Copyright Protection for Fashion Design: A Legal Analysis of the Design Piracy Prohibition Act (H.R. 2033 and S. 1957)

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

Fashion design does not currently receive explicit protection under U.S. copyright law. Limited
avenues for protection of certain types of apparel designs can be found through trademark and
patent law, though proponents of copyright protection for fashion design argue that these limited ^th
means are insufficient. Two bills that were introduced in the 110 Congress, H.R. 2033 and S.
1957 (the Design Piracy Prohibition Act), would have amended Chapter 13 of the U.S. Copyright
Act, which currently provides protection for designs of vessel hulls. Both bills would have
granted fashion designs a three-year term of protection, based on registration with the U.S.
Copyright Office.
This report analyzes the amendments that the Design Piracy Prohibition Act would have made to
Chapter 13 of the Copyright Act. It also summarizes arguments both in favor of and against
extending copyright protection to fashion designs. This report will be updated if similar ^th
legislation is introduced in the 111 Congress.

Introduc tion ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Backgr ound ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Analysis of H.R. 2033 and S. 1957, 110^th Congress........................................................................3
Designs Protected......................................................................................................................3
Term of Protection.....................................................................................................................3
Application for Registration......................................................................................................4
Infringe ment ................................................................................................................... ........... 4
The Protection Debate.....................................................................................................................5
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................6

U.S. copyright law does not protect useful articles, and copyright protection has been denied to
fashion designs because clothing garments have traditionally been viewed as useful articles—
basic items of necessity having utilitarian value—rather than as artistic creations. However,
Chapter 13 of the U.S. Copyright Act does specify protection for the designs of one category of ¹
useful articles, the designs of boat hulls. H.R. 2033, the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, was ^th
introduced in the 110 Congress by Representative Delahunt on April 25, 2007. A substantially ²
similar bill, S. 1957, was introduced by Senator Schumer on August 2, 2007. The bills would
have amended Chapter 13 of the Copyright Act to extend design protection to fashion design. As ^th
of the date of this report, no similar legislation has been introduced in the 111 Congress.

The Copyright Act (the Act) defines a “useful article” as “an article having an intrinsic utilitarian ³
function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information.” If
the function of an article is found to be inherently utilitarian, rather than exclusively aesthetic or
informational, then the article cannot be protected under U.S. copyright law. Although useful
articles cannot be protected in and of themselves, certain aesthetic or creative aspects of such
articles can receive protection. Designs of useful articles can be protected under copyright law
“only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural
features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the ⁴
utilitarian aspects of the article.” Because “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural” works are eligible ⁵
for copyright protection under § 102 of the Act, protection is permitted for aspects of a utilitarian
article that fall into this category and can be physically or conceptually separable from the ⁶
utilitarian aspects of the article. The U.S. Copyright Office describes this “separability test” as an
“extremely limited” means of protecting the designs of useful articles, as courts have excluded ⁷
most industrial designs from copyright protection.

