I heard this amazing story about Miuccia Prada. She's an Italian fashion designer. She goes to this vintage store in Paris with a friend of hers. She's rooting around, she finds this one jacket by Balenciaga -- she loves it. She's turning it inside out. She's looking at the seams. She's looking at the construction. Her friend says, "Buy it already." She said, "I'll buy it, but I'm also going to replicate it." Now, the academics in this audience may think, "Well, that sounds like plagiarism." But to a fashionista, what it really is is a sign of Prada's genius: that she can root through the history of fashion and pick the one jacket that doesn't need to be changed by one iota, and to be current and to be now.
我听过这个关于缪西娅·普拉达的神奇故事。 她是一个意大利服装设计师 她和她的一个朋友, 去巴黎的一个古董商店。 她正在到处翻找的时候,找到了这件巴伦夏家设计的外套。 她很喜欢它。 她把着见外套翻过来。 她当时看着衣服的接缝,还有这件外套的构造。 她的朋友说“快点买吧。” 她说:“我会买的,但是我还要复制它。” 现在,在这里的学者可能会想, “这样就像是抄袭。” 但是,对于一个服装设计师来说,它其实是 是谱拉达超凡想象力的标志。 那就是她能够找到时装的历史 还能够让这件 不用做一点改变的外套, 成为当今的一种流行。
You might also be asking whether it's possible that this is illegal for her to do this. Well, it turns out that it's actually not illegal. In the fashion industry, there's very little intellectual property protection. They have trademark protection, but no copyright protection and no patent protection to speak of. All they have, really, is trademark protection, and so it means that anybody could copy any garment on any person in this room and sell it as their own design. The only thing that they can't copy is the actual trademark label within that piece of apparel. That's one reason that you see logos splattered all over these products. It's because it's a lot harder for knock-off artists to knock off these designs because they can't knock off the logo. But if you go to Santee Alley, yeah. (Laughter) Well, yeah. Canal Street, I know. And sometimes these are fun, right?
你也许还想问她这样做是不是 不合法 但这事实上被证明是合法的 在时装工业上,没有 知识产权的保护。 他们有商标的保护, 但没有版权保护, 而且没有专利保护可言。 他们所拥有的只有商标保护。 所以,也就是说每一个人 能够复制这里任何人穿的 任何服装 然后作为他们自己的设计而买出去。 只有一样东西他们不能复制 那就是那件服装里面的 实际商标标志 这就是为什么我们看到徽标 散落在所有这些产品上。 那是因为对于翻版的艺术家来说 翻版那些设计很难 因为他们不能翻版徽标 但是如果你去桑蒂弄,对 啊,对。 运河街,我知道。 有时候那些都很有趣,好。
Now, the reason for this, the reason that the fashion industry doesn't have any copyright protection is because the courts decided long ago that apparel is too utilitarian to qualify for copyright protection. They didn't want a handful of designers owning the seminal building blocks of our clothing. And then everybody else would have to license this cuff or this sleeve because Joe Blow owns it. But too utilitarian? I mean is that the way you think of fashion? This is Vivienne Westwood. No! We think of it as maybe too silly, too unnecessary.
现在,基于这个原因,这个时装工业 没有产权保护的原因是 是因为法院很久以前已经决定 服装太以功利为目的而 不能取得产权保护的资格。 他们不想让少数的设计师 拥有我们的服饰的开创性积木 然后,其他人将必须取得这个袖子或这个袖口的许可 因为Joe Blow 拥有它。 但是太过于功利化?我指的是你如何看待时装? 这是薇薇恩·韦斯特伍德,不 我们或许认为它太愚蠢了, 太没有必要
Now, those of you who are familiar with the logic behind copyright protection -- which is that without ownership, there is no incentive to innovate -- might be really surprised by both the critical success of the fashion industry and the economic success of this industry. What I'm going to argue today is that because there's no copyright protection in the fashion industry, fashion designers have actually been able to elevate utilitarian design, things to cover our naked bodies, into something that we consider art. Because there's no copyright protection in this industry, there's a very open and creative ecology of creativity.
