McRobbie, Strutt, Bandinelli and Springer (2016)

From Copyright EVIDENCE

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

McRobbie, Strutt, Bandinelli and Springer (2016)
Title: Fashion micro-enterprises in London, Berlin, Milan
Author(s): Angela McRobbie, Dan Strutt, Carolina Bandinelli, Bettina Springer
Year: 2016
Citation: McRobbie, A., Strutt, D., Bandinelli, C. And Springer, B. (2016) Fashion micro-enterprises in London, Berlin, Milan. CREATe Working Paper Series DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.162668
Link(s): Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: The research consists of a longitudinal case study across fashion enterprises in London, Berlin and Milan. Semi-structured interviews were the primary means of obtaining data, which evolved into practices akin to cultural anthropology (observations, conversations, “hanging out”).
Data Type: Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: Yes
Comparative Study?: Yes
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2012-2016
Funder(s):
  • RCUK/CREATe

Abstract

“This report provides an account of a series of interviews, observational visits and hosted events with 8-10 fashion designers in three cities: London, Berlin and Milan, carried out from 2012-2016.

In some cases we interviewed the same designers two or three times over a period of nearly three years. The research project also entailed documented conversations and meetings with a range of fashion experts, consultants, legal advisors and policy makers in each city. Often these took place within the context of organised events undertaken as part of the research process. The aim was to investigate the kind of start-ups or micro-enterprises which have come into being in the last decade. We were interested in whether these were the outcome of pro-active urban creative economy policies or if they were self-organised initiatives, a reaction to the crisis of the euro-zone of 2008 and the consequent recession. Was it the case that long-term austerity policies and exceptionally high rates of youth and graduate unemployment across Europe had spawned these kinds of seemingly independent economic activities? We were also minded to consider the role of intellectual property (IP) and copyright in fashion as part of the wider UK government agenda for growth and wealth creation within the creative economy as a whole.”

Main Results of the Study

London - Fashion enterprises here find that copying is a fact of professional life, of which interviewees expressed some level of discomfort. However, due to the cyclical nature of fashion, respondents appreciated that re-cycling is somewhat necessary. Larger companies (e.g Vivienne Westwood) are generally better equipped to deal with cases of infringement, as a result of having efficient archiving systems and monetary resources. Whilst some copying is tolerated, a tough approach is taken in relation to key items. Trade secrets are implemented for particularly vulnerable works (e.g. knitwear).

Berlin - Akin to London, there is a notably low importance placed on copyright, with copying perceived to be an occupational hazard. Instead of litigation, social media is implemented to “name and shame” and deter infringers.

Milan - As with London and Berlin, Milan finds similar issues with copying, but demonstrates less legal awareness, and is less likely to take action against potential infringers. Despite expressing frustration at the high cost barriers for pursuing infringers, paradoxically, interviewees report that copying is widespread, and perhaps unavoidable. Instead, brand development is perceived as a means of protecting fashion enterprises, with more emphasis on cultural backgrounds, and methods of communicating.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

As opposed to introducing legal regulations, the authors suggest that a “Voluntary Code of Practice for Intellectual Property” should be established, akin to other social awareness campaigns. Companies would be able to subscribe to this code to create a type of industry-wide standard of acceptable copying practices.

Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Green-tick.png
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Green-tick.png
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Green-tick.png
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Green-tick.png
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets