The train of thought behind the proliferation of knockoffs in modern fashion seems to say there really is nothing new under the sun.

(Courtesy of LoveAndCasinoWar.com)

Whereas every decade of the 20th century had its signature looks — flower children and mod in the ’60s, disco and glam rock in the ’70s, neon and Flashdance in the ’80s, grunge and heroin chic in the ’90s — the first decade of the new millennium has proven a bit harder to peg. It doesn’t even have a name that is universally used (the “two-thousands,” we guess?). How is it supposed to have a definitive style?

The ’00s was the era of bling and recession chic, of smoky eyes and smoke-free bars, of Bennifer and Brangelina. It was a bridge between centuries, both in the timeline and in its mish-mash blends of style. And brands knocking each other off — even at the top of the couture food chain — have become de rigeur in the fashion industry.

No big. Or is it?

As fashion’s heaviest hitters duke it out over intellectual property and design copyrights, fast fashion and streamlined manufacturing in Asia have made it easier than ever to translate trends into retail in record time. Sometimes it’s legal, sometimes it’s not. But in any case, is it ethical?

In this issue, we take a look at the reasons counterfeit goods have gone mainstream and when you should just say no to knockoffs.

Evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller makes the case that we are biologically hardwired to seek out status symbols — and whether they are authentic is besides the point. With that in mind, we review his well-researched book Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior.

In the same vein, you may wonder — is buying fake every ethically warranted? Madison explores the problems and benefits of buying into trends.

If you’re a dedicated online shopper, you want to make sure you’re not getting ripped off by knockoffs. But how? This handy guide to avoiding fakes will steer you in the right direction.

And as always, check out Seam Ripper for more news and developments on the fakery front.

(Courtesy of Kmart.com)

Got a real craving for more fake? Here are some other stories on the topic from the Behind the Seams blog.

• Kmart has a faithful knockoff of the uber-popular “Houlihan” cargo pants by J Brand. But is borrowing a design fair game, or cause for intellectual-property war?
• Counterfeit fashion is enjoying a surge during the recession — and it’s not just $2,000 Louis Vuitton bags that are now being illegally copied.
• A fur-labeling bill has passed the California Assembly, requiring retailers who sell clothes and accessories laced with any amount of fur to disclose that information on garment labels. Previously, items with less than $150 worth of fur could be sold without a label, leading many consumers to mistakenly believe real fur to be faux.
• Luxury jeweler Cartier has sued sample-sale website Hautelook.com for allegedly selling used, unauthentic, and factory seconds under the Cartier name, “causing immediate and irreparable harm to the Cartier brand and trademark,” according to the legal complaint.
• Do “purse parties” lead women to feel so guilty about buying a knockoff that they ultimately go on to purchase the real thing? Some new research says this is more common than you’d think.

In his 2009 book Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior, Geoffrey Miller explores a Darwinist angle to consumerism and what shoppers try to communicate through their purchasing behavior. In the process, he probes a valid evolutionary perspective for why fakes are enduringly popular and — in his view — a better use of money than buying the authentic counterpart.

(Courtesy of Amazon.com)

Miller, a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of New Mexico, holds that trying to win the respect and admiration of the opposite sex and compete with sexual rivals drives the most basic of our consumerist impulses.

That desire for the latest lipstick or blush? Miller asserts it’s born from the subconscious desire to look as young and fertile as possible and attract the best quality of men. For men, the draw of a fast car is to signal to women that he’s wealthy enough to spend on nonessential goods, thus advertising himself as an available mate with excessive resources to spend on offspring.

Miller argues that counterfeit status symbols (like purses for women, or Rolex watches for men) are one way to signal wealth to other people without monopolizing monetary resources. If that’s true, it’s no wonder we’re perhaps evolutionarily inclined to buy them.

So what’s the point in shelling out for the real thing? If no one can tell the difference, the value of paying more for an authentic luxury good is limited, Miller says.

“The fake ultimately illuminates and challenges the real, as consumers begin to question why they should pay the ‘real’ product’s premium. Why bother with a real $8,000 3-carat diamond for an engagement ring, when a $4 [cubic zirconia] stone is indistinguishable to most people?” he writes.

One counter-argument would be that it’s emotionally dishonest to give someone a big ol’ CZ while pretending it’s a diamond — the emotional fallout of such a lie could potentially be relationship-ending and thus evolutionarily void.

But for the most part, he continues, ”The fakes reveal what a high proportion of the real products cost: a luxury brand markup, a pure profit premium, a con. The irony is that, with regard to purely pragmatic value, the ‘real’ version of the product is a bigger rip-off than the ‘fake’ version.”