现在,你们中间对没有版权所有,也没有创新动力的 版权保护背后的 逻辑很熟悉的人 可能也真的会对 时装工业至关重要的成功 和这个产业的经济上的成功而惊奇。 今天,令我生气的是 在时装业, 没有版权保护。 时装设计师们事实上有能力使 功利化的设计, 遮盖我们裸露的身体的东西, 升华为艺术。 因为在这个行业 没有版权保护, 所以有非常开放和创造的 创造生态。
Unlike their creative brothers and sisters, who are sculptors or photographers or filmmakers or musicians, fashion designers can sample from all their peers' designs. They can take any element from any garment from the history of fashion and incorporate it into their own design. They're also notorious for riffing off of the zeitgeist. And here, I suspect, they were influenced by the costumes in Avatar. Maybe just a little. Can't copyright a costume either.
与那些和他们一样搞创造的, 雕刻家或摄影师 或电影制作家,或音乐家们不同 时装设计师能够以 他们同行人的所有设计为样本。 他们可以从任何时装历史上的衣服里, 取得任何东西 然后把它们容入到他们自己的设计里。 他们也因为重复时代思潮而声名狼籍。 在这里,我怀疑, 他们是受到阿凡达里面的服饰的影响, 也许只有一点. 服饰也不能得到版权认可.
Now, fashion designers have the broadest palette imaginable in this creative industry. This wedding dress here is actually made of sporks, and this dress is actually made of aluminum. I've heard this dress actually sort of sounds like wind chimes as they walk through. So, one of the magical side effects of having a culture of copying, which is really what it is, is the establishment of trends. People think this is a magical thing. How does it happen? Well, it's because it's legal for people to copy one another.
现在,服装设计师让 最广泛的调色板 在这个产业里有想象的空间. 这件婚礼服 事实上是由刀和叉做成的. 这件衣服事实上是用铝做的. 我听说当你走起来 这件衣服听起来像风铃. 因此复制一种文化的 神秘副作用是 它其实是 是制定的倾向. 人们认为这是一件神秘的事情,它是如何发生的呢? 这个嘛,是因为人们复制别人的东西是合法的
Some people believe that there are a few people at the top of the fashion food chain who sort of dictate to us what we're all going to wear, but if you talk to any designer at any level, including these high-end designers, they always say their main inspiration comes from the street: where people like you and me remix and match our own fashion looks. And that's where they really get a lot of their creative inspiration, so it's both a top-down and a bottom-up kind of industry.
有些人相信 有一少部分人在时装食物链的顶端 这些人从某种程度上来说决定我们将穿什么. 但是如果你和任何水平上的任何设计师谈话, 包括那些顶级的设计师, 他们常常说 他们的灵感来自于大街 在大街上和你和我一样的人们重新组合并搭配 我们自己的时装外表, 而那儿正是他们真正得到很多的 创作灵感. 所以它既是一种自下而上的又是一种自上而下的行业.
Now, the fast fashion giants have probably benefited the most from the lack of copyright protection in the fashion industry. They are notorious for knocking off high-end designs and selling them at very low prices. And they've been faced with a lot of lawsuits, but those lawsuits are usually not won by fashion designers. The courts have said over and over again, "You don't need any more intellectual property protection." When you look at copies like this, you wonder: How do the luxury high-end brands remain in business? If you can get it for 200 bucks, why pay a thousand? Well, that's one reason we had a conference here at USC a few years ago. We invited Tom Ford to come -- the conference was called, "Ready to Share: Fashion and the Ownership of Creativity" -- and we asked him exactly this question. Here's what he had to say. He had just come off a successful stint as the lead designer at Gucci, in case you didn't know.
