29Jun/1130
Momi boutique design ripped by eBay user aboatnee
An eBay seller ripped my friends dress design, name, and description. The seller actually copied the item name and description from my friend's site, and then pasted it into their eBay listing. When Momi boutique called the seller out on it, the seller immediately changed the description, but still insisted that the design was not copied.
Here is the original:
http://momiboutique.com/item_281/Chirpy-Bluebird.htm
Here is the knock-off item being sold on eBay:
This happens all of the time to her. These talentless, uninspired hacks just copy her designs and try to sell them cheaper on Etsy or eBay.
Is it only coincidence? I say not. Especially since the item description was copied letter for letter.
June 29th, 2011 - 17:20
Either way, it’s an ugly design. The poor child wearing something like that is just asking to trip over their pants.
June 29th, 2011 - 18:21
My only question is why can the ebay seller sell this item for $25 and turn a profit but your friend must sell them for $80+?
Perhaps if your friend priced them lower, they would be able to better compete with the ebay seller.
Also, last I checked, it’s not against the law to make your own pattern of a design you’ve seen and liked. If it was, the fashion industry would be in a lot of trouble.
June 29th, 2011 - 20:02
Anon, I can’t figure out why people like you even both posting on this page. It’s not always about what is legal and what is not. It’s about calling out hacks who try to make a dollar on someone else’s hard work and creativity.
I wouldn’t put my kid in an outfit that looks like that, especially for $80 but I can wrap my head around the fact that someone took time and effort to come up with the design, choose the fabrics and sew the piece. Perhaps the ebay seller can offer it for $25 dollars is because they have nothing aside from the sewing time invested into the piece. The stole the design, they stole the fabric choice and then couldn’t even be bothered to write their own description. Is it illegal? No. Is it underhanded and unethical? Yes.
June 30th, 2011 - 01:47
Bailey, since this is a fashion design conversation, we’ll just legality aside from the get-go.
Description aside, the fashion world would say that it is totally ethical, because ideas are not the property of their creator, and without ideas spreading, fashion would become stagnant and dead, as would so many other things. If, however, ideas were copyrightable–well, the first person to make clothes might have charged a bit too much for the idea of wearing clothes at all, and we’d be left walking around in our birthday suits.
If this were a conversation about art, people might be more inclined to care about ethical questions concerning production value vs. reproduction. And with fashion, like art, people care more about the authenticity and if the art is for sale, they are often willing to pay more for such (which hopefully your friend can bank on).
Unlike art however, fashion falls into the realm of business, where the bottom line is the buck and the ability to sell a thing (per the argument you set forth with your reasoning for the higher price that your friend charges). However, the world of “things” is cutthroat and I hope your friend can cut it (the fabric). But leave the “it’s not ethical” rant at home when we’re talking about the world of “ideas”, because they’re free, baby!
June 30th, 2011 - 13:24
Wow. Lately it seems like the commenters on this blog have become anti-originators. There seems to always be more “Who cares it’s a rip” than there are “Whoa, that sucks.”
This is clearly a rip. It is therefore both unethical and illegal.
“Ideas” may be free, but specific patterns certainly are copyrightable. Just ask any major brand. You don’t see a lot of LEGAL fake louis vuittons, do you? This looks to me to be clearly a rip of the original pattern. If they at least only ripped off say, the bird, then it would be a rip, but not illegal because not a total copy. But this appears, and correct me if I’m wrong, to be a total copy. Therefore, illegal. Good luck shutting them down! (Though, I will echo other posters to question the $80 price tag on the originals.)
June 30th, 2011 - 22:44
Thank you for that post, Grifter. I’m often confused when there are posts about fashion and people state that copying fashion design is considered okay or normal in the business. Really??!? How come fashion design is different from graphic design or any other type of design?! Maybe it’s harder to prove or do something about it, but it sure is illegal.
July 1st, 2011 - 00:35
@Maaike
Er no: fashion is NOT covered by copyright, and the whole fashion business is basically a few designers coming up with original stuff and the rest building on.copying their designs – and I’ll point out that the fashion industry is large, healthy, and wealthy, and extremely innovative because of this model.
July 1st, 2011 - 03:11
Anonymous, you are factually wrong. Although a concept (bird on a hat) cannot be copyrighted, a SPECIFIC APPLICATION of said concept (a specific pattern of a mynah bird on a black top hat) can be. That is, honestly, the essence of copyright.
Just as the concept of a show about cowboys in space cannot be copyrighted, but Firefly can be.