¹^Aⁿ^ideⁿ^tic^a^l^bi^{ll, H.R}^.⁵⁰⁵⁵^{, w}^a^{s intr}^od^uc^e^dⁱⁿ^the¹⁰⁹^th^Cong^re^s^s^by^Re^{p. G}^oodla^tte^{. T}^h^e^H^ous^e^S^u^bc^om^m^itte^e^on
^Courts,^the^Iⁿ^te^rne^t^{, a}^{nd I}ⁿ^te^lle^c^t^ua^l^P^r^o^p^e^r^ty^he^{ld he}^a^r^ing^s^oⁿ^t^h^e^bill^{on J}^u^ly^27,²⁰^06.
²^A^sⁱⁿ^t^r^o^d^u^ced,^bo^t^h^bⁱ^l^l^s^{are i}^d^entⁱ^calⁱⁿ^st^r^u^ct^u^r^{e and}^t^e^xt^,^wⁱ^t^h^t^h^{e excep}^tⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^§²⁽^d⁾^.
³^{17 U}^.^S.C^.^§¹⁰^1.
⁴^{A Bill}^to^Pr^ov^ide^Pr^ote^c^tio^{n f}^o^r^Fas^hⁱ^{on D}^e^sⁱ^gⁿ^:^H^e^arⁱ^ngs^Be^f^o^r^e^the^H^o^us^e^Su^bc^om^m^.^on^C^o^ur^ts^,^the^Iⁿ^te^rⁿ^e^t^,^a^nd
^Inte^lle^c^t^ual^Pro^p^e^r^ty^,¹⁰⁹^th^C^ong^.^,²^nd^s^e^s^s^.⁽²⁰⁰⁶⁾^[^h^e^r^eⁱ^na^f^t^e^r^H^e^ar^ing^s^]⁽^s^ta^te^m^e^{nt of}^the^U^.^{S. C}^o^p^y^rⁱ^g^h^{t O}^f^fⁱ^c^e⁾
^(c^iting¹⁷^U.S.C^.^§¹^01).
⁵^{17 U}^.^S.C^.^§¹⁰²⁽^a⁾⁽⁵⁾^.
⁶^Se^e^C^hos^un,^Iⁿ^t’^{l, I}ⁿ^c^.^v^.^C^h^rⁱ^s^h^a^C^r^e^a^tions^{, L}^t^d.^{, 4}¹³^F.^3d³²^{4 (}²^d^Cⁱ^r^.²⁰⁰⁵⁾⁽^hol^ding^t^h^a^t^it^is^a^t^le^a^s^{t pos}^sⁱ^ble^t^h^a^t
^el^e^m^en^t^s^o^f^p^l^u^s^h^scu^l^p^t^ed^aⁿⁱ^m^al^Hal^l^o^w^een^co^st^u^m^e^s^{are sep}^a^rab^l^{e f}^r^o^m^t^h^{e o}^v^eral^l^d^e^si^gn^o^f^t^h^{e c}^o^st^u^m^{e an}^d
^the^r^e^f^ore^e^lig^ible^f^o^{r c}^opy^rig^h^{t prote}^c^tion)^.
⁷^H^e^ar^ings^,^s^upr^a^f^oot^note^{4 (sta}^te^m^e^{nt of}^the^U.S.^Copy^rig^h^{t Off}ⁱ^c^e^{) (c}^iting^Bra^ndir^Int’l^,^Inc^.^v^.^Ca^sc^a^d^e^P^a^cⁱ^fⁱ^c
^L^u^m^b^e^r^C^o^.,⁸³^{4 F.}^2d¹¹⁴²⁽²^{d C}ⁱ^r^.¹⁹⁸⁷⁾⁽^h^ol^ding^t^h^a^t^a^bic^y^c^l^e^r^a^c^k^de^rⁱ^v^e^{d f}^r^o^m^wⁱ^r^e^sc^ulptur^e^s^w^a^s^a^pr^od^uc^{t of}
ⁱⁿ^du^st^ri^al^d^e^si^gn^aⁿ^d^t^h^eref^o^r^{e n}^o^t^p^r^ot^ect^ab^l^e^,^b^ecau^{se i}^t^s^“^[^f^]^o^r^m^an^d^f^uⁿ^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^{are i}ⁿ^ext^rⁱ^cab^l^yⁱⁿ^t^e^rt^wⁱⁿ^e^d^”^);^No^rri^s^th
^Iⁿ^d^u^s^.^v^.^Iⁿ^te^rⁿ^a^tio^na^{l T}^e^{l. a}^{nd T}^e^{l. C}^o^r^p^.,⁶⁹^{6 F.}^2d⁹^{18 (}¹¹^Cⁱ^r^.¹⁹⁸³⁾⁽^hol^di^ng^tha^t^wⁱ^r^e^-^s^pok^e^d^w^h^e^e^l^c^o^v^e^r^s^f^o^r
^au^t^o^m^o^bⁱ^l^e^{s w}^e^{re n}^o^t^co^p^y^ri^gh^t^a^b^l^{e b}^ecau^{se t}^h^ey^{are u}^s^e^f^u^l^artⁱ^c^l^e^s^wⁱ^t^{hout s}^e^pa^r^a^ble^f^e^a^t^ur^e^s⁾⁾^.

Both the patent and trademark law regimes provide limited means for protecting fashion design.⁸
Under the concept of trade dress (part of trademark law), a fashion design can be protected in
cases where the product has gained a reputation among consumers as being identifiable with a ⁹
particular market source. Under patent law, design patents could also be a potential means for ¹⁰
protection. However, commentators have noted the potential shortcomings of each of these ¹¹
approaches.
The design protection for vessel hulls and decks¹² in the Copyright Act is a unique, specially
carved-out area of protection for designs of useful articles. Chapter 13 of the Act provides ¹³
protection for vessel hull or deck designs for a period of 10 years; such protection is granted if
the application for registration of the design is made within two years from the date on which the ¹⁴
design is first made public. A design is considered to have been made public “when an existing
useful article embodying the design is anywhere publicly exhibited, publicly distributed, or ¹⁵
offered for sale or sold to the public by the owner of the design or with the owner’s consent.”
The owner of a protected design “has the exclusive right to (1) make, have made, or import, for
sale or for use in trade, any useful article embodying that design; and (2) sell or distribute for sale ¹⁶
or for use in trade any useful article embodying that design.” If the design protection under
Chapter 13 were expanded to include fashion designs, fashion design owners would be granted
the exclusive right to place their designs on the marketplace, and to thereby prevent others from
copying a design and disseminating it without authorization.

