[LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such

[drew Roberts]

On Friday 15 February 2013 23:01:36 Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 07:21:55PM +0000, Folderol wrote:
> > If you try to pass off a bag as being a Gucci you'll get jumped on. If
> > you sell a bag in a similar style clearly marked Guppi you won't be
> > bothered.
>
> I'm guessing that Gucci would take you to court in either case.

THis example is still hung up with the artwork on the bags or the trademarks / 
logos on the bags and not with the underlying design on the bag itself.

How long is it? How wide? How tall? Basic shape. How do the handles attach? 
The design of the bag itself. The design of a plain white or black or red 
dress.

From what I have read, clothing designs do not get copyright protection.

Some at least are trying to get it though:

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/copyright-protection-for-clothing-design-81795/

And how are they justifying it in the article? They want a big copyright 
proponent to have to pay them for alledgedly making a knockoff of a dress 
design for use in a big movie without paying the dress designer.

From that I can see, there is not underlying principle at work here. There is 
no way to tell someone a few basic rules and let them reason their way to the 
correct outcomes that will be reached in the case of copyright and patents 
and the like. And not by a long shot.

all the best,

drew