If Irina didn't obtain permission to use the text then I think she should definitely be held accountable. However, in light of the way things have been going this season, I get the feeling this whole issue will be overlooked and not publicly addressed and at some point a statement will probably be released either by Irina or the good folks at Lifetime explaining that the matter was dealt with outside of a court of law. And incidentally, all garments bearing the images/text will no longer be available for sale on either Lifetime's retail page or Irina's website. Case closed.


- edina -

edinamonsoon said...

If Irina didn't obtain permission to use the text then I think she should definitely be held accountable. However, in light of the way things have been going this season, I get the feeling this whole issue will be overlooked and not publicly addressed and at some point a statement will probably be released either by Irina or the good folks at Lifetime explaining that the matter was dealt with outside of a court of law. And incidentally, all garments bearing the images/text will no longer be available for sale on either Lifetime's retail page or Irina's website. Case closed.


- edina -




YUP!

@ Mouse Annoy:

Is that you, Orly Taitz??

This reminds me of how some of the text seen in the books of the Lord of the Rings films was simply borrowed text translanted in elvish.

What she did was wrong (she simply could have used random lorem ipsun text and no-one would have cared)but I don't for a second believe that Irina taking that text and using it as a design element will lead to any kind of disqualification or law suit, espicially when it wasn't a featured element or there no plans for this particular line to be mass produced.

Gotham Tomato said.....

......I would have added, 'but I will tell you where to shove it.'

But that's just the kinda gal I am.

--GothamTomato

And that's why we love you.

hey, on the topic of spoiler-ish: how is the show able to keep each round/final outcome so hushed? i mean, there're so many people involved and it's been like 10,000 years since they shot...how does it do it? was tom cruise involved?

"who knows how many emails with big legal, latin words were swapped between New York magazine and Lifetime."

I just don't buy that. If PR was going to negotiated and license rights for Irina to use protected material, they would have done it for the "Conney" Island pictures.

I actually am a published songwrighter - and if someone used my lyrics in a song - I would be pissed, but on a tee shirt, I would be flattered. even if they did make money off of it, because I realize that they could use lyrics from any song - the fact that they used mine really doesn't matter because it's a tee shirt.
And when Target puts your lyrics on a t-shirt and sells 100,000 of them?

"I just don't buy that." --t.D.H.

what was i selling? and thanks for using quotes.

copyright, shmopyright--that Batman headpiece is the best thing I've seen her make all season. It alone justifies her making it to the final 3.
love it, Love It, LOVE IT!!!

Can I make a t-shirt that is "Reasons I Love TLo"?

Maybe she should go work for Urban Outfitters, they have quite a history of stealing art/images without asking...

TLo wrote: "We have absolutely no contact with anyone who has anything to do with the production of the show."
And a pity that is, else this train wreck of season might have been avoided.

I can't imagine that ten days before the final walkoff, when Irina is told that she can't use the Coney ("Conney") Island images, that she was able to jettison the Coney/Conney Island images and also manage to secure the rights to using the NY Mag quotes and had enough money to do so.

Maybe Lifetime paid off NY Mag later. But that doesn't solve the real problem.

Kara Saun had great shoes, but she couldn't use them because they weren't kosher. There is no way that Irina had enough left in her budget to buy the rights to the NY Mag talk-a-thon for her walk-a-thon. No way.

It's also completely immaterial whether or not someone was paid for the original writing. It becomes copyrighted the instant the writer saves it in any tangible form, whether paper or electronic, and copying it is still infringement even if the person who wrote it never intends to seek payment for their work. You can provide something for free (like, say, a blog post) and still expect no one else to use it without your permission (except as normally provided for by fair use, of course).

There is one wrinkle here, in that the original work appears to have been derived from interviews, which makes copyright a little less straightforward. However, the copyright in those cases still belong to the interviewer and/or the interviewee, and not some random passerby.

Now, you can't copyright ideas and opinions, so if she'd been inspired by the article to write her own list and happened to include some of the same reasons in her own words, that would've been fine... someone could've remarked on the similarity but she would not have been guilty of copyright violation (probably, though it can get complex). Of course, you could still ding her on her behavior ("people copied my ideas" vs "I used someone else's ideas to come up with this"). But if she did, as it sounds like, lift reasons verbatim from the article, that's clearly a violation, even if the writers and publisher choose to not pursue it.

