Why this Gucci knockoff is totally legal

Why this Gucci knockoff is totally legal

Knockoffs are everywhere in fashion. So is the controversy they inspire.

Subscribe to our channel! http://goo.gl/0bsAjO

Allbirds says Steve Madden copied their sneakers. Gucci says Forever 21 ripped off their green-red-green stripes. Adidas says Zara knocked off their Yeezys.

In the Constitution, Congress has the power to stop copying by giving authors and inventors “the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

But there’s a catch. These protections must “promote the progress” of creative industries.

Conventional wisdom holds that copying kills innovation and hurts industry progress. But within the fashion industry, experts like New York University law professor Christopher Sprigman say the ease of copying is actually good for creativity.

Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what’s really driving the events in the headlines. Check out http://www.vox.com.

Watch our full video catalog: http://goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Facebook: http://goo.gl/U2g06o
Or Twitter: http://goo.gl/XFrZ5H

You may also like...

87 Responses

  1. A Callow Artist says:

    Gucci more like despacito

  2. Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso Classique says:

    Gucci is so overrated now, it has lost all of its heritage and now we’re just left with the empty carcass.

    • Chocolate Loco says:

      +Ewwch I don’t do Gucci and I don’t know what that is

    • TheVirtualStealth says:

      +Ewwch Gucci has been in rap way before Gucci Gang. Let’s not forget Gucci Mane

    • Yakov Antonovich says:

      Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso Classique I never cared for brands but these respectable brands lost all value, in my opinion, when they started appealing to the “rich kids” demographic with their ridiculous street-style clothes. I wear clothes from H&m, Zara and Mango and it’s better option because they sell decent-looking clothes, and in terms of quality, you get what you pay for. Most importantly at those places you buy clothes for being stylish, not for their logo

    • Evil Oats says:

      Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso Classique I agree. Their quality is way worse now as well. You’re better off getting stuff from Prada or YSL because their products are actually still pretty high quality and are made to higher standards, in better conditions

  3. panda danish says:

    isint that ryland adam’s shoe?

  4. seem2002 says:

    Thank god it is. I hope these companies die out. Sell extra high. Employ extra cheap.

    • Annie Quandt says:

      so are basically every major designer brand — it’s all marketing. Unless you truly know the source of the product, related employee rights/or if the brand brags about their conditions and wages (as one should if they are paying honestly) —- then it’s probably not produced honestly.
      quora . com / Where-do-top-clothing-stores-like-Gucci-manufacture-their-clothing

    • Annie Quandt says:

      kishinuma ayumi – so are basically every major designer brand — it’s all marketing. Unless you truly know the source of the product, related employee rights/or if the brand brags about their conditions and wages (as one should if they are paying honestly) —- then it’s probably not produced honestly.
      quora . com / Where-do-top-clothing-stores-like-Gucci-manufacture-their-clothing

    • Xannah says:

      To my knowledge most luxury brands are actually NOT ethically made. But let me know your sources I’d be interested. The biggest difference between H&M, Zara, etc and Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Prada is the perception we have of them. This perception is manipulated by marketing, which most of our money actually goes in, when we buy an item. Luxury brands seem “luxurious” because they are exclusive. Most of our popularity can’t afford the items, and they are not exactly trying to make it easier. “Ordinary” people are not invited to Fashion Shows and if a Journalist criticises the show they simply un-invite them from the party. I am not saying that Fast-Fashion Brands are ok either, but taking in mind the tons of leather that gets produced, causes of accidents through chemicals and lack of security measurements, clothes ending up in landfills and waste of water the WHOLE industry causes. We gotta be more mindful about the things we buy and criticise the ones who don’t care about the environment and only about profit!

    • Laurel says:

      Luxury brands like Burberry and such operate in places like Britain, Spain, Italy, etc, they pay their workers good wages.
      It’s fast fashion that’s mostly using cheap labor- that’s what keeps the prices insanely low.

  5. Tony Lancer says:

    To be quite honest, the knockoffs are afforable when the bank doesn’t allow you to get what you want. It’s a win-win for the consumer.

  6. Phantom Warrior says:

    if the fashion didn’t charge an arm and a leg for items, then their designs wouldn’t get copied.

