See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315610502

The Perceptions of Apparel Design and Merchandising Students on Creativity

and Apparel Design Copyright

Article  in  International Journal of Costume and Fashion · June 2016

DOI: 10.7233/ijcf.2016.16.1.001

CITATIONS READS

0 111

4 authors, including:

Carol Salusso Jaeil Lee

Washington State University Seattle Pacific University
11 PUBLICATIONS   104 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Yoon-Jung Lee
Korea University
73 PUBLICATIONS   192 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sizing View project

Male Consumers Motives of Appearance Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carol Salusso on 17 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 pISSN 2233-9051 International Journal of Costume and Fashion
eISSN 2288-7490 Vol. 16 No. 1, June 2016, pp. 1-16

The Perceptions of Apparel Design and The Perceptions

of Apparel
Merchandising Students on Creativity and Design and
Merchandising
Apparel Design Copyright 1)
Students on
Creativity and
Apparel Design
Copyright
Carol J. SalussoㆍJaeil LeeㆍYoon-Jung Lee*ㆍJanet Kim Lin
Associate Professor, Department of Apparel, Merchandising, Design and Textile, Washington State University,
Pullman, WA, USA
Professor, Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, WA, USA
Professor, Department of Home Economics Education, Korea University, Seoul, Korea*
General Counsel, NCSOFT (NC West), Seattle, WA, USA
(Received November 17, 2015; Revised December 28, 2015; Accepted February 11, 2016)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to explore fashion design and merchandising students’ percep-
tion of creativity and the copyright protection of apparel design. A survey with open-ended questions was
developed and distributed to a total of 100 fashion major students with specializations in apparel design
and merchandising from three different universities located in a northwestern state of the United States.
A majority of respondents showed their awareness that copying apparel design is ethically wrong and
counterfeiting is legally wrong. They were able to distinguish between copying and interpreting and were
aware that incorporating limited elements from inspirations was ethically acceptable. However, many of
the students look for design inspiration from secondary sources, such as existing designers’ works which
they observe over the Internet, magazines, fashion shows, and store shopping, which may pose them to
the temptation to copy such ideas. Although fashion copyright protection law has yet to become enacted,
a majority of respondents support passage of fashion copyright protection law. The results give support
to the needs for addressing the creative problem-solving processes and ethical decision-making jointly
within apparel design and merchandising curriculum.

Key words Student Perspectives, Creativity, Apparel Design Copyright, Innovative Design Protection Act

Introduction
Technological developments such as the Internet, digital photography, and digital design platforms have
enabled apparel manufacturers to produce copied (i.e., knock-off or line for line copies) products that hit
the market long before the original designs can arrival (Lee, Lee, Salusso, & Lin, 2012). The U.S. fash-
ion market is characterized by widespread copying. On one end of the spectrum, designers reference and
pay homage to other designers by creatively incorporating design elements into their own designs. On

Corresponding Author: Yoon-Jung Lee, E-Mail: [email protected] 1

 International Journal of Costume and Fashion
Vol. 10 No. 2, December 2010, pp. 1-

the other end, fast fashion copiers are making line-to-line copies of designers’ original works. While
IJCF
copying itself is not a new issue, technology has now enabled mass copying at astonishing speeds.
Vol.16 No.1
“Digital photography, digital design platforms, the Internet, global outsourcing of manufacture, more flexi-
ble manufacturing technologies, and lower textile tariffs have significantly accelerated the pace of copy-
ing” (Raustiala & Springman, 2006, p. 1715). Cheap and speedy overseas manufacturing operations allow
knock-offs to hit retailers months before the original designs (Wilson, 2007). Consumers are often un-
aware that they are not buying the original design (Binkley, 2010). These types of prevalent copying
practices in the industry may also have impact on students who are still in the process of learning to
become a part of the industry. Apparel design and merchandising students may face dilemmas in their
use of fashion information and fashion products in their creative processes.
Fashion production companies take advantage of the immediacy of fashion visual information in or-
der to generate copied designs so fast that originators often have little opportunity to profit from their
creative efforts in originating designs. This is considered design piracy. Fast fashion has become a major
impact in the U.S. fashion market as well as the global fashion industry (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010).
Fast fashion practices currently prevailing in the industry present an ethical dilemma in that copying un-
protected designs remains legal in the U.S.; yet the fairness of the practice is easily questioned (Ferrill
& Tanhehco, 2011). In response to the massive design piracy cases in the fashion apparel industry, law-
makers and copyright activists have made a few attempts to introduce fashion copyright laws. Copyright
laws that extend beyond written material and original art to include entire apparel designs to provide
three-year protection for copyrighted fashion products were introduced to the U.S. Congress in 2006,
2010, 2012 and 2013 (Lee & Lee, 2013). The advocates of Innovative Design Protection Act (IDPA) ar-
gues that the incidents of lawsuits related to fashion design copying has significantly increased with the
success of some fast fashion companies (Jimenez & Kolsun, 2010). However, due to many complications,
the IDPA (2012) did not pass all the listed years; the future of fashion design copyright continues to be
in question.
The fact that many fashion designers’ works are direct copies of other designers’ poses an ethical
question may it not be a legal issue, is it acceptable to allow this irresponsible practice? Students, who
come across similar decision-making situations may also face the dilemma of whether or not to copy
other designers’ successful work. At the very least, it is imperative for college educators to become
aware of the issue and teach college students to be cognizant of the difference between inspiration and
intellectual theft.
This study aimed at examining fashion major students’ perception of creativity in fashion product
development and legal protection of apparel design. As they are the future leaders of the industry, it is
important to learn about their viewpoints on copyright and the creative process. Understanding the current
perception of students may help the educators develop an education program that can prepare the future
leaders of the fashion industry to be more aware of the issue and to form more ethical stances in rela-
tion to the copyright and creativity issues.
2
 International Journal of Costume and Fashion
Vol. 10 No. 2, December 2010, pp. 1-

