Copying company outfits

I've tried to follow this discussion, but frankly, it's obviously heated and it gives me a bit of a headache... Agh, I'll just say what I want. It's tied to issues I feel strongly about in many ways, so I can't help myself. Unfortunately, I'm gonna' textwall, so I'll add some obnoxious headers to make it easier to digest. Well, at least for me, after reading long post after long post I would appreciated some TL;DRs or headers myself, hahaha.

First to get it out of the way, I believe that nobody here would ever advocate that somebody who copies someone and then takes credit for the original design or doesn't give proper credit when due is right. That is a separate, though related, issue, and until someone explicitly advocates that it's okay, I think it's fine to assume that it's pretty shitty in everyone's books here and not bring it up again.

Copying as a skill
Regardless of an individual or society's beliefs or attitudes towards the ethics or admirability of exact copying in art, a high-quality copy is a true skill that takes expertise, care, and effort. I believe it was in ancient China that creating a great copy of the work of a master was once considered a very praise-worthy skill, an art in itself, and it was something an upperclass person could openly brag about. Correct me if I'm wrong on any details, as it's been a few years since my art history lessons. Of course, if one considers the time period, it perhaps makes more 'sense' since at the time, means of mass production like prints weren't available and the people who could spend time on art probably weren't doing it for a living.

Personal use
Now, as to my personal beliefs, I don't believe it is wrong to make a copy for personal use. I extend this to paintings, sculptures, fashion, and probably most things. If you are have the skills and means to create a replica of something you want for yourself that you otherwise wouldn't or couldn't get, go for it. I admire your skills and tenacity if you can pull it off on the same level or above what it is you're replicating. Most people can't. You can disagree with me on this, but I doubt you'll change my mind. I haven't seen a good argument against this yet. I see nothing ethically wrong or distasteful with this.

As an addendum, if the original creator explicitly requests that you not do this or expresses discontent with what you've done after the fact, it is a more questionably moral act as to whether you respect that individual's feelings and work or you decide that you're not wrong or don't care. If you're especially sensitive to this issue and consider it important to you, perhaps you might consider it the moral thing to always ask permission from the original creator if possible, even if just for personal use.

Commercial use
It is public and commercial use where the issue becomes the most controversial. It's a bit off-topic, but I'll say that I believe that creating copies of copyright-protected art for sale, galleries, showcase, marketing, and similar situations is ethically wrong. To get back to the main topic, if somebody decided to create and sell copies of a unique doll outfit from a well-known company for a lower price, for example, for this issue I feel rather ambivalent and would therefore stand by what the law dictates. Therefore, for now I'm fine with it.

But I consider it a moot point because in the first place, there's a reason why you rarely or never see commercial copies of doll clothes out there for sale. Actually, many. First, like others have stated, it is very easy, in fact easier than an exact copy, to sell a new piece 'inspired' from another's unique design ideas. Second, considering the hobby and niche community, there's not enough market for someone to think that they can sell an exact replica of someone else's products for the same or higher price. As an obvious copy, they would have to have a lower price on what is probably already a small profit margin, and they'd be saturating the market. Third, since it's such a small hobby and it's assumed that most people will recognize a copy, people often tend to trust the original more for quality and, like this thread has shown, at least some of them will have a stigma towards a clear copy. In the end, it's just not profitable to try selling copied doll outfits. Despite superficial similarities, the market is fundamentally different from the human fashion world.

Originality is a prerequisite
nakitaninja brought up another good point I wanted to mention. While the discussion may be targeting 'exact replicas' and not 'inspired' pieces, in terms of practicality, even if a skilled copier wanted to, you will almost never see something that is copied to the letter. The thread color of a section may be changed, the pattern of a fabric slightly different. If it's all about intent, it is stunningly easy for a creator to simply change their language from 'replicated' to 'inspired by' even for something that is clearly a copy; this would only change the semantics yet not the final result or possible ramifications of copies.

So, I would look at it this way. Most of the clothing and shoes, including doll clothing, you will see on the market are not unique nor original. If fashion were subject to copyright, these things would likely be in 'public domain' and it's free grabs for anyone to make those myriad styles of jeans, button-ups, kimono, and sleeveless dresses. Minorly unique traits are inconsequential. Whether someone makes even an exact copy of a relatively generic piece of doll clothing is not ethically wrong to me, even to sell. It is when something that is truly unique and innovative is copied to such an extent that it is almost instantly recognizable as a copy where there would be a real issue.

