Another day, another frenzy-inducing H&M designer collaboration. Last week, the long anticipated Alexander Wang x H&M collection hit stores and online. Shoppers lined up nearly 24 hours beforehand, merchandise was immediately posted on Ebay–you know, the usual.

But amid all the excitement for the coveted sportswear with the word “Wang” emblazoned across the chest, a controversial video was released, as well. German website Dandy Diary created what it called a “promotional video” in which they went to India to see how the collection was made. In the video, child laborers are sewing Alexander Wang x H&M logos onto apparel. Even though the video is meant to be an “art piece” it still raises a lot of questions considering the fact that both Wang and H&M have been accused of using sweatshop labor in the past.

Back in 2012, Wang settled a lawsuit filed by 30 workers who claimed they were forced to work in poor conditions for 16 hours at a time without breaks. Never mind the countless child labor accusations that Swedish fast fashion retailer H&M has received over the years.

H&M has since responded claiming that the collection was not made in Indian factories but rather in China, Turkey, and Italy, and that the company does not support child labor; however, we still don’t know whether or not this is exactly true. Just because this video is supposed to be an “art piece” doesn’t mean that we should laugh it off and move on. Despite the fact that thousands of people died last year alone when the Rana Plaza factory collapsed, Bangladeshi factories still continue to breed poor working conditions. Obviously major retailers such as H&M are not pulling through on making sure that such a tragedy never happens again. While it may be difficult for both the companies and any U.S. law enforcement to keep track of what’s happening overseas, these retailers need to start taking responsibility for any third-party labor that they employ. Perhaps they could send corporate employees to serve as a liaison between the two.

It’s also worth noting the hype surrounding these coveted limited edition collaborations. Twenty-four hours after the collection was released, only some of the items were sold out online (though whether a full size range was available, I’m not sure). Even the items posted on Ebay were not extraordinarily marked up. If anything, it’s more about being the first one to get your hands on the collections first; kind of like when people wait in line for the new iPhone when they could just as easily get it shipped to their house that day.

What better way to further feed into the hype than to release a controversial video shining a spotlight on something that’s been speculated about in the past? Such a video serves as a way to get both Wang’s and H&M’s names in people’s mouths, ensuring sales not only for this current capsule collection, but for any of either label’s future business as well.

Political correctness be damned, apparently.

Ed. Note: The original version of this article included an embed of Dandy Diary’s blog, which has since been removed by the creator. Read a Dandy Diary’s comment on the video’s removal here.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Don’t Ignore the Alexander Wang x H&M Child Labor Video appeared first on Law Street.

I recently wrote about how fashion ads are becoming less and less controversial. But now I think I know where all the controversy went in today’s retail strategy: it has shifted to the product itself. By now you may have heard about Urban Outfitters’ recent bloody Kent State sweatshirt. I’ve read a lot of opinions, including that of fellow Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney, claiming that Urban Outfitters intentionally released the controversial garment in order to increase its recently dwindling sales. I’m not so sure about that though.

Urban Outfitters’ highly offensive Kent State sweatshirt is up for sale on eBay for $2500 http://t.co/0YFxkIMGyr pic.twitter.com/RpTZrUQHUi

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) September 16, 2014

A few weeks ago, Spanish retailer Zara came under fire for producing a children’s top with a six-pointed star patch on the chest that bore a striking resemblance to the star of David patches that Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust. Last I checked, Zara has been doing pretty well financially. Maybe it isn’t necessarily booming but sales don’t seem to be dwindling either. If anything, producing such a controversial item would hurt its profits and reputation, especially in the dominant European market where the Holocaust occured. It would be a poor choice on Zara’s part if it purposely released a controversial shirt in order to gain publicity.  

The owner of Zara has withdrawn this children’s shirt because of comparisons to the Holocaust. http://t.co/xbyJcuuulR pic.twitter.com/jQ0OKIxPnb — NBCWashington (@nbcwashington) August 28, 2014

While the situation with Urban Outfitters may be a little different, I also don’t think it’s fair to claim that garments go through so many people in production that it would be impossible for someone not to catch something that appears to be a little off. There’s a reason it’s called fast fashion. Unlike more specialized design houses, mass clothing retailers have to move quickly in order to meet consumer demands and make a profit. It’s not like there’s a group of people focused on each item for more than a few seconds at a time. Often the products are presented as a seasonal collection, so details on individual items may be overlooked.

As a writer and someone who works in the creative field, I know what it’s like to look at a project so much that you get sick of it, which may be the case for both the design and production teams in these companies. Also, when you’re working for a company, you look at the product with a completely different mindset than the hypercritical masses that are always looking for a reason to be angry about something. Even The New York Times gets busted for being lazy sometimes. I’m not necessarily condoning such laziness when it comes to editing, but I know for a fact that sometimes it just happens because people are human.

The offending sweatshirt was a one-of-kind vintage piece from Urban Outfitters’ Urban Renewal line, which consists of curated items that may be slightly altered or updated by the company. What seems to be the case with this sweatshirt is that the college apparel was tie-dyed by Urban’s design team in an unfortunate red color. The deep red dots appear to be parts where the dye was more saturated than the rest of the garment. Now if you’ve ever tried to tie-dye before you probably know that it can be pretty damn messy, not to mention difficult to make a consistent design. In this case they only had one item to work with, so if they messed up it was just seen as added character to the unique vintage gem.

