DEFENDING THE FAITH

“I’d have loved to be a fly on the wall when those copycat companies saw the program” screamed Imelda’s Footwear Designer of ’08 and the designer at the center of the 'Fashion Fake' controversy, Camilla Skovgaard.

Of course, Skovgaard was referring to Wednesday night’s expose ‘Fashion Fakes’ which aired on Australia’s highest rating current affairs program Today Tonight.

The program exposed Australia’s pitiful copyright protection laws that according to Intellectual property-specialist lawyer, David Stewart, are “embarrassing” for an OECD country. Steward also noting Australia has been recognized as a “safe haven for plagiarists for quite some time”

The little known cost of these laws is that they are directly responsible for the quagmire of mediocrity that is the Australian Footwear industry. Why support (or even attempt to support) original design when the law allows such unbridled plagiarism?

Is the margin for error that slim that not ONE mid market retailer is prepared to take a chance and offer the consumer something other a cheap designer knockoff?

Until the Federal Government changes these laws, footwear brands like those named (Tony Bianco, Wittner and Siren Shoes) will continue to profit from the creative output of designers like Camilla Skovgaard, Nicholas Kirkwood, Alexanders’ Wang & McQueen, and Marc Jacobs.

However, as Stewart noted “This affects Australian fashion designers as much as it affects people overseas”

The foundations for last night’s expose were laid several months ago after Imelda revealed Tony Bianco Footwear had produced a one-for-one knock-off of Camilla Skovgaard’s signature shoe and then circulated images of international celebrities (wearing the Skovgaard original) to promote their product. (Read HERE)

Incensed that I had the audacity to call out their shady practices, Tony Bianco Footwear then ‘unleashed’ the law firm of Davies Collison Cave demanding a full retraction.

OH the irony!

True I was surprised to find myself at the center of a Despot and Goliath battle but nothing could catch this old warhorse off guard. Standing in the wings was friend to the House of Despotism, my blogging colleague and Australia’s most respected Fashion Journalist, Patty ‘Frockwriter’ Huntington.

Initially I enjoyed the wicked irony that after years off satirising (the real) Imelda’s legal woes here I was entangled in my own legal worries. However, as the emails became more dogged the irony became less amusing and my heart of darkness started beating with the rage of a 1000 hurricanes.

Their primary (and only valid) objection was my assertion that TBF had infringed Skovgaard’s copyright.

As was pointed out (and was then reiterated on TT by Stewart) unless a designer registers EVERY SINGLE design, then under the current Australian law their designs are not protected.

Stewart stated “if you're an international fashion designer based in Milan or based in Rome or based in London and you're not aware of this particular quirk to the way in which Australian law works, then you've got no basis on which to try to protect the creative output of your efforts," and therefore because Skovgaard didn’t register her design(s) one cannot claim ‘copyright infringed’ – the moral of the story, you can report a company is producing one-to-one knockoffs but not that they are infringing copyright (unless the product has been registered).

Got it?

As you would expect, Skovgaard finds the situation disheartening and after viewing the expose said she hoped Australia “will get a similar fundamental design right protection to the EU, first 3 years protection obligatory”

Here’s when things got all haute n’ hairy.

During the course of her investigation, Huntington discovered TBF were selling a second Skovgaard knockoff (the Sportsgirl and Siren knockoffs were discovered at a later date). “Quelle Horreur” fumed the Despotic Queen.

It was also discovered that despite being freely available (at retail) the original knockoff ‘Sexy Roberto’ had been removed from all the company’s consumer communications (eg website and Facebook page).

We then noted a short time after Huntington contacted Bianco representatives (I believe to obtain a response) the second shoe was mysteriously removed from the company’s official website.

Imelda asks since TBF felt it was necessary to take legal action against my allegations of ‘continued infringement’ then why remove the shoes in question from their website?

I’m confused, especially after Huntington contacted a Tony Bianco retail store and confirmed ‘Sexy Roberto’ was for sale and stock levels were plentiful. Imelda then made direct contacted with a number of independent Sydney based footwear retailers who all confirmed full sizes, runs and colourways of 'Sexy Roberto'.

With stock (and a lot of it) in stores, what plausible reason can TBF offer for removing theses shoes from the company’s website?