The Fat Gray Line
The line between 'generic' and 'innovative' is very blurry and I cannot give any exact degrees, but this is true in art and copyrights as well; such issues when brought to court must be judged on a case-by-case basis, and there's nothing that can be done about the lack of precise definitions given the nature of creative work. The line between a copy and a derivative piece is similarly blurry, though I'm certain that there are examples on both ends of the extreme to illustrate what is clearly one or the other. I won't argue about what constitutes one or the other universally since that doesn't get anywhere even in a court of law. I've never seen such an argument reach any real conclusion, and I've seen a lot of them. It's because of these gray lines that copyrights and creative rights is such a hot and controversial issue, and there's no way to actually solidify any black-and-whites in practical terms regardless of one's ideal.

There is also the facet of time to consider. In copyrights, after a certain period of time (some would argue far too long), the copyright is relinquished and the creative work is released in the public space for free use. I believe most people would agree that all creative things should eventually reach this point, and that it is possible to hold one's copyright for too long to be, how to say, 'fair'. In an arena where copyright law isn't there to draw that line, where would most people consider drawing that line for themselves? A year, two years, five years, 100 years? When the original creators are out of business, or only when they're dead? You ask 100 people and you'll get dozens of different answers for all these questions about these gray areas.



It would be interesting to discuss the human fashion world and the ethics involved specifically with that, because I do have a yet-undecided part of me on that very unique creative rights issue. But it's a bit off-topic and I'm honestly not well-versed on the fashion industry, so I won't get too into it. However, there is a large argument that it's because of the lack of copyrights for fashion that the fashion industry is such an innovative and cutting-edge creative space. The competition and rampant copying are what pushes the overall market forward to constantly improve on itself, rather than stagnate, which is a societal benefit. But this quickly becomes a discussion on whether the onus is put on creators to stay competitive or buyers to be respectful consumers, and similarly whether it's the good of society or the individual rights that should take priority on this issue. It's a deceptively complicated issue and I can't agree with when some people seem to think there's an obvious single right answer.

almyki

 

Yea, I hope people don't think I was trying to convince them to think same way I do, just thought I would offer a different side as someone who has worked in the fashion industry and help to understand the other side better. I have no hard feeling toward anyone and I can understand the other views. In high school I did debate and so I can be passionate about things that are personal to me and sometimes people take that the wrong way. I enjoyed this discussion

 

I don't see anything wrong with it personally. I mean I found an outfit by one company that I just adore. However the size is for an SD and I wanted the outfit for an MSD with a few details and colors changed. I'm glad to have stumbled on this thread, because now I feel better about finding someone to commission for the outfit.

 

How about just claiming you were inspired by the original? Which us true since amateurs cannot recreate an exact copy the professionals do at the company.

 

One thing that wasn't really mentioned in this thread was the likely mode of production. While CrippledCuriosity made it clear that his idea was tied to making an exact replica, my guess is that the OP was looking at pictures on a web site and basically building off of that. Which surely would not result in an exact copy and OP said “even if I do not use the same fabric and even omit a few details”. In which case, unless we're going to say that every shirt since the first shirt in creation has been a moral ripoff, the copy is going to be probably along the lines of sleep_patterns pic of skinny jeans (which everyone does) as opposed to copying a Dollheart outfit. (Which seems like it would be insane).
I would think that the real heart of the matter is having to decide for oneself what is moral in a specific situation. But as someone pointed out, if it feels wrong then you probably sense something of your own stance in that. But it seems that thinking was tied to the issue of recasts which "cast" a shadow over this that isn’t quite relevant. So they probably shouldn't be colored by that viewpoint. Often it's best to simplify the problem to its immediate constituent parts and work from there.

I don't see a problem with copying a "not available" outfit myself but I can qualify that by saying that if it were a truly distinctive work then I can see where I might think I'm infringing on someone's creative property. But the sheer amount of variants on "shirt", "dress" etc means that it would have to be pretty distinctive and the OP qualified the object under consideration as "non-limited".

For some people the effort and talent creatively needed to come up with an original outfit might not be their thing so they might copy. To me the creativity of bjd's isn't the design or sewing of clothing, but the entire gestalt of the various objects, activities and imaginative play towards interaction with their doll. Otherwise we'd looking down on people who "bought" outfits instead of creatively designing and making their own. That's where the "copying is okay" idea fundamentally gains strength for me. There needs to be a lot of flexibility with how we look at these issues because once they get too narrow you have to think about what the logical outcome would be. We have a limited amount of time and resources and in the end make choices of what we can spend doing certain things. Again, singular personal use was qualified by the OP. Racoondevil asked about "inspired by" which would cover the generic reconstruction idea that I'm positing above. I think copying is a complex term because say, a Jasper Johns flag sure ain't the same as the flag on the courthouse.