So is imitation the sincerest form of flattery? From an eco point of view, the Darwinist perspective doesn’t take into account ethical standards of production — only the value of signaling biological fitness. But there’s evolutionary purpose in signaling a commitment to ethical ideals as well in an evolved society.

Purchasing a counterfeit designer purse produced in a Chinese sweatshop using child labor announces that the buyer doesn’t give a whit about the origin of her handbag, just that she wants to be mistaken for a woman of high status. And that kind of posturing is perceived in poor taste by the very people she is arguably trying to fool — the ones who can identify a fake from arm’s length.

If you’re looking for an academic angle on why we buy luxury goods, Miller’s well-researched book sheds some (often controversial) light on the power of consumerism and the species-furthering point it serves.

(Courtesy of Samantha Thavasa)

The feds who track the import of counterfeit goods have their work cut out: During this recessionary economy, when consumers are foraging for deals, fake fashion is enjoying an unprecedented surge in demand.

The New York Times describes how it’s not just high-end purses that are now being knocked off:

“If there is demand, there will be supply,” said John Spink, associate director of the Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection Program at Michigan State University. In China, he said, “It’s all of a sudden them saying, ‘We have low capacity. What can we make?’ ”

The answer is increasingly knockoffs of lesser-known brands, which are easy to sell on the Internet, can be priced higher than obvious fakes, and avoid the aggressive programs by the big luxury brands to protect their labels, retail companies and customs enforcement officials say.

The results: Faux Samantha Thavasa bags for $113 and Ed Hardy hoodie sweatshirts for $82.50. And, bizarrely, imitations that are more expensive than the real ones: In 2007, Anya Hindmarch sold canvas totes that said “I’m Not a Plastic Bag” for $15. Now fakes are available on the Web for $99.

The internet has revolutionized the fakery business — especially sites like eBay. Ethical consumers need to be on their guard for deals that are too good to be true on goods that are anything but the real deal.

(Courtesy of CovetShop.com)

Perhaps some serious fashion lovers just cleaned out their closets, or maybe collectors are trading in their prized possessions for cash. No matter what the reason, our favorite used clothing and consignment boutiques on the web are stocked right now. Want to see our choicest picks and the best deals? Click on.

• We’re hopelessly in love with CovetShop’s peacock-themed silk sweater tunic by Temperley of London ($237). It’s brand new with tags and priced at almost 80 percent off (the tag says it retailed for $1,035). If you’re a size 8, snatch this one up!
• Still looking for the perfect military jacket? How ’bout this green twill oversize topper by Isabel Marant ($400), for sale at Decades Two?
• At FashionPhile.com, there are a number of authentic vintage Hermès silk scarves up for sale right now. We particularly the L’Armée Imperiale Russe pattern ($195), and it’s almost half the price of a new neckwarmer from the storied French fashion house.
• ConsignmentChic.com has a pair of sexy black silk Bruno Magli peeptoe pumps ($74.98) in seemingly perfect condition. If I were a size 8, you better believe these would be in my closet.
• And the pièce de resistance: Portero has a jaw-dropping Louis Vuitton “Alma” satchel in black Epi leather ($675). This bag retails for over $1,300 and it’s listed in very good condition, with only mild wear on the corners.

(Courtesy of WWD.com)

A fur-labeling assembly bill introduced earlier this year passed the California State Senate last week, and is now awaiting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signature into law.

Under current federal regulations, if a garment is trimmed with less than $150 worth of fur, the retailer is not required to disclose the materials used. Because of that loophole, clothes containing real fur were often mistaken for faux.

Sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States and supported by the fur industry, this new law would supercede that, requiring clothing labels to disclose the type of fur used on all garments with fur trim.

The bill was authored by Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) and Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco), who told the press:

“Many consumers choose not to buy fur products because they have ethical objections or are allergic to animal fur,” Lieu said in a written statement. “This bill will help consumers get the facts about the contents of these garments.”

Federal law requires that clothing manufacturers label all clothes that contain animal fur only if their value exceeds $150. Supporters of AB1656 say this bill will help shoppers distinguish between real and imitation fur, regardless of the price.

“There is an assumption out there that if a garment isn’t labeled it must be fake – this isn’t always the case,” Ma said in a statement.

This may be the first time that animal-rights activists and the fur industry have ever agreed on anything, but it’s a win-win for both sides: More transparency in garment labeling means consumers can know exactly what they’re buying.

(Courtesy of Kmart.com)

By now you’ve probably heard of the J Brand “Houlihan” phenomenon. The company’s skinny cargo pants (which are sadly not part of the line’s awesome organic Green Label) are flying off the shelves this summer, and everyone wants a piece of the action.

