Higgins, clothing designs are NOT subject to copyright protection, at least not here in the United States. It's been that way for 200 years. The US Supreme Court stated that clothing is utilitarian and lacking creative value. This isn't to be confused with trademark law. So the Haiti Jacket coming soon is completely legal, as long as the Y-3 logo or one that could be confused with it is not present. Congress did try to pass the "Innovative Design Protection Act of 2012" which would have granted copyright protection to fashion designs for just three years, but it failed to pass the Senate. So even if it had passed, all the clothing in QOS and CR would not have been protected.
Do I think Magnoli should be offering the Connery Tux? Not under that name which could imply an endorsement from Sean Connery. The Baccarat Introduction Tuxedo would be fine. The Madagascar Shirt? Sure. It's just a geographic name. Should stills from the Bond films be used in promoting unlicensed products on some of these websites? Absolutely not.
Matt, you did a very good job shutting down many of Higgins's arguments. As long as the products aren't passed off as originals or imply official endorsement there is no problem as far as I can see. If we took his arguments to their ultimate conclusion only one clothing company in the world should make polo (aka tennis) shirts, or desert boots, or Harrington jackets.
Well, this got a little heated somehow, hasn't it?
At first, MFisher is on my ignore list as he took the attempt to provoke me with a line which has been used and is still used by Nazis. He deleted it in the meantime but it shows, what mind is behind him.
Then the law in the USA as interesting it may be is not the law in the world.
Will I defend Tom Ford? Hell, no! MattS said exactly where most of his designs are based from - I am well aware of the roots of the QoS sunglasses and in my opinion, his clothing is uncreative and highly overpriced. I don't own a single piece of clothing from him. Will I therefore buy one of the variously mentioned fakes? No!
And I draw the line between a fashion (not every blue Poloshirt with a pocket is a Sunspel fake) - but if you are listing such an item with "Casino Royale" or James Bond" there is hardly a conincidence.
So it may be legal in the US what Magnoli does with his clothing - to me, it's still poor and uncreative ripping-off
He bases his entire business model on 1:1 copying movie hero clothing, refers to figures, franchises and movies that he has no license of and at the end of the day, his items will not become collectibles for the traditional Bond collector.
This thread started with Fake sunglasses, which are tagged with James Bond and Thunderball - so the nature of the offer is clear.
And - be it legal in the US or not: Stealing intellectual copyright is just poor and buying these supports the ones that stole the intellectual property.
Indy Magnoli is very welcome to discuss his pov with me here on the board or by pm with me - it would be interesting to hear his take on that.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think Higgins' original intention was to say - in his opinion - that it's more rewarding to buy one original Bond-related item than several fakes, due to its superior craftsmanship or quality...
So avoiding the discussion on what does or doesn't constitute copyright infringement, I have to agree - the Persol and Tom Ford sunglasses are much nicer than the one or two fake copies I bought before I saved up for the originals. -{
Matt, you did a very good job shutting down many of Higgins's arguments. As long as the products aren't passed off as originals or imply official endorsement there is no problem as far as I can see. If we took his arguments to their ultimate conclusion only one clothing company in the world should make polo (aka tennis) shirts, or desert boots, or Harrington jackets.
As a matter of fact - he didn't
I entirely agree with his analysis* - we only differ on the legal aspect of ripping off clothing designs in the territory of the US.
* and if you read my previous posts on the subject, you may find the terms
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
That's my favorite part and says it all to the spirit of all these fakers - be they legal or not:
"But it is no surprise that counterfeiters also try to free-ride on the sales-promotional effects of trademarks by copying both the designs and the corresponding labels."
That's the poorest business model that I can imagine and bears no additional value to a soul less clichee
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Matt, you did a very good job shutting down many of Higgins's arguments. As long as the products aren't passed off as originals or imply official endorsement there is no problem as far as I can see. If we took his arguments to their ultimate conclusion only one clothing company in the world should make polo (aka tennis) shirts, or desert boots, or Harrington jackets.
As a matter of fact - he didn't
I entirely agree with his analysis* - we only differ on the legal aspect of ripping off clothing designs in the territory of the US.
* and if you read my previous posts on the subject, you may find the terms
I only used Tom Ford as one example. The same could be applied to any designer or tailor of clothing James Bond has worn. I could write about Anthony Sinclair the same way I wrote about Tom Ford. None of his styles were original to him. He took from what tailors before him did, just as Tom Ford does.
In your opinion, should Henry Poole be the only tailor that has the right to make a dinner jacket? It was their idea. Have the dinner jackets that James Bond has worn in 21 movies all been knock-offs?
Higgins wrote:
And I draw the line between a fashion (not every blue Poloshirt with a pocket is a Sunspel fake) - but if you are listing such an item with "Casino Royale" or James Bond" there is hardly a conincidence.
That aside, I like business ethics as follows: "LETS MAKE THINGS BETTER"
Business ethics of the ripp-offers: "LETS MAKE THINGS CHEAPER!"
Big difference imo
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Higgins wrote:
And I draw the line between a fashion (not every blue Poloshirt with a pocket is a Sunspel fake) - but if you are listing such an item with "Casino Royale" or James Bond" there is hardly a conincidence.
That aside, I like business ethics as follows: "LETS MAKE THINGS BETTER"
Business ethics of the ripp-offers: "LETS MAKE THINGS CHEAPER!"
Big difference imo
But that's not consistent with you disliking Tom Ford's rip-offs. I don't see the difference between copying some things but not other. Someone always designed it first. If the polo shirt was a more recent invention you would feel differently. I think it's fine to market something saying that James Bond inspired the item, but saying that it is a "James Bond" item is not right.
