/fa/ - Fashion

>>8033639
lol

>>8033639
>dropping 250 on fakes

>>8033646
i know u could get these $150 and only slightly used on ebay im sure, right trucks?

>>8033639
looooooooooooooooooooooool

Pffffftahahahahaha

>>8033639
probably better quality than the original piece of shits. good cop anon

>>8033674

all these people getting trolled.

lmfao i just copped CP's for $168

>b8
>sage

>>8033679
this is getting trolled nowadays? posting a picture and some generic statement and letting people express opinions?
>hurr durr i was just pretending

>>8033682
god dammit anon i was proud of you for that cop but now you're acting like a right faggot about it

>>8033639
the quality looks bad even from the fucking product shots, this is horrifying

>>8033682
cps are normcore dadshit though... these rickdidas homages will look tight with my techwear fits

gud cop

>>8033689
dadshit italian leather > korean dickskin

>>8033692
maybe im letting it get to my head. sorry anon. leaving thread

>still sage

>>8033689
>homages
jesus christ. although if we go down that rabbit hole then what is Zara? turn left, mifune: care to chime in?

>>8033639
i know u didn't buy it but who would actually buy this.
like for $250 you're not short on options for good sneakers

>>8033710
I actually did. There is no other way to get this kind of look for less than $600. It isn't branded Rick or Adidas, so it's just like shopping at Topman's or Zara, not a direct copy. I got the look I wanted for less, so what's wrong?

>>8033727
i t i s w h a t i t i s

>>8033710
>>8033727
I kind of agree. They are a very distinctive look.

Good job OP, anyone outside of this board who is above the age of 19 will think they're tight.
>>8033709
Zara is an affordable alternative and is great filler when you don't have enough to fill your entire closet w/ high end stuff. It's also better qual than H&M imo.

>>8033727
You spent $250 on a pair of shoes that's quality is lower than a pair of dreamboxes.

Speaking of fakes though, I found these. Worth a shot?
http://www.aliexpress.com/item/Rick-owens-shoes-lovers-design-boots-male-high-fashion-shoes-casual-male-boots-medium-cut-fashion/1655563853.html

They're cheaper than 750 at sneakerboy bruv

>>8033710
w2c /fa/ approved highs and mids for <400. I could save up but in my area I'd fear being jacked

>>8033761
Look for some CPs on eBay.

>>8033727
>what's wrong?
It looks like shit

>>8033755
yea better quality than H&M for sure, but then again so is fabrixquare. I don't see a problem with homages, they don't have the Rick or Adidas logo so who cares? You can't copyright a design.

>>8033801
Like hell you can't.

Bought fake adyn tees at fabrixquare. package came in like a super lowkey duct-taped plastic package thingamabob. they fucked up on the grey tee by a large margin (ended up "tailoring" it with tha scissors), but besides that the quality is super worth the price.

>>8033824
why do u think LV plasters its logo over everything retard? otherwise no one could make jeans, bomber jackets, etc etc and they'd all be patented. only the logo can be

>>8033824
lol are u 12

>>8033856
Because common items =/= Uniquely designed shoes

>>8033856
The reason LV plasters its logo everywhere is because their buyers care more about the logo than the design

>>8033639
wow, it's like they don't even know what it's supposed to look like. suede? really?

>>8033882
nope. read up on it. branding is essential for defending patent infringements. you can't patent a look, and even if you could, subtle changes like a suede toe box in this case would be different enough to argue the items are not homogenous. my dad is a patent attorney

>>8033801
>You can't copyright a design.
You can in some places. Like the EU.

>>8033761
wait.
you're afraid of your shoes getting stolen?
where you live

>>8033639
Looks horrible tbh

>>8033934
so why doesn't someone patent a plain white crewneck t-shirt or blue jeans and make some serious bank?

>>8033942
Because it's already in the public domain.

You can't retroactively copyright something that's been in existence already.

But copyrighting on clothing design is a tricky tricky area. A big part why nike has all that sole technology and shit is because they actually CAN BE trademarked.

>>8034008
and adidas still copied it. u can't copyright a design (when it comes to clothing) sorry fellas. We did a big case study on it in uni

they look like shit compared to the real ones

>>8034016
Yeah hence my example on the sole technology, it's much easier to copyright an actual advancement and break through eg. Nike Air.

>>8034023
dont listen to this fag m8, no one will know the difference

>>8034029
nobody will even know what the rickdidas ones are anyways so your point is invalid

>>8034016

You're wrong / missing the point.

Intellectual property in Fashion is, as he mentioned, a very tricky area with vague standards.