Quite aside from the legal arguments, IMNSHO it's ethically wrong to use someone else's work and pass it off as your own. That's not 'fair use' or even something possibly defendable like a homage; it's still plagiarism.

And, as a writer, while I might well be willing to give someone permission to quote my work in a situation like this, if it were done without even seeking such permission, I'd be pissed.

Where exactly are some people getting the idea that Lifetime would be in any way prohibited from merely showing the t-shirts with the infringing work? That is a very colorful view of the scope of copyright protection for literary works. Perhaps I've misunderstood.

I also wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the possibility of a viable fair use defense, should this ever get to the litigation stage. It wouldn't be slam-dunk by any means, but it also wouldn't be dead in the water.

None of this is to say that I don't think Irina is a grade-D piece of work, or that there won't be weeping and ripping of veils in my house when she wins.

okay, so my question to Katie, Jessica and Housewife is -- should the designers that made stuff out of newspaper for the show be sued because they used the copywrighted articles for their cloths? I mean, even if the newspaper gave them permission - what if the newspaper doesn't own all the copywrights to all the articles that were on say Christophers huge dress? we can all just agree to disagree on this one. I just do not think that someone using an article as a visual for a tee shirt is the same thing as someone reprinting an article in another paper and saying it's their article. I'm sorry, I just don't think it's the same thing, and I don't think it's a big deal. I'm not saying it's not illegal - I just don't think it's a big deal. I think especially since it's a list of reasons to like New York. I do think people think way too much of themselves. And from what I understand, no one is trying to sue Irina over this - probably because they don't think it's a big deal either. I totally respect your opposing opinion.

Also - if Target sold 100,000 tee shirts with my lyrics on them and didn't give me any money for it - that would be fine - because I was writing a song - not a tee shirt. I wouldn't expect any money for it. In fact, I would see it as FREE ADVERTISING! and a great opportunity to get more people interested in my work. But...I am a way super laid back person - and that's just me folks. Sorry.

a wrote: "However if she did get the proper permission and did not try to take credit for the ideas, I don't consider that a breach of creative ethics anymore than Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup can."

There is a difference: Warhol was commenting on American culture, opening a critical vision of it. That is what made his works art (and, to me, great art).

There is no critical component to Irina's use of the article——she is not seeking to make us look at "I love New York (or any other city)" lists and the cultural tradition involved in a new way. No irony there, no commentary. She is simply repeating that tradition.

Had she done so in her own words, the technique would, in my mind, have been cliche (apologies, don't know how to do accents in html), but it would not have been plagiarism or copyright violation, since people have been making such lists for decades.

I am bothered by two things:

First, the text is important to her collection, for it serves as the direct statement of its theme, ties it together. That she lacked the imagination (and ethics) to come up with her own way of articulating that link speaks volumes. Moreover, whether or not she makes money from the actual sale of the shirts, she is seeking to profit from the use by winning PR.

Second, in her conversation with Tim, at least, she passed the list off as her own. That is plagiarism. If a student were to come to me and say "I kinda of wrote down my thoughts on x," and I were to discover that those thoughts had been lifted from another publication directly (and if I were to have had any suspicion, I would have looked...), I would simply fail her——and report her to the university's honor council for further action. Period.

I'm not a lawyer, but I did follow the The Harry Potter Lexicon copyright trial plus I have made a careful study of PR through the seasons....

My theory: Think of the whole season's story arc. There must be a reason why the "copying" story-line has been so prominent (even beyond the "two cute chicks fighting" story). You know lots of other possible story-lines never made the cut.

So... I'm guessing this does become an issue in the final. I'm guessing it wasn't caught before the runway show, but someone (who?) notices it either on the runway or in the news pix. NY Mag is not obscure little rag nobody on the crew or in production or at the tents would not have seen two months before.

So... Irina wins, but is disqualified (weeks later?) and Carol Hannah as second place is given the win.