Is this, as the cheeky Madonna grab implied, simply a case of mid market footwear brands wanting to have “their cake and eat it”?

I’ve taken a very principled stand on the issue of designer knockoffs, a stance that poses losses both professionally and financially. In fact, when I received the first email (from Davies Collison Cave) I was told “change it” ('it' being my original post) and that if I held my ground I'd be ‘burning my bridges’.

Well, I don’t want to risk my life crossing a bridge made out of rotten planks. I’d rather just burn the fucker to the ground and start building a new one.

While the big luxury houses are armed with high priced lawyers it’s independent footwear designers who it seems are at the greatest risk so it’s time to play the ‘name and shame’ game.

What’s that you say Imelda? WAR?

YES it’s WAR and it’s to be the Despotic Queen’s greatest battle to-date, The War Against Knockoffs.

So my beloved Imeldettes, I’m introducing a new weekly post creatively titled ‘Imelda’s War Against Knockoffs’ and I need your help.

You’ll need to be alert and alarmed.

My inbox is groaning under the weight of all your ‘alert’ emails and keep ‘em coming. If you spot a suspicious looking shoe then call 1800 IMELDA, but if you can’t get through then email (editor@imelda.com.au) or TWEET me a link and let me know which designer you believe has been knocked off and I’ll unleash the full force of the Despotic Queen.

And to kick off this new weekly post what better shoes to start with than the shoes profiled on Today Tonight.

Finally, Jennine Tamm Jacob aka The Coveted left a comment that we should all take time to ponder “I think there is a bigger problem at stake here, not just fakes, but the fact that we feel we need them.”

    

 

Comments

[candi cave]

Imelda, you are a hero! x x independent designers everywhere are cheering for you right now. Thank God someone has integrity and is willing to be the public 'face' of this oft-ignored issue... if only the big retailers had the guts to admit it. But they never will cos for every rip-off shoe they sell for $149.95, they're probably making a massive profit, and thats all they care about.

Stop the world, I wanna get off!

[Dixxie]

My first pang of disgust at knockoffs in Australia happened the first time i saw Peeptoe shoes, and felt sick that not only had they devalued my authentic Louboutins, but that these rip offs were still charging a mid-range premium price.

Good luck, i wish you luck with your battle and ultimately your war.

[Ms Fitz]

YOU RULE IMELDA!!

[SwanDiamondRose]

oh man. this is an Oscar the Grouch size can of worms! but hey i'll jump right in.

i agree with The Coveted's comment “I think there is a bigger problem at stake here, not just fakes, but the fact that we feel we need them.” that's for sure at the heart of the matter.

AND i think there should be better copyright protection and follow through. i'm a little surprised at this Australia situation! it's great that it is all coming out.

people do want cheap stuff. many don't care too much where it came from. they want cheap stuff so they can look hot now, period.

there's this whole DIY copying thing going on too. basically i think there is good copying and there is bad copying. this shoe situation is bad copying. making a DIY version of something for yourself that you keep and don't sell, is good copying. end of story. though not many people will attempt a Louboutin knock off at home!

but people should take note of this copying situation in general, as in with the internet promoting file sharing and copying, some sort of healthy facilitation of this situation should be addressed by designers. ya? and i think it is in some ways, though i am not a huge fan of mass produced items, there are all those collections being done with higher end designers and places like Top Shop and H&M etc. that is one example of designers embracing it. they are making the money from the cheap copy. also there are some designers who are putting out patterns.

i've woken up to emails about my Louche tote and Ruffle Bustle Bumbag being copied. people descended on the Louche copier en masse, and they have stopped making that copy. though their other sales are through the roof, because the bags are inexpensive. when I saw the copy [imperfect i might add!] of the Ruffle Bustle Bumbag, my reaction that time was more like, i wish i was the person making the copy at 1/5th my price. sort of a reaction out of exhaustion but also fascination with the situation. 'cuz... the internet is only going to bring more of this.

so i think we need to get smart from a number of angles. squashing and facilitating where needed!

and thanks Imelda for putting your sweet self on the line! all those lawyers coming after you! you'll need an army of bodyguards soon.

(my longest comment ever!)