Literature Review The Perceptions

of Apparel
Creativity and Copyright Design and
Merchandising
Copyright is “a legal right created by the law of a country that grants the creator of an original work
Students on
exclusive rights for its use and distribution (“Copyright”, 2015).” As a form of intellectual property, it is Creativity and
applicable to certain forms of creative work, and the work of art should be considered original in order Apparel Design
to be eligible for copyright protection. The rationale for legally protecting or copyrighting a design work Copyright
stands on the premise that the economic incentive provided for the creation and dissemination of aes-
thetic and intellectual works will foster creativity and facilitate innovative creations in the field (Abrams,
1992). In this sense, the issue of copyright protection is closely related to the definition of creativity in
the field. In this section, we will examine the general definition of creativity and its components to lay
foundation to the discussion of copyrightability of apparel design.
Defining creativity is a daunting project as it is hard and can create various ones. Psychologists
are well known for their long history of disagreement over the definition of what creativity means.
Interestingly, there are three different categories regarding the definition of creativity (Amabile, 1983);
Process, person, and product. The first is related to process. Wertheimer (1945) and Koestler (1964) are
the two main scholars who focus on process in the early stage of defining creativity. Wertheimer (1945)
used the Gestalt position to define creativity and Koestler (1964) focuses on bisociative process- connect-
ing two previously unrelated matrices of thoughts to produce new insight or invention. There are also
other researchers such as Newell, Shaw and Simon focus on problem solving process of creativity. The
second focus was on person. In 1949, J.P Guilford defined creativity in terms of the person, which was
considered as a new starting point of modern creativity research. As he put “In its narrow sense, crea-
tivity refers to the abilities that are most characteristics of creative people” (Guilford, 1950, p. 444). His
focus on personality characteristics surely set up a stage of focusing on trait approach. The third is
product. It is a contemporary definition that are different from the previous ones as it uses characteristics
of the creative product as the unique signs of creativity. The product can be as observable outcomes or
responses (Amabile, 1983), effective surprise in the observer in adding to a shock of recognition (Bruner,
1962). The product criteria of novelty and appropriateness of value frequently found in most definitions
of creativity (Stein, 1974). This third definition is most widely accepted as the most useful way of re-
searching creativity for all researchers (Amabile, 1983).
In order to assess creativity, there are operational and conceptual definitions of creativity. Operational
definition of creativity is based on product. Amabile (1983) puts it is necessary to have operational defi-
nition as in empirical research as the definition of creativity is based on subjective criteria and hard to
get objective criteria. “A product or response is creative to the extent that appropriate over servers in-
dependently agree it is creative. Appropriate observers are those familiar with the domain in which the
product was created or the response articulated. Thus, creativity can be regarded as the quality of prod-
ucts or responses judged to be creative by appropriate observers, and it can also be regarded as the
process by which something so judged is produced” (Amabile, 1982, p. 1001). As aforementioned, it is 3
 International Journal of Costume and Fashion
Vol. 10 No. 2, December 2010, pp. 1-

important to recognize that products or observable responses must be the main point of creativity.
IJCF
Creativity is something that people can recognize and understand and frequently agree on, even
Vol.16 No.1
when they are not given any guideline or clear definition (Amabile, 1982; Barron, 1965). Although it is
necessary to have operational definition for empirical researches, it cannot fully explain a theory of
creativity. Therefore, conceptual definition is necessary and it can be based on two essential elements.
“A product or response will be judged as creative to the extents that (a) it is both a novel and appro-
priate, useful, correct, or valuable response to the task at hand and (b) the task is heuristic rather than
algorithmic.” (Amabile, 1983, p. 360). This conceptual definition is closely connected with novelty and
appropriateness which are the major focus of creativity. The definition clearly shows that the task must
be heuristic rather than algorithmic. It means the task is not clear and straightforward but it requires set
of cognitive and motor operations which leads to an acceptable response or product. In addition, in-
dividual performer’s knowledge about the task is a significant factor determining the task can be algo-
rithmic or heuristic (Amabile, 1983).
In order to define creativity, Amabile (1983) explains both operational and conceptual definitions
are necessary. She puts “the conceptual definition can articulate the notion of creativity that underlies
theoretical background as it can explain how the crucial characteristics of creative products evolve in the
process of task engagement ... the conceptual definition is a best guess as to what appropriate observers
are looking for when they assigned ratings of creativity to products ... it is not yet possibly specify nov-
elty or appropriateness or straightforwardness in an objective manner” (p. 361).

Fashion Apparel Design and Intellectual Property Protection in the U.S.

Currently, fashion design exists in a “low-IP (Intellectual Property) regime” or intellectual property’s
“negative space” (Raustiala & Sprigman, 2006, p. 1699). While some parts of the world such as the
European Union, Japan, and India have strong legal measures behind intellectual property protection for
apparel design, the United States has not yet enacted strong measures of protection (Hedrick, 2008).
Limited protection for fashion designs comes only from three forms of U.S. intellectual property laws:
trademark, patent and copyrights (Raustiala & Springman, 2006).
Trademark is a word, symbol, or phrase, used by a particular manufacturer or seller to identify
their products and distinguish them from others. Trademark protection provides the full force of the law
when copycats produce substantially identical products that are labeled with a protected trademark.
Infringement of trademark is considered counterfeiting and legally fraudulent (Carreon, 2012). Protection
of a trademark can extend beyond words, symbols, and phrases and may include the product’s color or
its packaging, in case consumers associate such features with a particular manufacturer rather than the
product in general. These aspects of a product that are considered to serve as identifying features of the
manufacturer or seller are called trade dress. Some examples of trade dress are Nike’s distinctive orange
color and the unique shape of Coca-Cola bottles. Trademark and trade dress protection are used ex-
tensively by apparel companies as a means of protecting their right to take advantage of unique design
4
 International Journal of Costume and Fashion
Vol. 10 No. 2, December 2010, pp. 1-

features. At the same time, counterfeiting products that infringe trademark or trade dress are also preva-
The Perceptions
lent for the same reasons. of Apparel
If designs are patentable, U.S. patents do offer long-term protection and the protection is broader Design and
and powerful than copyrights (Paulins & Hillery, 2009). Patents, however, are associated with intellectual Merchandising
Students on
property of new inventions and granted only to new ideas. Some examples of patented fashion designs
Creativity and
include hospital patients’ gown with special features or Nike and Reebok shoes that are functionally dis- Apparel Design
tinguishable from competitors. However, the ‘newness’ of an apparel design is not easy to establish. Copyright
Because most apparel designs are re-works of previously existing designs, this limits the application of
patent to apparel items. Even if a patent is granted, processing can take two to three years. Considering
the fast paced nature of fashion trends and the industry, the rate of fashion change makes patent pro-
tection largely unrealistic since many designs have become obsolete long before a patent can be granted
(Smith, 2013). Current patent laws also leave the legal burden of protecting designs with originators who
may not have the financial capacity to follow through on the legal process (Smith, 2013). No wonder it
is not fully appreciated in the reality of the U.S. fashion industry.
U.S. copyright laws currently do not protect fashion designs. Even though fabric design such as an
original pattern on a scarf, or a print of an artist’s painting on a t-shirt can be copyrighted, unique cut
of a garment or an innovative shape of a designers’ dress are not copyrightable. Generally, fashion appa-
rel design is not copyrightable due to the useful article exclusion (Raustiala & Springman, 2006). The
Copyright Act defines a “useful article” as “an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not
merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information” (U.S. Copyright Office, 2012).

The Innovative Design Protection Act: The Attempts for Enacting Legal Protection
The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prohibition Act (IDPPPA) was introduced in July 2011 by
House Representative Bob Goodlatte (IDPPPA, 2011). The IDPPPA, as well as its successor, IDPA of
2013, adds “fashion design” as a sui generis class of protectable design under Chapter 13 of the
Copyright Act, Protection of Original Designs, and creates a short, three-year term of protection for fash-
ion designs that provide a “unique, distinguishable, non-trivial and non-utilitarian variation over prior
designs.” (H.R. 2511 § 2(d), 2011). The exclusive rights afforded to the owner of designs protected un-
der Chapter 13 are to “make, have made, or import, for sale or for use in trade, any useful article em-
bodying that design;” and to “sell or distribute for sale or for use in trade, any useful article embodying
that design” (17 U.S.C. § 1308, 2000). Under IDPPA/IDPA, there would be three types of fashion de-
signs protected: (1) the appearance of the article of apparel as a whole, (2) original elements of the ar-
ticle of apparel, and (3) the original arrangement or placement of original or non-original elements of the
article of apparel (H.R. 2511 § 2(a)(2)). The IDPPA/IDPA has an expansive scope and covers clothing,
including outerwear and various accessories including footwear, headgear; handbags, and eyeglass frames
(H.R. 2511 § 2(a)(2)). No prior registration with the Copyright Office is required, however a claimant
seeking to enforce rights against an alleged infringer, must plead with particularity and prove that the in-
5
 International Journal of Costume and Fashion
Vol. 10 No. 2, December 2010, pp. 1-

fringing article of apparel is “substantially identical” by showing that it is “so similar in appearance as
IJCF
to be likely to be mistaken for the protected design, and contains only those differences in construction
Vol.16 No.1
or design which are merely trivial” (H.R. 2511 § 2(a)(10)). There are certain safe harbor provisions for
innocent infringers and a home sewing exception for single copies made for personal use (17 U.S.C
§1309(b), 2000; H.R. 2511 §2(h)).
Although these attempts have not yet been successful, they have started a fierce debate on the
fashion industry's need (or lack thereof) for copyright protection. Advocates of IDPA argue that there is
a common sense distinction between copying a fashion designer's work and being influenced by it. In
other words, an intentionally copied work of another designer is obviously discernible. However, there
still are controversies as to whether or not the fashion industry needs legal protection of intellectual
properties; there may be pros and cons related to the issue.

