« Who will guard the guardians? | Main | Long hair »
How does the fashion industry work without copyright?
Scott Cunningham directs our attention to "The Piracy Paradox," a new law and economics paper on the economics of fashion. The authors argue that the fashion sector has more innovation because of its near-absence of copyright protection. Here is some brief background on the issue.
Fashion is a status good. You wear a new design if some other people do (it must be focal as an object of status), but not if too many other people do. You want some degree of exclusivity to your wardrobe. So let's say a new design comes out. There will be some early adopters, but then a rapid series of rip-offs from other companies. Once the rip-offs come, companies invest in making further designs. Fashion is ephemeral and the rip-offs spur the next round of innovation. (BTW, here is an economic model of innovation in the fashion sector, and here are some common-sense critiques. Here is a piece on the ethics of fashion copying.)
Ex ante, the companies invest in production capacity. They don't know if they will be copied or copiers, but the costs and benefits wash to keep normal rates of return. There is more to the argument but read the paper if you are interested. By the way, the authors claim that European fashion industries receive much more copyright protection, but do not seem to be more efficient.
Micro question: For this model to work, what underlying assumptions are needed about the costs of design relative to the dollar flow of fashion demand? A low ratio of fixed to marginal costs? A lingering cache from having been the first with a new style? Here is one unconvincing attempt to answer the question; do tackle this in the comments if you have further ideas.
The authors list a few other areas where copyright protection is weak or non-existent: food recipes, furniture design, tattoos (until recently), trendy hairstyles, and perfume scents. I would add to the list calligraphy, topiaries (I love that word), and chess games. The point is not that these can serve as models for the music or movie industries but rather to figure out how they differ and why the absence of IP protection has led to (apparently) acceptable results.
Here is the legal reasoning why fashion is not well-protected.
Kathleen Fasanella, one of my favorite MR readers, directs our attention to this IP-related fashion blog.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 27, 2006 at 07:38 AM in Economics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c66b253ef00e5509799ac8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How does the fashion industry work without copyright?:
» The Fashion Piracy Paradox pt.2 from Fashion-Incubator
Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution continues tackling the topic of fashion and intellectual property rights. Regarding the Fashion Piracy Paradox, he states: The authors argue that the fashion sector has more innovation because of its near-absence of c... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 27, 2006 12:18:38 PM
» Law & Econ Discovers Fashion from Counterfeit Chic
Law Economics, the signature legal theory of the 1980s (with its foil Critical Legal Studies), has been applied to everything from accidents toownership -- and now fashion knockoffs.The heart of the law economics approach to fashionab... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 27, 2006 1:01:29 PM
» The Fashion Industry and Copyright from IPcentral Weblog
Tyler Cowan has an interesting post on the fashion industry, where one sees "innovation" without copyright. Though not, I might add, without trademark and patent, particularly for new materials. A further caveats to keep in mind while pondering what po... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 27, 2006 2:28:49 PM
» The Piracy Paradox from Engagement Alliance
Tyler Cowan at Marginal Revolution has a take on the fashion industrys knockoffbased innovation economy, based on Scott Cunninghams new paper, The Piracy Paradox: The authors argue that the fashion sector has more innovation be... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 27, 2006 6:47:07 PM
» The Piracy Paradox from Jack
Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution has a take on the fashion industry's knock-off-based innovation economy, based on Scott Cunningham's new paper, The Piracy Paradox: The authors argue that the fashion sector has more innovation because of its near-abs... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 27, 2006 7:19:44 PM
» The Fashion Industry and Copyright from IPcentral Weblog
Tyler Cowan has an interesting post on the fashion industry, where one sees "innovation" without copyright. Though not, I might add, without trademark and patent, particularly for new materials. A further caveat to keep in mind while pondering what pol... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 28, 2006 7:48:28 AM
» How Does the Fashion Industry Survive Without Copyright Protection? from BusinessPundit
I never really thought about this before, but it's a fascinating discussion. What characteristics of an industry make it benefit from IP protection, and when is IP protection a hindrance?... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 28, 2006 8:44:26 AM
» The Fashion Piracy Paradox pt.2 from Fashion-Incubator
Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution continues tackling the topic of fashion and intellectual property rights. Regarding the Fashion Piracy Paradox, he states: The authors argue that the fashion sector has more innovation because of its near-absence of c... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 23, 2006 9:05:47 PM
» Advanced MP3 Catalog Download from MP3 Catalog
Download advanced mp3 catalog pro Advanced MP3 Catalog is designed for anyone ... Generate and print reports and CD covers, export your catalog, search for ... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 27, 2006 6:33:17 AM
» Best mp3 portals from MP3 Portals - Search for Music
Free MP3 music downloads from many music websites and portals... [Read More]
Tracked on May 2, 2006 3:46:26 PM
Comments
Regarding chess games -- admittedly I don't know much about chess, but I know about Go. Individual Go games are widely believed to be public and circulate freely, but large collections protect themselves in some fashion.
