Di$count vs REVERSE @ Nasty Gal 1

Di$count vs REVERSE @ Nasty Gal 2
American web superstore NastyGals' 600,000+ fans are now privy to DI$COUNT's designs - unfortunately, they don't know that the Melbourne based label, run by RMIT glitterati Cami & Nadia who have been busting their arses to create something cool, has been unceremoniously ripped off by Sydney-based wholesaler Reverse Clothing. But they will.

Buy as close to the source as possible.
I have some self-imposed design-rules-to-live-by, and this is the most important.

As someone who has studied, practiced and generally respects design, I don't approve of knock offs.  What I DO approve of is originality, innovation and new ideas - and do you know how those happen? With time and money (and research and experimentation and mad geniuses, but mostly time and money), which is precisely WHY you should buy from the place the ideas come from.

I want the designers with the ideas to continue to be creative and amazing and develop new fabric technologies and apply the master craft of tailoring to spectacular new silhouettes and develop good fit blocks and put on runway shows and have functioning websites and be available, and they can only do this if people buy THEIR versions of their ideas.

One can't know what every (proper, innovative, creating-something-special) designer in the world has ever made but it's blatantly naive to walk into a store (or more often than not, open a new tab) where the price point averages below $100 and think 'oh wow look at that great thing I bet the design team behind this label spent aagggeeeeeeessss thinking this up!' because I can tell you, they didn't. But some other designer behind some other (smaller, niche-er) label did, and that knock off hurts them more than you could ever imagine. 'But I can't afford the original it's sooooo expensiiiiiiive' I hear you say. Well, tough luck. Being original costs money. So if you suspect there is an original FIND the original, then save up, or DIY it, or just don't have it, but don't give your hard earned cash to someone who couldn't be bothered putting the effort in. No good comes from saying 'that's just the way it is' - we as consumers have to hold the industry accountable.


Nina said...

God the difference in quality is easy to spot...

animalorchestra said...

I believe it's actually Reverse Clothing who are the ones ripping off the designs.

You can see their Facebook page here.

It looks like their entire business is based on doing poor quality imitations of other designer's work. I think I've even seen their takes on Dion Lee, Gosh Goot etc.

Mica said...

That's crazy, that's a complete rip off! How can they get away with that? they can't say it's inspired as it's a definite copy.

harbourmaster said...

Nina - I reckon! And that's often the most significant difference between a true 'designer 'and a 'product developer' - one is making something beautifully to last, and one is looking for a flash-in-the-pan sale.

Nadia - arg, I have seriously developed typing dyslexia, that is completely what I meant, apologies! Have amended now. So many knock offs on their site, I spotted Chromat, Alice McCall, Lover, Sass&Bide, Ksubi in a cursory 20 second glance. Shameful.

Mica - unfortunately it's nearly impossible to copyright fashion designs, as no one can really claim to own the general concept of a lace dress or a striped tshirt...there's an unwritten rule that if 10% of the design has been changed then it's 'acceptable' (to the large companies who are profiteering off pulling designs from smaller labels rather than putting in the effort to design their own, I don't think any of the original designers think it's acceptable!)

Mica said...

Oh thanks for that, I hadn't heard of the 10% rule! Struggle to see how this is at least 10% different even so.

Such a shame that there is nothing for designers to do to be able to protect their ideas. Ironic that the big companies can afford to run around enforcing their IP, as they rip off others :(