CrippledCuriousity mentioned copying a painting and also mentioned copying an Alexander McQueen because you couldn't afford one. Amusingly Jerry Saltz, the NY art writer, wanted some fake Gerhard Richter paintings because of course, the originals cost millions of dollars. He put out a call that he's willing to pay someone $155 plus materials to whomever would produce something. The results were intriguing to say the least but also offensive to many. Not me though, I thought it was hilarious.

Interesting discussion here though…..I can’t sew so I outsource all my sewing to some women I know at work. But now I’m thinking, what about those outfits that are only for 70mm boy dolls? And……

 

Copying an artwork or whatever, for purposes of learning is OK.

If you copy the artwork exactly and pass it off as original to the other artist, that is a forgery and can land you in jail.

If you make and sell prints of someone else's artwork, that is illegal. Those Museums and others have obtained certain rights in order to make and sell prints. A person can do that, too, in order to make it legal, but unless you've done that, you're breaking the law--in the US and in most all other countries who agree with those protections.

There is a difference between the law and personal ethics.

Many customizers and seamstresses will not take commissions to do a faceup or an outfit that was created by someone else. That is a professional courtesy, not a law. They understand that they don't wish to take anything, consciously, from a fellow artist. But everyone knows that if something happens to be SIMILAR, that is fine. It is not as if they set out to take ideas from another. ALSO--as any artist knows, unless they are trying very, very hard to make something exactly like another artist's work, it is very difficult to do! So, naturally doing things in their own way will usually result in something that is their own style and often different from anyone else... and if some elements do look similar, that is just natural. It happens honestly.

INSPIRATION is not copying exactly! Everyone is influenced by everything else. That is fine. It doesn't mean you set out to exactly copy something! That means you are not being creative or using your own sense of style and design. Most artists understand this. Their artwork may look similar to other pieces of art, but it is still their work and naturally and honestly come by. But if they copy the Mona Lisa exactly... they can do that as a learning tool, but they know it is not their work and will make sure they aren't forging Da Vinci's name and selling it as the real Mona Lisa! These things are obviously different matters!

Doing things IN THE SAME STYLE is not copying exactly.

Anyone can make a t-shirt or jeans. You cannot copy another company exactly--that means not only the pattern, materials and colors--but the details of stitchery and designs. That's getting unethical, if not illegal. If you put on the logo and tags and pass it off as a Calvin Klein or whatever, THEN you have crossed over to breaking the law. --So, you can make a dress that looks like a DollHeart Fer and that is legal, although everyone will think you have made a fake Fer and are terribly unoriginal... but it's likely not illegal if you haven't copied everything down to the last thread. BUT if you copy it exactly--with all the details--and they sell it as a true Fer, you have broken the law.

If you wish to make a doll shirt SIMILAR to part of an outfit by someone... Go ahead. If the shirt is fairly generic, then go to town! If the shirt is a very unusual design and very obviously a copy, with all the same details.. then you will maybe be viewed as a very unoriginal person, and maybe unethical, but not illegal. If you fake the logos and tags and sell it as if was the original--then you are breaking the law.

I don't know why it seems so difficult for people to figure this stuff out! Yes, it is not simple. There is being INSPIRED, versus being SIMILAR, vs COPYING EXACTLY, vs FORGERY/FAKING AN ORIGINAL. These are all different degrees and treated differently.
INSPIRED by = OK
SIMILAR to = OK
COPYING EXACTLY = only OK if you're a student and if you don't sell it and if you make sure it is labeled as a COPY. BTW... Fashion industry Knock-offs are legal (although many people view this as very unoriginal and maybe unethical)... but they are rarely exactly like the originals--which are often cut differently and use different fabrics and details. And they are not sold as the couture originals, and aren't labeled or logo-ed as the originals. Students copying a Masterwork--they TRY to copy, but let's face it, they are students and will never be like the Master--nor should they be, nor should they try to be! They are trying to learn, but also develop their own style. And it is of dubious ethics to sell these pieces... although probably not illegal.

TOTALLY ILLEGAL = Copying exactly and passing off the piece as the thing you copied--that is FORGERY.
TOTALLY ILLEGAL = Re-casting (must actually be re-cast, if you sculpt something that looks similar, that doesn't count--although some people may not like it and view it as being unoriginal)
TOTALLY ILLEGAL = Making something similar and passing it off as original to the name brand.
TOTALLY ILLEGAL = Making exact copies (as in prints or whatever) and selling them. If you make something that is exact for your own use, and never sell it, that should be legal, if very unoriginal and maybe unethical to some. With things easy to copy, as in artwork where you have a digital file or a photo-- You can have it for personal use, but cannot publish it or sell it--and putting it on the internet counts as 'publishing.' That is illegal.

