Browsing through the fashionscape of Instagram, you'll find a swathe of brave accounts openly selling imitation creations for cheap. More often than not, many people in the comments' sections perpetuate this cycle of fashion espionage, by responding eagerly to the creations and requesting. The entire malarkey begs the question: how far do designers have to go to ensure their intellectual property is sealed?
The conversation was recently kicked back into gear when Rohit Bal copyrighted his designs, ultimately placing a creative seal on his outputs. Raghavendra Rathore also went so far as to patent certain tailorings for his Bandhgalas. With 2017 Lakmé Fashion Week storming the runways, these designers understand the vulnerability of copyright free garments— within 48 hours of a runway show, creations have been replicated and are sold for a fraction of the cost, which is a disgrace towards teams who have perfected designs for the runway over a course of hundreds of hours.
Hyderabadi designers have already made moves to follow suit. Signature works like that of Prathyusha Garimella, Anushree Reddy and Gaurang Shah have all been replicated in such closely identical ways that even well-known people have picked up these designs. In fact, walking around Charminar is a real eye-opener; the blatant copying of designs such as that of Sabyasachi, Shyamal and Bhumika and other names still exists despite prominent legal cases in the past, as well as call outs on social media as Prathyusha Garimella did on Instagram when Huma Qureshi and her mangement actively endorsed a copycat creation by Kalki Fashion. She said in the Instagram post, “There are a lot of these low life’s (sic) who thrive on churning out knockoffs and passing it as their own. But when a celebrity endorses the same, it’s ridiculous! Shame!”
Stylish legalese — decoded
Comprehending the resulting legal battles in the fashion world can be trying, due to the length of the trials and the design jargon used throughout the reports, but it’s worth a read to understand as a consumer that while one may covet the grandeur of an unattainable design, noting the differences in its design ethos is a life skill worth having. That being said, in India, copyright law is forever evolving as new cases come forward.
In the ‘Tahiliani Design Pvt Ltd versus Rajesh Masrani’ case in 2008 at Delhi High Court, the fashion world saw one of the first full-fledged battles for creative integrity; consultants were roped in to examine the differences between the two designers’ works and ultimately decide upon whether or not Rajesh Masrani could disseminate the designs that likened those of the fashion powerhouse. The case forever lingered on whether it was mere coincidence that two designs likened each other or if there was a clear-cut copycat approach to Rajesh’s garments— one can only imagine the archives of evidence this particular case gathered.
According to court documents, “The overall impression is that of uniquely different image with a an identical, poorly disguised and number of intricately woven, poorly executed copy with no elements fused together with an attempt at originality; with the creative flair and resulting in an sole intent of reaping the fruits of overall print that is part— the Plaintiff's creative labour: assymetrical and fanciful and part-systematic and orderly; but wholly new.”
Moot point?
The most common justification for hijacking originality would be that the creations by couturiers are simply too expensive, and when the everyday bride or fashion enthusiast doesn’t have the moolah lakhs in which to luxuriate, why not live out the fantasy in something far more affordable? An easy contest to this would be that more and more designers are accommodating the mid-market buyers with prêt collections at lower prices— pretty much at the same cost of asking a designer to buy materials, do embroidery and finishing of a replica.
Another concern for designers is that they are often the ones who rack up thousands in litigation costs to protect their designs — anything upwards of six lakhs per creation or technique. Tarun Tahiliani has spoken about the 2008 landmark case publicly, confirming that the legalities had dragged on for ages.
A sadly unrelenting result is a vacuum of talent and recognition when such designs are put out in the world; the speed and wide reach of social media goes far beyond what most designers fear. This brings us to the issue of understanding what we wear and how we, unwittingly or otherwise, encourage this toxic cycle of ‘open piracy’ through activity social media. There’s an urging of knowing, through and through, what you are wearing and from where it has come. Accounts like Kalki Fashion on Instagram and Facebook sellers of ‘authentic replicas’— quite the oxymoron— are perpetrators of such.
