(not so) random links
tons and tons and TONS to share today!
enjoy, my pets!
-seems like (almost everything) one buys these days, especially clothing, has a tag bearing the words “made in china”. for some time now, china has been a manufacturing powerhouse, making many products we in the west consume cheaply and plentifully. but such plenty and such cheapness, while it benefits corporations and manufacturers and their profit margins, comes at a cost…both for many of the chinese (particularly the chinese workers), and most certainly, for us, who are about to be paying more for those aforementioned chinese-made goods (via slate).
a chinese backlash seems to be blooming, in britain, and elsewhere. china’s bad record on issues like the environment, labor issues, and so forth have some talking about and trying to personally boycott chinese products (via BBC.com).
but, are such boycotts bound to be successful? who do such boycotts REALLY affect? would trying to boycott chinese products ultimately prove to be a great and complex challenge, when so much of what surrounds us is made or made from materials sourced from that vast country? what are the alternatives to chinese made products, particularly when it comes to clothing? (via the telegraph) and another thing: are you REALLY willing to pay more and work harder to avoid that which is made in a manner that you find displeasing?
-speaking of britain and ethical clothing: the BBC has launched an online ethical fashion magazine, called thread (via the telegraph). hopefully it will prove to be a jolly good effort when it comes to covering all things ethical fashion.
a stellar feature from the thread mag that also relates to all the chinese/ manufacturing talk above: from factory to high street: the hidden cost of cut-price clothes
-through a dress a day, i learned about a “kerfuffle” that occured at the recently commenced st. louis fashion week:
seems a gal named ashley dayley submitted a dress to the show made from an iconic vintage (and recently re-issued) butterick sewing pattern. at first glance, it seemed as if ashley dayley was merely a copycat, trying to pass off a garment made from a commercially made pattern as her own.
ashley later claimed that this information was well-known to those involved with the fashion show (in fact, the rules of the show allegedly allowed garments made from commercial patterns), and as such she did not see any issue with submitting a “design” made from a commercial sewing pattern to said show.
but the trouble was, this wasn’t too clear from the PR surrounding the show that ashley (or anyone else, for that matter), wasn’t just trying to pass off a dress made from a commercially made pattern as his/her own…until ashley herself tried to clear it all up (check the comments on the DOTD post).
regardless of what actually happened in this whole ashley dayley/st. louis fashion show thing, this story does bring up some issues regarding what constitutes ‘original’ design, and just what makes someone a ‘designer’…
here’s my take (coming from a fashion design educational background):
the mere act of making a garment from a commercial sewing pattern (even if you, say, add your own embellishment) DOES NOT make you the ‘designer’ of that garment, or a ‘designer’ period.
making a garment from a pattern may make you artistic and creative, a skilled dressmaker, crafty, and a myriad of other things. but it does not imply that you designed that sewing pattern…the fundamental basis of the/any garment.
to me, being the ‘designer’ of a garment implies that you created an garment from scratch (i.e. you DID NOT use a commercial pattern as the basis of your design). you drafted or draped the pattern yourself (or employed a patternmaker to do so as your explicit proxy), and in many (though not all) cases you are likely to be responsible for everything related to the design from the idea and pattern stage onwards…including but not limited to creating the initial sketch, the calculations and other technical skills employed to make that sketch come to life through said patternmaking/drafting or draping, the fabrication and embellishment decisions employed on/in said garment, and sometimes, also sewing/constructing said garment.
i sometimes sew, knit or crochet from a pattern that has been designed by another person or persons (for instance, a company who makes commercial patterns). certainly, i make choices concerning the materials i use, and occasionally make subtile tweaks to said patterns to have said patterns work better for me. i am, of course, proud of what i have done to fashion said garment and certainly consider work made from said patterns to be a creative endeavor and effort.
HOWEVER, i personally would NEVER deign to call myself the ‘designer’ of said patterns, i can only be the owner of the result of using those patterns…and nothing else. the original designer is the one who deserves the credit for the idea…i can only take credit for my version of THEIR DESIGN. i would never make something using someone else’s blueprints and call it my own. i see it as wrong, period. all rightful acknowledgement for the original design, in my mind, can ONLY go to the person who came up with the original idea or pattern. to take another person or persons designs and call them my own, in any way, would be against my personal beliefs and ethics.
i believe that the selling of wares made from commercially available patterns is a copyright violation, not aboveboard at all…yet, people do it all the time, and it’s somehow somewhat acceptable to some…
the issue is, of course, for some, very complicated, and i could probably discuss it it ad nauseam!…it’s even a common issue in the fashion industry at large. opinions differ, of course. from mine, from yours.
some questions, as usual:
does just making a dress/sweater/anything from a commercial pattern make you a designer? what constitutes an ‘original’ clothing design? when do you believe that someone can rightfully call themselves a designer, and the work they make an original design? what is a completely ‘original’ idea, when it comes to clothing, or anything else?
what say you?