现在,快速的时装巨头可能已经 因为时装行业没有版权保护 而获得最大的利益. 他们因为抄袭高级设计而声名狼籍 并以低价出售 他们还面临了很多诉讼, 但是那些时装设计师们通常都不能赢得诉讼. 法院已经反复的申明,"你们不再需要 知识财产保护." 当你们看着这样的复制品的时候, 你就想知道,那些豪华的高级品牌如何 在商业里生存? 如果你可以话200美圆买到,那么你为什么还要话1000美圆 那就是为什么几年前我们曾在南加洲大学举行了会议. 我们邀请了Tom Ford。 那个会议叫“准备分享: 时装和创造的所有权” 而且我们问了他这个问题。 这就是他所要说的。 他刚刚在古奇以首席设计师的身份成功地完成了短期工作, 在你不知道的情况下。
Tom Ford: And we found after much research that -- actually not much research, quite simple research -- that the counterfeit customer was not our customer.
Tom Ford:我们发现进行很多研究后, 事实上也不是很多研究,很简单的研究, 那些购买仿造的顾客不是我们的顾客
Johanna Blakley: Imagine that. The people on Santee Alley are not the ones who shop at Gucci. (Laughter) This is a very different demographic. And, you know, a knock-off is never the same as an original high-end design, at least in terms of the materials; they're always made of cheaper materials. But even sometimes a cheaper version can actually have some charming aspects, can breathe a little extra life into a dying trend. There's lots of virtues of copying. One that a lot of cultural critics have pointed to is that we now have a much broader palette of design choices to choose from than we ever have before, and this is mainly because of the fast fashion industry, actually. And this is a good thing. We need lots of options.
Johanna Blakley:想象一下 在桑蒂弄的人们 不会在古奇购物。 (笑) 这是一个非常难的人口统计学. 还有,你知道的,一个翻版是永远不会和 原版的高级设计一样的. 至少在材料方面,它们通常是用廉价的材料而做成的. 但是,有时候一个便宜的版本 事实上也能够有一些迷人方面, 能够向一个奄奄一息的潮流里注入额外的生命. 拷贝有很多好的一面. 很多文化批判家已经指出的一个是 我们现在拥有 一个比我们以前拥有的更广泛的 可供选择的调色版. 这实际上主要是因为这个快速的时尚行业. 并且这是一件好事,我需要更多的选择.
Fashion, whether you like it or not, helps you project who you are to the world. Because of fast fashion, global trends actually get established much more quickly than they used to. And this, actually, is good news to trendsetters; they want trends to be set so that they can move product. For fashionistas, they want to stay ahead of the curve. They don't want to be wearing what everybody else is wearing. And so, they want to move on to the next trend as soon as possible.
时尚,不管你喜不喜欢, 帮助你向世界展示你自己. 因为快速时尚, 全球潮流事实上被确立的比过去更快. 而这对潮流确立者来说实际上是好消息. 他们希望潮流被确立 这样他们能够移动产品. 对于追求时尚的人来说, 他们想在曲线上保持领先的地位. 他们不想和其他人穿的一样. 所以他们想尽快的 转移到下一个潮流。
I tell you, there is no rest for the fashionable. Every season, these designers have to struggle to come up with the new fabulous idea that everybody's going to love. And this, let me tell you, is very good for the bottom line. Now of course, there's a bunch of effects that this culture of copying has on the creative process. And Stuart Weitzman is a very successful shoe designer. He has complained a lot about people copying him, but in one interview I read, he said it has really forced him to up his game. He had to come up with new ideas, new things that would be hard to copy. He came up with this Bowden-wedge heel that has to be made out of steel or titanium; if you make it from some sort of cheaper material, it'll actually crack in two. It forced him to be a little more innovative. (Music)
我告诉你,时尚是不会休息的 每个季节,那些设计师必须为 想出令每个人都喜爱的好主意而奋斗 还有这个,让我来告诉你吧 这对底层来说非常好. 现在,当然有一连串的影响 那就是拷贝文化 存在于创作的过程中. Stuart Weitzman 是一个非常成功的鞋子设计师. 他抱怨人们拷贝他的设计. 但在我读到的一次采访中, 他说到,你知道的 ,这迫使他去提升他的游戏. 他必须想出新的主义, 想出不容易被拷贝的新东西. 他想出了这个鲍登楔脚跟 这个必须用钢或钛来做. 如果你用一些便宜的材料制成, 它将会破裂成2半. 它迫使他变的更创新.
