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.
我曾聽過一則關於Miucha Prada 的有趣故事 她是位義大利籍的時裝設計師 她曾與她的一票朋友 到巴黎的一間古著店 逛著逛著, 她發現了一件巴黎世家的夾克外套 她很喜歡 她把夾克翻到反面 她看了看夾克的車工縫線, 整件衣服的剪裁 她的朋友說: 就買下它吧 她說: 我會買, 而且我還要把它複製出來 現在坐在觀眾席,身為知識分子的你們也許會想 『嗯, 這看起來似乎是一種抄襲行為』 但對一個時尚達人來說 這正是Prada真正厲害的地方 她可以在不同年代的流行當中 選中一件夾克 甚至不需怎麼修改 就可以讓這件骨董夾克變成入時且時髦的
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?
有人也許會問她這麼做 是否是違法的 其實, 這的確不犯法 在時尚業界裡 並沒有什麼智慧財產權的保護 他們有商標保護法 但並沒有保護版權的規範 也沒有專利保護的法則 時尚產業只擁有商標的法律規範 所以這也就意味著任何人 都可以模仿在場的人 身上穿的任一服裝款式 當做自己的設計將其生產販賣 唯一不能抄襲的 就是縫在衣服內裡的 品牌商標 這也是為什麼你們會看到許多商品上 佈滿了品牌標誌 是因為這樣對仿冒商來說 要仿冒這些設計更為困難 因為他們不能仿冒品牌標誌 但如果你到聖提街 沒錯 還有運河街, 我知道 這其實還蠻有趣的, 對吧
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.
現在, 要來解釋時尚界 沒有任何版權保護法的原因 是因為在很久以前法院就決定 由於服裝款式應用範圍太廣 所以無法以版權保護來界定 他們不想讓一群設計師 對服裝產業擁有太多影響力 不然大家可能得跑去申請某一袖口樣式 只因為此樣式為Joe Blow所擁有 但真的太過實用嗎? 我是指這就是你們對時尚產業的觀感嗎? 這是Vivienne Westwood. 喔不 我們覺得這也許太愚蠢 太不必要了
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.
現在,熟悉版權保護的 背後操作邏輯的你們 也就是認為沒有擁有權,就不會有創新的動機 可能會很驚訝 時尚產業的巨大成功 與極大的經濟效益 今天我在這裡所要討論的是 由於在時尚產業中 並無版權保護規範 時裝設計師其實已經在把 我們穿戴在身上的 大眾服裝設計 提升到較高的藝術層面 因為在時尚圈 並沒有版權保護 所以這個圈子非常的開放,極具創意性 是創意的孕育箱
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.
不像其他的藝術型產業 利如雕塑或攝影 電影或音樂 時尚設計師可以向其他同儕設計師 取樣其設計 他們可以取樣流行史上任一服裝款式 的一項元素 並加以融合成自己的設計 他們也喜歡加入當代風潮 這個, 我猜 是受到電影阿凡達裡的服裝造型所影響 也許影響不大 電影裡的戲服同樣也不受版權保護
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.
現在, 服裝設計師擁有 最大的想像空間 在這個創意產業裡揮灑自如 這件新娘禮服 其實是用塑膠叉子所做成的 而這件洋裝的材質則是用鋁所製的 當這件洋裝擺動時 聽起來就像風鈴的聲音 所以模仿文化的 其中一項神奇附加效應 其實也就是 流行風潮的建立 大家都覺得這真的很神奇. 這是怎麼發生的呢? 嗯, 這是因為人們可以合法的相互抄襲
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 在時尚產業的頂端有幾個人 將獨裁決定大眾的穿衣規則 但如果你跟任一階層的服裝設計師聊過 包括那些知名大牌服裝設計師 他們總會說 他們的主要靈感來源是來自於街頭 也就是出現在大街上像你我的普羅大眾混搭出 屬於自己的獨特風格 正是他們得到許多靈感 的地方 所以這其實是個由上到下,從細部到全體都相互關聯的產業
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.
現在, 就屬平價流行服飾大廠 受惠最多 由於時尚產業並無版權保護的關係 他們經常抄襲各大精品品牌的設計 然後以非常低的售價銷售 他們曾面臨許多法律訴訟 但這些案件都跟服裝設計師無關 法院總不停得重申: 你們並不需任何額外的版權保護 當你看到像這樣的仿冒品 你可能會想, 那那些精品名牌 該怎麼生存下去呢? 如果可以花200元買到, 誰會願意花1000元去買? 事實上,這也是為什麼我們幾年前在U.S.C.這裡舉辦研討會 我們邀請Tom Ford與會 此研討會稱作:『 與您分享: 時尚與創意擁有權的兩三事』 我們很直接的問他這個問題 而這是他的回答 他那時才剛從古馳光榮地卸下設計總監一職 如果你們不知道的話
Tom Ford: And we found after much research that -- actually not much research, quite simple research -- that the counterfeit customer was not our customer.