Posted by: A Tykhyy at Feb 27, 2006 8:02:19 AM
Caution -- grammar police comment:
Especially in an article touching on couture, it's "cachet," not "cache."
Posted by: dilys at Feb 27, 2006 8:49:02 AM
Pesendorfer? Fashion markets? Finally, a chance to shine! I explore this sort of thing on my blog: http://millionairesocialite.com/?p=184
Posted by: Phil Leif at Feb 27, 2006 9:00:13 AM
Maybe the grotesquely overpriced designer gowns, etc. should fit into the analysis somewhere?
Posted by: Anderson at Feb 27, 2006 10:30:09 AM
I'd think that the level of initial investment required for a given product in a given market to be competitive has a lot to do with whether copyright or patent is needed.
It is easy to imagine (because we have it) open source unpatented software of various sorts, but it is not so easy to see how someone on a lark would spend $400 million on pharmaceutical development.
Similarly, the creation of a dress requires a creative person to invest x amount of time, where x is much less than the time required to produce a novel.
I suppose a corollary would be that you are really incenting two different things - marginal innovation on fundamental (read-high sunk costs) designs on the one hand and new fundamental designs on the other. Patents may help the latter but harm the former.
Posted by: Jason Ligon at Feb 27, 2006 10:45:27 AM
Copies of a new fashion design won't necessarily depress sales of the original because they simply aren't the same thing. Many buyers want the "real deal" rather than a later imitation. The copy is an imperfect substitute for the original.
On the other hand, illegal downloads of music CD's are much more likely to affect sales of the originals because they are perfectly adequate substitutes.
Posted by: Peter at Feb 27, 2006 11:02:06 AM
I buy the 'lingering cachet' argument. Why do the habitual early adopters adopt X's new garment rather than Y's? It might be because it's just fabulous (darling!). On the other hand it might be partly a coordination device: their payoffs come not just from the garment but from who else is wearing it. It's easier to coordinate on something that has already been coordinated on before.
Posted by: ricardo at Feb 27, 2006 11:10:14 AM
Another example of an area with limited IP protection would be legal documentation. If someone invents better wording for mortgage covenants, say, he or she can expect to see it copied. Whether legal documents show higher or lower degrees of innovation than other written products in our economy is hard for me to gauge.
Posted by: y81 at Feb 27, 2006 11:20:10 AM
On the other hand, illegal downloads of music CD's are much more likely to affect sales of the originals because they are perfectly adequate substitutes.
Posted by: Peter at Feb 27, 2006
--
Affect sales in what way? By englarging a musician's market, file sharing
may well increase his CD sales. Siva Vaidhyanthan presents evidence for this
in his book _The Anarchist in the Library_.
"IP" apologists implicitly assume that markets are zero sum games, so illegal music
downloading necessarily reduces a musicians sales and income. While this might
occur, it's probably more likely that file sharing brings him new fans, who want to
buy his music.
Posted by: Bill Stepp at Feb 27, 2006 11:42:54 AM
I did want to mention one thing from the perspective of those of us who work in product development in "fashion". The attitude towards copying *inside* the trade is different. Most of us agree that paranoid designers are fruit loops and we won't work with them; it's not worth the time and energy. Second, it's not unusual that they'll want us to sign a NDA for a product that looks nearly exactly like something already in the market. They rarely come up with anything original. Third, their ideas aren't that good and not worth all of the drama and expense of an attorney. Most of the established sewing contractors I know will show a designer to the door the minute after the client has pulled out the NDA. I've been in this business for 27 years and I've rarely seen an idea worth the hassle and expense of protecting it. Veritable medical and technical products are another story but 99.99% of the designers out there are flattering themselves if they think their design is worth the hassle and expense.
Among designers as peers, the overwhelming sentiment toward designers obsessed with design protection, is that they must not be any good. No designer makes it on the strength of one idea. Also, by the time the thing is shipped, most designers have well tired of it and have moved onto something else. Paranoid designers are seen as people lacking in imagination and professionalism.
Posted by: Kathleen Fasanella at Feb 27, 2006 11:53:48 AM
Very interesting question, never thought about it before. I'm curious to see how the responses go.
Posted by: Christopher at Feb 27, 2006 11:57:06 AM
I recommend every one to read the common sense criticism linked to above. They have some good points but the reason you should read it is that other arguments are hilariously funny because they are so confused.
Posted by: Johan Richter at Feb 27, 2006 12:39:27 PM
Copyright and patents are a modern concoction - a hundred years ago people composed symphonies and wrote great books without the benefit of Government protection. The Austrian court paid Mozart to compose pieces for their events not because there was no other music available, but because it was made for the occasion and because it was a well known composer. The London taylors were copied all over the world, but people still went to London to have their suits made for them.
It is feasible to defend the hypothesis that copyright and patents depress innovation. People will always pay a premium for the original.