Controversies on Legal Protection of Apparel Design: Pros and Cons

Determining whether any design should be granted protection must consider the balance between promot-
ing innovation through reward and protection and promoting innovation by allowing others to build from
such designs (Wildlife Express Corp. v. Carol Wright Sales, 1994). Among the arguments against design
protection is “The Piracy Paradox” (Raustiala & Springman, 2006, p. 1691). According to this argument,
apparel design copying paradoxically helps the industry be more creative and be more prosperous, with
active innovation and investment so “piracy is not very harmful” (p. 1727). Law professors Raustigala
and Sprigman argue that copying drives innovation in the fashion industry by “induced obsolescence” and
the fashion industry does not need intellectual property protection to innovate (p. 1718). They proposed
that innovation is better enhanced within the fashion industry without intellectual property protection.
They also argued that it is difficult to find pure originality of design in fashion itself because many
fashion trends stem from outcomes of transformed ideas drawn from many creative designers (Raustiala
& Springman, 2006).
Under the Piracy Paradox model, unfortunately, designers of originals were seldom rewarded for
their innovation. While fashion industry has thrived to an extent without intellectual property protection,
part of this success is based on the success of fashion copyists. Mass copiers are free to ‘lift’ designs
from creative designers without attribution or need for permission (Horyn, 2002). Thus, highly successful
fast fashion retailers such as Zara, H & M, and Forever 21 benefit directly from not having fashion de-
sign copyright protection. Many fast fashion copyists reap the rewards of the innovation and investment
of others without the expense involved in design creation.
Part of the ethical dilemma of copying fashion designs is identifying whether or not copying has
or has not occurred. Hemphill and Suk (2009) considered interpretations as neither copies nor sub-
stitutions for original designs. Rather they proposed that when limited features were interpreted from the
original along with addition of other design factors, the result was a creation of something new. They
therefore supported the practice of design interpretation as a process for creating original fashion designs.
6
 International Journal of Costume and Fashion
Vol. 10 No. 2, December 2010, pp. 1-

Those who are opposed to copyright protection of apparel design asserts that the fast reproduction
The Perceptions
of fast fashion products is rather to be celebrated as the ‘democratization of fashion’ (Lee & Lee, 2013). of Apparel
After all, those who benefits from copyright protection are bigger apparel companies or designer brands Design and
that have the ability to hire designers with the creativity to produce innovative designs. On the other Merchandising
Students on
hand, in the fields of music or software industry, the debate between ‘copyleft’ and ‘copyright’ is in progress.
Creativity and
Copyleft, as opposed to copyright, enables an author to give the recipients of a copy of the work per- Apparel Design
mission to reproduce, adapt, or distribute it. Reciprocity is presumed in copyleft: the recipients are re- Copyright
quired to also make all the resulting copies or adaptations be freely distributed. Since the notion of own-
ership is unclear in a participatory culture like contemporary digital culture (Jenkins, 2009), the advocates
of copyleft assert that society in general would benefit when the knowledge and information are openly
shared.

Industry Professional’s Perspectives on Legal Protection of Apparel Design

Even though there was a fierce discussion in relation to whether or not legal protection of apparel de-
sign is necessary, little research has been conducted in relation to how this issue is perceived by in-
dustry professionals with one exception by Lee and Lee (2013). Lee & Lee conducted semi-structured in-
terviews with the industry professionals in the U.S. in order to examine their perspectives on legal pro-
tection of apparel design. Their interviewees included fashion designers, merchandisers, and retail
managers. According to their findings, the industry professionals perceived apparel creation process to in-
volve creativity to certain extent. The definitions of creativity, however, varied by individual: for some,
creativity was equated with originality, but for others, altering fit, details, and materials to make an ex-
pensive designer line affordable to their consumers were perceived as creative activities. The rampant de-
sign copying in the fashion business was perceived inevitable and is accepted as a part of their business.
Lee and Lee (2013) reported that the U.S. fashion industry professionals viewed the question of
copying from a practical perspective rather than from an ethical point of view: the similarities in design
were justified on the basis that they would sometimes occur as a result of referencing the same fashion
trends, even though some acknowledged that intentional line-to-line copies were sometimes sought after;
most interviewees thought that copying is unethical, but it was considered inevitable because ‘consumers
ask for it’ or the copied products serve ‘a different market.’ According to their interview results, the
professionals perceived the apparel industry as a system with different levels of brands: ‘knock-off brands,’
for which originality in design is less expected, and the ‘major market brands,’ that are expected to sup-
ply more innovative design items. These different types of brands serve different market in the industry,
and the designers in the ‘knock-off brands’ are hired for the purpose of creating affordable knock-offs of
‘major market brands,’ keeping the industry performing as a system (Lee & Lee, 2103).
The industry professionals’ perception of legally protecting apparel design was also examined in
this study (Lee & Lee, 2013). The interviewees who work for national brands or retailers were skeptical
about the effectiveness of fashion design copyright law, yet independent designers welcomed the legal
7
 International Journal of Costume and Fashion
Vol. 10 No. 2, December 2010, pp. 1-

proposal and yearned for the law to pass the legislation. Researchers found that not many of the pro-
IJCF
fessionals were aware of the legislative efforts in general, yet concerns about the difficulties in judging
Vol.16 No.1
the extent of similarities of design works as well as in establishing the originality of a garment design
were mentioned in the interviews. As is shown in Lee & Lee, there are diverse viewpoints in the fash-
ion industry regarding whether or not legal protection of apparel design is necessary. What seems evident
from the study, however, is that unethical practices of intentional copying are prevalent and commonly
justified in the industry (Lee & Lee, 2013).