In Japan you can copyright a design, but must prove that nothing like it has ever existed before.

In your case, Nike came up with certain sole technologies, but Adidas came up with something LIKE it, something similar.

So designs can be copyrighted, but people will find ways around it and come up with similar products / results.

>>8034023
>implying the real ones look not shit

>>8034033
If Nike, a billion dollar corporation can't defend it's IP against major competitors like Adidas then it's pretty safe to say that no other fashion companies are going to be very successful on an international level (which is where everything is set these days thanks to online shopping/grey importing) in defending their property. You're trying to argue semantics instead of what happens in practical reality.

>>8034036
All white or black look great.they actually have to be laced up too.

>>8034043

I am aware of this and that's exactly what I meant, maybe I shouldn't have put "You're wrong" at the beginning

>>8034033
That's a pretty good way of putting it, what's more important in that regard and as an extension if market perception.

People would probably shy away from Adidas' knit stuff because there is an understanding that it was Nike who developed it.

Market leaders in this regard would benefit.

A more clear cut example is YSL vs Louboutin : Red bottom.

They had to settle out of court because whilst it would have been difficult as hell for Louboutin to win in a court of law, public opinion would have sided with them and YSL would have suffered.

>>8034053
Doubtful, public opinion is vastly overrated in regards to a company's bottom line. It would've just been cheaper for YSL to settle than to keep enduring frivolous law suits.

>>8034067
Agreed, if public opinion mattered Zara would've been bankrupt decades ago for using contractors who own slaves. Yet... biggest fashion retailer in the world.

>>8034067
That's actually a good point too as the prolonged legal costs could have been an issue.

But with a company like YSL I doubt that would have mattered too much especially like i said, legally they wouldn't have lost and they had survived a challenge where Louboutin was forced to pay YSL's legal costs.

The inference here is then something else was a factor there and I choose to think that perception of the market is at play.

The luxury sector is fickle but responsive to perception.

>>8034074
That's comparing apples to oranges.

Zara function on a completely different level where as YSL and Louboutin are on the same spectrum.

It's like saying (oh god here comes a car simile) a toyota with a Merc design is the same thing and would turn Merc buyers into a toyota buyer.

...though incidentally a Merc owner is more likley to have a toyota as a second car than any other brand (In Australia)

>>8034079
YSL isn't a company anymore, just a subsidiary brand owned by French multinational Kering (who owns Gucci, McQueen, Balenciaga and about a dozen others). It would definitely have been a cost issue rather than a market issue that influenced the decision to settle.

>>8034091
How is it apples to oranges? You were inferring that YSL's alleged infringement would've damaged public sentiment and then reduced sales. Zara's use of slave labour in their supply chain is widely reported and well known (perhaps much more than the YSL case) and yet it continues to grow unabated.

>>8034100
You've kinda missed my point about the costs in terms of legal fees.

That was reimbursed FOR them when Louboutin lost the first challenge.

Whilst they're owned by Kering, the legal and corporate structure still means that YSL are their own legal entity when it comes to litigation of this matter.

But it's difficult to argue a concept like I am with "perception value".

All good if you don't agree with it, but I still think it's an important factor given how much fashion media and mass media coverage the particular case received. Place that within the context of how Louboutin is a darling of the fashion world and that at the time YSL was very much relegated to the periphery...

>>8034117
Kering has a globalised corporate structure HQ'd in France, they don't have complete legal divisions within each of their brands. Organisational structure is very much an important factor in deciding how a corporation responds to various legal threats affecting its properties.

>>8033801
>take the exact design in every way
>remove the brand label
>"It's an homage"

is this was autists actually say to console themselves?

In that case I've got an itunes library full of homage music and an HDD full of homage games

>>8034110
You're comparing Zara which operates in the lower end of the market to YSL and Louboutin which are at the extreme opposite end.

The public perception in this example isn't about work conditions but rather exclusivity in the luxury sector and originality.

Your example is more comparable to Nike and other athletic companies who have been caught up in similar issues because they're in the same market sector.

I don't believe you can compare perception between Zara and YSL because how they are perceived are very different as their market segments are very different.

>>8034130
We can discuss that point but it's moot.

As I've said, the costs of the first litigation was awarded to YSL

>>8034137
I'd agree if it was about Zara infringing on others' designs, as the pleb market just wants the look for as cheap as possible, while the luxe market wants to be unique and buy into a brand's ideology/heritage/ethos/etc/etc. However, I'd argue that slavery is so universally despised that Zara's supply chain "issues" are just as potentially damaging to their brand in the eyes of their core consumer as YSL's alleged infringement is to theirs.

p.s.
It's nice to be able to have a conversation on this board without 15 year old kids screaming faggot and other ad hominems every other post.