To help anyone who isn’t a troll: http://cychanglaw.com/index.php?/archives/23-Copyright-for-fashion-designs.html
Basically, the parts of a clothing item that are unique about it are copyrightable, in a similar fashion to everything else, but it’s hard to win unless it’s a total exact copy, in which case designers can win.
http://www.apparelsearch.com/News/Articles/Fashion/2009/March/3.21.09_Fashion_Copyright_Infringement_Suit_Forever_21.htm
http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/2008/02/copyright_infringement_lawsuit_1.html
Those are just snapshots of cases, and I don’t know the resolution, but clearly the cases have merits based on the concept, otherwise they would get thrown out, and whether they won on merits is immaterial.
Seriously. It’s one thing if you people are saying “it’s not a rip”. It clearly is, but whatever, you can say that. It’s another thing entirely to say “there’s no such thing as copyright for fashion”. It makes you look like a stupid troll. Which, hey, cool and all. But there’s lots of bridges you could go hide under.
Also, Anonymous, to “build on” a design is not violating its copyright as a general rule, with exceptions. Which is why fashion designers rarely sue; usually the designs are different enough to make a case hard, because it’s hard to draw a line. Here, it’s clearly a bootleg copy, which is something else.
http://www.louisvuitton.com/info/fake/index.html
July 1st, 2011 - 10:58
It’s clearly a rip, but I’m just baffled as to why anyone would subject a child to that outfit.
July 2nd, 2011 - 00:27
I think this is a bad rip, the original is so much nicer – both in selection of patterns and the applique piece. I would not particularly choose this for my own child, but it’s quite sweet, and sad that it would be ripped so blatantly.
July 2nd, 2011 - 11:31
I was under the impression this site was a community that stood together against copying in design! To me it seems to have turned it into a slanging match and people thinking it’s smart to rip someones work apart. Whether or not you like a piece of art, fashion, jewellery the whole point is that someone has stolen someone elses design, hard work! It’s nothing to to with your personal opinion on that work! I can fully sympathise in your frustration!
July 3rd, 2011 - 06:11
@Grifter
Perhaps do some homework before posting.
You are *wrong*, fashion is NOT protect-able by copyright (and it is a healthy and innovative industry despite this lack).
Here’s a link to a statement from the US Copyright Office DENYING an amendment requested to protect fashion with copyright in 2006: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html
Get your facts right.
July 3rd, 2011 - 06:20
@Grifter
Louis Vuitton protects against fakes with TRADEMARK protection, not copyright.
July 7th, 2011 - 07:34
@Anonymous: I DID do my research, and posted some in my post. Here’s another link:
http://www.apparelsearch.com/Terms/F/Fashion_Copyrights.htm
Specifically: Sunham Home Fashions, LLC v. Pem-America, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24185, 2002 WL 31834477, *6 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), where the courts held “although the idea of a plaid or floral pattern may not of its own be original, the patterns’ sizes, shapes, arrangements and colors taken together are original and copyrightable.” The article here cites many more cases etc. to make the point. Again, though, the protections aren’t super strong, so suits aren’t often brought.
So while the copyright office talked about the idea of specific laws to definitively protect fashion, it already has some common law protection that does occasionally work. So. Please do YOUR research.
@Anonymous 2, they ahve used copyright before, but I agree, it was a poor example on my part.
July 10th, 2011 - 00:30
The “knockoff” does have some changes. For one thing, the fabrics are NOT the same. Similar color scheme, yes, but not the same fabrics. For another thing, the bird aplique is larger and the wing is a different shape and position. The original goes straight across under the arms, whereas the “copy” scoops down where it meets the straps, creating more of a coverall-type arm opening. The original’s straps go straight up and down, whereas the “impostor’s” are angled inward to create a trapezoidal neckline. There is also a lot more gathering on the ruffles of the original, making them poof out more. The Ebay one is obviously taking a lot of inspiration from the original, but it’s not a direct rip. And I have seen TONS of designs like this for kid’s clothes before; it’s really not that original. You would the fashion industry thrive if only one company could produce any one particular item. Not only would it be boring, but that one company’s designs would most likely not fit as wide a variety of shapes as exist in the real world (because most companies use one set of measurements as a fit guide to base all of their proportions on.) How horrible would it be for a curvy girl if only one company was allowed to make jeans, but they didn’t have ample enough room in the rear? Or for a girl with narrow hips if that company based their measurements on a very hippy model? This is why we have so many designers making so many different, yet SIMILAR, things.
July 10th, 2011 - 00:32
*How could the fashion industry thrive
Should have proofread. *facepalm*
August 2nd, 2011 - 21:15
As a member of the fashion industry, I can attest that the design is NOT copyrightable. Federal law only allows copyright on fashion if it is more form than function – that is, if it’s not practically wearable. Because then it becomes art. This is because clothes are a utility object in the eyes of the law. Clothing is a basic need, so it has to do with that. The particular case Grifter is referencing is talking about textile design – in that the repeatable graphic design used is copyrightable – because that is the artwork. Just like you can’t directly use someone else’s graphic for your shirt. And the other poster is right – TRADEMARK law, NOT copyright, is responsible for protection of logos and thereby most of what Louis Vuitton creates. They use their trademarked logo as an all-over print. Clever, LV, very clever.
