Friday, June 19, 2009

AAFA Rallies Against the Proposed Design Piracy Prohibition Act


(Photo by Getty Images)

The American Apparel and Footwear Association has voiced concern over the proposed Design Piracy Prohibition act in a letter to members of the U.S. House and Senate Judiciary Committees. AAFA cites that the recession has already hurt this industry. If the House and Senate pass this piece of legislation, it may threaten to make things worse:

"When consumers are faced with tough economic choices, clothes and shoes are often the first thing they stop buying,” said AAFA Board of Directors Chair Carol J. Hochman, CEO of Triumph Apparel Marketing. “This legislation does nothing to help the consumers and apparel and footwear producers who are hurting in this financial downturn. In reality, this bill would raise the cost of apparel and footwear, reduce consumer choice, and prevent stylish goods from getting to store shelves. This week's letter is important because it shows our nation’s decision makers that this bill is lose-lose for everyone."

AAFA tries to make it clear that while they do not support this proposed piece of legislation, that they do support the intellectual property rights of designers:

"If this bill provided any meaningful intellectual property protections for the fashion industry as supporters claim, why are so many industry mainstays against it?" asked Peter J. Gabbe, COO of Carole Hochman Design Group and former AAFA Board of Directors Chairman. "Our industry fully supports strong intellectual property protections, but this bill fails to provide any. The only protections it provides are for the established and well-recognized designers who have the legal resources to stave off any competition while holding a monopoly on inspiration."

I don't think I necessarily agree with AAFA's claim that most people in the fashion industry are against this proposed piece of legislation. When you have an organization with members such as Tommy Hilfiger and Michael Kors (who was caught in a knockoff lawsuit), it is easy to understand why AAFA is against it. If your constituents are profiting off of knockoffs of other designers, why in the world would you want to pass legislation that would prevent you from making money?

1 comment:

claire said...

It's not the big players the AAFA lobbies for that have my concern. The biggest concern is the small, individual, genuinely independent aspiring designers who will be hurt the most. When you're struggling to buy food and pay rent, the added obstacle of registration fees is huge, and the cost of litigation insurmountable.

I've started a series of posts at http://collectiveselection.com/

What will evolve from this is an atmosphere of legal intimidation where the designers with deep pocketed corporate backers will systematically sue up and comings seen as threats as a standard business practice.

Don't believe me? Check out the NY Times piece on Levi's doing just that. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/business/29jeans.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=levis%20sues%20trademark&st=cse

If protection is extended to something as subtle and subjective as shape and cut, this legal morass will grow exponentially. Lawyers will win, big companies will win, but small designers will be shut out and customers will pay more for clothing.