⁸^Fo^{r m}^o^{re in}^f^o^rm^atioⁿ^,^see^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^R^L³⁴⁵⁵^9,^Iⁿ^te^lle^c^t^u^a^{l Pro}^p^e^r^ty^{in I}ⁿ^d^u^{strial De}^sigⁿ^{s: Issue}^s^{in In}^nov^ati^on
^and^Com^p^e^titioⁿ^,^by^J^{ohn R}^.^T^h^o^m^a^s^.
⁹^Se^e^Sa^m^a^r^a^B^r^os^{. v}^.^Wa^l-^Ma^r^t^St^or^e^s^{, 5}^{29 U}^.^S.²⁰^{5 (}²⁰⁰⁰⁾⁽^hol^din^g^tha^t^a^pr^o^duc^t^de^sⁱ^gⁿ^{, s}^p^e^cⁱ^fⁱ^c^a^l^ly^tha^t^f^o^r
^c^h^ildr^e^n’^s^c^l^othⁱ^ng^{, c}^o^uld^be^pr^ot^e^c^t^e^d^un^de^r^f^e^de^r^a^{l tr}^a^d^em^a^r^k^lawⁱ^f^{it w}^e^r^e^f^{ound t}^o^ha^v^e^a^c^quir^e^{d r}^e^c^o^gⁿ^iti^on
^a^m^oⁿ^g^coⁿ^s^u^m^{ers as b}^eⁱⁿ^{g asso}^ci^at^ed^wⁱ^t^h^{a p}^a^rtⁱ^c^u^l^{ar sou}^r^ce).
¹⁰^Se^e³⁵^U^.^S.C^.^§¹⁷^1.
¹¹^H^e^ar^ings^,^s^upr^a^f^oot^note^{4 (}^s^ta^te^m^e^{nt of}^the^U^.^S.^C^opy^rⁱ^g^h^{t O}^f^fⁱ^ce⁾⁽^notiⁿ^g^tha^t^“^d^e^s^ig^{n pa}^te^nts^a^r^e^dif^fⁱ^c^u^{lt a}^nd
^e^x^pe^ns^iv^e^{to obta}ⁱ^{n, a}ⁿ^{d e}ⁿ^ta^{il a}^l^e^ng^thy^ex^am^ina^{tion pr}^oc^e^s^s^,^”^aⁿ^d^tha^t^tr^a^d^e^m^a^r^k^law^only^pr^ote^c^t^s^thos^e^pr^od^uc^t
^coⁿ^fⁱ^g^u^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^h^atⁱ^d^eⁿ^tⁱ^f^y^t^h^{e sou}^r^{ce o}^f^t^h^{e p}^r^o^d^u^c^t^,^w^hⁱ^l^e^t^h^e^o^t^{her asp}^ect^{s are n}^o^t^p^r^o^t^ect^ed^,^and^aⁿ^y^t^r^ad^e^m^ar^k
^pr^ote^c^tio^{n is}^on^ly^ag^aⁱ^ns^{t us}^e^s^of^the^de^sⁱ^gⁿ^t^h^a^t^c^r^e^a^t^e^a^t^le^a^s^{t a}^s^ubs^ta^ntia^{l lik}^e^lih^oo^d^of^c^u^s^t^om^e^r^conf^us^ion⁾^.
¹²^A^“^v^e^s^s^e^l^”^is^de^fⁱ^ne^{d a}^s^“^a^c^r^af^{t tha}^t^is^de^sⁱ^gⁿ^e^d^a^{nd c}^a^p^a^b^le^ofⁱⁿ^d^e^pe^nde^ntly^s^t^e^e^r^ing^a^c^our^s^e^on^o^r^thr^o^ug^{h w}^a^te^r
^thr^o^ug^{h its}^ow^{n m}^e^aⁿ^s^of^pr^op^ulsⁱ^on;^aⁿ^d^tha^t^is^de^sⁱ^gⁿ^e^d^aⁿ^{d c}^a^p^a^b^le^of^c^a^r^r^y^ing^a^{nd tr}^aⁿ^s^p^or^ti^ng^oⁿ^e^or^m^o^r^e
^pa^s^s^e^ng^e^r^s^.^”^A^“^hull”^is^“^t^he^e^x^te^rⁱ^or^f^r^am^e^or^bo^dy^of^a^ve^s^s^e^{l, exc}^l^us^iv^e^of^the^de^c^k^{, s}^upe^r^s^tr^uc^tu^r^e^{, m}^a^s^t^s^,^s^a^ils^,
^yard^s,^ri^ggiⁿ^g^,^h^a^rd^w^a^re,^fⁱ^xt^u^r^es,^an^d^o^t^h^e^{r at}^t^ach^m^eⁿ^t^s.^{” A}^“d^eck^{” i}^s^“t^h^e^h^o^ri^zo^nt^al^su^rf^{ace o}^f^{a v}^e^ssel^t^h^at^co^vers
^t^h^{e hu}^l^l^,ⁱⁿ^cl^udⁱⁿ^{g ext}^e^ri^o^r^cabⁱⁿ^an^d^co^ckpⁱ^t^s^u^rf^aces,^an^d^excl^u^sⁱ^v^{e o}^f^m^a^st^s,^sai^l^s^,^yard^s,^ri^ggiⁿ^g^,^h^a^rd^w^a^re,^fⁱ^xt^u^r^es,
^a^{nd o}^t^he^r^a^tta^c^h^m^e^nts^.^”^{17 U}^.^S.C^.^§¹³^01,^a^s^a^m^e^nde^{d by}^the^Ve^s^s^e^{l H}^u^{ll D}^e^sⁱ^gⁿ^P^r^ote^c^tion^A^m^e^ndm^eⁿ^ts^of²⁰⁰^8,
^P.L^.¹¹^0-⁴^34.
¹³^Id^.^{§ 13}⁰⁵⁽^a⁾^.
¹⁴^Id^.^{§ 13}¹⁰⁽^a⁾^.
¹⁵^Id^.^{§ 13}¹⁰⁽^b)^.
¹⁶^Id^.