Enter Kmart. In the span of just a couple of months, design execs at the discount retailer (or more precisely, its overseas factories) have whipped up a pretty close copy of the Houlihan for its Kmart Design collection.

The jeans, which are being promoted in the September issue of Vogue, will reportedly retail for less than $100 on Kmart.com, as compared to the $230 price tag on the real deal.

But what about protecting designer creativity? As far as we can tell, Kmart hasn’t ripped off the J Brand label or pocket detail, but every other element of the pants are copied down to the last stitch.

What do you think: Is this a fair appropriation of a trendy new style, or an intellectual property grey area?

(via Denimology)

(Courtesy of FlynetPictures.com)

Ever wonder what makes $500 sunglasses from Bergdorf better than $10 specs from the drug store? The Wall Street Journal recently set out to learn just that.

It turns out almost all brand-name sunglasses have a lot in common:

Do you prefer the “quality” of Ray-Ban to Oakley? Do you think Bulgari is better than Dolce & Gabbana, or Salvatore Ferragamo is better than Prada? Wake up. They’re all made by one company, Italian manufacturer Luxottica–one of the biggest consumer companies that consumers have never heard of. Luxottica also makes sunglasses branded Burberry, Chanel, Polo Ralph Lauren, Paul Smith, Stella McCartney, Tiffany, Versace, Vogue, Persol, Miu Miu, Tory Burch and Donna Karan.

“We manufacture about 70% of those brands in our factories in Italy, and the balance in America and China,” says Luxottica spokesman Luca Biondolillo. “We do the design, the manufacturing, and the marketing,” he adds. The company makes most of those brands under license, working closely with designers at the relevant fashion houses. But it owns several brands itself, including Ray-Ban, Oakley, Oliver Peoples and REVO. …

Luxottica also owns LensCrafters, Pearle Vision and Sunglass Hut.

The bottom line: Quality-wise, there’s nothing that those $450 Oliver Peoples Aero 57s can offer you that a cheapo pair of aviators from Sunglass Hut can’t.

Fashionable women of size have a reason to celebrate: Marc Jacobs is set to become the first high-end designer to design a clothing line especially for plus-size women.

The news leaked last week when Robert Duffy, president of Marc Jacobs International, posted on Twitter that a collection of larger sizes is in the planning stages, with a tentative release of next year.

The Guardian reports:

While [Jacobs's] work for Louis Vuitton has involved high-profile collaborations with artists such as Takashi Murakami and rapper Kanye West, he has always taken risks with his eponymous brand, creating a number of unusual lines under his name. He has recently launched Little Marc Jacobs childrenswear, Bark Jacobs dog accessories and a fragrance for men called Bang. During New York Fashion Week next month, he will launch Book Marc, a bookshop.

GQ commissioning editor Jonathan Heaf, who has worked as a consultant for the Louis Vuitton brand, said: “If anyone can turn their hand to plus size clothes – out to create something elegant rather than simply make a splash for their own name – it’s Marc. About time, I say. He just makes pretty, modern, sexy clothes for pretty, modern, sexy girls; girls confident enough not to have to shout to be noticed.”

And if you follow Marc Jacobs’s runway shows as religiously as we do, you know this collection promises to be free of the shapeless dresses and frumpy pants that too often characterize plus-size fashion.

(via Luxist)

Yesterday, Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) proposed a new law that would enable designers to patent their ideas in an effort to crack down on counterfeiting and copyright infringement in the fashion world.

The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act is backed by both the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) and the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA). It aims to succeed where other efforts to protect intellectual property in fashion have failed, such as the Design Piracy Prohibition Act of 2007.

The New York Times reports:

“In the first go-around there was nothing that gave our members protection,” Kevin Burke, president and chief executive officer of the AAFA said, adding that there was “a vast difference” in the Schumer bill. “It provides the protection for unique design.”

The proposed legislation provides very limited intellectual property protection to the most original design. A designer who claims that his work has been copied must show that his design provides “a unique, distinguishable, non-trivial and non-utilitarian variation over prior designs.” And it must be proven by the designer that the copy is “substantially identical” to the original so as to be mistaken for it. The bill would cover all fashion designs, including products like handbags, belts and sunglasses, for a three-year period from the time the item is seen in public—on a runway, say. Factors than can’t be used in determining the uniqueness of a design are color, patterns and a graphic element.

In other words: In the event of a copyright dispute, the onus is on the designer to prove that his or her design is the most original.

For another point of view about why such legislation is unnecessary, check out this piece by USC economist Krisztina Holly.