>>8034144
I wouldn't agree that the slavery issues are a big blow to zara's bottom line, if only because

A: most people buying in to zara's pricing sector are not concerned about where their clothes come from and how they are made, only how they look and how much they cost. It's rare that these people go researching fashion online

and

B: There are very few stores that actually stock the styles Zara carries at their price point. Right now they are leading the market in alternative styles like drop crotch trousers and long drapey layering tops and oversized pieces, and people looking to buy in to that trend will find very, very few alternatives if they wanted to shy away from Zara out of some kind of moral righteousness.

>>8034144
hmmm see I just think it's a fundamentally different angle we're coming from.

I think the issues behind Zara and slave labour have a lot more factors in it than the YSL vs CL case.

I just don't think there can be much parallel drawn without over simplification and in the end, given the nature of the discussion we're talking details.

and yes it is rather nice have a real discussion :D

Maybe we should talk about something we'd agree on, with the premise at least?

>>8034163
That's a more articulate way of adding detail.

A zara customer would be a lot less sensitive to bad behaviour by the company than say a buyer of luxury. The latter is intricately linked with the status of the person and the perception placed upon that person by a certain crowd of society that also buy into those same luxury labels.

>>8034168
I would agree with you that the two cases are fundamentally different. People buying in to YSL/Louboutin are much more concerned about materials, public perception, availability/exclusivity as a result of the intense investment made to procure a popular piece. They have a much greater reason to care about the status of their brand. Which is the complete opposite of Zara, nobody goes around flashing off zara in the hope of garnering public status, oftentimes the customer has very little reason to care about the status of such a middle/low market brand since it only exists to provide them with an upmarket look at a fraction of the price.

>>8034179
I agree with all that, that said it would be unwise to say that there would be no zara customers affected by such bad PR, but like >>8034163
says because those clients function in a market where there isn't anyone competing against Zara on such a scale it would be difficult for them to move else where without having to up their purchase pricing... and that's not always an available option.

Where as with YSL, the luxury sector has so many competitors who all hold high value and regard it would be easier to move horizontally as the price point is almost a non issue for the people who buy in the segment.

are there any shoes on fabrixuare that I'm not going to regret buying, I'm saving for a car so i need to be responsible with my money i can't spend over 200 on shoes for a while

someone please give me advice, i bought some pants from them and i just got them tailor and they look and feel great

>>8034179
That's implying that YSL customers do search online about the brand, and I don't think that is the case either. Informed consumers are a minority in both markets. And in some markets, Zara is regarded as some kind of fashionable, pseudo luxury brand (by plebs heh).

>>8034201
I don't think that was implied at all.

Like I said, the YSL vs CL case was widely published in all mainstream media.

>>8034201
agreed. This desire for knowledge about designers and certain pieces is something that doesn't exist outside of the internet.

>>8034211
So was Zara's slave labour issues (multiple times) and of course both issues can be researched online easily. It's debatable whether Zara or YSL is a more well known brand though...

Meant to quote this post:
>>8034163

re: "researching fashion online"

>>8034201
>>8034220

You are of course right, truly informed customers are far and few between regardless of pricing demographic especially considering how much of ysl's customer base is likely to be young nouveau riche who are attracted to the brand only because of the status.

That being said, I do hold the belief that upmarket customers are more likely to be on the side of more informed (perhaps only slightly more likely, but still), if only because that crowd seems to be more prone to discussing fashion as a social topic than customers of lower market.

>>8034198
I also would like to know they had some nice nice hi tops, and I need some bad

>>8034229
Who gives a fuck honestly

Christ they look terrible.

>>8033639
You wut bro??! Man...i just looked online for it and i must say that the real ones are just as ugly if not more LOOOL seriously, u dun goofed?

>>8034048
I think they look sweet new, though I do worry how they look when they're broken in, used and scuffed up a bit. It looks like the leather/soul crease in weird ways. anybody have pics of some lived-in Rick-'Didas?

>>8034452
I'm enjoying reading these posts/this topic of conversation. So, I guess me.

>>8034452
just go back to b and jack off to traps if u cant handle a normal conversation u dumb, little faggot

>>8033753
Fuuuuuck the white ones look sooo good. Very tempting... but what if they look like those that black anon copped irl

>>8034198
No. Don't buy shit from there.

Does anyone know if there clothes are that shit quality??