As discussed above, Chapter 13 of the Copyright Act, entitled “Protection of Original Designs,” ¹⁷
is currently limited to vessel hull designs. Section 1301 of the Act grants protection to the
designer or other owner of an original design of a “useful article” that makes the article’s ¹⁸
appearance attractive or distinctive to the buying public. The definition subsection of § 1301 ¹⁹
first explains what makes a design original, and then limits the definition of “useful article” to a ²⁰
vessel hull. H.R. 2033 and S. 1957 would have amended the definition of “useful article” by ²¹
adding the provision “or an article of apparel,” in order to protect clothing under the Act. To the ²²
end of the definition section, both bills would have added the definitions for “fashion design,” ²³
“design,” and “apparel.” The definition of apparel is broad, encompassing articles of men’s,
women’s, and children’s clothing, including undergarments, and outerwear, gloves, footwear, and
headgear. Additionally, the term covers handbags, purses, tote bags, belts, and eyeglass frames,
rendering these items eligible for protection.
Both bills would have amended the Copyright Act to prescribe a three-year term of protection for ²⁴²⁵
fashion designs. The Act currently specifies a 10-year term of protection for vessel hulls.
Proponents of the legislation assert that a three-year term is sufficient because its purpose is to
protect high end “haute couture” designs when they are first sold at expensive prices—a time ²⁶
when the designs could be vulnerable to copies sold at substantially lower prices. Because
trends arise and fade quickly, the shorter term is considered a sufficient time period for the ²⁷
designer to have exclusive rights. The 10-year protection for vessel hulls would have remained
unchanged under the bills.