Research Method
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to explore fashion design and merchandising students’ perspectives of cre-
ativity and copyright of apparel design. Students as the future leaders of the industry, it is imperative
that they learn to understand the values of creativity and the ethical perspectives related to copying
practices. By understanding the current perception of students, educators are able to develop education
programs that can help the apparel design and merchandising students learn the difference between in-
spiration and intellectual theft. Based on the purpose, following questions are posited.

Q1. What are students’ perceptions of “creativity” in fashion design and fashion product develop-
ment?
Q2. What are students’ perceptions of “ethical” use of others’ ideas and ethical design process?
Q3. What are students’ perceptions of legal issues of fashion design and product development?

Procedure
A survey was developed by the researchers to closely investigate and classify apparel design and mer-
chandising students’ understanding, attitudes, and behaviors toward their use of various resources of visu-
al information in their creation processes. In order to obtain detailed information of subjects’ experiences
and viewpoints, a majority of survey questions were open-ended. In addition, five categorical (yes/no)
questions were also added to determine students’ understanding of ethical and moral judgments regarding
the subject matter. The survey was reviewed and the study was given Institutional Review Board
approval.
Questions were specifically focused on how respondents obtained their design inspirations when car-
rying out class design assignments and how they differentiated between direct copying and being inspired
by various resources of visual information on fashion trends. Furthermore, some questions were included
regarding the knowledge of counterfeiting fashion products, fashion copyright law and finally their defi-
nition of creativity in fashion product development.
The survey was conducted twice, in January, 2011 and in March, 2012. A total of 100 fashion
8
 International Journal of Costume and Fashion
Vol. 10 No. 2, December 2010, pp. 1-

major students with specializations in apparel design and merchandising from three different universities
The Perceptions
located in a northwestern state participated in the study. With safeguards to avoid duplicate responses, of Apparel
surveys were circulated within apparel design and merchandising classes. Since all subjects were women Design and
enrolled in apparel design and merchandising programs, age was used as the relevant demographic factor. Merchandising
Students on
Subjects averaged 21 years of age and survey responses were anonymous.
Creativity and
A hardcopy of survey questionnaire was given to each individual participant in selected apparel de- Apparel Design
sign and merchandising courses in Apparel and Textiles major. Participants were given enough time to Copyright
freely write their opinions regarding the questions and the survey questionnaires were collected upon
completion at the end of class.
A qualitative research approach was used to investigate the responses students provided to identify
their perceptions on the given questions. The qualitative method was deemed appropriate as it was used
to discover that no prior data existed. In addition, this method was particularly important to obtain de-
tailed rich data as respondents are given an opportunity to provide their opinions and experiences in the
fashion higher education contexts (Esterberg, 2002). The responses were first categorized by the first au-
thor based on the main themes, and the categorization was verified by the other two authors. Each of
the responses were read several times to further identify recurrent themes.

Results and Discussion

Responses were analyzed using qualitative and descriptive analyses. Researchers classified open-ended re-
sponses using content analysis to interpret and aggregate similar responses. Frequencies were calculated
for classified responses and all categorical yes/no responses. Results were organized within respective
components of the survey (Table 1).

Table 1.
Summary of Responses
(N=100)
Questions Answers Percentage
How would you define “creativity” in A process 69%
fashion design and fashion product
Product or ideas 19%
development
Personal expression 6%
Where do you look for design Music, art, dance and photography 15%
inspiration when you create projects Lifestyles, street wear, friends and people around me 15%
and complete design assignments?
Culture, history, current events and personal
15%
experiences
Nature, the seasons, landscape 11%
Books and movies 10%
Other 35% 9
 International Journal of Costume and Fashion
Vol. 10 No. 2, December 2010, pp. 1-

IJCF What makes the distinction between Copy/knock-offs and interpretations are different 42%
“copy/knock-off” and “interpretation/
Vol.16 No.1 Incorporating limited inspiration from other
adaptation” in using other people’s 12%
designs is original design
design in your own creation process?
unethical nature of copying designs and the
unfairness of the originators not getting the full 17%
benefit and credits of their efforts
Not applicable/no response 29%
Do you think it is “ethically” acceptable Ethical 94%
to use inspiration from other designer’s
work in your own creation process? unethical 6%
Do you look to preexisting designer’s always 18%
work for inspiration and/or to borrow
occasionally 44%
any design elements?
Do my own thing, ignored fashion trends 4%
Do not design 26%
Do you think it is ethically acceptable Yes 96%
to use inspiration from other designers’
work in your own creation process? No 6%
Have you bought counterfeit garments? Yes 31%
No 69%
Have you heard of fashion copyright Yes 68%
law?
No 32%
Are you in favor of fashion copyright Yes 78%
being enacted?
No 22%

