Johanna Blakely: Lessons from fashion's free culture

14 04 2011

http://www.ted.com Copyright law’s grip on film, music and software barely touches the fashion industry … and fashion benefits in both innovation and sales, says Johanna Blakley. At TEDxUSC 2010, she talks about what all creative industries can learn from fashion’s free culture.TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world’s leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the “Sixth Sense” wearable tech, and “Lost” producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at http Watch a highlight reel of the Top 10 TEDTalks at http://www.ted.com

Advertisements

Actions

Information

25 responses

14 04 2011
ssanders6

As neat as this was, it equivocates two very different things. In many ways, this video is dishonest to the real arguments surrounding Intellectual Property. Copyright, with consumer goods, can largely protect the consumer as well as the creator.

14 04 2011
kingcherub

For more in depth arguments look up Stephen Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property.

15 04 2011
ChelseaxXxForever

Bravo Bravo!
Wonderful Presentation

15 04 2011
1337saklart

nice

15 04 2011
vlcgo

I might be wrong but I think open source software has indeed copyright protection, it’s the license that differs greatly.

15 04 2011
saurabhbasu86new

is it actually so easy.. a lot of bands work for a year or 2 and come up with 9 songs that represents their style… with fashion, it might be different.. there are hundreds of designs which people can buy; there is really one design for everyone… but with music, its also a question of quality.. the bands want all their songs to be good…
furthermore, people need clothes to cover their naked bodies, people may not need music to survive…

15 04 2011
furyofbongos

@dnarby – Not, actually. I invite you to look up Stephan Kinsella, an ex-IP lawyer (very recently ex) for a non-intuitive but very compelling view of IP laws.

15 04 2011
dnarby

@furyofbongos

You’re kidding, right?

15 04 2011
dnarby

@Composer1992

It’s fine if you want to give away your own IP, but I’d prefer you didn’t make that decision for me, thanks.

15 04 2011
dnarby

It is amazing to me how the lecturer blissfully ignores the fact that the entire fashion industry relies on IP in the form of trademark protection in order to grow brand name and market share.

15 04 2011
DeSamuelOfficial

great fashion

15 04 2011
menkaur

suspected that for some time now.
down with the copyright laws!

15 04 2011
Fleming6302

Meet Russian women for dating gettop5.info

15 04 2011
rashika172

Hey guys join to have a fun mworld5.info

15 04 2011
BrobdingnagianPants

@deepjunejones
…and why not? If I put your lyrics to a radically different music style/tempo/medium, is it not a different product? If said product does not compete directly with yours, why would you protest? Is there a fundamental difference between a drum line or a line of words?
Protection of brand names and trademarks ensures that other producers cannot pass of their product as yours. That’s it.

15 04 2011
BrobdingnagianPants

@Zoomatik:
I’d disagree. The reason a Prada shoe is difficult to copy is because of the composite nature of the final product. The designs, however, can be copied. Flexible IP laws contribute to the development of future IP: if designers can freely use existing tools (i.e. Prada designs, or stitching patterns) they have an advantage of those who cannot. “Locking-in” or “Closeting” IP has a retardant effect on economic development, which is what the video poster wants to show via comparison.

15 04 2011
Zoomatik

She completely misses the most obvious point: Fashion, furniture, auto-mobiles etc have copy-protection built in! You can’t put a Prada shoe on a photocopier and produce a new identical Prada shoe. You can’t take a picture of a sports car and have a laser printer print you a new car.

Legal copy-protection in other creative industries is to deal with the fact you can make perfect identical copies of CDs, DVDs, (PDF) books etc at no (or close to no) cost.

15 04 2011
Aracuru

But fashion is gay…..

15 04 2011
Aracuru

You can’t copyright clothing…but you can copyright SEEDS.

15 04 2011
amouramarie

Copyright is utterly broken, as evidenced by the fact that fashion innovation flourishes while “protected” art forms struggle to maintain their place in new spaces. And the supporters of copyright as it stands sure as hell don’t have an interest in your right to remix, revisualize, reinvent, collaborate, borrow, be inspired by, improve upon, artistically respond to, or otherwise share in the participatory culture of art that SHOULD belong to all.

15 04 2011
japoniano

Cars and furnitute ARE protected by industrial designs.

Games ARE protected by patents (in USA at least)

15 04 2011
deepjunejones

@Composer1992 I think this analogy is unacceptable, music is different from cloths we where. And if we are to compare : in music you can use my style of rhythm or groove, drums etc but you can’t use me lyrics. you can even use my melody line but not my lyrics. so I’ll say my lyric is = to the label on a bag or a shirt.

15 04 2011
deepjunejones

I think this analogy is unacceptable, music is different from cloths we where. And if we are to compare : in music you can use my style of rhythm or groove, drums etc but you can’t use me lyrics. you can even use my melody line but not my lyrics. so I’ll say my lyric is = to the label on a bag or a shirt.

15 04 2011
nublex

@Composer1992 spot on 🙂 am a graffiti artist / painter and the colab work with others in the field will always spawn new, more complex and radical work than what one can do alone in a basement

15 04 2011
Evi1M4chine

The simple physical fact is, that an idea/information/data is not a physical object. Hence it can not be owned at all. Search for what defines ownership. It does not fulfill the definition at all. You can not control it, it can not be stolen (since you still would have a copy), and most important of all: Why would you get money a second time, for what is just a copy of the result of the service that was already paid for the first time.

Because all that is salable, is the *service*!




%d bloggers like this: