I agree, it’s pretty, but I think it’s a shame that brands just copy all the time know, like it’s normal and OK. Forever 21 is one of the brands that constantly abuse copyright. Just a few months ago I had read an article about them getting sued by Marc Jacobs.
Though, I think it’s nice that cheaper brands allow people to have more expensive design, at least they could be more subtle with it or… I’m not sure.
It’s not a subject with an easy answer, but I just wanted to put my thoughts out there.
Actually, there IS an answer under current legislations. Design copyrights of “useful articles” are governed by a standard much looser than a copyright for an original work. For example, you can’t copyright a ring and prevent all your competitors from ever making rings again, because you own the sole copyright. It is a case by case basis and if your particular item is so unique and novel that you deserve protection for it, then you can get an injunction on other people producing it.
Personally, I think it’s silly to take copyrights so serious when it is not protecting the work of individuals and just designs of major corporations. Applying copyright in this case in favor of Marc Jacobs or Forever 21 is just a policy choice on which corporation will get the profits from a particular item. It’s not going to discourage innovation if we allow companies to copy each other (they will still reap profit whether they are the first one out with an item), and encouraging innovation is why we have copyright laws in the first place.
makeup morsels says
I got it for the same reason xD I also got a hugee butterfly knuckle ring that weekend. Love F21 and their jewelry.
dani@callitbeauty says
oooh, i like it!
ann says
I agree, it’s pretty, but I think it’s a shame that brands just copy all the time know, like it’s normal and OK. Forever 21 is one of the brands that constantly abuse copyright. Just a few months ago I had read an article about them getting sued by Marc Jacobs.
Though, I think it’s nice that cheaper brands allow people to have more expensive design, at least they could be more subtle with it or… I’m not sure.
It’s not a subject with an easy answer, but I just wanted to put my thoughts out there.
Anh says
Actually, there IS an answer under current legislations. Design copyrights of “useful articles” are governed by a standard much looser than a copyright for an original work. For example, you can’t copyright a ring and prevent all your competitors from ever making rings again, because you own the sole copyright. It is a case by case basis and if your particular item is so unique and novel that you deserve protection for it, then you can get an injunction on other people producing it.
Personally, I think it’s silly to take copyrights so serious when it is not protecting the work of individuals and just designs of major corporations. Applying copyright in this case in favor of Marc Jacobs or Forever 21 is just a policy choice on which corporation will get the profits from a particular item. It’s not going to discourage innovation if we allow companies to copy each other (they will still reap profit whether they are the first one out with an item), and encouraging innovation is why we have copyright laws in the first place.
Trisha says
I like it! I would totally get that for $4, even with it being gold. (I’m not a super big fan of gold jewelry, though I love gold-tinted eye shadow.
Cindy (Prime Beauty) says
I’ve really been getting into these big fake coctail rings lately–they’re so fun!
TJ says
It DOES look a bit like a few camelia pieces I’ve seen.
Elizabeth says
I love it, but whenever I get jewelry from F21 it turns my neck or fingers green!