Ownership in the creative community is a touchy subject. Take for instance sample culture. For years, the embattled grounds between re-appropriation of source material and plagiarism of source material have been shaky, at best. On one hand you have the positive: for one to take from an existing body of work, sample part of it and create something new continues many long held traditions from visual arts (Russian Avant-Garde movement, Dadaism and Collage work) to literature (William S. Burroughs cut-and-paste poetry). And on the other hand you have the negative: from comedy (Carlos Mencia’s deliberate thievery of tried and tested jokes of his contemporaries) to music (The Beach Boy’s Surfin’ USA lifting note-for-note from Chucky Berry’s Sweet Little Sixteen). It’s not all bad, and it’s not all good. Frankly, it just is. The “sample” as it were, from an established body of work, has more or less been deemed an acceptable source for artistic process and practice, as long as the source receives its credit.

But how does that play out in the design world, specifically in indie fashion?

Fashion has long been the artistic practice that has somewhat fallen thru the cracks of being able to dutifully protect itself from poachers looking to “copy a look/trend”. But, at what point does sampling just simply become stealing? And while we’re in this pool of thinking, IS imitation really the sincerest for of flattery? Especially when an independent designer is at the crap end of that flattering stick?

Urban Outfitters, clothier of college-aged, fashion savvy consumers has a long history of stealing designs from fellow large brands and passing off cheaper versions to suit their price point. This is a thoroughly documented and accepted fact that usually goes away after a few days. However, recently a case came to light where thru the divine power of user generated e-commerce sites like Etsy and comment sections on Tumblr, Urban Outfitters has been singled out for blatantly ripping off independent designers that’s not going away so easily. In this case a young designer, Stevie Koerner, who creates a line of necklaces called The World/United States of Love, was ripped off by Urban Outfitters without them even putting up much of a defense. The story caught the eye of many major news sources and the resulting kerfuffle that Urban is now juggling could affect their bottom line. Boycotts have been called for on the very pages of their own Facebook account. The Urban Outfitters Twitter has gone silent. They’re shutting out all press. Nothing. No word. Nada. So you can guess who’s controlling their narrative, right? Answer: User-generated media and consumer communities. As one fellow Counsel member stated, “transparency and people power [is] not good for Urban Outfitters”. If a brand can't self-police, you can bet that we're in a new era where no stone will be left unturned untill consumers police things themselves. And not with votes; with their money. If Urban hopes to stop the blood-letting festival that is going on in the name of moral commerce, now would be the time to admit fault, change practices and promote creativity and fresh ideas within the ranks of the design team, not just answering to the bottom-line.

Links to consider:

http://www.etsy.com/shop/truche?section_id=6584327

http://www.facebook.com/urbanoutfitters?sk=wall&filter=12

http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/8410.aspx

http://twitter.com/#!/imakeshinylove