
Following the trend of fashion, people in different levels are somehow catching the wave of new design, which may include clothing, leather goods and technology. However, following the attracting wave is hard because fresh look or design usually labeled with a high price that not everyone has the economic ability to purchase it, and this situation stimulates the happening of knock-offs in the society today. Generally, from daily education to cliché of parents, public have been receiving the idea that knock-offs are not acceptable due to law and ethical reasons. Denying this stubborn idea about inauthentic productions, this paper will help people eliminating their wrong understanding about law’s strict prohibition on knock-offs, suggesting the subjective value stimulated by knock-off production through economic and designing perspective. Thus, encouraging readers to forget traditional view about knock-off production during reading, this essay will include reliable data from both economic and fashion side to convince readers that knock-off is creating benefit exceeding the number on price label. Within those increasingly plausible benefits knock-offs are stimulating, knock-offs deserve better treatment from whole society instead of receiving only negative opinions merely because of wrong understanding pushed to knock-offs.

To read the influence come with knock-off, it is necessary to give a correct definition to the word literally. Giving a mainstream definition, Merriam-Webster dictionary record Knock-off as “a copy that sells for less than the original; broadly: a copy or imitation of someone or something popular” and the most acceptable one “a cheap or inferior copy of something.” Identical to mainstream idea about knock-off, second definition of Webster has described most popular opinion about knock-off, which is cheap, inferior, and badly-manufactured. However, Urban Dictionary defines Knock-off differently as “an item intended to look like something it is not, such as an expensive watch or designer clothes.” Obeying this definition, Knock-off may include fake production due to its copying of original works, but it is not comprehensive to claim knock-off equals to fake. Instead, each two productions that has significant similarity are also knock-offs because they are somehow intend to be “look alike.” Take some examples in the picture, the Dior White Rose shirt attracts people’s attention with the Rose embroidery, and so does the Black Label White Rose sweater. The difference on prices, 790$ and 30$, instantly suggests which of the two is original design and knock-off production, causing buyer to think the latter is reasonably unskilled-produced. However, the material of clothing shows the quality of this knock-off is not scrappy, at least the embroidery does not fad after multiple washing under water.  Another instance, as the design of destroyed jeans being so popular this century, it’s not amazing for someone to see 1 person in 3 wearing destroyed jeans and walking on the street. There are various ways to show a denim being distressed: cutting some skinny line, opening a huge hole, and even shooting the denim with shotgun. These denims use same conception, which is to damage intact jeans, to create their own features, and the dictionary will definite them to be knock-offs because they share similarity. Nevertheless, people would not observe them as knock-off because this truth seems to contradict with mainstream idea about knock-off. In conclusion, the traditional way to classify knock-offs by crappy and badly-produced characteristics is not wise that this idea prohibits well-produced designs to be regarded as knock-off, excluding the positive part of knock-off and leaving the worst part to be criticized by public.

Not only the negative notion come from incomprehensive idea about knock-off, but also people grow more critical opinions through two ways. At very beginning, started from kindergarten, as Steinmetz suggests in “The Knockoff Economy: How Copying Hurts—and Helps—Fashion,” that “From the day kids pick up their first No. 2 pencils, they’re taught that copying is wrong,” the educating from parents and teachers portrays copy as an incorrect behavior has controlled over children’s mind, stabling the idea that knock-off is illegal and unacceptable among young to old. Therefore, knockoff is denied ethically due to everyday education. On the other hand, real-world law cases evaluate the activity of knock-off to a legitimate issue. In 2006, the “Bill to Provide Protection for Fashion Design” noted that “fashion designs are generally ineligible for any type of protection, so designers, especially new designers entering the field, easily become victims of those who wish to copy their designs and profits from them”. Additionally, five years later, in 2011, the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act has claimed that this law aims to prohibit “a fashion design to have been copied.” Combining public consensus and law prohibition, people form a general idea about knock-off to be illegal and unethical. Thus, knockoff isn’t acceptable due to ethical and legal reasons. Take an example, one of the biggest knockoff online sellers in the world, Alibaba Company in China, or the biggest knockoff manufacture, has been confused by its sellers posting fake item in their shopping websites, attracting blame from whole unintentionally. Within the words by Lin “Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., facing U.S. criticism over the presence of counterfeit and pirated goods on its online shopping platforms” in the journal “Alibaba enlists brands to help stuff out knockoffs,” this issue also iterated how seriously selling fake item against the law.

Like the definition of knock-off leading to different understanding, the law established to focus on knock-off varied for a long time. Contradict to the early “Bill to Provide Protection for Fashion Design” which supports strictly regulation to prevent copying, the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention clarified that a fashion design is not qualified to be regarded as copy if “(1) is not substantially identical in overall visual appearance to and as to the original elements of a protected design, or (2) is the result of independent creation.” Changing the circumstance faced by knockoff, new criteria has allowed some case to become legal that was previously banned. Take the example listed in the book “Counterfeit Fashion: The Interplay Between Copyright and Trademark Law in Original Fashion Design and Designer Knockoffs,” by Tu, the way of arranging logo massively to decorate handbag devised by Louis Vuitton, which also appears similarly on the leather goods of Gucci, Coach, and Fendi: each of them creates their logos by rotating and duplicate the letter “G,” “C,” and “F,” then arrange the logo massively on the surface of leather goods as workers arranges tiles on the wall. Another instance, being so popular that people knows the pattern rather the name of the design, Burberry Check exposed its pattern, which is red, gray, and black cross line on brown base, on scarf so massively that it is usual people wearing a scarf with Burberry check do not know the design name of this pattern. Designs have similarity to these two cases have shown how may knock-off represents itself as an independent and legal production instead of plagiarism, eliminating people’s doubt about them at the mean while. Thus, though the central idea can be deemed as knockoff, certain knock-off doesn’t violate law’s idea about copying. While spreading the popularity of original pieces and amounting their own value, consequently, these fake designs have brought various benefits to their regions and themselves, signaling the society that certain knock-off can be acceptable and profitable instead of being mere plagiarism.