And that actually reminded me of jazz great, Charlie Parker. I don't know if you've heard this anecdote, but I have. He said that one of the reasons he invented bebop was that he was pretty sure that white musicians wouldn't be able to replicate the sound. (Laughter) He wanted to make it too difficult to copy, and that's what fashion designers are doing all the time. They're trying to put together a signature look, an aesthetic that reflects who they are. When people knock it off, everybody knows because they've put that look out on the runway, and it's a coherent aesthetic.
而那实际上让我想起 爵士乐,伟大的查理帕克. 我不知道你是否听过这件轶事.但我听过了, 他说他发明比博普的一个原因 是他非常确定 白人音乐家会没有能力复制这种声音. 他想让它难到不能拷贝. 而那正是时尚设计师们一直在做的. 他们试着将 一个签名放到一起.这是一个能够 反映他们是谁的美学. 当人们抄袭的时候,每个人都知道 因为他们把那个签名的样子放到了跑道外面, 而且它是一个清楚易懂的美学.
I love these Gallianos. Okay, we'll move on. (Laughter)
我喜欢这些Gallianos 好,我将继续前进.
This is not unlike the world of comedy. I don't know if you know that jokes also can't be copyright protected. So when one-liners were really popular, everybody stole them from one another. But now, we have a different kind of comic. They develop a persona, a signature style, much like fashion designers. And their jokes, much like the fashion designs by a fashion designer, really only work within that aesthetic. If somebody steals a joke from Larry David, for instance, it's not as funny.
这和喜剧世界不一样. 我不知道你是不是知道笑话 也不能受到版权保护. 所以当一个衬垫很流行, 每个人就偷走他们彼此的. 但是,现在我们有一种不同的喜剧演员. 他们发展人格面具, 一种签名样式,很像时尚设计师. 而他们的笑话, 很像时尚设计师们的时装设计, 真的仅仅只在这样的审美关里. 如果以有人盗取一个 Larry David 的笑话作为例子, 而不是作为取乐.
Now, the other thing that fashion designers have done to survive in this culture of copying is they've learned how to copy themselves. They knock themselves off. They make deals with the fast fashion giants and they come up with a way to sell their product to a whole new demographic: the Santee Alley demographic.
现在时尚设计师已经做的另一件事是 为了在这种抄袭文化中生存 他们已经学会了如何拷贝他们自己. 他们复制他们自己的东西. 他们与快速的时尚巨头做交易, 他们也想办法向一个全新的人口 销售他们的产品 就是桑蒂弄人口.
Now, some fashion designers will say, "It's only in the United States that we don't have any respect. In other countries there is protection for our artful designs." But if you take a look at the two other biggest markets in the world, it turns out that the protection that's offered is really ineffectual. In Japan, for instance, which I think is the third largest market, they have a design law; it protects apparel, but the novelty standard is so high, you have to prove that your garment has never existed before, it's totally unique. And that's sort of like the novelty standard for a U.S. patent, which fashion designers never get -- rarely get here in the states.
现在有些时尚设计师会说, "我们仅仅只在美国不受到尊重 在别的国家我们巧妙的设计是 受到保护的." 但是如果你看一下世界上另外的2个最大的市场, 你会发现它们提供的保护 是真的无效. 就说日本吧,我认为它是世界上第3大的市场, 他们有设计法,是保护服饰的, 但是它的新颖性标准太高, 你必须证明你的衣服在过去是不存在的. 它完全是独一无二的. 并且这稍微有点像 美国专利的新颖性标准, 时尚设计师从未得到过这个专利, 在这里的国家很少得到.
In the European Union, they went in the other direction. Very low novelty standard, anybody can register anything. But even though it's the home of the fast fashion industry and you have a lot of luxury designers there, they don't register their garments, generally, and there's not a lot of litigation. It turns out it's because the novelty standard is too low. A person can come in and take somebody else's gown, cut off three inches from the bottom, go to the E.U. and register it as a new, original design. So, that does not stop the knock-off artists. If you look at the registry, actually, a lot of the registered things in the E.U. are Nike T-shirts that are almost identical to one another.
