Walking through Urban Outfitters on Broadway and Houston a couple of weeks ago, as I do when I am killing time prior to class, I noticed a black bat-winged-sleeved top with a deep-v-neckline featuring purple flames. It reminded me of a garment I have in my closet that I bought the previous summer. The top I own is from a England-based design company, Burn N Violet which is way under the radar from mass fashion consumers, who shop at Urban Outfitters, but for those in the small boutique market, the company is well-known and respected for their rock-inspired designs.

The top I own is a black bat-winged-sleeved top with a deep-v-neckline featuring hot pink flames. The color of the flames and the fabric’s poor quality were the only differences between the two tops, obviously which Urban Outfitters’ design team knocked off from Burn N Violet. And this type of detail-oriented duplicating isn’t something unique to the Urban Outfitter-Burn N Violet situation, it has occurred in the fashion industry for decades.

According to two news articles from the New York Times (O.K., Knockoffs, This Is War) and Slate (The rag trade's fashionably late arrival to the copyright party.), the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) is currently “meeting with members of Congress to gather support for a bill to offer copyrightlike protection to clothing designs.” According to the Slate article:

The proposed bill would, for the first time, prevent anyone from copying an original clothing design in the United States and give designers the exclusive right to make, import, distribute, and sell clothes based on their designs. The gap the CFDA is trying to fill is there because existing copyright law protects only original or creative expressions.

The Times article states:

Designers like Diane Von Furstenberg, Narciso Rodriguez and Zac Posen have been journeying there to lobby for copyright protections … [the] bill could be introduced in Congress as early as today [March 30]... Mr. Rodriguez designed the white slip wedding gown worn by Caroline Bessette Kennedy in 1996, a style that inspired innumerable brides to don copies, and Ms. Von Furstenberg's signature wrap dresses have been copied so many times...If passed, it could change the retail landscape in ways merchants and designers are only beginning to absorb.

But like all proposed bills there is a great debate, splitting the fashion industry into segmented parts. The debate deals with the concept of what exactly is considered original in an industry that uses elements of designs that are recycled. According to the Times article:

''That is the most ridiculous thing,'' Mr. Schwartz [of ABS, a company, which thrives on copying gowns worn by celebrities on the red carpet] said. ''There is no such thing as an original design. All these designers are getting their inspiration from things that were done before. To me a spaghetti strap is a spaghetti strap, and a cowl neck is a cowl neck.''

Another element of the debate springs straight from the “original” element concept from above. Slate points out that the debate goes into elitism in the fashion industry:

Given the unusual role played by status and exclusivity in fashion, this may actually be the case. Kal Raustiala, a law professor at UCLA, suggested in the New Republic Online that, because much of the appeal of high fashion for those who are able to wear it is the mere fact that others can't, free copying may not be a bad thing for the industry. As Raustiala put it, "Once a style ends up on ordinary suburbanites getting on the 5:45 to Asbury Park, fashionistas want nothing to do with it. Indeed, they've already moved on—to the next look." The fact that cut-rate manufacturers can freely copy designs, the argument goes, reduces the time it takes for those highbrow designs to show up on the 5:45, which in turn makes early adopters move on to the next new thing. And the quick repetition of the cycle benefits all in the business.

If such a bill was to be passed, enacted into law, it could change the face of the fashion industry. Mass-producers, like H&M, Urban Outfitters, and Zara, who can be depended on to present designs very similar to those from the runway, will have to present and produce designs originating from their own creative imagination. This would also change the landscape of trends and trend forecasting, in addition to changing the luxury business. According to the Times:

Rather than calling imitation the sincerest form of flattery, as they have done for decades, leading designers are acknowledging that inexpensive copies -- which they label acts of piracy -- have negatively affected the luxury business

But some say that the high price (elitist notion) of luxury goods is what fuels the knocking-off of designs, which gives the mass consumer a little taste of luxury for a cheap price. But many in the industry disagree, according to the Times:

Designers say the high price of fashion is justified by the time and effort they spend researching fabrics, ideas and techniques. In their view it is unfair for people like Mr. Schwartz to profit from their work without a similar investment. “They are stealing at the expense of creativity,'' said Valerie Salembier, the publisher of Harper's Bazaar, which devoted its January issue to counterfeit fashion. ''It's not fair or reasonable or correct to steal that design from someone.''

In my opinion, I feel there is no way to constitute and draw the line of originality in fashion because all elements of designs are recycled, but at the same time, it is unfair for a designer to not reap the rewards of a garment they have made that has been element from element, knocked-off. That is just copying, ripping off and profiting from one's original creativity. Thus, copyright laws should protect designers from being exploited by huge conglomerates and mass-producers, as the laws do for any other creative artist.