經過許多研究 其實沒有太多的研究, 是非常簡單的調查 我們發現那些購買仿冒品的民眾並不是我們的客戶群
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.
請想像一下 在聖提街逛街的人們 並不是在古馳店裡消費的人 (笑聲) 這是非常截然不同的消費族群 而且你知道的, 仿冒品 永遠不可能跟真品一樣 至少在材料的部份. 仿冒品都是用較為廉價的材質所製 但有時平價版本 反而有更多的好處 可以為欲振乏力的時尚圈帶來一點額外的生機 抄襲還有許多的優點 其中一個是許多文化評論家曾舉出的 就是我們現在 擁有較多元的設計款式 可供選擇, 比起從前還要來得多 這主要也是因為平價流行產業崛起的原因 這真得很好. 我們需要許多不同的選擇
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.
時尚, 不管你喜不喜歡 都是幫助你向外展現自己的工具 由於平價流行服飾 全球流行風潮的形成比以前要來得更為快速 而這對決定流行的領導人物是件好事 他們希望能帶起流行 如此他們才可以將其化為商品販賣 而對時尚達人來說 他們想要站在流行的前端 他們不想穿的跟其他人一樣 所以他們希望能趕快進入下一個流行裡 越快越好
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)
老實說, 流行界是毫無歇息的 每一季, 那些設計師都得使盡混身解數 想出大眾喜愛的設計 而這,我告訴你 這對最後結果是非常好的 現在當然會有很多影響 也就是抄襲文化對創作過程 所產生的影響 Stuart Weitzman是非常成功的女鞋設計師 他曾多次抱怨他的設計遭人抄襲一事 但在一篇訪談中 他提到, 這其實讓他更加把勁於自己的設計上 他得想出新點子 新的做法,讓他的設計難以抄襲 他設計出這款包登楔型鞋 這款一定得用鋼或鈦來製作 如果你用較為低廉的材料來製作這款鞋型 是會斷成兩半的 這讓他的設計變得更創新
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.
而這也讓我想到 爵士樂的傳奇人物Charlie Parker 不知道你們是否有聽過他這段軼事 他說他發明bebop爵士樂的其中一項原因 就是他很確定 白人樂手是無法複製出這種聲音的 他想讓它變得難以模仿 這也是服裝設計師們一直在致力的 他們試著將 屬於自己的經典裝扮與其特有美學 來呈現出自己身為設計師的本色 一旦有人抄襲, 大家就會發現 因為他們把一套套的服裝送上伸展台展示 每一套服裝皆相互呼應連貫
I love these Gallianos. Okay, we'll move on. (Laughter)
我好愛這些Galliano的作品 好的, 我們繼續
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.
這其實跟喜劇界一樣 我不知道你們是否知道笑話 同樣也沒有版權保護 所以當某一台詞開始流行起來時 大家就會開始競相使用 但現在的喜劇方式較為不同 他們為其人物發展出特有人格 一套特有風格, 有點像時裝設計師 而他們的笑話 就如同設計之於時裝設計師一般 得靠獨特的美感才能顯現 例如,如果有人模仿Larry David 所講的笑話的話 那就會變得不好笑
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.
現在另一個時裝設計師努力在 此抄襲文化底下生存的方法 是他們學到如何模仿自己 他們抄襲自己的設計 與平價流行服裝大廠合作 他們想出新的方式來銷售他們的設計 拓展至一全新不同的消費族群 也就是聖提街消費族群
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.
現在有些時裝設計師會表示 『只有在美國, 時裝設計未受到重視 在其他國家, 都有對時裝設計 給予保護』 但如果看一下世界另外兩大市場 他們所提供的保護 其實並沒有什麼成效 例如在日本, 我認為是世界第三大市場 他們有設計法規來保護服裝的設計 但要達到申請專利標準的門檻非常高 你必須能夠證明你的服裝款式未曾發明過 它必須是獨一無二的 這有點像是 要申請美國專利的標準 是服裝設計師不可能申請 或難以申請到的
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.
