>> the part where -- the barge wire and the guard towers are gone, but the memories come back for so many people who, until today have lost such a big part of their childhood. for many released after the war, they buried the memories. now 60 years later -- >> tonight on cue and day the only family internment camp in crystal city texas. >> the government says we have a deal for you. we will reunite you with your families in the crystal city internment camp, the family internment camp, if you will agree to go voluntarily. then they learned what the secret of the camp was. you had to voluntarily

repatriate to germany and japan if the government decided that they needed to be repatriated. the truth of the matter is the crystal city camp was humanely administered by the ins, but these special war division of the department of state used it as roosevelt's primary prisoner exchange. it was the center of roosevelt's prisoner exchange program. >> tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. >> each week american history tv sits in on a lecture with one of the nation's college professors. you can watch the classes here every saturday evening at 8:00 p.m. and midnight eastern. next, iowa state university professor sara marcketti talked s about what fashion is not covered by copyright protection

and the creation of the fashion originators guild of america in the 1930's. the fashion originators guild of america was an attempt to protect and register original fashion. despite its popularity, the guild faced backlash from merchants and in the 1940's faced federal sanctions for monopolistic practices. this class is about 40 minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm very happy to see you all here today. thank you for coming over to the memorial union to see this class. today i am going to present a paper called "knock it off: a history of design piracy in the fashion industry." i wanted knowledge my co-author dr. jane parsons from the university of missouri. this work is currently under contract with texas tech university press. we will start with some questions to think about, do we know what design piracy is? all right, with a showing of hands, how many of you have seen design piracy in magazines

in television, or perhaps even on the internet? wow. a good number of you. here is my example with "marie claire" magazine, one with rachel ray and the higher-priced and the lower-priced version right next to it. here's another question for you. have you ever experienced design piracy while shopping online or at a brick-and-mortar store? raise your hand. ok we have even more people. , recently i was looking at amazon.com. i was wanting to jump on the bandwagon for a jean jacket and some jersey in the sleeve and the hoodie. i found this example on the left . a couple pages down here was an , example, jessica simpson, $80. similar. very similar. now that we have established

pretty much everyone in the room has experienced this in some way in their life, but do we know exactly what it is? so, what is design piracy? is design piracy always the low copying the high? raise your hand if you think that. is it always the low copying the high? no. no. right? this example might have clued you in here. we see the galliano example from 1998 and if we look at this from 1928, it looks very similar, does it not? is design piracy the same thing as counterfeiting? raise your hand if you think yes, design piracy is the same exact thing as counterfeiting? all right, a couple of you, not really sure, not really sure. this is a bit more difficult.

however the correct answer is design piracy is very different from counterfeiting. the example we see here is true religion, and we see the fake example on the left and the real example on the right. what makes this a counterfeit and not a pirated design? there is one thing that is really key here. one element that is really key. what is that? the label. right? the label. in counterfeiting, objects or fraudulently branded as someone else's. the fake is trying to be passed off or pond off as the real thing. design piracy, however, is the unauthorized copying or knocking off of another manufactured or -- manufacturer's or designer's

ideas. my final question -- my final question. is this a new 21st century phenomenon? man, i picked some good examples. not new. of course not. this here is pete mondrian's very famous series of paintings from the 1920's. where he used this color blocking type of aesthetic. and here is the yves saint dress. -- and here is the yves saint laurent dress. really a genius. it is so simple. he has taken different colors and you do not even see the seem am lines. this is 2006, 2007, forever 21. designer, of course, unknown. costs less than yves saint laurent. it has this color block aesthetic. we see here from 1960 through 2010, a pretty old phenomenon. but if you know your costume

history, as i know you all do, we can look all the way back to the late middle ages or the italian renaissance and see this whole notion of color blocking putting multiple colors into one garment, was very much alive and well. the purpose we have identified right? what is it? what is it not? the purpose of today's lesson is to determine, how does fashion fall between the seams of design protection? to explore the concepts of fashion creation in the early of 20th century, and to learn from a case study in the 1930's. before we get into that, you say intellectual property protection and you're probably thinking what is that? so, what we are going to do is touch a bit on what is actually intellectual property, or ip protection. you have probably all seen this, right? have you all seen this?