¹⁷^Id^.^{§ 13}^01.
¹⁸^Id^.^{§ 13}⁰¹⁽^a⁾⁽¹⁾^.
¹⁹^Id^.^§¹³⁰¹⁽^b)⁽¹⁾⁽^“^A^de^sⁱ^gⁿ^is^‘^o^rⁱ^gⁱ^na^l’^if^{it is}^the^r^e^s^u^l^t^of^the^de^sⁱ^gⁿ^e^r^’^s^c^r^e^a^tive^e^nde^a^v^or^tha^t^pr^o^vⁱ^de^s^a
^disting^u^is^ha^ble^v^a^ria^tion^ov^e^r^pri^o^{r w}^o^rk^pe^rtaⁱ^ning^t^o^sim^ila^{r a}^r^tic^le^{s w}^h^ic^{h is m}^o^re^thaⁿ^m^e^r^e^l^y^triv^ia^{l a}^{nd ha}^{s n}^o^t
^b^een^co^pi^ed^f^r^o^m^an^o^t^h^e^{r sou}^r^ce.^”).
²⁰^Id^.^{§ 13}⁰¹⁽^b)⁽²⁾^.
²¹^H.^R^.²⁰³³^,^S^.¹⁹⁵⁷^,¹¹⁰^th^C^ong^.,¹^st^Se^s^s^{., a}^t^§²⁽^a⁾⁽²⁾⁽^A⁾⁽²⁰⁰⁷⁾^.^A^he^a^r^ing^{on H}^.^R^.²⁰^{33 a}^{nd r}^e^la^t^e^{d m}^a^tte^r^s^w^a^s
^he^{ld on Fe}^{b. 14}^,²⁰⁰⁸^,^D^e^sⁱ^gⁿ^L^a^w^:^Ar^e^Spe^cⁱ^al^Pr^ov^isⁱ^ons^N^e^e^d^e^d^to^Pr^ote^c^t^Uⁿ^iq^ue^Iⁿ^dus^tr^ie^s^?^:^H^e^ar^{ing Be}^f^o^r^e^the^th^nd
^H^ous^e^S^ubc^om^m^.^on^C^o^ur^ts^{, t}^h^e^Iⁿ^te^rⁿ^e^t^,^an^{d I}ⁿ^te^lle^c^t^ual^Pr^ope^r^t^y^,¹¹⁰^C^ong^.,²^Se^s^s^.⁽²⁰⁰⁸⁾^.
²²^H.^R.²⁰³³^,^S^.¹⁹⁵⁷^,^at^§²⁽^a)(2⁾⁽^{B) (“A}^‘^f^ashⁱ^oⁿ^d^e^si^gn^{’ i}^s^t^h^{e appearan}^{ce as a}^w^h^o^l^{e o}^f^an^artⁱ^c^l^e^o^f^ap^p^a^rel^,
^inc^l^u^d^ing^its^orna^m^e^nta^tion.”⁾^.
²³^Id^.^(“^T^h^e^te^rm^‘de^s^ig^{n’ inc}^l^ude^s^f^a^{shion de}^sigⁿ^{, e}^x^c^e^p^{t to}^the^e^x^te^{nt e}^x^pre^ssly^li^m^ite^{d to the}^de^sigⁿ^of^a^v^e^ss^e^l^.”^).
²⁴^Id^.^a^t^§²⁽^c⁾^{, a}^m^e^nding¹⁷^U^.^S.C^.^{§ 1}³⁰⁵⁽^a⁾^.
²⁵^{17 U}^.^S.C^.^§¹³⁰⁵⁽^a⁾⁽^T^he^te^r^m^of^pr^ote^c^tⁱ^on^un^de^r^c^o^py^rⁱ^g^h^{t law}^ge^ne^r^a^ll^y^,^othe^r^t^h^aⁿ^f^o^r^v^e^s^s^e^{l hul}^ls^{, is}^the^lⁱ^f^e^of
^the^a^u^th^or^plus^s^e^v^e^nty^y^e^a^r^s^.^Id^.^§³⁰²⁽^a⁾⁾^.
²⁶^H^e^ar^ings^,^s^upr^a^f^oot^note^{4 (}^s^ta^te^m^e^{nt of}^the^U^.^S.^C^opy^rⁱ^g^h^{t O}^f^fⁱ^ce⁾^.
²⁷^H^e^ar^ings^,^s^upr^a^f^oot^note^{4 (}^s^ta^te^m^e^{nt of}^the^U^.^S.^C^opy^rⁱ^g^h^{t O}^f^fⁱ^ce⁾⁽^a^ppla^u^ding^t^h^e^pr^op^one^nts^of^the^le^gⁱ^s^l^a^{tion f}^o^r
^s^e^e^k^ing^a^m^ode^s^t^te^r^m^of^pr^ote^c^{tion t}^h^a^t^is^a^p^pr^o^p^rⁱ^a^t^e^f^o^r^the^na^tu^r^e^of^f^a^s^h^ion^de^sⁱ^gⁿ⁾^.

Section 1310 of the Copyright Act mandates a two-year time period after a design has been made ²⁸
public during which an application for registration of the design must be filed. The section
refers only to registration for vessel hull design protection. H.R. 2033 and S. 1957 would have
added to this section a window of three months for registration of a fashion design after it has ²⁹
been made public. The purpose of including a limited registration period “is to require prompt
registration of protected designs, which gives notice to the world that design protection is ³⁰
claimed.” Because the entire term of protection for fashion designs is significantly shorter than ³¹
that for vessel hulls, a shorter window for registration of fashion designs is necessary. The two-
year time frame for vessel hull registration would have remained unchanged under the bills.
Section 1309 of the Copyright Act details what constitutes infringement of the design of a useful ³²
article. In addition to a violation of any of the design owner’s exclusive rights under § 1308,
discussed above, it is also an infringement for a seller or distributor who did not make or import ³³
an infringing article, to induce or act in collusion to make or import the article. A seller or
distributor can also be liable if a design owner asks where the article came from and the
seller/distributor refuses or fails to do disclose its source, and orders or reorders the article with ³⁴
the infringing design after being notified by mail that the design is protected. Section 1309 has a
narrow exception to infringement liability for acts without knowledge: it is not an infringement to
make, have made, import, sell, or distribute any article embodying a copied design that was ³⁵
created without knowledge that the design was protected.
H.R. 2033 and S. 1957 would have narrowed this exception by amending the language so that it
would constitute infringement if one did not have actual knowledge but had reasonable grounds ³⁶
to know that design protection is claimed. Additionally, the bills would have added protection
for images of fashion designs as well as for the designs themselves, stipulating that an article is ³⁷
infringing if its design was copied from a protected design “or from an image thereof.” Both
bills would also have amended § 1309 to apply the doctrines of secondary liability to actions for ³⁸
infringement of a design of a useful article. Doing so would codify the doctrines of secondary