在歐盟則是相反 其門檻非常低 任何人都可以拿任一東西去申請 但雖然它是平價流行廠牌的發源地 而且擁有許多精品品牌設計師 他們通常並不會去為他們的服裝去做申請 也沒有太多的法律訴訟案件 結果變成由於其申請門檻太低 任何人可以隨便拿一件服裝 把長度剪短三吋 就可以走進歐盟, 然後申請為一全新獨創設計 所以這並無法阻止仿冒商繼續仿冒 如果你只仔細看看登記處 在歐盟許多已註冊的服裝 像Nike T恤 幾乎每件都非常相似
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.
但這都無法阻擋Diane von Furstenberg 她是美國時裝設計師協會 的主席 她曾向她的支持者表示 她將為時裝設計師 爭取設計版權保護 儘管零售業者對此略有微詞 我不認為此條款會順利通過 因為他們了解這是非常困難的 要分辨出這是否為仿冒設計 或是屬於全球流行的一部分 到底誰擁有這個裝扮? 這是難以回答的問題 得需要許多律師在法庭裡商討許久 而且零售商覺得此舉耗費太大
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, 這不僅僅只是時尚產業 沒有受到版權保護而已 其他還有很多產業同樣也沒有版權保護 包括像是食品業 你不能為食譜申請專利 因為那是一連串的指示步驟. 是具體事實 你也不能為菜餚的外觀或味道註冊版權 就算是最獨一無二的菜餚也是如此 汽車也是同樣道理 不管汽車的外型是多奇形怪狀, 多麼地酷炫 你也不能為雕塑品申請專利 因為其設計太過實用了 家具也是如此 太過實用 魔術伎倆, 我想這也是指示步驟, 有點像食譜 同樣也沒有版權保護 髮型, 沒有版權保護 自由軟體, 開發人員決定 他們並不需要版權的保護 他們覺得沒有版權的規範,比較能發揮創意 也很難為資料庫以版權規範來保護 刺青藝術家也不想要, 那可不酷 他們與大家分享他們的設計 笑話, 沒有版權保護 煙火圖案 遊戲規則 香水的味道, 沒有 以上這些產業 有些看起來似乎比較非主流 但這是低I.P.產業的 銷售總額 也就是未受版權保護的產業 而這是影片與書籍的 銷售總額 (鼓掌) 這很殘酷
(Applause)
(鼓掌)
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.
所以若你跟時尚產業裡的人聊 他們會說:噓! 別告訴其他人 我們可以互相抄襲彼此的設計 這很難為情 但你們知道嗎, 這其實是場革新 許多其他產業都可以以此為借鏡 像那些我們剛看到業績較為不佳的產業 他們可能得好好地考慮 因為現在許多產業都在執行 保護其商品版權 好像他們沒有其他的規範可以保護自己的產業一樣 他們不知道該怎麼做
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.
當我發現有這麼多產業 是沒有版權保護的時候 我心想, 其中到底有什麼玄機? 我要一張圖表, 但律師沒辦法提供 所以我自己做了一張 這裡是版權法裡 主要兩個對立二進位論點 實際上更為複雜, 但用這張圖表就可以了 首先,得決定該物件是否具有藝術價值 再決定給予其保護 若是實用物件 就不行, 不能給予版權保護 這是個困難且不穩定的論述
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.
另一個是, 若該物件為一個想法 那這是否需要 在自由的社會裡給予自由地傳播呢? 無法給予保護 或者這是將想法 具體成形 也就是某人製作出某物 理所當然他們就擁有該物品, 並以此賺取利益 但問題是數位科技 已經完全顛覆物體實體存在 的邏輯論述 相對於概念式的想法 現在 我們不再以擺放在櫃子裡 來認得一本書 或是可以拿在手上 的一張實體唱片 現在都是數位版 在我們的認知裡 已經很難將這些以實體方式來做連結 因為我們可以很容易的複製及傳送這些物件 所以這些東西其實在我們的文化裡 散播的形式越來越來概念化 而不像實體物品
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.
現在, 概念性議題是非常深遠的 當你談論到創意 與擁有權 我告訴你們, 我們不想把這議題只留給律師去解決 他們很聰明沒錯 我身邊就有一個, 是我男友, 他還行 他很聰明 但你會希望有一個有組織的團體 來歸納出答案 試著想出哪種方式能作為擁有權的最佳模式 在這數位世界裡 將帶領人們走向最創新的方向 而我的建議是 時尚產業也許是個可以好好參考 為未來創意產業 尋找出一套良好模式的地方
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.
如果你們想知道更多關於此研究計畫的資訊 請上我們的官方網站ReadyToShare.org 我要非常謝謝Veronica Jauriqui 製作這份如此時髦的投影片
Thank you so much. (Applause)
謝謝大家