Or, it is noticed before the runway & Weinstein negotiates with NY Mag (because Irina has the strongest collection & they don't wanna give it to CH)

Or, CH wins and it's swept under the rug.

Or, Irina did have the producers secure copyright and it's a non-issue that will be boring little footnight to the final.

(I still say there's something very off about the cut of her "I love Madonna" spiel to Tim)

much do do about nothing. every designers, artist whatever copies from everbody their is nothing new.

I think my computer ate my last post.

from another anonymous: "I'm not saying it's not illegal - I just don't think it's a big deal"

me: thanks for the clarification, I had this big issue and offed my brother-in-law, I know its illegal, but, if you knew what I knew, you'd understand that it's not a big deal.

from another anonymous: "if Target sold 100,000 tee shirts with my lyrics on them and didn't give me any money for it - that would be fine - because I was writing a song - not a tee shirt. I wouldn't expect any money for it. In fact, I would see it as FREE ADVERTISING!"

from me: But, if the person that put your lyrics on the tee-shirt presented on national television that she was just "jotting down things she likes", instead of saying she liked your lyrics, well...no free publicity for you...you lose...no advertising for you...egads, you might just have to engage that whole legal system that you don't think is a big deal to enforce your rights and stake your own claim.

Good thing you are laid back.....heee.

"okay, so my question to Katie, Jessica and Housewife is -- should the designers that made stuff out of newspaper for the show be sued because they used the copywrighted articles for their cloths? I mean, even if the newspaper gave them permission - what if the newspaper doesn't own all the copywrights to all the articles that were on say Christophers huge dress?"

I've refrained from saying this before because, well, on the internet everyone is an IP lawyer, but before I became a "Drunken Housewife" I was a litigator, and I did some intellectual property work.

Those two things (the legible words on the shirt and the dresses made of newspaper) are completely different. When you buy a work of intellectual property which is also a physical piece of property (like a newspaper or a videotape or a book), you own that object and can do things with that object. The PR producers bought those physical newspapers (so the newspaper people "got theirs", so to speak).

Another point: you couldn't read the articles on those dresses on TV, unlike the shirt. I think one one dress you could read a headline, one or two words which was repeated over and over again, and taking two words out of a newspaper is not the level of appropriation that rises to a copyright violation.

And importantly, it was clear that they were using someone else's work. You could see that it was newspapers. It wasn't taking someone else's words and repackaging them as their own.

I could go on and on, but the essence is that those two uses are very, very different.

p.s. Of course, there are limits to what you can do when you buy a work protected by copyright which is a physical object. I just can't see the newspaper dresses which we saw this season rising to the level of a copyright violation.

Guys, if you went to a law library and wandered over to the section on intellectual property, you would see some very thick books indeed. This is a fascinating and much litigated area of law. We can't dispositively deal with it in these little blogger.com comments...

The legalities aside--and it's difficult to believe that Irina could be THAT STUPID--this is a stunning outfit and, if legalities don't get in the way, this seems the piece from a winning collection. I wanted Carol Hannah to win, but this outfit and the head piece are stunning. Couldn't it just be that she got permission to use the phrases from the article? Again, I find it hard to believe savvy Irina would be that clueless, esp after being called out for the images, which was strange enough. I couldn't believe she hadn't even given a thought to copyright infringement. Surely, she wouldn't do it again. If she did it, it's suicide, pure and simple. She knowingly threw herself under the bus. People are funny.

Well, that pretty much clinches it then. Irina will win, because this season has been such a fraud (aka crock) that there's no doubt in my mind that a plagiarist will take home the big money.

What a clusterfuck Season 6 has been.

Gee, Housewife, I'm not that lucid stone cold sober. I'll have a double of whatever you're drinking and hope for the best.

First, drunken housewife, thanks again for explaining that so clearly! The two situations are completely different when it comes to copyright, but there's no way I could articulate it as well as you did.

Secondly, fringe benefit wrote: "Couldn't it just be that she got permission to use the phrases from the article? Again, I find it hard to believe savvy Irina would be that clueless, esp after being called out for the images, which was strange enough. I couldn't believe she hadn't even given a thought to copyright infringement."