²⁸¹⁷^U^.^S^.^C^.^§§¹³¹⁰⁽^a^-^b⁾^.
²⁹^H^.^R^.²⁰³³^,^S.¹⁹^57,^a^t^§²⁽^e⁾⁽¹⁾^.
³⁰^H^e^ar^ings^,^s^upr^a^f^oot^note^{4 (}^s^ta^te^m^e^{nt of}^the^U^.^S.^C^opy^rⁱ^g^h^{t O}^f^fⁱ^ce⁾^.
³¹^H^e^ar^ings^,^s^upr^a^f^oot^note^{4 (}^s^ta^te^m^e^{nt of}^the^U^.^S.^C^opy^rⁱ^g^h^{t O}^f^fⁱ^ce⁾⁽^d^e^s^c^r^ibing^tha^t^“^a^2-^y^e^a^r^wⁱ^ndow^[^a^s^v^e^s^s^e^l
^h^u^l^l^s^recei^ve]^t^o^regi^st^{er a f}^a^shⁱ^o^{n d}^e^si^gn^t^h^atⁱ^s^en^tⁱ^t^l^e^d^t^o^p^r^o^t^ectⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^{r on}^l^y³^{years an}^d^t^h^at^lⁱ^k^el^yⁱ^s^al^read^y^st^artⁱⁿ^g
^{to g}^o^‘^out^of^f^a^s^h^ion’^a^f^te^r^{2 y}^e^a^r^s^w^{ould m}^a^ke^r^e^gⁱ^s^t^r^a^{tion a}^r^e^la^tiv^e^l^y^m^e^aⁿ^ing^l^e^s^s^f^o^r^m^a^lit^y^”⁾^.
³²^{17 U}^.^S.C^.^§¹³⁰⁹^.
³³^Id^.^§¹³⁰⁹⁽^b)⁽¹⁾⁽^e^x^p^laⁱⁿ^ing^t^h^a^t^pur^c^h^a^s^ing^or^gⁱ^vⁱ^ng^aⁿ^or^de^r^t^o^p^u^r^c^ha^s^e^aⁿ^inf^r^ingⁱ^ng^a^r^tic^leⁱⁿ^th^e^or^di^na^r^y^c^our^s^e
^of^busine^{ss d}^o^e^sⁿ^o^{t of}^itse^l^f^c^ons^tituteⁱⁿ^d^u^c^e^m^eⁿ^{t or c}^o^llusi^on).
³⁴^Id^.^{§ 13}⁰⁹⁽^b)⁽²⁾^.
³⁵^Id^.^{§ 13}⁰⁹⁽^c⁾^.
³⁶^H^.^R^.²⁰³³^,^S.¹⁹^57,^a^t^§²⁽^d)⁽¹⁾^.
³⁷^H^.^R^.²⁰³³^a^t^{§ 2(}^d)⁽²⁾^;^S.¹⁹⁵⁷^a^t^§²⁽^d)⁽²⁾⁽^A⁾^.
³⁸^H^.^R^.²⁰³³^,^S.¹⁹^57,^a^t^§²⁽^d)⁽³⁾^.^T^h^e^s^e^doc^tr^ine^s^inc^l^u^d^e^c^o^ntrⁱ^b^u^t^o^r^y^{, v}ⁱ^c^a^r^ious^{, a}^{nd i}ⁿ^d^u^c^e^d^inf^rⁱⁿ^g^e^m^e^nt.

liability, which are not presently in the Copyright Act but exist in case law.³⁹ Finally, the bills
would have changed recovery for infringement from the current amounts of $50,000 or $1 per ⁴⁰
copy, to $250,000 or $5 per copy.
As noted earlier, S. 1957 and H.R. 2033 are substantially similar in structure and text; they differ
only in one respect: S. 1957 would have amended the definition of “infringing article,” provided
by 17 U.S.C. § 1309(e), to exclude a fashion design that “is original and not closely and ⁴¹
substantially similar in overall visual appearance to a protected design.” H.R. 2033 does not
contain a similar amendment. The original text of § 1309(e) reads: “A design shall not be deemed
to have been copied from a protected design if it is original and not substantially similar in
appearance to a protected design.” It is unclear what legal effect the inclusion of the words
“closely” and “overall visual” would have on the law.