where do you usually see this? movies. you're watching a movie. before you get to the good stuff, this sign comes up, and when we think about intellectual property, movies pharmaceuticals, those are the products that typically come to mind. but one only needs to think about, if it is anything your mind creates, right, that can be protected by intellectual property protection, it is important because a lot of studies have said intellectual property protection is correlated with national competitiveness, and those nations with stricter ip protection often rank in the top in the world in global growth and economic competitiveness. now we're just going to look at a couple of examples of ip protection. to get at the heart of what is it about fashion that makes it fall between the seams of design

protection? copyright. copyright is the first element of ip protection, however it generally does not apply to apparel. if items of clothing are considered "useful articles." designers have tried to argue that their work is sculptural and a work of art, but it has been consistently said by the courts that it is to be functional. therefore it does not apply for copyright protection. if you are a quilter, you may see sometimes "copyright received." that is the pattern of the quilt. patterns for tapestries, also, are protected, as are some jewelry designs.

clothing, typically, is not. the trademark. what you think of immediately? immediately. trademark, these symbols to identify the origins or the source of products. as soon as we see the interlocking c's, we know it has to be chanel. we have established something, right? pirates are not trying to steal the trademark. they are not trying to pond awn themselves off the chanel or nike. they are trying to be similar to chanel. but they are never trying to confuse a consumer into thinking it is an actual chanel. this works great for counterfeit products. not so much pirated. third one is kind of unusual. trade dress. trade dress refers to the unique design appearance or packaging

of a product. this trade dress, it means the package equals the product in the consumer's mind. so, barbie is my best example. as soon as you see the pink letters, the pink box, is it -- if it is malibu barbie, is it -- if it is ken, if it skipper. no matter what specific barbie it is, you know -- the same thing with chanel. you think, yes, that is so in so. not really. not really. that is the whole notion of fashion. it's always changing. it's always different. the last category is kind of different. it is design patents, and these will provide a short-term protection for novel or non-obvious features of an

invention. a lot of shoe designers use design patents and even fashion designers have used design patents. but there are some problems. they can be very costly. they can take a long time to secure. many months. by the time you receive a design patent, someone else in the market has already scooped you. they have already introduced a similar style. furthermore, design patents are brought before judges. this is a case where they were saying it was a design patent in dispute. oftentimes the judges will say the design patent was not valid in the first place. there was nothing inventive enough or novel enough for it to even have been patented. and this leads us to think about, right, what is it about fashion? can it be original? can it be something new? the whole notion of trying to determine what is original, what is an adaptation, what is a copy is really the crux of the whole

design piracy issue. this advertisement from 1919 was created by maurice renton or -- in these it is saying that his designs are distinctly original. -- original adaptations. what? what does that even mean? maybe he is saying that they are original or adapted from or inspired by these different fabrics on notions, but how would you determine if this is original or an adaptation or somewhere in between? furthermore many designers question and contemplate whether any design is truly original

since pre-existing ideas styles, trends are the basis truly, for all garments. when we think about it, the great style that designers will follow is the zeitgeist, the spirit of the time, in creating their goods. they look at history. they look at high culture. they look at politics. they look at society. they are influenced by the se similar ideas. it is no wonder that similar products are created. this example stems from 1922. king tut's tomb was discovered. and all of a sudden everyone from hair products to make up to clothing designers are inspired by ancient egypt. and you see, pretty similar, they are all inspired by ancient egypt. so, i want you to think about, just for a second here, what is it about fashion then that allows it to fall between the seams of design protection?

any takers on this one? what is it about fashion that makes it so difficult to protect? lee, what do you think? >> i think [indiscernible] >> all right, lee had a great the speed of fashion makes it point. difficult to protect. thank you, lee. the speed of fashion. how many pairs of denim jeans do you guys have in your closet? how many? one? five? six? eight. 10. do we have to hire? -- do we have to go higher?