Different from legitimator consider the case of knock-off with law, business tends to work with profit brought by it. During the beginning of this century, different countries had strictly prohibited fake productions; especially those developed ones due to their advance development on technology or design. Nevertheless, as more people from developing countries, where copy right and conception of counterfeit hasn’t established yet, became rich enough to follow the international trend, fresh blood from developed ones was inserted into these new-rich countries with form of business. However, as the average economic ability of their citizen brought by the fast speed of development still being too low to purchase a new 2000$ Louis Vuitton handbag, people would more possibly choose to get more substantial and adorable life with this price, giving up luxurious desire. Knowing the difficult situation brought by purchasing ability and being free from protection to copy right, certain industries from these new business partners seized the chance, maximizing income by manufacturing cheap fake production. Expectedly, within the peaceful and constant development, more countries start charging certain amount of economy to luxury market while they joining to the new-rich association, and more industries will follow to attain a part of profit in fake production market. On the other hand, exchanging of productions during the business also provide developed countries knock-off. Started appearing to cater poor people with low purchasing power in developed countries, knock-off invaded the market of original design, allowing people from different income level to achieve their luxurious dream. People’s desire cannot be satisfied with their purchasing power will cause the expansion of knock-off for sure until their economic ability is strong enough, and, therefore, several decades in the future, the potential profit can be created by knock-off is huge, attracting more investor to proceed this legal activity in certain countries. Within greater amount of investment knock-off gathered and businessmen obtain profit, it’s also absolute that original design and designer will grab their own profit.

Mainstream idea will suggest that copying invades the right of original design and designers. As I mention in last paragraph, however, knock-off may help the designer by spreading the popularity of original design. Because of high price labeled on designer production, only small part people have the chance to own luxurious items, and so it is logical that certain design can only be exposed in the limited circle of people who would like to and able to follow the trend actively, confining the number of people observe the design then eliminating the chance to expand customs. Under the help of knock-off, however, people in different level can enjoy the happiness brought by designer piece because lower price can increase the demand, leading the design to be exposed in different levels. During this process, the original piece improves its popularity while people see the design frequently. Recorded in the interview “The Knockoff Economy: How Copying Hurts—and Helps—Fashion,” Kal Ruatiala, the authority on knock-off item claimed that certain people in design field believe fake item may “led to more sales for your item.” Not only the buyer desire to buy knock-off, but also designers themselves want to be knock-offed because the fact being copied usually shows how popular the designers are. As the word in The Knockoff Economy same authority “the truth is a lot of people say, ‘Look. This is the nature of the businesses’ or ‘It’s a good thing to be copied. And I’d be a lot more worried if I wasn’t being copied’” shows how certain designer recognize the benefit brought by knock-off and compromise order to increase their popularity. 

Take a real-world case as an example, Alibaba Inc., or the largest online shopping panel in the world, has been confused by its sellers to post fake production on the website, receiving various criticize from society, media, and, of course, people who own the original design. To clarify how influential this panel is, as it is recorded in Forbes, “To Ma, [the CEO of Alibaba,] whose Chinese retail sites handle five times the volume of eBay—last year $394 billion of, well, everything—these sellers are his life hood. To the sellers Ma is a hero of capitalism, offering them a path to the middle class. In the center of this social compact, however, is an unacknowledged truth: The Alibaba juggernaut has been constructed to a significant degree on illegal, counterfeit products,” and mention Kering, company own luxury good brands “Gucci” and “Yves Saint Laurent,” “sued him (Ma) for trademark infringement and trafficking in counterfeits.” From that context, readers can recognize how great the market Alibaba is processing and how large the knock-off market could be merely on one online shopping panel. Negatively, following the popular idea of society and legitimator, the impact caused by Alibaba is too huge to ignore that this company should be punished due to the law of copy right, which is not comprehensive in China. However, changing to a business view, groups seeking for profit might have other statement due to the huge potential revenue under the number $394 billion. At least, to sell knock-off under the panel of Alibaba lead sellers to “the middle class,” updating the record of GDP in China and the record of one day purchasing amount. Referring to passage “Kering profit from Saint Laurent, Bottega Veneta” from “The Wall Street Journal,” “Luxury and sportswear group Kering SA said a sharp increase in profit last year at its smaller luxury brands” and “ The Asia Pacific area grew just 4% as political turmoil and slowing Chinese economic growth cut sales growth in Hong Kong and mainland China,” it is still a fact the profit of Kering is still increasing positively even though the growth on selling of fake production, and it is possible part of the 4% is leaded by the increasing of popularity of knock-off. Therefore, there is no direct evidence that knock-off harm the profit of businessmen owning the original design, and they may maximize potential profit from knock-off. If the law constrains the manufacture of knock-off, it’s not definite for Kering to reach 4% increasing under disadvantage environment. In conclusion, from the side of economy, holding stubborn idea about knock-off and strictly banning knock-off are not a wise way to create additional profit.

The only reason people cannot have an agreement on knock-off are its illegal and unethical characteristic, which is not comprehensive if people changed the definition of knock-off. However, all evidence I listed above have showed that knock-off shouldn’t be so strictly banned today due to its usage of attracting more profit and spreading popularity of original piece. People should change their old opinion about knock-off and start to regard it as a new way to inspire more new development and design.