Law professors, government officials, and design industry professionals have expressed diverse
viewpoints on the need for and desirability of legislation granting copyright protection to fashion
design. Those in favor of protection assert that the copyright law mistakenly views clothing as
purely utilitarian in nature, and ignores the possibility that fashion design may be a form of ⁴²
creative expression deserving of protection. Proponents also highlight the effects of modern
technology on the ease and speed of copying fashion designs, pointing to the ability for copiers to ⁴³
easily access images of runway photos posted on the Internet. Additionally, emphasis is placed
on the particular vulnerability of young designers whose names and logos are not yet
recognizable in the marketplace, and have difficulty promoting their work when it is quickly ⁴⁴
copied by established competitors. Supporters of the legislation also point to the protection ⁴⁵
granted to fashion design in other areas of the world.
Those against offering copyright protection for fashion design generally point to the success of
the marketplace as it is and note that copying is an integral and accepted part of the fashion ⁴⁶
industry. They claim that such interference into the fashion market would be harmful because of ⁴⁷
increased litigation over the standard for infringement. As a result, creative production of

³⁹^S^ee,^e.^g^.^,^S^ony^C^o^r^p^.^of^A^m^e^r^ic^{a v}^.^Uⁿ^iv^e^r^s^a^{l C}^ity^Studios^{, I}ⁿ^c^.,⁴^{64 U}^.^S.⁴¹^{7 (}¹⁹⁸⁴⁾^.
⁴⁰^{17 U}^.^S.C^.^§¹³²³⁽^a⁾^{; H}^.^R^.²⁰^33,^{S. 1}⁹⁵⁷^{, a}^t^§²⁽^g⁾^{. T}^h^e^s^e^v^a^lue^s^ar^e^hig^h^e^r^thaⁿ^the^m^a^xⁱ^m^u^m^s^t^a^t^utor^y^dam^a^g^e^s^f^o^r
^c^opy^rig^h^{t inf}^r^ing^e^m^e^{nt, w}^h^ic^{h a}^r^e^be^tw^e^eⁿ^$750^aⁿ^d^$^30,⁰⁰^{0 pe}^r^w^o^rk^a^{nd up t}^o^$1^50,⁰⁰^{0 f}^o^{r w}^{illful i}ⁿ^f^r^ing^e^m^e^{nt. 17}
^U.^S^.^C^.^§⁵⁰^4.
⁴¹^S.¹⁹^57,^a^t^§²⁽^d)⁽²⁾⁽^C⁾^.
⁴²^H^e^ar^ings^,^s^upr^a^f^oot^note^{4 (}^s^ta^te^m^e^{nt of}^Sus^a^{n Sc}^a^f^{idi, A}^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^t^e^P^r^of^e^s^s^o^r^of^L^a^w^,^Southe^rⁿ^Me^th^odis^t^Uⁿ^iv^e^r^s^ity⁾
^(arguⁱⁿ^g^t^h^at^“d^esi^gⁿ^e^{rs are en}^gagedⁱⁿ^t^h^{e creat}ⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^o^rⁱ^gⁱⁿ^al^w^o^rks”).
⁴³^Id^.^(a^sse^rting^t^h^a^t^“^h^ig^h^qua^lity^dⁱ^g^ita^{l ph}^otos^of^a^runw^a^y^l^ook^c^aⁿ^be^upl^oa^de^d^to^the^Iⁿ^te^rne^t^aⁿ^d^se^{nt to c}^opy^ists
^an^yw^h^e^r^eⁱⁿ^t^h^{e w}^o^rl^{d even}^b^e^f^o^{re t}^h^{e sh}^o^wⁱ^s^fⁱⁿⁱ^sh^ed^”).
⁴⁴^Id^.⁽^s^ta^ti^ng^tha^t^y^oung^e^r^de^sⁱ^gⁿ^e^r^s^“^c^a^{nnot s}ⁱ^m^p^ly^r^e^l^y^{on r}^e^puta^tio^{n or}^tr^a^d^e^m^a^r^k^pr^ote^c^tio^{n t}^o^m^a^{ke up f}^o^r^t^h^e
^ab^sen^{ce o}^f^co^p^y^ri^gh^t^”^).
⁴⁵^Id^.⁽^not^ing^t^h^a^t^Fr^aⁿ^c^e^ha^s^s^t^r^ong^c^opy^rⁱ^g^h^{t pr}^ote^c^tio^{n f}^o^r^f^a^s^h^ion^de^sⁱ^gⁿ⁾^.
⁴⁶^Se^e^,^e^.^g.^{, H}^e^arⁱⁿ^gs^,^sup^r^a^f^o^o^t^not^{e 4}^(st^a^t^e^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^Davi^d^W^o^l^f^e,^C^r^eatⁱ^v^{e Di}^rect^o^r^,^Doⁿ^e^{ger Creat}ⁱ^v^{e S}^e^rvi^ces)
^(“T^h^{e ab}^sen^{ce o}^f^co^p^y^ri^gh^tⁱⁿ^f^a^s^hⁱ^oⁿ^f^r^{ees d}^e^si^gn^{ers t}^oⁱⁿ^co^r^p^o^r^at^{e p}^o^p^u^l^{ar and}^reem^er^giⁿ^g^st^y^l^{es i}ⁿ^t^o^t^h^ei^r^o^wⁿ^lⁱⁿ^es
^w^{ithout re}^s^t^ric^ting^t^h^e^m^s^e^l^v^e^s^f^o^{r f}^e^a^r^o^f^inf^r^ing^e^m^e^{nt, thus}^f^a^c^ilita^ting^the^g^r^ow^{th of}^ne^w^tre^nds^.”^).
⁴⁷^H^e^ar^ings^,^s^upr^a^f^oot^note^{4 (}^s^ta^te^m^e^{nt of}^C^h^rⁱ^s^t^o^phe^r^S^p^rⁱ^g^m^aⁿ^{, A}^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^t^e^P^r^of^e^s^s^o^r^,^Uⁿ^iv^e^r^sⁱ^t^y^of^Vir^g^inia^Sc^ho^ol
^of^L^a^w⁾^(noting^tha^t^“^[^d^]^ra^wⁱ^ng^t^h^e^line^be^tw^e^eⁿ^inspira^tioⁿ^aⁿ^{d c}^opy^ing^{in the}^a^r^e^a^of^c^l^ot^hing^is^v^e^r^y^{, v}^e^r^y^di^f^f^ic^ult
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

