Fashion Piracy in the United States These days fashion piracy is one of the biggest issues in the fashion industry in the United States. Companies have developed a way to copy creations of famous design houses such as Prada, Gucci and Chanel, as quickly as possible after they have seen it on the runway. These creations are being sold at significantly lower prices and therefore the design houses are no longer given the chance to successfully sell their own creations. The current U.S. intellectual property (IP) law does not protect an overall fashion design because it is categorized as 'useful article' and can therefore not be protected.1 The only options a designer has at this moment are: the protection of characteristic prints and patterns on fabric and logos, and protection of names that represent the name of the company. In Europe it has been possible to gain protection for fashion designs for ages now and since 2002 a law has been introduced as regards the protection of designs. As Dr. Fridolin Fischer points out, 'In 1876, Germany issued a law concerning the copyright on patterns and models, again mainly as a consequence of requests of the textile industry. More recently, the drive to harmonize Europe's design laws led to the European Regulation on Community designs, which came into force in 2002.' 2 This is in contrast to the United States, where a similar law has not yet been adopted, despite of the number of bills about protection for fashion designs that have been introduced. Up until now it has not been possible for fashion designers in the United States in regarding to protecting them against counterfeits, one of the reasons is that the copying of designs is often being considered as flattery. As Kal Raustiala and Chris Sprigman are pointing out, 'Design copying is widely accepted, occasionally complained about, but just as often celebrated as "homage" rather than attacked as "piracy".'3 This is one way of looking at the current design piracy situation in the United States, but many will disagree with this statement. The opponents of this situation are supporters of the idea of introducing a similar protection law to the one that has been enforced in Europe for a number of years now. Eventually, a bill was introduced in 2011 in the United States that is known as the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act (IDPPPA). This law provides designers protection for three years on designs that are unique and can be clearly distinguished from other designs. 4 As a result of the introduction of the bill a debate has been going on in which supporters of the act are convinced that the act will have a positive effect on the fashion industry. They believe that, by providing designers protection for their creations, design piracy will be reduced. By rejecting the IDPPPA, designers will be disabled to produce their collections at a more affordable price, since copied collections become impossible for designers to sell to buyers in fashion stores.5 This can be clearly explained by the following example that is discussed by Raustiala and Sprigman, 'A particular fast car is most desirable when enough people possess it to signal that it is a desired object, but the value of that car often diminishes if every person on your block owns one. Nothing about the car itself has changed, except for its ability to place its owner among the elite, and to separate her from the crowd.'6 Supporters of the bill are convinced that retailers will be forced to come up with innovative ideas to create a successful collection within their own company and therefore consumers will benefit of a broader choice of fashion.7 As Aya Eguchi declares, 'Moreover, through granting protection for a short, three-year term while leaving every design created prior to the enactment of the act in the public domain, the IDPPPA successfully protects innovative designs without threatening to establish a monopoly over techniques essential to the industry.'8 In contrast to the above, the opponents argue that in every creative field the possibility of freedom to create something that represents an individual idea should remain. They argue that, by the time designs are being protected, other designers become limited in their process of creating a new collection. Another lack in the bill, in accordance to the opponents, is the absence of a possibility for designers to register designs that have to be protected. Therefore a great chance arises that other designers subconsciously break the rules of design protection that is requested and for that reason they risk being accused of piracy. Another stance is that the opponents are convinced that styles in fashion are only temporarily and attached to seasons. Consisted of the fact that there is little protection available for designers in the United States they are forced and stimulated to maintain innovative every season. 9 In addition, because of the seasonally change of trends, companies depend on each other when it comes to promoting a new trend to the costumer. As Aya Eguchi confirms, 'Because the average fashion consumer is fickle and may refuse to buy a new offering, fashion companies work with each other to exploit trends in a mutual manner, allowing for a greater chance of success in winning the consumer's approval over each newly released design.' In conclusion, the IDPPPA is attempting to find a balance between keeping the designers motivated to introduce and create unique designs and leaving space for other designers to create something similar to the designs that have been under protection for three years. On one hand designers are profiting from the copies made by other designers consisted the fact that this will work as free publicity for their creation. On the other hand this situation can work in the disadvantage of the designer, an increasing of availability of the creation will result in a diminishing of value. The equal chances, for fashion designers worldwide, to distinguish themselves from others will be associated with the adoption or rejection of the IDPPPA. Bibliography Day, E. S. 'Double-Edged Scissor': Legal Protection for Fashion Design' 2007. [18 October 2012] Eguchi, A. 'Curtailing Copycat Couture: The Merits of the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act and a Licensing Scheme for the Fashion Industry', 12 september 2012. [18 october 2012] Dr. Fischer, F. 'Design law in the European fashion sector' WIPO MAGAZINE, February 2008. [18 October 2012] Mancino Marsh, M. ; Grant, N. 'Intellectual Property - USA' International Law Office, 23 January 2012. [18 October 2012] Raustiala, K. ; Sprigman, C. 'The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design' The John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper, 2006. [18 October 2012] Reichman, J. H. 'Design Protection in Domestic and Foreign Copyright Law: From the Berne Revision of 1948 to the Copyright Act of 1976' 1983 < http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/duklr1983&div=55&g_sent=1&collection=journals> [19 October 2012] West, B. 'A New Look for the Fashion Industry: Redesigning Copyright Law with the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act (IDPPPA)' 2011. [18 October 2012] 1 Eguchi, A. 2012. 2 Dr. Fischer, F. 2008. 3 Raustiala, K. ; Sprigman, C. 2006. 4 Eguchi, A. 2012. 5 Mancino Marsh, M. ; Grant, N. 2012 6 Raustiala, K. ; Sprigman, C. 2006. 7 Eguchi, A. 2012. 8 Eguchi, A. 2012. 9 Raustiala, K. ; Sprigman, C. 2006.