How would you define “creativity” in fashion design and fashion product development?
A majority of subjects (69%) viewed creativity as a process of expressing new, unique and different
ideas, being experimental, pushing the norm, setting your design apart and drawing attention to new
ideas. This response put emphasis on the experimental nature of creativity as a process that leads to in-
novative apparel products.
A second viewpoint (19%) emphasized the product or ideas created. Here respondents focused on
the outcome of the creativity process. In apparel design and merchandising, designs resulting from the
creative process can be merchandised as products and introduced to consumers for them to purchase.
A few subjects (6%) viewed creativity as their own personal expression. People who expressed
themselves through styling by adding their own personal flair or unique sense of fashion in an in-
novative way held this viewpoint. They consider their body to be a canvas, a means for creative outlet
and for expression their identity. This result was interpreted as having a creative attitude but also feeling
10 like they have the capacity to be inventive.
 International Journal of Costume and Fashion
Vol. 10 No. 2, December 2010, pp. 1-

These responses to the meaning of creativity demonstrate that respondents were very aware of the
The Perceptions
creativity process and often acknowledged outcomes to be apparel and textile products. It seems that of Apparel
these respondents were less clear with recognizing the role of a creative attitude and overall capacity. It Design and
seems that apparel design and merchandising students would benefit from training in creativity processes Merchandising
Students on
that included addressing strategies for avoiding roadblocks to creativity. It is our concern that we expect
Creativity and
apparel design and merchandising students to be inherently creative. We routinely evaluate the products Apparel Design
of their creative process. However, faculty are not as committed to mentoring their creative process or Copyright
reinforcing their attitude that they are indeed creative.

Where do you look for design inspiration when you create projects and complete design
assignments?
This question was asked to specifically learn how creative process in apparel product development is
perceived by the students. A majority of subjects (77%) reported getting inspiration from internet sites
including: Pinterest®, Tumbler®, Instagram®, Facebook®, Style.com®, Stylesight®, Polyvore®, Wane®,
trend forecasting websites, fashion websites, fashion blogs, social media blogs media about celebrities and
their own websites.
Our students are a computer savvy and visually oriented generation. Smart phones and other mobile
media can provide them unlimited opportunities to access a variety of visual sources of design very
easily. Social media linkages help raise their awareness of and exposure to upcoming and current fashion
trends. Pinterest®, Tumbler®, and Instagram® are popular tools providing opportunity to copy, keep and
manage other people’s visual images, and styles easily without properly addressing source of original de-
sign, as a whole or as components. This situation can result in students creating their own designs with-
out acknowledging sources used to generate their design. Copying or using main ideas without sourcing
resources is considered plagiarism within papers students created for classes. It seems logical to consider
excluding visual information as a source as ethically inconsistent in acknowledging original sources.
Other Internet resources for design ideas reported included retail sites such as Nordstrom.com and
Etsy (10%). Dedicated designer’s collections and runway shows were also listed (9%). Given how readily
available they are to our current student population, it seems that visual sources delivered by the Internet
may have considerable immediacy impact.
Collectively, Internet resources show a strong tendency for respondents to notice existing fashion in
the market as sources to gain inspirations they can interpret into their own designs or prioritize in mer-
chandising assortments. Hemphill and Suk (2009) argued that interpretations are neither copies nor sub-
stitutions for original designs but are also essential to a process of creating something new. Student par-
ticipants also considered the practice of design interpretation as a way to create original fashion designs.
Since apparel industry professionals shared this viewpoint, it seems this practice is widely accepted with-
in the fashion industry as a way of creating apparel products (Lee & Lee, 2013).
Finally, it is also important to note that students reported inspiration from lifestyle related sources
11
 International Journal of Costume and Fashion
Vol. 10 No. 2, December 2010, pp. 1-

through their experiences with: music, art, dance and photography (15%); lifestyles, street wear, friends
IJCF
and people around me (15%); culture, history, current events and personal experiences (15%); nature, the
Vol.16 No.1
seasons, landscape (11%), books and movies (10%).
These results suggest that the Internet has begun to trump most other sources of inspiration for
students of this generation. The implications of this finding are dependent upon the information available
on the Internet and faculty requirements both for types of sources and for sources of inspiration.

What makes the distinction between “copy/knock-off” and “interpretation/adaptation” in using

other people’s design in your own creation process? Please provide your justification.
Students seemed to have some pre-existing knowledge and understanding about the differences between
“copy/knock-off” and “interpretation/adaptation”. When focusing on the contrast in approach, copy/
knock-offs were viewed as identical and considered to be a line-by-line replica of another design (40%).
In contrast, interpretations were considered to exhibit only a few elements inspired by other fashion de-
signs and were thus original designs that reflected trend (42%). When focusing only on inter-
pretation/adaptation, some respondents (12%) viewed incorporating limited elements inspired from other
designs along with a majority of your own ideas as original design. At the same time, some respondents
(17%) were concerned about the unethical nature of copying designs and the unfairness of the originators
not getting the full benefit and credits of their efforts. They considered it is unfair but they seemed to
recognize the reality of the current ethical dilemma in the fashion industry.
Some subjects reported this question was not applicable to them (16%), while others did not re-
spond or their answers were not classifiable (13%). This result indicates that about 30% of respondents
did not have a clear understanding of the seriousness of possible ethical issues. Educators need to take
an action in mentoring students to foster ethical understanding of intellectual property within fashion
product development processes.