-body image issues are up for debate, both in the culture at large, and now even in the lower house of france’s parliament, who’ve approved a bill that would “make it illegal for anyone — including fashion magazines, advertisers and Web sites — to publicly incite extreme thinness”. the target here, of course, is the fashion industry, and violating this proposed law could land said stylish perps of emaciatedness in court, or sock them with hefty fines. the point, say french lawmakers, is to affect a change in the way that body image is perceived in the fashion industry, and by extension, the culture at large. of course, the french federation of couture takes issue with this proposed bill, not wanting to have to bow to any outside controls…(via the new york times)
-why can’t a woman shop more like a man? (via the telegraph) indeed! perhaps we can learn a thing or two from the fellows when it comes to smart shopping…for starters: employing a little forethought and strategy into the purchases we do actually make, forgoing the trendy-trendy-of-the-moment pieces for the savvy, more long-lasting purchases, and saving those occasional extravagant buys for the sales only.
and of course….the quick and dir-tay!:
-nylon recently posted a mini-interview with eley kishimoto, one of my all time favorite designers (design TEAM, i should say)!
-quilts and patchwork are cool and rule! emily and i are on the same page, as evidenced by a recent post on her blog, go go distro, called quilted appreciation.
-and more quilty goodness: if only i could go see these fabulous art quilts at the wayne art center that fly gives us a peep at…i’d be a happy camper!
-a polka dot stitch pattern, from vogue knitting! i am itching to bust out the knitting needles RIGHT NOW and use this for something, anything, maybe EVERYTHING! YESSSSS! 
-how to drape a bodice, a video from domestic haven (via craft:)
-from the threadbanger blog: how to remake old sweaters into spring cardigans!
-jennifer perkins of naughty secretary club shows you how to make your own take on tom binns ‘no time watch’. sweet!
April 21 2008 | Posted in (not so) random links, check this out!, crafty cool., culture-vulture, fashion musing
April 21 2008 at 7:22 pm
heatherWhile I agree with most of your thoughts on pattern copyrights and what defines someone as a “designer”, I’m curious to discuss further what you said about selling garments made from commercially available patterns being a copyright violation. I’m not a seamstress/dressmaker and don’t know the ins and outs of the craft or industry, so I had no idea that there was any question about whether selling such garments is bad form or not. My intuitive sense, though, is that it shouldn’t be. Perhaps the seamstress should give credit to the commercially available design as being the basis for the garment, but I believe that when a person pays for such a garment, what they’re paying for is mostly the fabric and the labor/craft/artistry of the seamstress. Of course, there is much owed to the original designer, but still, like you said, the seamstress has made many choices (such as what fabrics to use), probably embellished or tweaked it, and has put a good deal of time and effort into the creation of the piece. Even if she didn’t make any changes, she did still put labor and materials into the clothing. The average layperson can’t take a pattern and turn it into a beautiful garment, and in my opinion, that’s what the consumer is paying for when they purchase such an item. Thoughts?
April 21 2008 at 7:39 pm
triciaheather:
i suggest doing some research concerning fashion design and commercial patterns as they relate to copyright..it\’s an area that a lot of people apparently have little knowledge of…and it can be very confusing.
see this link on the topic of copyright and commercial sewing patterns, i feel it reiterates my points made above:
http://www.getcreativeshow.com/Craft_Sew_Business/Business_Seminars/copyrights.htm
no one, especially me, is discounting the labor involved in making something from a commercial pattern, or that the process involved with making up a commercial pattern can sometimes be very creative/take effort.
labor and materials, while important…are by no means the only thing that the end user is paying for when they purchase a garment, by ANY stretch of the imagination. the DESIGN and designer absolutely have rights and their rights DO matter, and are part of the final cost of said garment.
again, that does not, in my mind, give the person making the garment any right to call themselves a designer in conjunction with that garment, and certainly does not explicitly give them any right to mass produce and sell any garments made from that commercial pattern.
again, i believe that the DESIGN and the DESIGNER deserve the credit for and the rights to what to do with said original design. just giving lip service mentioning that a garment is made from a commercial pattern is not an excuse, nor enough, nor is it legal. most of the commercially designed patterns out there on the market specifically prohibit the end user from mass producing or selling products made from said pattern unless a licencing deal has been made between you and the company or person who designed that pattern. burdastyle is an example of a company who has a more open-source take on this issue. but i can assure you that the major pattern companies and most pattern designers of any ilk would take issue with people taking their patterns and using them as the basis for products that they intend to sell en masse.
so yes, all that said, i would say it IS certainly bad form to sell a garment or garments made from a commercial pattern.