I hope she got permission too, or that Lifetime did, but unfortunately, my experience is that many people don't understand that plagiarism and copying is not OK. I'm a technical writer and editor and I've found that it's quite common for other writers to copy large blocks of text without attribution. (The anonymous line editor referred to this earlier.)This seems to be especially true if something is on the internet - believe it or not, there are still some people who think it's OK to copy or reproduce something without giving credit if it's on-line.

And to the anonymous songwriter - it's nice that you wouldn't care if someone used your words to sell T-shirts (I'm not that laid-back!) But it wouldn't be "free advertising" unless they gave you credit!

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb. On so many levels.

I'd love to see Susan Scafidi's take on this whole thing.

Here is something to think about. How did the legal dept. of Lifetime know that the rollercoaster image had come from a postcard, unless Irina herself told Tim where it came from when she had her home visit. Do you think the Tim has an encylopediaic knowledge of all photos ever taken of the Cyclone? She probably told him where she got the image and he said it would need to be checked with the legal dept.

Now after all that trouble I cannot believe that she would not disclose the source of the text (which as been altered considerably) to be used more as a pattern than words. Why would she take that risk? It would be insane. Especially since the words (while interesting) are not ledgable from any distance.
I do think it would be wrong of her to use the text without permission. But seeing as the folks at the magazine are NOT making a big deal of it.... you have to wonder if the answer is on the cutting room floor.

Interesting that the comments field for that episode on Lifetime's website is missing/disabled. Wonder why... ;)

I went looking for the original t-shirt image yesterday using google (image) to search for "Coney Island Cyclone roller coaster" (which is info I picked up by looking at the shirt) and it showed up on the second page of the search: http://www.westland.net/coneyisland/articles/images/con-cyclone.jpg

Not hard to find (I later realized that someone else had already posted the link earlier.) Haven't found the birds yet, but I'll bet they were lifted too.

It's an antique image, so maybe she thought that it was public domain, but someone who wants to become a high-end designer should be more professional.

Why should Irina be extended the benefit of the doubt as to whether she obtained permission? She said they were her words! Anyone who had gotten permission, or at least didn't know they had to get official permission but had the ethical intention of crediting others, wouldn't have passed off other people's direct quotes as her own thoughts. If she had said "I used some text," or something else vague sounding, I would have considered her innocence. But when she says "I sorta put down my thoughts about New York," well, that's just flat-out lying.

FINALLY.
Something interesting about this season.
That's all I have to say.

Sewing Siren (11/15/09 10:49 AM) makes an interesting point.
BUT, perhaps Tim asked her where she got the original t-shirt image from, and THAT is why it became an issue. She definitely implies that the writings on the t-shirts are reasons SHE loved NY (as in her original writings).If it is the case that the editing CREATED that implication, Irina should come out and sue Bunnim/Murrray because it makes her seem unethical. It's slanderous!
Then again, I didn't watch the epp. Could that have happened?

the Drunken Housewife said...