[Bostonista]

I think it is awesome of you to put yourself on the line AND stand up for what you believe in! I really admire that.
And I agree that knock-offs are a real problem. It irritates me when I see near exact replicas of well known/publicized items at places made in a cheap way (that is probably harmful to both the factory workers and the environment) or when a big name brand is making money off a little known designer's idea and there isn't any real legal protection for the little guy.
On the other hand, I can't afford any of those little guy shoes or the shoes of Christian Louboutin etc. Other than the short term collaborations with places like Target and H&M I probably never will.

What if I fall in love with a pair of studded loubs and find a similar pair by Nine West or Jessica Simpson at more than 1/2 the price? And what about the shoppers with no fashion education who like a pair of $70 shoes (which is already a stretch for MOST people in this economy) and buy them? They don't know that these shoes are knock offs! And the thousands of people working in those nine west factories-if we all stopped buying those knockoffs won't they all lose their jobs? And therefore be in even worse situations than they are now?

I think a lot of designers need to take a step down right now and find ways of sourcing and producing their pieces at a lower price point. I think they need to back away from "exclusivity" a bit and broaden their demographics so that more people would be aware of their designs and want it to be from the designer rather than the knock off. But they need to lower prices to be able to compete. I mean yes, I want high craftsmanship & amazing materials but I also don't want to have to sweat a credit card bill!
If they found a way to bring their prices down to within say $200 of the knockoffs ($80 for a crappy pair or $250 for a nice one? I'd pay the $250) they'd be able to compete because people are willing to pay more for quality but not $700 for a pair of shoes they may not like in 9 months!
I do believe that designers deserve copyright protections but they also need to understand WHY knockoffs are happening and make some changes on their own ends as well.

[Nigel]

Probs shouldn't describe the entire Australian footwear industry as 'mediocre'. Remember there's still amazing independant talent in OZ such as Phong Chi Lai.
However I commend you Matt on taking an incredibly bold stand against companies such as Tony Bianco who are so f***ing lazy that they don't even try to hide their utterly shameless thievery. I mean, the Skovgaard heel is stitch for stitch a copy. Best of luck.

[MK]

What did I see when I flipped open the Good Weekend today? A rip-off pair of YSL cage boots (sorry, 'Cubic') by Siren for $130. Boo to Siren and boo to GW for supporting such a blatent rip-off...

[Amber Long]

The question is not 'why shouldn't i be able to buy great (knock-off) shoes at a price point i can afford?', but rather 'why is there such a dearth of original-design shoes available in my price point in Australia?'. The longer so many Australian fashion brands continue to rely on other company design, the fewer opportunities there will be for the training and development of emerging Australian shoe designers. In the absence of protective legislation, the message simply has to be: 'Support original design at whatever price point you can afford'.

[jim]

So many magazines have a picture of a catwalk outfit then clothes and accessories surrounding the picture touting that you can get the look for half the price which in itself isn't a bad thing though many times I have seen blatant knock offs rather than similar items.
But also, I think the if there wasn't such a desire to covet something that badly that you'd settle for less and that some of us weren't so easily persuaded it would lessen the knock off impact; it's also a personal decision as well as a supply and demand issue.

Knowledgeable and understanding articles like Imelda's firsthand accounts really open up a channel of discussion that many don't shed light on in public so bravo muchacho!

[lucinda]

MK - I saw those Siren shoes too and I was very disappointed especially as the GW tends not to shy away from pricey designer pieces.

Interesting - both the thoughts and the consequences. Incidentally I haven't bought a pair of cheapy chain store shoes for at least year and I tend to keep it that way. Good footwear and good design is worth investing in.

[Bostonista]

What I was trying to say (and didn't accomplish) is that there are two problems here:

1. blatant knock offs with no real protection for the REAL designer

AND

2. a lack of well made, well designed shoes at a REASONABLE price point.

I'm not in Australia but I believe this is a problem in the US as well. The industry needs to address both of those issues in order to solve the copyright/design infringements problems, IMO.

[Lady Smaggle]

Holy shit. This was awesome. I just read about three weeks of your posts in one go. I'll help! I'll keep an eye out for you...

Hate the designer knock offs so much!

Loving your work gorgeous!

[Lucy28]

Various fields of life utilize a lot of time, thus why should you waste time for argumentative essay accomplishing? This is wise to utilize some experienced essay writing service to order the good term paper from, I opine.