Do you think it is “ethically” acceptable to use inspiration from other designer’s work in
your own creation process?
When specifically asked about use of inspiration, respondents tended to agree (94%) that it was ethically
acceptable to use inspiration from other designer’s work in their own creation process. Professionals in
the industry often tweak and change existing designs to create something new and consider this inter-
pretation process to be effective and necessary for continuing trend. Yet these professionals also felt a
strong need for industry guidelines for ethical creative processes (Lee & Lee, 2013). The students may
face the same need when entering the industry while working on creative process. It is advisable to pre-
pare the students to make ethically right judgment as to what is acceptable and what is not.

12
 International Journal of Costume and Fashion
Vol. 10 No. 2, December 2010, pp. 1-

Do you look to preexisting designer’s work for inspiration and/or to borrow any design elements? The Perceptions
Respondents reported that they have borrowed limited components such as color or silhouette from exist- of Apparel
Design and
ing fashion designs but not a whole design (always 18%; occasionally 44%). Very few respondents re- Merchandising
ported they just did their own thing and ignored fashion trends (4%). Some respondents reported they do Students on
not design (26%) as they are students with a merchandising major. This outcome demonstrates how much Creativity and
our students do use other designers’ work as inspiration for their design and merchandising processes. Apparel Design
Copyright
Faculty members often make being on trend as a requirement so this is not atypical. This expectation
logically encourages students to lean more toward borrowing or many times directly copying others’ de-
sign while they carrying out their projects and assignments.

Ethical and Legal Issues of Fashion Design and Product Development

Survey questions dealing specifically with ethical and legal issues of fashion design and product develop-
ment were categorical (yes/no). Most respondents agreed that it is ethically acceptable to use inspiration
from other designers’ work in your own creation process (96% yes; 4% no). They also agreed that legal
action should be taken against producing and selling counterfeit products (94% yes; 6% no). When asked
have you bought counterfeit garments, a majority of respondents avoided this unethical behavior (31%
yes; 69% no). When asked if they had heard of fashion copyright law, a majority replied they had (68%
yes; 32% no). It is important to pay attention, however, that one third of the total participants still had
not heard about fashion copyright law. This draws our attention to a need for increasing awareness re-
garding the issue and curriculum development on the subject. When asked do we need fashion copyrights
in fashion design, most respondents were in favor of fashion copyright law being enacted (78% yes;
22% no). However, it seemed that respondents did not clearly understand the details of the fashion copy-
right law. Thus, it is also important to provide an educational framework for the students to learn the
pros and cons of legally protecting fashion design. Developing curriculum related to the subject in higher
education is imperative. Therefore, apparel design and merchandising students are clearly understand the
fashion copyright and related issues better and can ultimately perform and make decisions ethically in
their future career.

Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to investigate students’ viewpoints on creativity and ethics related issues
within their use of fashion design information and creative process. As they are the future leaders of the
industry, it is important to learn about their viewpoints on copyright and the creative process. To collect
constructive information on their views, we created a survey questionnaire with open –ended questions.
The questions focused on how they obtain their design inspiration when completing design assignments
for their classes, how they differentiate between copying and being inspired by a work, their knowledge
about fashion copyright law, their definition of creativity in fashion product development, and their
13
 International Journal of Costume and Fashion
Vol. 10 No. 2, December 2010, pp. 1-

demographics. A total of 100 fashion major students from three different universities located in north-
IJCF
western state in the US, were selected by convenience sampling. The data were analyzed qualitatively.
Vol.16 No.1
More than half of the participants (55.56%) look for design inspiration from secondary sources,
such as existing designers’ work which they observe over the Internet, magazines, fashion shows, and
store shopping, in addition to primary sources, such as nature, culture, media, photographs, and other
artwork. They refer to other designers’ work mainly for inspiration. Many informants specified elements
of design, such as silhouettes, accents, structures, and colors, as their source of inspiration. Specific de-
tails, such as cutting, seaming, draping, and tailoring, were also mentioned as elements referred to or
sometimes even borrowed in their creative process. However, none of the participants said that they di-
rectly copy the same design details; rather, they are influenced by these elements and add their own
touches to create something unique. Interestingly, all informants made a clear distinction between copying
(i.e., making "line to line copies") and interpreting (i.e., borrowing elements to create one’s own in-
dividual design), which confirms Hemphill and Suk’s (2009) argument that this distinction is a common
sense.
Enhancing creativity while fostering acceptable decision-making, responses demonstrated that crea-
tivity and ethics were both frequently addressed by these apparel design and merchandising student
respondents. With widespread availability of Internet visual documentation of original designs, copying
designs has become very easy and fast. However, a majority of respondents showed their awareness that
counterfeiting was legally wrong; copying designs was ethically wrong; and incorporating limited ele-
ments from inspirations was ethically acceptable.
Although fashion copyright protection law has yet to become enacted, a majority of respondents
support passage of fashion copyright protection law. Students also considered use of aspects of original
designs for trend inspiration to create new designs was both ethical and necessary to keep trends moving
forward. These results give support to the value of addressing the creative problem-solving processes of
creativity and ethical decision-making jointly within apparel design and merchandising curriculum.
The authors acknowledge that results of this study come from a convenience sample of 100 re-
spondents within one northwestern state of the United States. Some of the students responded they do
not design, which further limited the scope of the results. Also this study has limitation in that it ac-
quired students’ perception of an issue related to ethical decision-making from a self-report questionnaire.
It is likely that social responsibility bias was inevitable from students’ responses. However, results of this
study are directional in pointing out that fostering creativity and ethical design are ongoing issues faced
by contemporary apparel design and merchandising students and it will significantly impact the future of
the fashion industry ultimately. The results from this study may be utilized to develop an educational
program that can foster creativity and ethical design of college students as well as industry participants.
In order to further investigate the findings from this study, a carefully designed quantitative research may
be conducted with various samples from different cultural background.