"well, on the internet everyone is an IP lawyer"

``````````````````````````
Thanks for my first LOL of the day!

Tina, thank you for describing the situation so clearly. Copyright protection is not waived just because there isn't a single clearly credited author--New York published those quotes, so they are New York's intellectual property.

People keep saying "well, maybe she did get permission." One condition of permission is almost always attribution--nowhere in the episode was New York credited. While I could possibly see a big organization giving permission without a fee if it sees a chance for good publicity, I could never see it allowing its property to be used without credit. Certainly not both.

If this problem had to be resolved with New York being paid, this ought to disqualify Irina. The fees would put her well over budget.

Mike B is a smarty pants!
He said...

"People keep saying "well, maybe she did get permission." One condition of permission is almost always attribution--nowhere in the episode was New York credited. While I could possibly see a big organization giving permission without a fee if it sees a chance for good publicity, I could never see it allowing its property to be used without credit. Certainly not both.
If this problem had to be resolved with New York being paid, this ought to disqualify Irina. The fees would put her well over budget.".
THAT is a most excellent point! ooooh, I hope they disqualify her smarmy ass.

I can't help but think that maybe this is going to blow up in pt 2 of the finale. Uncle Nick had mentioned that if you spend so much time with other designers, you naturally get influenced by them, yet the producers heavily focused on Irina's acqusations of her ideas being stolen. Was the season edited to set up a possible disqualification and the ultimate comeuppance?

Anonymous 8:01am wrote
>> Interesting that the comments field for that episode on Lifetime's website is missing/disabled. Wonder why... ;) <<

Ah, HA! The plot thickens!
A TLO Law and Order spin-off seems more and more likely.

Diana,
Irina never says that the text on the new T-shirt was written by her. She did say something about her writing down her ideas about NY -- and then- clip- mid phrase.Who knows what else she said- She does, Tim Gunn does, the camera man and the editor. We do not.
I would also like to point out if it was the legal dept that discovered the postcard image, it would be even easier for them to discover the sourse of the phrases because Lifetime had the tees with the full ( easy to read close up ) text on them. As poster al pointed out all you have to do is google one of the phrases and the NY mag article pops up.

Alexis, yes that's what I think.

MouseAnony wrote: "If they DID pick up on it from Thursday's episode...then their executives and lawyers had a mere fourteen and a half hours to call everybody in sight, have meetings, speak to Lifetime, arrive at a way to handle it, draft their little comment, and get it into the blog article published at 1:25 the next afternoon...It just doesn't seem likely. "

Hate to burst your conspiracy bubble, but it is most definitely "likely." No one's writing memos on papyrus and sending information via Pony Express these days. Three or four phone calls, a couple of emails seen on a couple of BlackBerries, a crackerjack writer dashes off a blog piece...the whole thing could be handled by the next business morning much less late that afternoon. It's called the speed at which business is conducted in the 21st century. I do it all the time.

The copyright issue is only a problem for Lifetime, not for, not Irina. They are selling the image of her clothing for advertising dollars. She isn't selling the clothing. So, either some deal was struck with New York Magazine to allow for the use of that text or the entire scandal was fabricated to add some drama to an otherwise horrible and unrewarding season.

The NY magazine has not been credited with the writing because the tee shirts haven't actually been shown on TeeVee yet. The fashion show will be on Thursday nights episode.

StateofSiege97 said...There is no critical component to Irina's use of the article——she is not seeking to make us look at "I love New York (or any other city)" lists and the cultural tradition involved in a new way. No irony there, no commentary. She is simply repeating that tradition.

Had she done so in her own words, the technique would, in my mind, have been cliche (apologies, don't know how to do accents in html), but it would not have been plagiarism or copyright violation, since people have been making such lists for decades. 11/15/09 3:42 AM

Gotta throw in the preface that if Irina did not get the appropriate permissions then that is unethical, illegal and most of all STUPID!

I am trying to wrap my head around why it would be deemed more ethical and creative for her to come up with her own list if BUT FOR THE FACT that she came across the NYMag list, she would not have thought to do her own list. I don't see how a bastardized version of the list would be more kosher than using NYMag's list with permission and attribution. Irina's conundrum was that she wanted to incorporate NY iconography in her collection and could not because of copyright protections, well the same thing that prevented her from using the "Conney" Island Rollercoaster would shut her out from most if not all of the other iconic NY images, save an apple.

