NYT Fails to Understand Copyright

The New York Times is one of my favorite sources for news, but today an article was published which fails to fully examine the issue. Eric Wilson's piece on the fashion industry's relationship to copyright identifies the current debate over whether or not copyright should be extended to clothing design, but fails to provide a balanced look at the issue.

The coalition of designers who would benefit from government created monopoly convinced a group of Senators to introduce legislation banning substantially similar clothing from being sold by a competitor. This, undoubtedly, happens but copyright should not be evoked in an already competitive marketplace.

The Constitutionally-determined purpose of copyright is to provide an incentive for creation. The American clothing industry is worth $181 billion -- clearly not a floundering business.

But it is a business predicated on fads and copying. Retro clothing would become even more a thing of the past, never to be revived due to copyrights lasting 70 years after the death of the creator or an equally detrimental length were the owner a corporation. Even though I'm no fashionista, I can testify to the cycle of style which comes as people begin to buy clothing of similar styles to "fit in" or "be cool."

Further, imagine the nightmare entrusted to the already burdened court system when they have to determine the uniqueness of a dress or jeans. Is that really something that we want?