Our companies founder and designer Romulus Von Stetzelberger is a close friend of the founder of East West and was formally given permissions to “carry the flame” by Norman Stubbs.

Feel free to read more of the history and check out our website for East West here..

http://www.eastwestmusicalinstrumentsco.com/history.html

Take care,
Joe

http://thedomesticdiva.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/designing-a-christening-gown-finding-a-treasure-and-happy-birthday-to-me/

With friendship,
Lisa

The problem with trying to pay royalties to a company that is long gone is to whom do you send the money? Legally, a company is a separate entity. Do you pay the ex-president? The designer? You would have to pay the person to whom the design is registered, which brings us to the Design Piracy Prohibition Act.

This sort of reminds me of an article I read recently. The song “Louie Louie” is played several times, every single day, on radio stations across the US. The writer gets five-digit royalty checks every month; the singer gets nothing. I don’t think that fits with most people’s definition of “fairness,” which is usually the alleged reason for creating these types of laws.

Dave is right; this will be a litigation nightmare! Ironically, it will be the bigger names—the very ones that are pushing this idiotic legislation—that will get burned; attorneys (and the media) will go where the money is. It will be interesting on two levels for me (as a legal assistant in real life and a wanna-be DE). However, the entertainment industry has already been dealing with this for quite some time, so we can sort of predict how this will play out.

IMHO, any attempt to stop several people from having the same idea at the same time is going to end in ridiculousness; it’s like trying to trace the origin of an urban legend.

PS Summer, I hope you’re going to slaughter those idiots.

I think this area can get even murkier when we are talking about an item that is a “homage” or a “historical reproduction”. If the company that made the original item is out of business, is it acceptable to make a 100% reproduction ? Is it acceptable if this is represented as a reproduction, and credited to the original (defunct) maker ? If it is plausible, should the original designer be tracked down and offered a share of the ?royalties?or licensing ? Is the replication an homage with intent(ie as a strong reference to a well known original item of clothing or overall look or work of art)? I think that EastWest Parrot jacket shown above is a interesting example to argue about. In this design I see late Victorian/Art Nouveau elements that may have been taken from wallpaper or a poster (or something else). EastWest took those elements and reinterpreted the swirling lines and use of color into a complex and flattering jacket. I think that is really great ! I think that is the way that interesting design works — it takes you further down the line and makes something engaging. But what if designer “B” saw this jacket(designer “B”, who is operating in the same time frame/same market), and decided to make their own “version”, meaning that it was identical except that a couple of minor design elements were omitted, or that it was identical except in a different color ? Is this ethical ? If this person or company has the skills/labor to draft the pattern without losing the distinctive details, and can have it produced in a professional manner doesn’t it beg the question why they can’t/won’t hire a designer to DESIGN as opposed to imitate ? This is the slippery slope of the endless cheapening of design — like a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy starts to lose detail and focus and pretty soon it’s hard to tell what it started out as. The real sin is that it makes the world of people wearing clothes look uninteresting, by the lack of originality and diversity !

I think existing items of clothing can be very inspirational, or educational, and are excellent tools for learning and analysis — but I also think careful and individual concern for design integrity should be examined.

I think digital media has also given us a culture of copy and paste, creating new interpretations, like mash-ups and so on. I think of the artist Chuck Close. It’s amazing to me how powerful different presentations and representations of portraits can be. Plus, multimedia software has given many, many more people access to developing all kinds of media; however, good, bad or ugly. I think fashion follows suit with unique prints and fabrics to cheap, disposable clothing.

On that note, like the Matisse inspired pillows–they were good, not bad or ugly. Of course, no one thinks it’s Matisse and it doesn’t credit Matisse, but those likely to purchase something like this would buy it because it’s inspired by the artist.

Maybe it’s not about the clothes or the fashion or the product itself- some of my favorite fashion lines get it right but are supporting a ‘lifestyle’ brand or sponsoring a lifestyle for people- such as young surfers or skaters or musicians or maybe just for the d/e themselves! Really, people buy stuff that makes them feel good whether its a rip-off or a knock-off or totally original.

I know this doesn’t apply to the canal street knockoff trade, but aren’t logos/brand-identifying marks already protected? And when you take something apart seam-for-seam, wouldn’t a direct ruboff be relatively easy to identify and fight over–like the Darwin/Wallace debate? Anything other than that might reasonably (legally, anyway, if not from the original designer’s point of view) be said to be a “riff” rather than a “repeat”.

Is all this beside the point?