fashion designs would be stifled, ultimately resulting in less choice for consumers.⁴⁸ Finally, these
critics assert that foreign experience with fashion design protection has not had material effect
because copying still occurs in nations that have design protection laws—to the same degree it ⁴⁹
occurs in the U.S. where there is currently no such protection.
^B^rⁱ^a^{n T}^.^Y^e^h
^L^e^gⁱ^s^l^at^iv^{e A}^t^torn^e^y
^by^e^h^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov^{, 7}^-⁵¹⁸²

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^a^{nd lik}^e^l^y^{to c}^ons^um^e^s^ubs^ta^ntia^l^judicⁱ^a^l^r^e^s^o^ur^c^e^s^”⁾^.
⁴⁸^Id^.⁽^“^I^t^is^ha^r^d^to^im^a^g^ine^aⁿ^indu^s^t^r^y^[^w^{ith de}^sⁱ^gⁿ^pr^ote^c^tioⁿ^]^pr^o^d^u^cⁱ^ng^the^s^a^m^e^rⁱ^c^h^v^a^rⁱ^e^t^y^of^new^de^sⁱ^gⁿ^s^tha^t
^toda^y^’^{s he}^a^lthy^,^c^o^m^p^e^titiv^e^f^a^{shion i}ⁿ^d^u^stry^yⁱ^e^l^ds.”^).^B^u^t^{see Heari}ⁿ^g^s^,^s^upr^a^f^ootn^o^te⁴^(sta^te^m^e^nt^of^Susa^{n Sc}^a^f^idi)
^(d^escri^bⁱⁿ^{g t}^h^{e recen}^t^t^r^en^{d o}^f^hⁱ^g^h^-en^d^d^e^si^gn^{ers d}^e^si^gnⁱⁿ^{g m}^a^ss-^market^cl^o^t^hⁱⁿ^g^lⁱⁿ^{es f}^o^{r st}^o^r^{es such}^{as T}^a^rg^et^an^d
^W^a^l-^Ma^r^t^{, r}^e^duc^ing^the^ne^e^d^f^o^r^c^ons^um^e^r^s^{to r}^e^ly^{on low}^-^pr^ic^e^d^k^noc^k^-^of^f^s⁾^.
⁴⁹^H^e^ar^ings^,^s^upr^a^f^o^o^tⁿ^o^t^e⁴^(state^men^t^o^f^Ch^risto^p^h^e^{r S}^p^rig^m^an^{) (a}^ssertin^g^th^{at th}^{e E}^u^r^o^p^ean^Un^ioⁿ^{still f}^aces
^s^ubs^ta^ntia^l^de^sⁱ^gⁿ^c^o^py^ing^de^s^p^ite^of^f^e^rⁱ^ng^s^ubs^ta^ntia^l^pr^ote^c^tio^{n f}^o^r^a^ppa^r^e^l^de^sⁱ^gⁿ^s⁾^.