20? you think about this. some of these jeans you wear for school, for class. some you wear for date night. some you have reserved for fancy occasions. some you have reserved for doing housework or garden work. they are all genes -- they are all jeans, but they are so differentiated and there is always a new you might want to buy, right? some other things i thought about. fashion is both decorative and functional. it does not fit into the current ip protection options. we have to think about the minute incremental changes. the flair versus the boot. -- the flare versus the boot. minute changes. and the whole notion of who gets to decide what is original, what is an adaptation, and what is a

copy? and furthermore for all of this if you own a copy, if you own a trademark, you have to vigilantly sue or threaten to sue anyone who trespasses or violates your mark. so, there is an element you have to be out there aggressively protecting your product. so, this is good. let's think about the next thing. we kind of have established what design piracy is and what it is not. the next series of slides, what we're going to do is explore -- explore the concept of fashion creation in the early 20th century, which will help to institutionalize piracy in the u.s. ready to wear apparel industry.

of to the mid-19th century either women made their clothing or had a seamstress make their clothing. then we see a complex series of social, cultural, and technological changes that will set the stage for the rapid growth of the ready to wear apparel industry. this is actually of an iowa state university botany class from 1890. we see more women than ever before with access and opportunity to go to college. and women are increasingly playing sports. this is one of my favorite pictures. on riverside drive, new york city. it does not look like this today. we see women participating in sports in school settings and outside, women are working more than ever before. you think about it. long working hours, increased opportunities for your leisure time, riding in an automobile, going to the movies, right?

playing sports? you have less time to so -- to sew. always have the skills to create a well fitted, fashionably acceptable garment? no. no. enter the department store. the stores become the center for display and entertainment. william leach, a historian talks about these palaces of consumption, allowing women to see and be seen and fashionable clothing. thus changing shopping rituals forever. advertisements in retail shop displays. see this window? this does not happen too much today, does it? people gawking in the window to see what the new products are going to be. it will make high-fashion more visible. women will be more influenced

interested in new clothing and owning new clothing. ready to wear clothing available in almost all marketplaces by the turn of the century. this is a shirtwaist, we see here, from the haberdasher in 1896 and here in "good housekeeping" from 1909. this shirtwaist an observers said was the one thing every woman wears from the fat cook in the kitchen to the woman who dresses upon incomes of millions. this unpolitically correct statement, of course, merely highlights how universal the shirtwaist was. everyone was wearing it. as clothing became available in these ready-to-wear establishments, they needed to be pretty simple, right? look at it, take it home, not do too much stitching or changing. the regional manufacturers also -- the retail manufacturers also thought, we want people to keep coming back. how to they get people to keep coming back? what do they do? what do they do today to keep

you coming? make something new. exactly right. so what they did was they kept making new things. we see this advertisement. we see a page of shirtwaists. they are all shirtwaists, but they are differentiated slightly, right? maybe there are pleats going this way or vertically or there are cuffs. all shirtwaists. all new. all touted as new by the apparel industry. what we see is design piracy will take old and never let go. in new york city between 1900 and 1917, we see the number of establishments grow 350%. this rapid growth was encouraged by the need to constantly produce new styles for this actively different and diverse american consumer.

the legion of u.s. designers though, are going to remain anonymous. you see here, john wanamaker. that is the store label. we do not see a designer's name. here we have kerry collins -- the names are completely buried in the text. you cannot really see them. and furthermore, they were for the custom, higher-end apparel a , not just the regular masses' garments. progressive era, ida tarbell has a great quote. from top to bottom we are copying. the french or viennese mode, started on upper fifth avenue, spreads to 23rd street from 23rd street to 14th street, to grant d canal. each move sees it reproducing materials a little less elegant and durable, it's colors a

trifle vulgarized, its ornaments cheapened, it's places poorer. a travesty, and yet, a recognizable travesty. design piracy will truly help fuel the apparel industry as style change becomes the force of the growth of the industry. styles will be copied so quickly that any popular style will be virtually immediately available at lower in lower price points. as the design was copied at lower price points, the market will become flooded with cheap imitations of goods. copies of copies of copies of copies, as ida tarbell is telling us here. here is an example. we see a dress and its exact

copy offered in a court case right, trying to say that the manufacturer or the designer stole the idea. what we see to kind of keep up with this growth in the apparel industry is that rather than go to france -- right, rather than go to france, pay the customs duties, import taxes, what designers and manufacturers are going to do is copy one another. copy fellow americans. it is far easier to do that and -- then to go to the library to do research, to go to school get a degree in fashion design. we are just going to copy. furthermore, you will save cost on product failure or even hiring designers. manufacturers who copy one another's in a number of ways. you think about it, in the early 21st century apparel design, so you have manufacturers creating goods for multiple companies. one will go check on another and