Regarding the special case of patent medicines, the FDA is the main obstacle for a patent free system. If there is no FDA and no one controls the real composition or quality of the drugs sold on the market, I would happily pay the premium demanded by Pfizer for his original viagra, and would never dare to buy an anonymous pill by the internet. Nowadays, the FDA ensures that the original and the copy are identical, so I have no incentive to buy the original product. Of course, people who was tempted to buy the cheap copy, would sometimes be cheated and maybe killed by the product. That is the price of a free market and probably it would be self regulating in short time.
We should not overprotect the people, nor fear free markets.
Posted by: J Klein at Feb 27, 2006 2:27:23 PM
Are you comparing two different products? The copiers of fashion are other companies. An company still has to have a supply chain system to make a profit selling fashions and there is still an exchange of money for the fashion. An individual does not copy a new type of jeans by making copies at home.
As far as music, movies, and other electronic format, it is the user and not competitors making the copies and there is no exchange of money for the copied good. A college student in his dorm room can make a virtual unlimited number of copies and give them away.
Posted by: superdestroyer at Feb 27, 2006 2:54:55 PM
As the cited legal piece notes, the ability of fashion designers to protect their innovations was undercut by the Supreme Court in its 1941 decision striking down the Fashion Originators Guild as in violation of antitrust law. As in other areas, private efforts to protect property are thwarted by antitrust law, thereby giving incentives to beg for a political resolution of the matter.
Posted by: Roger Meiners at Feb 27, 2006 7:08:46 PM
How about business models, e.g. Wall Mart, Ikea and Southwest Airlines. These have always been the most valuable innovations, and not protected.
I'm with J Klein here. Patents and copyrights are justified by exactly the same arguments that were used to justify monopolistic trading rights in the 18th century, at which time IP was considered simply another example of such a state granted privilage. It is plausible to me that IP does benefit a country by creating a class of wealthy individuals with interests more closely alligned to the countries residents than the interests of other wealthy individuals are, but not that IP improves innovation.
Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray, more or less tramples the idea of accelerating per-capita intellectual output of merit, while such an accelerating should follow the strengthening of IP laws.
Posted by: michael vassar at Feb 28, 2006 6:07:51 PM
Is there a better URL?
Posted by: R Edwards at Mar 1, 2006 12:30:35 AM
mortgage rates http://www.mortgagerates-x.com
Posted by: mortgage rates at Mar 10, 2006 12:55:50 AM
shemales video ^^^ smeris shit vredig ^^^ giovane ass to mouth ^^^ amatoriali masturbate ^^^ poupee masturbation dans antichambre ^^^ hard films ^^^ papa groupe ^^^ plus chaude pere jeune fille ^^^ congenial cameriera masturbate ^^^ gradito fighette ass to mouth ^^^ tillgjord snut aktion ^^^ flickor grupperna i bostaden ^^^ good looking infermiera inculate ^^^ timido studentessa amore ^^^ lesbisk himmel ^^^ snobb datter ^^^ snillere filmrull ^^^ bedarende fotter ^^^ souideza striptiz stin ethousa ^^^ geladarisa praxi sto spiti ^^^ plus frais maman climat ^^^ image quarante six ^^^
Posted by: levan at Sep 6, 2006 3:28:50 AM
sublime giovane orale fotti II grazioso asiatiche masturbate II komikos geladarisa striptiz II gramateas avnanismos ethousa anamonis II femme fist dans les escaliers II aimable serveuse dildo II culi II sheepish fighetta sex II ilkea fitness II epatavallinen opiskelija II favoloso segretaria II sconfinato fighetta II schoolmeisje piss vredig II beroemd blonde II het oskyldig II hangivenhet chat II rovslickare mpeg II obetydlig nunna II radd av sig tonaring knytenave II skygg ung fitta samlag II arestos geladarisa prostihi II dropali mathitria katourima II kouder douche II lachwekkend hoer II eftyhis geladarisa praxi II epithymo koritsia praxi II ado cochonne omasex II foto nagie zdjecia II oralne na balkonie II
Posted by: gytuk at Sep 14, 2006 1:54:17 AM
Fashion is about creativity, it's pure art! You can not lock it and chock it with the copyright boundaries...
Posted by: Olga Moore at Mar 16, 2007 7:48:15 PM
what is fashion and status?
Posted by: Elyssa Nakamura at Sep 23, 2008 2:42:59 AM
Posted by: at Oct 13, 2008 10:50:05 PM
Tiffany Replica Jewelry/a>
Links of London Jewelry
Replica Links of London Jewelry
Links of London Replica Jewelry
Posted by: aion kina at Mar 20, 2009 9:40:04 PM
We are professional cheap kids shoes online store .We provide Nike shoes cheap ,Nike air jordan,cheap kids clothing
cheap womens clothing,Nike shoes online store,Nike shoes cheap,Nike shoes for kids,air jordan sneakers,nike air jordan,air jordans,brand shoe,shoes brand, dropship Nike shoes , brand clothes,brand clothes ,shoes brand,cheap kids clothing for cheap wholesale Air Jordans shoes for kids & women.
Posted by: air jordan sneakers at Jul 10, 2009 1:49:15 AM