在欧盟,他们去了另一个方向. 非常低的新颖性标准, 任何人可以申请任何东西. 但是尽管它是快速的时尚业的发源地 而且在这里你有很多的豪华设计, 他们通常不注册他们的服饰, 还有很多的争讼. 原来,这是因为新颖标准太低. 一个人可以来那走别人的袍子, 从下面剪掉3英尺, 然后去欧盟,注册一个新的 ,原始的设计. 所以,那个办法不能阻止抄袭的艺术家们. 如果你真正的去看一下注册处, 在欧洲注册处,被注册的很多东西 是耐克的体恤衫 而这些体恤衫几乎有是一样的.
But this has not stopped Diane von Furstenberg. She is the head of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, and she has told her constituency that she is going to get copyright protection for fashion designs. The retailers have kind of quashed this notion though. I don't think the legislation is going anywhere, because they realized it is so hard to tell the difference between a pirated design and something that's just part of a global trend. Who owns a look? That is a very difficult question to answer. It takes lots of lawyers and lots of court time, and the retailers decided that would be way too expensive.
但是这并没有阻止黛安 冯 弗斯滕伯格。 她是的 美国时装设计师协会的首席, 她告诉她的协会 她将为时装设计 获得版权保护. 虽然零售商已经拒绝接受这个观念. 我认为这个法规不会在任何地方实行. 因为他们意识到 要说出一个非法翻版的设计 和一些只是全球潮流的一部分的东西之间的区别太难了 谁拥有一个样板? 那是一个非常难回答的问题. 它需要很多的律师还有很多的法庭时间. 而零售商们估计那样花费太高.
You know, it's not just the fashion industry that doesn't have copyright protection. There's a bunch of other industries that don't have copyright protection, including the food industry. You cannot copyright a recipe because it's a set of instructions, it's fact, and you cannot copyright the look and feel of even the most unique dish. Same with automobiles. It doesn't matter how wacky they look or how cool they look, you cannot copyright the sculptural design. It's a utilitarian article, that's why. Same with furniture, it's too utilitarian. Magic tricks, I think they're instructions, sort of like recipes: no copyright protection. Hairdos, no copyright protection. Open source software, these guys decided they didn't want copyright protection. They thought it'd be more innovative without it. It's really hard to get copyright for databases. Tattoo artists, they don't want it; it's not cool. They share their designs. Jokes, no copyright protection. Fireworks displays, the rules of games, the smell of perfume: no. And some of these industries may seem sort of marginal to you, but these are the gross sales for low I.P. industries, industries with very little copyright protection, and there's the gross sales of films and books. (Applause) It ain't pretty.
你知道的,不仅仅是时装业 不受到版权保护. 还有很多别的行业也没有版权保护 包括食品业. 你不能得到一个食谱的版权 因为它是一套说明,这是事实. 并且,你不能得到这道菜的外观和感觉的版权 即使是最独一无二的菜. 汽车也同样. 不管它看起来有多古怪,或者看起来有多酷, 你不能得到这个有雕刻风味的设计的版权. 它是一件功利的东西,就是这个原因. 家具也同样. 它太以实利为目的了. 魔术,我认为他们是指示说明,有点像菜谱. 没有版权说明. 发型,没有版权保护. 公开源代码软件,他们决定 他们不要版权保护. 他们认为没有版权保护能更创新. 获得数据库的版权真的很难. 文身艺术家们,他们不想要版权,这不是很酷. 他们分享他们的设计. 笑话,没有版权保护. 烟花汇演. 游戏规则. 香水的味道,没有. 这些行业中可能有些看起来 对你来说无关紧要, 但是,那些是低腹腔工业 的销售总额, 就是没有版权保护的工业. 并且有销售电影和书籍的 总额。 (掌声) 不是很漂亮.
(Applause)
(掌声)
So you talk to people in the fashion industry and they're like, "Shhh! Don't tell anybody we can actually steal from each other's designs. It's embarrassing." But you know what? It's revolutionary, and it's a model that a lot of other industries -- like the ones we just saw with the really small bars -- they might have to think about this. Because right now, those industries with a lot of copyright protection are operating in an atmosphere where it's as if they don't have any protection, and they don't know what to do.