they will see someone else's product. that is a good-looking sweater or that is a good looking, you know, shirtwaist. and they will think about, ok, let's steal that idea and run with it. we also see people go to shows and sketch. the whole notion of scouts with camera eyes. they will go to the show under the auspices of being a buyer for their department store, but then they will sketch it out and bring it to have it produced. and we also think about people stealing, bribing, or buying goods, taking them to be produced by their manufacturer and if you can believe this, actually return them to get their original initial investment. so, we see here that piracy is set up in the industry.

what happens though, in the early 1930's -- in the 1930's, of course, one of the biggest events we think about is the great depression. we see this in "harper's bazaar." then in "womenswear daily," it says "we are shouting value," and indeed, quantity at reasonable prices will be very important to the 1930's consumer. clothing manufacturers will see a critical change in the shopping habits of women. so, you will start comparative shopping, all right? you will evaluate across different stores which product you want at what price. although the number of dresses produced remains about the same, the cost and the quality of the stresses went down dramatically. so, same number of dresses, but the cost and the quality, way down. we also see, according to the manufacturers, the wholesale value per dress will decrease about 50% from 1927 to 1937.

pretty much across the board. the higher-end manufacturers are going out of business and the lower ones are continuing to drive. some people think that during the depression people stopped shopping, but that's not exactly what happened. started -- people started thinking about the cost of the product and what they could afford. maybe you are typically a $17 consumer. your typical dresses $17. during the depression you start looking for an $11 dress. the $11 consumer says, this makes my budget a little tight . i will start looking at the eight dollar dress, and so forth. but everyone can be somewhat fashionable. so basically, what happens, all of these impacts, all of these

factors will cause an incredibly rich demand for inexpensive dresses. piracy will flourish. this is one of my favorite examples from "life" magazine. the duchess of windsor will wear a $250 dress that was illustrated in the "women's wear daily." you see here my numbers. on june 13, they will feature this european sensation for only $25. in early july, lord and taylor will feature a similar dress at about $16.95. one week later, clients will offer it for $8.97. visually, you can see this in the illustration. remember what i do tarbell was -- ida tarbell was talking about? you can see how drastically the

neighborhoods change, too, from the higher priced original to the lower-priced style on the right. fashion rights are -- writer elizabeth hawes will talk about fashion and the fashion industry in her book "fashion is finished." this is her quote that talks about the yearning for new items. she says, it is the proud boast of some wholesalers that they make up a whole line with only three dress patterns. the newness so loudly called for, is new trimming, new callers come a new cuffs, new buttons, new flowers, and all of this -- not too new please. think about how we dress today. in order for a fashion to be in fashion you have to have a critical mass of adopted.

-- of people actually adopting. but we are never satisfied. as soon as we have one style, we start thinking, ooh, how can it be a little different so we can continue to be at the forefront of style and fashion? we mentioned jeans. is there anything else we wear today that has this differentiation by just little and little bits? >> [indiscernible] >> undergarments, a great example. same basic thing, but you continue to buy based on different styles. a wonderful example. anything else? >> boots. >> boots. what is an example of that? >> you have your basic riding boots, but then you have ugg boots, and studded boots and shooties -- >> i'm not even sure what

shooties are. >> they are like boots, but they are open toed in the front. >> that's a great example. anybody else think of an idea? ok, jeans. give us an example? >> [indiscernible] >> that's a great example. we think of the washes of genes. -- washes of jeans. you have acid wash for an old person like me. then you have like black denim and color denim and all of these little fits and things that differentiate your one basic pair of jeans. so, we can see how similar and how true this is. so in this environment, we cb

see the most successful attempt to end piracy occur. in 1932 a group of just 12 manufacturers will come together, located in the new york city area, led by maurice rentner, to start thinking about how to increase style contras -- consciousness among women. called the fashion originators guild of america, it had the stated aim of protecting original fashion. to facilitate this, what they did was they established a design registration bureau to register designs by members. registration was simple. all you had to do was submit a slip of paper, the sketch of your garment. you needed to give a very brief description stating why it was unique, why it was original, and