 

I like that the OP distinguished their opinion and research so well. Copying was and still is an art form of itself. Art restoration artists are master copiers, as they have to use the original style of the artist to fill in the gaps during their restorations. Personal use is still iffy for some, but I also believe that as long as you're not mass producing and selling them, you're fine.

All in all, don't sell and don't claim it's all your own original work.

 

Whether made yourself or commissioned, as long as the outfit is for your own purpose only and you are not claiming it to be the original I don't think there would be to many objections. You are even less likely to run into anyone trying to cry fowl if you make a few slight alterations in the fabric or materials that are being used that make your outfit more of an original that a direct copy.
However, if trying to replicate an outfit for commercial purposes, this is where many issues lie. I have run into issues here myself in the past with people copying designs and using patterns of mine and claiming ideas as their own....copyright when it comes to clothing designs as with any sewn items where there is a translation between 2 dimensional pattern and 3 dimensional object is a very tricky area as far as copyright is concerned as it can be very hard to prove "theft" from a legal perspective. However, despite the legal difficulties, it would generally be "very much frowned upon". One thing you see all the time, though, is doll clothing companies and other "makers" quite obviously are trying to replicate similar clothing styles of others that are fairly popular. In this case, as long as it is only "taking inspiration from" and not direct stitch-for-stitch copying they are quite legally entitled to do so.

 

A simple shirt can be difficult enough in itself. There are a lot of factors to seeing a garment and reproducing it. Many of us probably aren't great seamstresses, so it may be difficult for us to choose a similar fabric, and then creating a whole new pattern in itself, even if it's closely based on an existing pattern. An elaborate gown would be even harder to duplicate than a simple shirt or pants, so personally, if you have the skill to reproduce it, personally I think it's fair game.

However, if a pattern is offered, and you use it (i.e. print it and cut pieces from it to sew the garment), you should credit the original artist. Likewise, it's only polite to credit inspiration if you don't print the pattern but reproduce one that is similar.

 

My take on things like this is, if I find a piece that I like, I will research and find other similar pieces (after all, I rarely find an article of clothing made by someone else that is PERFECT just the way it is), so my final product would be inspired by ALL of those other ones, but would still be distinctly my own in design. This is how inspiration works in the art world, and it is all well and good.

As far as an exact copy of an outfit designed by someone else... I wouldn't do it. Simply because I value my desire to play around with my own concepts too much and it would kind of... put a little dent in my pride if I had to respond to a compliment by (rightfully) stating "ah well actually this isn't my design, the original one was by X..." However I don't see a problem with other people doing it for personal use - only-one-ever-made kind of deal.

I am completely against copying outfit designs (real 3D pieces, or even fictitious ones on paper) to sell. I know it's not technically illegal, but it just grinds my gears in all kinds of wrong ways. Just... no. Make up your own designs. Yeah, yeah, I know - it's really hard. That's the whole point here.

 

I think as long as one is not trying to sell said "copy", then it's fine? I mean, you just made it for yourself, to enjoy it yourself, what's wrong with that? I would think the same for non-limited outfits, if there's something you like and think you can make yourself, why buy it (apart from wanting to support company / person, of course) ? You have the skills and the time, no one has the right to tell you not to do it, so long as you are doing it only for yourself and not to sell of course.

 

Stumbled across this post while looking for something else and it definitely drew me in. I happen to design wedding accessories and apparel (we sell to stores) for a living and occasionally am asked to copy another company's item if it has been discontinued or is unavailable for some reason. I sometimes do it since I want to make my customer happy, but it usually ends up being my version of that other design. If I like the concept I may add a similar version to my line, but that doesn't happen too often. I prefer to create and sell my own styles.

Some seamstresses and tailors may copy and do a good job of it and feel okay about doing so. Designers usually prefer to use others work as inspiration and create something new and original--copying is just, well, a copy--where's the fun in that? From an aesthetic point of view I find the whole concept unappealing and not something I'm very excited about. For me, it's the creative process as much as the end result. I'd rather make a real something than a fake something else.

Lol--I feel this way about cooking too. Only time I follow a recipe is for baking--where precision is required

 

I wouldn't mind copying a design to create for my own personal use. How else would I be able to afford $100 doll outfits?