While part of Urban’s reputation is to make quirky — and not always politically correct — products, I don’t think this was the case here. Sometimes the viewer reads way more into a piece of art than the artist ever intended. Also, producing a controversial product instead of an ad is a pretty risky business strategy, especially in Urban’s case where the sweatshirt was one of a kind. If anything, they would be at risk of losing even more money if people were to start a boycott of the brand altogether. While I wouldn’t excuse Urban Outfitters or Zara for having such a sloppy editing process, consumers need to calm down when it comes to judging a whole company for a mere oversight.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Neff Conner via Flickr]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cut Urban Outfitters Some Slack, Mistakes Happen appeared first on Law Street.

I’m just going to cut to the chase: I hate Forever 21. Don’t get me wrong, I spent plenty of my parents’ money there on a seasonal basis when I was a teen, but by the time I was 17 I had completely sworn off the fast fashion mega-chain. Ironically, I used to shop at stores like Forever 21 and H&M because their merchandise was strikingly similar to the clothes I would see in magazines. But the more I immersed myself in the industry, the more I learned that these stores were the antithesis to the look I was striving to emulate. Forever 21 blatantly copies designers’ prints from big names like Diane von Furstenberg to independent clothing boutiques. In publishing that’s called plagiarism, but in retail it’s called making fashion “accessible” to the masses.

Courtesy of Simka sol via Facebook

The whole concept behind Forever 21 disturbs me. I used to walk into a store in complete awe, wondering how I was ever going to manage to thoroughly browse through all of the trendy merchandise. Now I walk in and feel disgusted.

I first noticed something was off about the store when I visited a three-level unit at the Garden State Plaza, much larger than any other store I had seen before. The bottom floor was overstuffed with sale merchandise. Upon seeing this I immediately thought, “What do they end up doing with all of these clothes? Surely, not that many people end up buying sale when there’s so much on-trend and reasonably-priced merchandise upstairs.” I pictured those factories where they shred old clothes and realized that even if the store never sells most of its sale merchandise, it will hardly make a dent in the company’s revenue. Forever 21’s clothes could cost around 20 cents to make and they sell them for $20 apiece, that’s a 1,000 percent markup. Something about that just doesn’t seem right.

Copyright laws allow for retailers like Forever 21 to copy garment designs, but not any prints that designers place on their garments. Which, if you think about it makes a lot of sense. Most clothes are made with one of a few possible patterns and ultimately it is what a designer puts of those patterns that makes their work unique and innovative. Considering part of their job description involves designing prints, how is it fair for them to do all the work only for someone else to come along and sell the same thing at a fraction of the price? Not to mention that fast fashion retailers can make a whole lot more money off of a copyrighted item by selling it in mass quantities.

Left: A dress by Diane von Furstenberg Right: Forever 21’s version. Courtesy of Susan Scafidi via Counterfeit Chic

Granted, the role of a fashion designer is also to set the example so other fashion retailers can sell on-trend clothing to the masses. However, trends usually dictate a silhouette or color that is “of the moment.” Sometimes a particular generic print may be in style, for example leopard print, but in that case there are so many variations that retailers can make that it is completely unnecessary for them to literally copy a designer’s version of that print. So why does Forever21 win or settle nearly every lawsuit filed against it?

In addition to over 50 copyright lawsuits, the company is also notorious for numerous labor violations. So not only does it cheat designers out of profits, but it also fails to pay employees fairly. Employee lawsuits go as far back as 2001, when workers claimed they were being paid under minimum wage. There was even a three-year boycott of the retailer by its U.S. garment workers. This year, U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fined three stores with over $100,000 in safety violations.

Despite all of the company’s lawsuits and violations, Forever 21 is one of the largest clothing retailers in the world, so independent designers and small design firms often do not stand a chance against it. Also, Forever 21 has a history of settling before cases are ever brought to trial. Susan Scafidi, fashion law professor at Fordham University, explains that “they’ve been caught so many times, they’ve been publicly exposed so many times, they’ve even been sued — although many fewer times, because all they do is settle — this is just part of their business strategy. They go ahead and they take what they want, and when they get caught, they pay up. It’s probably cheaper than licensing it in the first place.”

The way Forever 21 runs its business is unnecessary as there are plenty of other retailers who run honest businesses, while still offering on-trend merchandise. Despite their involvement in the Bangladeshi factory collapse last year, Gap is a respected retailer in the industry and often collaborates with high-end designers and the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) in order to provide designer fashions to the masses. In fact, the recent explosion of designer collaborations with retail chains like Target, J. C. Penney, and H&M is the perfect antidote to the moral fast fashion dilemma. When designers willingly and legally offer their pieces to retailers, then there is no need to copy their designs because consumers can have access to the real thing at their desired price-level.

High-end designers control trends in this industry, but large chain retailers control how these trends get delivered to about 90 percent of consumers. Stricter copyright laws should be implemented in order to protect the artistic integrity of these designers. The garment industry is just like any other creative industry, so if it’s illegal to copy famous works of art, it should be illegal to copy wearable works of art as well.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured imaged courtesy of [Adam Fagen via Flickr]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is There A Legal Way to Offer Fast Fashion to the Masses? appeared first on Law Street.