Is it a knock-off? Absolutely. Illegal? Absolutely not. It’s the trickle-down theory – it’s cheaper-looking, probably doesn’t fit as nicely, and is certainly not as well marketed. But with the cheaper price comes more accessibility to a different market as well as more exposure of the idea, possibly creating a trend if enough people pick it up. Plus, you can’t keep someone from creating their own pattern. It is a strange and double-edged sword of the fashion industry that everyone feeds on everyone else.
September 27th, 2011 - 11:00
I hate to be the one to inform you, but your friend at Momi Boutique is not original either. The patterns for “her designs” were purchased off etsy and all she does is add a ruffle here or there. This is a blatant case of “the pot calling the kettle black”.
November 16th, 2011 - 10:04
re: difference in price. the $80 version is someone, probably in their home, doing the design, fabric choice and making what they intend to be a one of a kind item ONE AT A TIME, on a sewing machine by themselves.
the $25 version is being sewn in batches cut with a power tool and probably sewn by someone paid 25c per item or maybe $1/day… in a third world factory and, may for all intents and purposes be essentially a slave to the factory.
the craftmanship in the $80 version is evident even between the two photos.
while this particular design doesn’t appeal to me, if someone found the design worth copying as exactly as they could get away with… means there must be A market for the style & product…
maybe the target market isn’t YOU, but there’s someone making it who thinks it’s the bomb, and someone making a lower quality knock off that thinks it will sell well…
December 6th, 2011 - 22:45
Copycats on ebay are numerous. Someone called “simplystunningsewing” regularly copies other sellers’ designs, wording, even the white day bed prop in her pictures, then has the audacity to warn other sellers not to copy her designs. Designs? What designs? A set of quilts with squares on them? Ha!
January 24th, 2012 - 18:02
They are both bad rips of Oilily designs.
January 25th, 2012 - 00:39
This is pretty easy to get removed if you sign up for VERO.
April 12th, 2012 - 19:00
your concept is right. i think this way too. thanks for explaining it well.http://www.cameraescondida.net
April 21st, 2012 - 04:47
Pretty nice post. I simply stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I’ve really enjoyed browsing your weblog posts. In any case I will be subscribing on your feed and I’m hoping you write again soon!
May 23rd, 2012 - 01:20
yeah, it looks quite similar…but i don´t think this is a ripoff ….lets face it, it´s not a very unique design…i am pretty sure that some other “designers” came up with the idea of mixing patterned fabrics, put on some ruffles and pin a bird to the chest before… even combined with ruffled bell bottoms…if the other designs of this “designer” are as unique as this one, it could happen again…
May 23rd, 2012 - 13:32
I own Momi’s Chirppy Blue Bird set and I will tell you that it is the most adorable outfit and it is definite worth $80! The fabric is amazing and the craftsmanship is phenomenal! My daughter gets complements everywhere we go when she wears a Momi outfit. My daughter had about 10 Momi Boutique sets and they are all amazing! Rachel is a fabulous designer and even if someone copies her designs, the true Momi fans would never buy that cheap crap when they can have the real deal!
June 5th, 2012 - 01:02
holy shit that’s ugly
June 14th, 2012 - 11:10
Jeez, I cannot believe many of the comments on this site. I like others thought that YTWWN was about something completely different: protecting the artists’ original ideas or work. This morning’s browsing has made me realise that it appears to be filled with trolls and many people who really don’t care. The majority of people here (from my browsing this morning) appear to be arguing against that ideal???? It’s not just this thread of course but a few things said on here follow those lines of thought obviously.
If I owned/had started this site I would be giving it a bloody good shake-up as it appears to have been overtaken by the detractors… And I would be looking for some people to help out with ‘Troll Patrol’!!
And the issue here is nothing to do whether or not you would put your kids into this outfit!! And @ Mike… Your comment also baffled me…’Bailey, since this is a fashion design conversation, we’ll just legality aside from the get-go’ especially as Bailey had hardly touched on the issue of legality, but also are not most people very interested to find out if an OBVIOUS RIP-OFF like this has legal ramifications that they can maybe tackle the issue with? How can you just put it aside when to people who may be looking for some help and advice by browsing this site, it is usually a big part of the whole issue.
Personally I think the outfit is very sweet… But if I thought ‘holy shit that’s ugly’ it would no doubt be one of those things that I would not feel the need to communicate as I am not a troll.
June 19th, 2012 - 18:27
what ever parent buys that for their child is just asking for their child get made fun of at school
July 2nd, 2012 - 23:24
I really appreciate the time you took to create this.