April 22 2008 at 1:18 am
Frida KarlssonI agree with you completely about design and commercial patterns. And because most of the commercial patterns has copyright which says that they aren’t for commercial use, this shouldn’t be an issue. Just follow the copyright!
But I think the question about originality is a little bit different. There’s lots of commercial patterns and clothes by “designers” that are in no way original. Most people want clothes that look sort of like the things everyone else has, so that’s what’s produced. Some times someone could use a commercial pattern and make an original idea, but it doesn’t make them the designer.
I think that the people who are truly interested in making original garments should learn some basic pattern making skills. It’s not that difficult and in my opinion, a much easier way to make your ideas into a finished garment that look like the idea you had in your head. Then we could all call ourselves designers!!!
April 22 2008 at 9:15 am
emily augustHee. Thanks for das linkage.
April 22 2008 at 10:49 am
Daniellehttp://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/05/table-of-contents
National Geographic has a fascinating issue out on China right now, lots of amazing pictures and stories!
April 22 2008 at 12:28 pm
MorganHey, since we’re all talking about China (and Tibet) right now, I thought I’d send along a little link you might like… It’s an interview with the dalai lama that was on CBC last week.
http://www.cbc.ca/mansbridge/
What made me think you might enjoy the discussion is mostly your comments about boycotting / not boycotting China. They bring up this issue, and I figured it would be an automatic “boycotting is the solution” answer. But the ever-so-at-peace dalai lama does not agree. I feel that although he does not have the same connection with China as we Westerners do, he has a totally different perspective which is always interesting to hear.
Anyway, it is a long-ish interview if you have the time :o)
April 22 2008 at 2:26 pm
heatherTricia: Ahh, okay, thank you for the info. Of course I would not advocate breaking copyright — if it’s explicitly stated in the copyright that it is for non-commercial use, then that should be honored. I guess my mistake was not realizing that most commercial patterns state that.
As a photographer, I always try to think of a photography analogy when talking about copyrights. My thoughts re: commercial patterns was that it’s kind of like stock photography. As a photographer, you make your money by selling your photo to a stock photography agency. Then that agency licenses it out to anyone who wants to pay for it, and that person gets to use the photo (per the terms of the license) in commercial contexts, e.g. in an advertisement or as an illustration in a publication or website, etc. I was thinking patterns worked like that: by buying the pattern, you are licensed to make garments from that pattern, for commercial use or otherwise. But I hadn’t read the fine print on any patterns’ licenses, so I stand corrected. To carry the analogy further: it would be a copyright violation for a person who bought a stock photo to then try to license the photo to other people — I was thinking that the fashion design equivalent of that violation would be to photocopy or re-draw a pattern and try to resell it, claiming as one’s own. That, or like Ashley Dayley did, claiming the design was her own at a fashion show– that’s really not okay.
Of course the design of the garment is a large part of why a consumer purchases it, and I didn’t mean at all to diminish the original designer’s role and rights. Just that, my impression was that the designer had received the money for their work when they had sold it as a commercial pattern (and perhaps they received royalties each time that pattern sells?). I definitely agree that a dressmaker should not claim herself as the “designer” of a garment if she made it using a commercial pattern!
April 23 2008 at 1:01 pm
Rachael/softspokenthere’s also a book out which you may have heard of called A Year Without “Made in China”: One Family’s True Life Adventure in the Global Economy. it passed over my desk while doing my day’s work at the library and seemed an interesting read.
April 23 2008 at 4:15 pm
SannaTricia, yesterday I received a Blogging with a Purpose batch, and I would like to pass the batch on to you. Your amazing work with wardrobe_remix and your thought provoking blog posts have challenged me to see things differently.
April 23 2008 at 5:11 pm
AnnaI just wanted to drop you a line to say how much I enjoy your posts, so thoughtful and thought-provoking and just plain INTERESTING.
Also, that last outfit you posted, with the dip-dye dress? Perfection, as far as I can see. It’s modern, striking, and suits you down to the ground. I know you’re after lots of heated debate in response to your posts, but I hope you don’t mind a little flattery instead, from a tired mind
April 25 2008 at 12:08 pm
hoyanI don’t know if I mentioned this before, and maybe you’ve heard of it, but seeing as you’re interested in quilts you might like to look at the work of Koos van den Akker- he was well known for his ‘collage’ garments. Personally I adore his work, and not just because he comes from the Hague!
Koos New York
May 15 2008 at 4:50 pm
Naughty Secretary Clubhey lady thanks so much for the linkage and for the interesting blog post that has got me to thinking!