I can live when a company issues another dinner jacket, or a Harrington jacket or whatever, but when fabrics, cuts and details are copied 1:1 it's just poor-rip-offing.
I can live with fashion styles into certain directions, my tolerance ends with labeling as "James Bond", Casino Royale" etc
And my tolerance ends also when certain designs are copied to the detail, be it Magnoli or be it Tom Ford in the case of the OP sunglasses.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I can live when a company issues another dinner jacket, or a Harrington jacket or whatever, but when fabrics, cuts and details are copied 1:1 it's just poor-rip-offing.
I can live with fashion styles into certain directions, my tolerance ends with labeling as "James Bond", Casino Royale" etc
And my tolerance ends also when certain designs are copied to the detail, be it Magnoli or be it Tom Ford in the case of the OP sunglasses.
Magnoli has mostly failed when copying things to the detail. I've noticed small imperfections in almost all of his items, especially in the suits. Magnoli cuts all of his suits his own way, despite attempting to copy others' styles. And the details he tries to copy are all off a little as well. I think it's Magnoli's labelling that is the worst part of his clothes. Baron Boutique is even worse with their labeling! That I certainly agree with you on.
well in the cases of Magnoli and Baron the differences in the detail are more screw-ups than planned creativity
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
I think the problem with Magnoli now is that he's copying trademarked items. The diamondhead cufflinks amongst other things are Duponts design and theirs alone which they paid for.
Comments
Do I think Magnoli should be offering the Connery Tux? Not under that name which could imply an endorsement from Sean Connery. The Baccarat Introduction Tuxedo would be fine. The Madagascar Shirt? Sure. It's just a geographic name. Should stills from the Bond films be used in promoting unlicensed products on some of these websites? Absolutely not.
Matt, you did a very good job shutting down many of Higgins's arguments. As long as the products aren't passed off as originals or imply official endorsement there is no problem as far as I can see. If we took his arguments to their ultimate conclusion only one clothing company in the world should make polo (aka tennis) shirts, or desert boots, or Harrington jackets.
At first, MFisher is on my ignore list as he took the attempt to provoke me with a line which has been used and is still used by Nazis. He deleted it in the meantime but it shows, what mind is behind him.
Then the law in the USA as interesting it may be is not the law in the world.
Will I defend Tom Ford? Hell, no! MattS said exactly where most of his designs are based from - I am well aware of the roots of the QoS sunglasses and in my opinion, his clothing is uncreative and highly overpriced. I don't own a single piece of clothing from him. Will I therefore buy one of the variously mentioned fakes? No!
Then maybe everyone is reading this:
So it may be legal in the US what Magnoli does with his clothing - to me, it's still poor and uncreative ripping-off
He bases his entire business model on 1:1 copying movie hero clothing, refers to figures, franchises and movies that he has no license of and at the end of the day, his items will not become collectibles for the traditional Bond collector.
This thread started with Fake sunglasses, which are tagged with James Bond and Thunderball - so the nature of the offer is clear.
And - be it legal in the US or not: Stealing intellectual copyright is just poor and buying these supports the ones that stole the intellectual property.
Indy Magnoli is very welcome to discuss his pov with me here on the board or by pm with me - it would be interesting to hear his take on that.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
So avoiding the discussion on what does or doesn't constitute copyright infringement, I have to agree - the Persol and Tom Ford sunglasses are much nicer than the one or two fake copies I bought before I saved up for the originals. -{
As a matter of fact - he didn't
I entirely agree with his analysis* - we only differ on the legal aspect of ripping off clothing designs in the territory of the US.
* and if you read my previous posts on the subject, you may find the terms
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2008/01/article_0006.html
And thank you for editing post 28.
"But it is no surprise that counterfeiters also try to free-ride on the sales-promotional effects of trademarks by copying both the designs and the corresponding labels."
That's the poorest business model that I can imagine and bears no additional value to a soul less clichee
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I only used Tom Ford as one example. The same could be applied to any designer or tailor of clothing James Bond has worn. I could write about Anthony Sinclair the same way I wrote about Tom Ford. None of his styles were original to him. He took from what tailors before him did, just as Tom Ford does.
In your opinion, should Henry Poole be the only tailor that has the right to make a dinner jacket? It was their idea. Have the dinner jackets that James Bond has worn in 21 movies all been knock-offs?
That aside, I like business ethics as follows: "LETS MAKE THINGS BETTER"
Business ethics of the ripp-offers: "LETS MAKE THINGS CHEAPER!"
Big difference imo
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
But that's not consistent with you disliking Tom Ford's rip-offs. I don't see the difference between copying some things but not other. Someone always designed it first. If the polo shirt was a more recent invention you would feel differently. I think it's fine to market something saying that James Bond inspired the item, but saying that it is a "James Bond" item is not right.
I can live when a company issues another dinner jacket, or a Harrington jacket or whatever, but when fabrics, cuts and details are copied 1:1 it's just poor-rip-offing.
I can live with fashion styles into certain directions, my tolerance ends with labeling as "James Bond", Casino Royale" etc
And my tolerance ends also when certain designs are copied to the detail, be it Magnoli or be it Tom Ford in the case of the OP sunglasses.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Magnoli has mostly failed when copying things to the detail. I've noticed small imperfections in almost all of his items, especially in the suits. Magnoli cuts all of his suits his own way, despite attempting to copy others' styles. And the details he tries to copy are all off a little as well. I think it's Magnoli's labelling that is the worst part of his clothes. Baron Boutique is even worse with their labeling! That I certainly agree with you on.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!