the guild would give it a serial number, stamp it with their logo, and dated to establish priority. sketches were not cross referenced checked to ensure that they were original. and this, of course, is herbert sondheim, noted manufacturer and a member of the foga board of directors. once registered, the designer or manufacturer would receive one of these labels. either a registered original design or registered with foga. the labels cost $.50 each, and monthly they sold to over one -- between 500,000 to over one million labels. think about that. that's a huge number. in a later court hearing, a judge will say these labels will come to have definite significance is indicating that

the dresses were made by by original designs by skilled workers. these were the divisions covering ladies, junior miss sportswear, and also textile designers. the foga will advertise to such a degree that you could hardly turn a page of women's wear daily without seeing a promotional message or some kind of advertisement the guild promoted. in fact in march 1933, they had a 20 page issue of women's wear daily. the guild was everywhere. they started five. $22.50. what they do then -- it's kind of interesting. what they do then, they start expanding their guardianship over piracy to include the moderate price lines. so, wholesaling, a leavened dollars to about $16.

-- $11 to about $16. five months later they will extend protection to this $6.75 to $9.75 level. -- $8.75 level. a month after that they extend to the four dollar mark. the guild will argue because piracy occurs -- copies of copies of copies -- throughout the industry, every branch needs protection. they do this. they offer protection through various means. they can ask what is called declarations of cooperation. basically agreements between a manufacturer and a designer and a retailer that the retailer is not going to sell copied merchandise, and if they get copied merchandise, they will return it to the manufacturer.

they will include retail outlets searching. if a copy is found or if they retailer violates one of the other trade practices the guild has established, the guild red cards them. red carding is similar to what you might know as blacklisting. they are put on a list. that means they are not able to do business with other members of the foga. great plan, right? do you think it is a good plan? is it going to work? who thinks is going to work? raise your hand. ok i guess i set it up that it , was short-lived and ended. but you can imagine -- it was a good idea. it was a really good idea. and people really buy into it. this one is a little bit hard to say, but the federal trade commission will say by 1936 the

foga controls about 40% of all goods at the $6.75 to $10.75 level and over 60% of those above the $10.75 level. they exert a huge amount of control over the industry. they have members everywhere across the united states. but some people think that the entire purpose of the lower price firms is to make salable copies of higher-priced goods. lower-priced manufacturers say enough. they decide to oppose the style registration system of the guild and basically says it is monopolistic and illegal. this popular price group -- they are a group of wholesalers manufacturers, like this, the $4.75 wholesale level. they decide they will have their own declaration policy against

the foga and they will not participate in this program anymore. the guild's in extended effort to put teeth in the campaign against piracy will cause watchdogs and the federal government to take notice. the foga was continually brought to court. someday one. -- some they won. some legal cases they did when. but the federal trade commission will begin hearings on foga practices. that court will rule that while the guild policy is of -- policies of suppressing piracy are ok and justin viable, -- justifiable the means of , accomplishing it are legal. -- are illegal. on march 19, 1941, the foga petitions to give the ruling overturned, and justice hugo black will deliver an opinion

saying that the potential power to cause monopoly and coercion will bring it in violation of clayton, sherman, federal trade commission acts, and with it the most successful attempt to end piracy ended. so, where does this leave us? right? where does this leave us? there continue to be bills submitted for design piracy protection, but i think you can probably see here why they do not work. it's very complex and not easily resolved, and it continues. this is an example from "people" magazine. on the right, kate middleton in her beautiful alexander mcqueen wedding dress. 12 hours -- 12 hours -- later, abs shorts -- schwartz had this

example ready for sale. this is far less than the descent of the wally dress. we see this. the spread of ideas is instantaneous. furthermore the acceptance by consumers to hunt for the latest style at the cheapest price becomes further cemented in this industry. i leave you with this great -- what i think is great -- advertisement from 1923. this company says -- i think we can probably think about this in relationship to today. this company, oppenheimer collins, says you may find an original here. you may buy a copy here. you may buy an adaptation here. but never a forgery of fashion. all right, guys. thank you so much. listen -- next time you meet on friday, it will be back over in moral hall and we will be doing