  7. PowahSlap Entertainmint says:

    Gucci is out. Crocs are in.

  8. Marc Shanahan says:

    Is it just me, or does she look like Natalie Portman?

  9. Hyuna Fans Wakanda says:

    You want me to feel sorry for the rich?

    • K. Flynn says:

      +nig baby the money a rich person makes is not equal to the amount of work they do. At that point, I’d call them rich.

    • Robert Jarman says:

      Not more than anyone else did most likely. Children work for years in extremely hazardous factories, work at least as hard as the rich do, almost always even more work, and get pennies and a cup of boiled rice, if that.

    • WIKI FACTS says:

      If you wanted to design something it would suck for you because you wouldn’t be able to make money off of your designs since other companies might be more established and will be able to produce it far way cheaper than you

    • eri says:

      Rich people don’t work for their money. They get it from their parents, they get it from exploiting others.

  10. D Ambar says:

    The fact that someone might even think that intellectual property rights should apply to clothes shows how warped the whole concept is.

  11. Md. Rifat says:

    Well its not like the knock offs are hampering the customers of those high end brand products . Its for ppl like us who can’t afford to buy it . I never saw a billionaire buying a knockoff !!

  12. no privacy says:

    I have very little, if any sympathy for an industry that is harmed by it’s own practice.

    They thrive on driving constant change. They make mountains of profit from sweat shop labor. They make money from other people who have so much money that they have to imagine there is something they need. You need this; get it before it is common.

    • Citygirl Lbrand says:

      That is actually not true. Some of the top brands even Apple electronics have been caught using sweatshop labor. It is not just fast fashion but many of the top clothes designers and electronics manufacturers have been called out for sweatshop use. The only was to avoid that is to buy Made in the USA

    • CottonGirrrrraffe says:

      Citygirl Lbrand You clearly don’t have very much knowledge of Gucci. All Gucci products are made by fairly paid workers in nice workshops in Italy.

    • Citygirl Lbrand says:

      You clearly have not been around the world all that long. Years ago before you were born high fashion started using sweatshops to make their goods. Even in NYC there was the famous fire which was a sweatshop in which women died. They were Italian immigrants. So even in Italy sweatshops existed. It may not have been the sweatshops of third world countries but they were still sweatshops. Today or at least since the 1970’s workers in the garment industry have been protected in all industrialized nations. So you are right No Gucci has probably never taken their goods to India or China but they used sweatshops in their own cities like Milan and Rome. So clearly you don’t have much knowledge of the history of the world.

    • Annie Quandt says:

      balenciaga, coach, prada, levis, nike, adidas, armani, burberry, mulberry, YSL, gucci, and so many more produce their stuff in China (and other countries with very low wages). They say that it’s due to the quality of workers there, which I don’t disagree with, but given that they don’t advertise how much they pay, their benefits, or their factory conditions, and generally they do outsource (contract) labor (which is how some knock-offs are made, by former employees), it’s hard to say that they don’t use sweatshop labor.
      There’s even a rumor many of the brands who produce ‘made in Italy’ use shipped in workers from China – again, not necessarily an issue, but it does depend on the wages they are getting and their environment if so. I will say that generally, oversight in Italy is not very strong —- while corruption is —- so it would be easy to slip through the cracks.

    • Annie Quandt says:

      literally just google “gucci made in china”
      quora . com / Where-do-top-clothing-stores-like-Gucci-manufacture-their-clothing
      nytimes . com / 2007/11/23/opinion/23thomas .html

  13. Serena says:

    Because it’s not Gucci but a Turkish male house slipper…

  14. Cassidy Leonards says:

    I’m still not clear what they are seeking to copyright though? They say designs, but to what degree? The example they used for the shape of a garment, something to that degree, I think would be unreasonable. So the designer copyrights a dress with an A-line silhouette and NO ONE ELSE can make a dress with an A-line silhouette?

    Or would it be the combination of the shape, colour/print, fabric used, method of fastening and the stitching? So if it’s a canary yellow dress with pink carnations on it, made of silk that zips up the back with backward stitching, no one else in the world could make a dress like that?

