High street copies obviously make millions for a small amount of people but they also bring a lot of hapiness to shoppers who simply cannot afford designer pieces. It is selfish for big brands to sue, as if they're not rich enough already. I don't think they care about the artistic credit because if anything they should be flattered...they just can't stand other people making money off of them.

Posted by: Fiona | March 28, 2007 3:21 PM

I agree with Fiona's comments. Took the words right out of my mouth. And I will NEVER buy a DvF dress, or anything for that matter, knowing that she's such a greedy woman.

Posted by: Michelle | March 28, 2007 8:48 PM

I am so sorry but some people who LOVE DVF and spend $400 on a dress want their money to be well spent. I bought the Cersier print dress and I was extremely outraged to see Forever 21 trying to sell the exact same copy of the dress for $34. It's just not fair to the people who spend the money on the real thing when there are cheap stores like Forever 21 selling a REPLICA of the dress. When we spend money we want it to be WORTH it, and not have to worry about stores like Forever 21 ripping off the design.

Posted by: tiffany86 | March 30, 2007 5:43 AM

I have to agree as well. I used to admire DVF. After alot of hard work I even managed to buy an authentic DVF piece. However, one is all I can afford, and will probably ever own. But eversince she got on her bandwagon about suing retailers who sell imitations of her designs, I'm starting to see a whole different side to her.....and it's hideously fugly. It's quite obvious that she only wants her designs to be worn only by people who can afford it. Just because most of us can't pull in a six figure income and drop the insane amount of money she tags onto her design pieces doesn't mean we are any lesser than those who can. We work hard for every penny we earn. And the real reason behind her lawsuit is because she's not pocketing any of those hard earned pennies. She has got to be the most greediest woman on the planet. She thinks very low of us average 'Janes' and hard-working 'Sallies', but is so quick to get her panties in a bunch if we don't open up our wallets to her.

Posted by: Jean | March 30, 2007 6:09 AM

How dare you? When a person tries to protect what is their's they are by no means being greedy. Are musicians being greedy when they don't want people pirating their music? No. They worked hard for someting and all their hard work isn't earning them as much as they should because these average "Janes and Sallys" think that their low income is a good excuse to steal. Maybe you should do some research into these fields before you go accusing people of being greedy. Often times the designer makes LESS money than the people producing the clothes. That's right, it takes a village to make a dress, you might say: designer, patternmaker, seamstresses, assistant designers...and so on. These are people trying to earn a living too-people with families they're trying to support. I'd be upset if Ms. Furstenberg WASN'T trying to protect these people, this is a woman who is passionate about her company and cares about the staff she has running it. Furthermore, DVF is considered a CONTEMPORARY designer. You think shelling out $400 for a dress is alot?! That's nothing compared to the $2,400 you'd have to spend on a DESIGNER dress. By comparison, DVF is plenty affordable. Besides, would you want someone else taking credit for (or profiting from) YOUR hard work. Would you?

Posted by: Yissel | March 30, 2007 12:03 PM

Fiona: Forever 21 is a BIGGER company than DVF, so surely they're rich enough already by your judicious standards?

Posted by: ctp | April 17, 2007 2:21 AM

all the "high street" brands do that since forever. Zara, Gap, Urban Outfitters and all of the kind do alternative versions of designer items. And I think designers know that and live with it.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 5:14 PM

i shop at forever 21 plenty and i do NOT want to wear a replica of the real thing. i also shop at higher end places and i don't want to wear something that's 90% cheaper because it's fake/stolen. it just plain looks bad. maybe it's cause i'm from nyc and it's a fashion metropolis. it's not fair for dvf to have her ideas stolen and then produced for mass profit by forever 21. TRUST ME, forever 21 makes soooooooooooooooo much money. think about the lines you wait in everytime you shop there and why they're everywhere now. o, and don't forget their crappy "customer service" which means low-paid grumpy workers which means lower costs. it's like now ppl who can afford dvf are gonna be like "ew, i'm not buying that. i just saw a cheap ass copy of that on some girl" and u KNOW girls think like that. then dvf is forced to sell the clothes at a major discount so ppl will buy it. it's not fair for dvf. she designed it, copyrighted it and produced it. to have someone steal ur ideas is messed up. imagine you write a beautiful book of poems, managed to get it published on a small scale and then someone like walmart takes off the cover, puts on a new one and uses the same words, sell it way cheaper and makes a TON of money off of it. yes, dvf's clothes cost a lot but so what, that's HER business. if you can't afford it, that's your problem, NOT hers. she still has a client base that she aims for. all of you people that are complaining act like there isn't cute, good clothing out there for you to buy at a lower price. this comes from an IMPARTIAL PERSON that shops at both low and high end. besides, with all the money that forever21 is making, you're telling me they can't hire people who are able to think creatively on their own? don't be naive girls, forever21 is a million dollar company many, many times over. they KNEW they were stealing and did it anyway for profit. they stole an idea for free and then mass produced it and made a huge profit off of it. NONE of their items cost more than $3 USD to make in sweatshops in vietnam. they in turn sell it to you for $25. guess who's the GREEDY ones girls???!!! how do you think the walmart descendants are billionaires even though their stuff is discounted? it's one thing for inspiration, it's another for downright thievery.

Posted by: jk | July 10, 2007 7:13 AM

Sorry for the long post but here is some legal info:

Copyright protection is denied to garment designs due to the fact that garment designs are solely useful articles without any copyrightable elements. Useful articles are granted limited protection under the Copyright Act, provided there are elements of the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work that may be identified separately and can exist independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article.[6] Since 1914, several bills[7] have been handed down to Congress advocating the protection of the designs of useful articles through copyright.[8] Such protection of garment designs has always been opposed, however, for to do otherwise, would arguably grant protection to a purely utilitarian article and pave the way for a monopolies in the apparel market.

Posted by: Gella | August 17, 2007 7:11 PM

As Gella says, DVF doesn't have a legal leg to stand on as far as the garment design (the pattern, construction).

The fabric design is legitimately copyrightable, but the copy would have to be really close. It would be trivial for Forever 21 to change it enough to pass legal muster.

Posted by: Mark | September 1, 2007 2:15 AM

Who cares only something like 5 percent of the population can afford her designs any way and I not one of them. Forever 21 in no way cutting into their profits. It is not against the law to create a reproduction of a dress or shirt you like. It's been done before ever Oscar season a company takes the best of the Oscar dresses and recreates them a fair price. I like the idea. It gives people the opportunity to buy something they see their fav celeb wearing without having to take out a second mortgage. As long as a company doesn't use another logo them I like it's fine.

Posted by: ME that's who | September 28, 2007 3:24 PM

forever 21 made like 500 million dollars last year, and they're not only being sued by designers, but their own factory workers. I never like the store anyway and refuse to shop there.

Posted by: martha | January 3, 2008 1:07 PM