any more relevant to the debate. I didn't realize that the ability to realize that almost any garment's structure can be broken down into basic shapes some how made attempt replicate the exact details of that garment (no matter how simple or complex) any more or less justified.

I don't think there actually is a debate forum any more, so this is probably just the most logical place for it.

 

We are going around in circles. I don't feel like restating my opinions on this. By tweaking a pattern you may get a similar result as an outfit for sale, but you aren't copying a mass produced outfit exactly. Most fashion designers and clothing designers do not use patterns. I never have for the dresses I have made, so using a pattern and making little tweaks it will never look identical to a designer outfit.