    • TheDannyShow says:

      Cassidy Leonards well when it comes to paintings, they have experts decide whether something is too similar or not

    • TissuePaper says:

      +John M The thing is, most of these “luxury” designers are making clothes that won’t be fashionable anymore once the patent goes through, so it wouldn’t make sense to wait for a patent. They would either have to wait until they get the patent to release the design (so they wouldn’t sell anything), or they would have to try to get a patent after knockoffs are already being made, so the patent wouldn’t be accepted as a “novel design” by the patent office.

      There really are *no new ideas*. Just like the RIAA stifles the creativity of both burgeoning and well-established musicians, so too would this “copyrightability” stifle the creativity of designers.

    • Karun gany says:

      Woah. You sure know your stuff 😅👌

    • Karacsony Zsolt says:

      patents or copyright are like a forgotten hand break if on you just consume more energy we need to collaborate and make things better for all not just some one who had or stole and idea. just manage the resource better and peace on earth will be possible 🙂

    • Robi Mut says:

      They shouldv’e been sued ages ago for the eerie phonetic resemblance to tamagotchi, albeit half the practicality

  15. jedigecko06 says:

    2:46 “We create something from nothing at all, and we deserve protection.”

    You don’t redesign the wheel every time. You copy from your own previous designs, and others; as you improve them.

    This benefits all, and should continue.

  16. the humus says:

    lol, did they think the copyright would help Gucci sell more ?
    People that buy Gucci wont buy knockoff product.

    and people that wear Gucci knockoff have no money to buy originals
    its obvius choice for people with tight budget – buying a pair of Designer shoes or some mass produced shoes + this month rent.

  17. xxDrain says:

    Can’t help but feel like intellectual property is a thing of this time period that’ll just not be there in a far enough future, dropped in favor of a more natural and self-enforcing approach to business. Something along the lines of “if you can do it, and it works, do it”.

    • solomonarbc says:

      It surely is losing grounds. IP is hampering innovation of “others”, but without it, it wouldn’t make sense to invest at all in a new technology.

      It may sound like some corporation losing “commercial secrets” is a “good thing”, but behind the IP is a long, long, time and money consumed, so that, what? one day someone wakes up and takes the results of your years of work, for free, and improve upon it? Imagine, Mendel, spending years (seasons) of cross-breeding, to prove a pattern, and someone else snatching all the results and flash-printing it to take all the credit (and funds)?

      In WWII, and prior, there were just a few good aircraft engine designs which lots of companies “licensed” and improved upon. Why would giving that sturdy designs away for free seem like a good idea at all? Who could build engines/airplanes, afforded licensing the designs, and (if they had the R&D), they could develop it. All fair and regulated.

      Investments should yield returns. Instead, we thrive upon the lowest of the lowest prices consuming ever more and that is truly the only reason IP has a hard time.

    • Justine McCloud says:

      That is assuming that most innovations have been made by private entities, which they haven’t. And even those that have often receive massive amounts of money from the government into research.

    • vistarox says:

      You don’t got to wait until the future. “If you can do it, and it works, do it”, is exactly the attitude in modern day China

    • Chak Lee says:

      Justine McCloud- I’m gonna need a citation for that. For stuff like medicine, I can imagine the government putting money into research for the greater good. But without IP protection, who in their right minds would spend money on creating exciting new products like the iPhone or the automobile (back in the day) or any of the technology we’ve come to expect in our everyday lives? Would you let the government waste your taxes on developing never-seen-before technology that sounds crazy and will never work?

    • jocaguz18 says:

      +Chak Lee and tell me, how well as work out having only apples smartphones? 🙂 oh wait…that did not happened. Knowledge is stronger when share, the reason the we are the dominant species is that we share knowlege, monkeys and gorillas can use and create the same tools that us, but that fact that one discovers something it stays “secret” for their own use only is what negates their advancement on technology

  18. 加藤みずっち says:

    Is this Keira Knightley Knockoff totally legal?

  19. amal zuhair says:

    Well when they charge $1000 for a pair of shoes deserves to be knocked off.

  20. fahoudey says:

    Quit crying, you already making mountains of money, let knockoffs alone.
    Plus most people who buy knockoff won’t buy the real brand anyway (even if knockoffs were outlawed)
    They are not ‘lost revenue’ or ‘stealing’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *