[claireabel]

I’ve thought long & hard about posting this. My sister runs a fashion label, and has had people knock off her designs before, and it is just so dishonest and upsetting.

I saw an ad in a magazine today for a kids’ clothing company that has a few suspiciously familiar designs. They haven’t said they are their own, but O+S isn’t mentioned anywhere.

http://littlechillies.bigcartel.com/product/french-floral-shorts-oyster-with-beige-trim

Puppet show shorts?

http://littlechillies.bigcartel.com/product/party-dress-brown

Birthday party dress?

http://littlechillies.bigcartel.com/product/scooter-3-4-pants-oyster

Sandbox pants?

[sewinginthecity]

I would really like to hear Liesl’s response on this. They may have an agreement that doesn’t require them to mention O + S. If not, this company is totally knocking off, and looks like didn’t even bother to change a tiny thing.

[Nicole]

I saw these in a magazine plus a top that looked like the 2+2 , I thought I was just imagining things….

[sayiamyou]

Wow. Those look like Tea Party bloomers too, complementing the ‘birthday party dress’ outfit. Hmmmm….

[JohannaO]

I think they also have a pop-over knock off. If you look closely, the Birthday Party dress has buttons on top, and no buttons in the back. They are suspiciously “inspired” by Oliver and S. It seems they have made some changes, and those changes may “qualify” as an original design. I don’t know much about copyright, but I think there is someone on here that does. This may get complicated due to American vs. Australian laws. Leisl, I hope you know a bulldog of a copyright lawyer.

[Todd Gibson]

Thank you for sharing this claireabel. We weren’t aware of it, and we appreciate the information.

[Anonymous]

It’s pretty obvious that they are using Liesl’s patterns! Unfortunately, there is no law to protect her designs as far as I understand. There is/was a bill before Congress to create some sort of protection for clothing designs. I don’t think it has passed yet. The Copyright applies only to the printed pattern itself, not the idea or design. That’s why designer fashion shows have such high security. It all seems so wrong to me, though, because they are obviously making money off of Liesl’s lovely work.

[sewinginthecity]

I didn’t want to mention it before, but I used to work in the clothing industry, and it was explained to me this way. Remember those nylon/velcro wallets that were all the rage in the 80s? Anyone could use the exact same materials and design, and just change the stitch length by a millimeter and it would be considered a new design — and therefore not subject to any patents or copyright laws. This is why most designers don’t bother to get copyrights. It’s impossible to enforce. They just try to get their ideas out there first to get the credit and expect that their best-selling designs will be knocked off. I don’t know how things work with sewing patterns.

Oh yeah, he did say that Adidas did manage to copyright their “three stripes”, but that this was hugely exceptional. I guess this is why I’ve never seen anything with 3 stripes that wasn’t made by Adidas, even stripes of a different width.

[Anonymous]

Yes, even the boutique sewing licenses may or may not be supported by law, but I support them because I choose to see Liesl paid for her design work. From what I’ve read, there is controversy over copyrights for patterns. I have received a registered copyright for my pattern, but there is at least one case where the copyright for a sewing pattern did not hold up in court, so some say that a sewing pattern cannot even be copyrighted. The argument is that it is a “useful item” so it cannot be copyrighted. The judge declared that a sewing pattern is a template to cut layers of cloth, or a tool – so not subject to copyright. A patent wouldn’t apply unless the design is “non-obvious” and “novel”, so that doesn’t work for most sewing patterns and clothing is specifically excluded from receiving a patent. Besides that, it costs upwards of $20,000 for a patent so it would be unrealistic to get one anyway. The whole thing is frustrating because designers have no protection. First to market is the only way to get ahead. All that said, I think it’s just plain wrong for this company to be selling Liesl’s designs without so much as a courtesy mention of her name as the designer.

[April Henry]

Wow – those are blatantly obvious.

[Justine J]

The shirt even looks ‘sketchbook-y’ 🙁

[Sarvi]

Pattern for Puppet Show shorts: $16.

Fabric, trim, and buttons: $14.

Savings over buying copycat shorts: $15.

Showing your kid what honesty looks like: priceless.

[Anonymous]

Nice one, Sarvi!!

[icicle]

Hmm, some items are suspiciously missing now. Hopefully they have seen the error of their ways!

[sewinginthecity]

Or they got a “cease and desist” letter. The puppet show shorts are still there, though.

Btw, I’m really annoyed by what they did. To have the gall to think no one would care or notice. Got talent? REAL designers don’t knock off!!