所以你责备时装业的人 而他们会说,"嘘! 不要告诉任何人 我事实上能够盗取别人的设计. 这很尴尬." 但是,你知道吗?这是革命. 这是很多别的行业典范, 就像我们刚刚看见的这个非常小的酒吧, 他们可能必须考虑一下, 因为,现在,那些受版权保护的行业 在好象没有保护的氛围里 运行. 并且他们不知道该怎么办.
When I found out that there are a whole bunch of industries that didn't have copyright protection, I thought, "What exactly is the underlying logic? I want a picture." And the lawyers do not provide a picture, so I made one. These are the two main sort of binary oppositions within the logic of copyright law. It is more complex than this, but this will do. First: Is something an artistic object? Then it deserves protection. Is it a utilitarian object? Then no, it does not deserve protection. This is a difficult, unstable binary.
当我发现有很多行业 不受到版权保护的时候, 我在想,这个基本逻辑究竟是什么? 我需要一个图,而且律师不提供这个图. 所以我做了一个. 这些是两个主要的 有点像是在版权法逻辑里面的二元对立. 比这更复杂,但是这个可以. 首先,什么是艺术的对象? 然后它值得保护. 它是不是功利对象? 这样看来,它不是,它不值得受到保护. 这是一个难而不稳定的二进制.
The other one is: Is it an idea? Is it something that needs to freely circulate in a free society? No protection. Or is it a physically fixed expression of an idea: something that somebody made and they deserve to own it for a while and make money from it? The problem is that digital technology has completely subverted the logic of this physically fixed, expression versus idea concept. Nowadays, we don't really recognize a book as something that sits on our shelf or music as something that is a physical object that we can hold. It's a digital file. It is barely tethered to any sort of physical reality in our minds. And these things, because we can copy and transmit them so easily, actually circulate within our culture a lot more like ideas than like physically instantiated objects.
另外一个是,它是不是一个信念? 是不是需要 在自由的社会里自由循环? 不受保护. 或者,依据自然法则,它是不是一种固定的 思想表达, 某个人做的某个东西, 而且,他们值得拥有一小会儿,并且从中挣钱. 问题是数字技术 已经完全颠覆了 这种依据自然法则固定的表达 与思想理念. 现在, 我们不要真正认为书 就是放在书架上的东西 或者音乐就是 我们可以握住的物理对象. 它是一个数字文件. 它仅仅是被系留在 我们心里的任何物理实体. 这些东西,因为我们能够很容易的拷贝并传播, 事实上在我们的文化里循环 如其说它像依据自然法则实体化的对象 不如说它像是一种思想.
Now, the conceptual issues are truly profound when you talk about creativity and ownership and, let me tell you, we don't want to leave this just to lawyers to figure out. They're smart. I'm with one. He's my boyfriend, he's okay. He's smart, he's smart. But you want an interdisciplinary team of people hashing this out, trying to figure out: What is the kind of ownership model, in a digital world, that's going to lead to the most innovation? And my suggestion is that fashion might be a really good place to start looking for a model for creative industries in the future.
现在,概念问题真的很深刻 当你谈及创新 和所有权的时候 让我告诉你,我们不想把这个问题仅仅交给律师去解决. 他们很聪明 我就认识一个这样的人,他还可以. 他很聪明,他很聪明. 但是你需要一个跨学科的团队 长时间讨论后决定, 尝试着去解决,所有权模式是什么样的, 在数字世界, 那将领导创新. 我建议是 时尚可能真的是一个 为未来的创造行业 开始寻找模式的好地方.
If you want more information about this research project, please visit our website: it's ReadyToShare.org. And I really want to thank Veronica Jauriqui for making this very fashionable presentation.
如果你想知道关于这项研究的更多信息, 请访问我们的网站,它是ReadyToShare.org. 然后我真的想感谢Veronica Jauriqui 制作了这个非常时尚的图象.
Thank you so much. (Applause)
非常感谢