14
 International Journal of Costume and Fashion
Vol. 10 No. 2, December 2010, pp. 1-

References The Perceptions

of Apparel
Abrams, H. B. (1992). Originality and creativity in copyright law. Law and Contemporary Problems, Design and
55(2), 3-44. Merchandising
Amabile, T. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Students on
Creativity and
Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013.
Apparel Design
Amabile, T. (1983). Social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Per- Copyright
sonality and Social Psychology, 45, 357-376.
Barron, F. (1965). The psychology of creativity. In T. Newcomb (Ed.), New directions in psychology II
(pp. 3-134). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bhardwaj, V., & Fairhurst, A. (2010). Fast fashion: Response to changes in the fashion industry. The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 20(1), 165-173.
Binkley, C. (2010, April 29). The problem with being a trendsetter. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212201552288996.html.
Bruner, J. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Carreon, B. (2012, April 24). Here’s how you can protect your brand from copycats. Lifestyle. Retrieved
from http://www.forbes.com/sites/bluecarreon/2012/04/24/heres-how-you-can-protect-your-brand-from-
copycats/
Copyright. (2015). Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Ferrill, E., & Tanhehco, T. (2011). Protecting the material world: The role of design patents in the fash-
ion industry. North Caroline Journal of Law & Technology, 12(2), 251-300.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
Hedrick, L. J. (2008). Tearing fashion design protection apart at the seams. Washington and Lee Law
Review, 65(1), 215-273.
Hemphill, C., & Suk, J. (2009). The law, culture, and economies of fashion. Stanford Law Review, 61
(5), 1147-1199.
Horyn, C. (2002, April 9). Is copying really a part of the creative process? N.Y. Times, Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/09/nyregion/is-copying-really-a-part-of-the-creative-process.html
Innovative Design Protection Act. (2012). S. 3523 (2011-2012), Report No. 112-259. (Cal. No. 573)
Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act. (2011). S. 3728 (2010-2011). (Cal. No. 674)
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture. Retrieved from http://books.googl
e.com/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=T1i_nQrg-vkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=participatory+culture&ots=idnOZ5u
99w&sig=UVgsf99BGemSg8Z3J9L7YXe3e68#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Jimenez, G. C., & Kolsun, B. (2010). Fashion law: A guide for designers, fashion executives and
attorneys. New York: Fairchild books.
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York: Dell. 15
 International Journal of Costume and Fashion
Vol. 10 No. 2, December 2010, pp. 1-

Lee, J., & Lee, Y. (2013). The discussion of fashion design copyright law and the perceptions of fashion
IJCF
industry professionals in the U.S. Journal of Korea Society of Design Forum, 40, 323-334.
Vol.16 No.1
Lee, J., Lee, Y., Salusso, C., & Lin, J. (2012). Intellectual Property Law (fashion copyright) in fashion
design and its implication on Clothing and Textiles higher education. Proceedings of 2012
International Textile and Apparel Association Annual Conference, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii,
U.S.A.
Paulins, V. A., & Hillery, J. L. (2009). Ethics in the fashion industry. New York, NY: Fairchild.
Raustiala, K., & Springman, C. (2006). The piracy paradox: Innovation and intellectual property in fash-
ion design. Virginia Law Review, 92(8), 1687-1777.
Smith, E. (2013, September 12). Fashion designers look to patents to fight knockoffs. Reuters. Retrieved
from http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/ 09/12/us-usa-fashion-newyork-patents-idU.S.BRE98B0H42
0130912
Stein, M. (1974). Stimulating creativity, Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press.
U.S. Copyright Office (2012). Copyright registration for works of the visual arts. Chapter 1. Subject
matter and scope of copyright. Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf
Wertheimer, M. (1945). Productive thinking. New York: Harper & Row.
Wildlife Express Corp. v. Carol Wright Sales, 18 F.3d 502, 507 (7th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations
omitted), citing Erickson v. Trinity Theatre, Inc., 13 F.3d 1061, 1069 (7th Cir. 1994).
Wilson, E. (2007, September 4). Before models can turn around, knockoffs fly. N.Y. Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/ 2007/09/04/us/ 04fashion.html

16

View publication stats