But to be honest, I'd probably change the design or color of the outfit anyway given my skills and taste. It'd probably become an entirely new outfit concept, haha.

It seems this conversation was more about delving into the theory of whether copying was illegal or not, but that was just my though. I wonder if there are others who feel the same way?

 

Wow, hot topic. I just chewed my way through all five pages and I feel...pretty?

Leaving aside the legal questions, I see no problem with making your own version of something you see elsewhere. I do it all the time. If I want to make a copy of a Fer for Chaeri, why shouldn't I? They don't even make the things in her size and so long as I don't claim that it's actually from Dollheart--and why would I, when I'm the one who worked so hard on it?--nobody should have a problem with it. Making homemade copies of designer clothes has been done literally for centuries, and anyone who's got a problem with it should consider themselves blessed that they don't have more important things to complain about.

 

I was expecting this to be a thread for showing off your copied creations, because I really can't see a problem with making your own versions of clothes you see. If you were settling them that'd be a different matter but otherwise I can't see the problem. I've recorded cover versions of songs I like and listened to them with friends, I don't think three anything wrong with that either. What you're making is only ever going to be your version of it

 

Personally, as long as you do not do it for profit (mass production) without the proper rights - aka agreement from company - I see no problem with it.

Not just with limited outfits, but in general.

It's the same as making a cosplay for yourself or your doll.
Why shouldn't you make 'yourself' an outfit you like? Especially if you save double, material costs < outfit costs and no shipping? You can't force someone to buy something. As long you don't claim it to be your design...

I also don't see why you shouldn't comission it if someone agrees to make it.

Additionally, I'm pretty certain one would be able to find a picture of a similar or in some cases even identical outfit of pretty much EVERY limited outfit if one really put one's mind to it. Not because the company took it's inspiration from it, but simply because there are already a lot of works out there, that might be more or less popular. Especially if the company is making clothes form a particular line of style (e.g. ball dresses from rokkoko style).


Personally I'd think it to be kind of riddiculus too. Imagine you made an outfit - let's say inspired from an old chinese general. Then one day as you browse the web you realize that a company probably has taken inspiration from the same pictures you did and has an identical or very similar outfit. Are you supposed to destroy your outfit now or never show it off again, cause hey - a company did it? (no matter if before or after you)
Which would bring me to cosplay outfits. Volks DD line has a lot of female anime girls. So because Volks is producing those outfits for sale, I shouldn't be allowed to make the same character in the same outfit for myself? - No matter if same size or a different one.
Seriously? Yeah, right. :3

So if it's an exact replica, I'd just lable it 'based on' or 'inspired by' and be done with it. I wouldn't put that line on each and every picture I took of my doll with that outfit thought. Maybe the first ones, where I showed of the outfit for the first time and later mention it if someone comments or asks about it.

 

I don't see much issue with it, I mean we all make stuff using tutorials OTHER PEOPLE make, and we all make outfits inspired by trends and things like that, (I'm looking at YOU infinity dress) honestly one day I hope to make an outfit like a DollHeart Fer...And I won't be going around calling it DollHeart...(And if possible I will be making it out of socks)

 

I would love to see a Fer-style dress made of socks! That would be awesome!

There is a world of difference between copying and inspiration, and also copying down to the last thread and using an existing design in your own way/style.

You cannot copyright basic clothing, so a t-shirt, jeans, hoodie, trainers, socks, shift dress... no single person can claim to be the inventor of the t-shirt. It's the same with doll clothes. But if you take a basic shape and add ruffles and bows and lace to it, that becomes a new design that can be copyrighted. The Fer design didn't exist before Dollheart. Making a Fer-style dress in a fabric that Dollheart never used (either a colour or a texture) is fine as long as it's made plain that the dress is your own making and has nothing to do with Dollheart beyond initial inspiration.

I have a Topshop sailor coat and an SD-size sailor coat from Sunny's World that are virtually identical. The only differences are size and the type of buttons used. Other than that they are exactly the same. Topshop aren't going to sue Sunny's World for making a coat identical to theirs because the target audience is not the same and Topshop and SW are not in competition with each other for sales.

 

Hopefully I can do it, I'm hoping to make it with characters like Sally from Nightmare Before Christmas inspired, so the ruffles won't match and there'll be a lot of patchwork designs on the top. ^^ I figure if I'm gonna do something like that I might as well have fun with it and go nuts.

 

legally speaking fashion is...very borderline since the working elements are there and really it's just a combination of these elements. Moral wise, i wouldn't care much. If someone is selling the design then that would make me feel iffy, but if ther price is good? who cares.