We can poo-poo and state that no creativity was used, but when the collection first came out, Irina's collection was the one received most favorably and among impressive things cited were the T-Shirts. However, it was not as if the buzz around the T-Shirts were the actual reasons noted, i.e., there was not lots of posts stating, "I lurve Look #X, because it says "There Is Dancing in the Streets." So perhaps that somewhat supports the point that "there is no critical component to Irina's use of the article," but I think that she wanted an explicit reference to New York in her collection. I don't think that she is the only designer who had a reference point but did not expect the reference to spark a mainstream discussion on the themes, e.g., did St. Laurent want to spark discussion on the Russian peasant class or McQueen spark discussion on rape in the Scottish Highlands.

I am pretty sure that Irina is on lockdown until the finale airs, after which she will grant interviews. If she got the appropriate permission, then all is well and if not...

When I first heard Irina mention her solution to the trademark situation, I thought, "now that's a clever idea!" Oy. I should have known that Irina was not that clever.

I'm a little surprised by the number of people who think this is no big deal. Plagiarism is a huge deal both in the academic world and the art world. You can be expelled from school, sued, let go from lucrative book deals, etc.

In her conversation with Tim, Irina took credit for the text. Even if she had permission to use the article (which it does not sound like she did), she was still caught on camera claiming someone else's work as her own. Was it just me, or did Irina look/sound a little uncomfortable when Tim started reading the text? I think she knew she had done something wrong.

Sorry for the long post, but as an occasional writer, the issue of plagiarism aggravates me.

On a happier note, Irina's mother was adorable.

Diana wrote: "...from what I gather: whether she got permission would only be an argument if she had actually said that it was someone's work. SHE DIDN'T. She claimed it as her own, which is even worse. She told Tim "I put down my thoughts." Ridiculous!...
So really, it's two crimes: 1. copyright infringement, because, as far as we know, she didn't acquire the proper permission, and 2. plagiarism, because she's claiming the work as her own."

I agree. For me the most important point comes down to Irina saying - on camera! - that these were thoughts she herelf had rather than text she liked and reprinted from another source. Her taking ownership of something he did not create is the slimiest aspect of this episode.

I agree. For me the most important point comes down to Irina saying - on camera! - that these were thoughts she herelf had rather than text she liked and reprinted from another source. Her taking ownership of something he did not create is the slimiest aspect of this episode.

This has been my point from the beginning. All the if's and possiblies don't change the fact that she said to Tim, on camera, on tape, on national television, that they were HER idea's.

I will admit that the editing could have been wonky in the scene, it wouldn't be the first time. But she looks at the shirt, looks at Tim and tells him that she wrote down some of HER reasons for loving NY.

Permission to use the words or not, no one is going to give her permission to not only use their words, but TAKE CREDIT FOR THEM.

Didn't Irina invent New York? I thought it was totally her creation.....

Could she honestly be so ignorant of copyright law?

I want Tim to ask her who Robert Moses is and see if she knows.

So, to recap:

1. Irina is a bitch to everyone all season because she thinks she is the only one with creative talent.

2. Irina accuses Althea of copying her sweaters, while discounting Althea's claim that Logan copied her collar (which, let's face it, was pretty much identical) as insignificant.

3. Irina makes it to the finale, where she uses her grand creative talent to create a collection about...New York, the city she has spent her life in and just about the most cliche American inspiration there is, especially for something like fashion.

4. She creates an all-black and gray collection that doesn't really read as "New York," so she throws some shitty silkscreened tees into the mix that hit you over the head with their jarring New Yorkness ("Ooooh, Conney Island! That's New Yorky!"). Said tees misspell the supposedly treasured locales of her youth and neither go with the collection nor are they anything but shitty t-shirts. (Seriously, folks? This is all about the t-shirts in the runway show? This season really did hit the bargain basement, didn't it?)

5. Once Irina is informed she cannot use the inspired Conney Islund images someone else took that she paid someone else to silkscreen, she decides to go a different, even more cliche route with "her" 'Reasons to Love' thing. Because she is bursting with creativity and reasons to love New York given that, you know, New York is her theme and adopted home, she rushes to Google to find someone else's words to perfectly represent her feelings and artistic expression...on shitty, silkscreened tees.

For all the smack she talked this season, trying to be a hot bitch but managing to only be a mediocre one, this turn of events is delicious. I would like to agree with some of the comments here that perhaps this whole season was edited to showcase Irina's final comeuppance and possible disqualification next episode, especially now that the Real World hos are producing, but something in my gut tells me that it isn't so. Ultimate public humiliation is not Lifetime's style, and I can't see them doing it. Then again, perhaps it all went down before the winning network was announced. If Irina finally gets her just deserts, there truly is a God.

I will be extremely disappointed if she wins. Irina is a joke, a liar, a fraud, and the most insecure contestant this season. Oh, and you ain't nearly as pretty as you think you are, hon. Boo ya!

Carol in LA said...

I want Tim to ask her who Robert Moses is and see if she knows.


LOL.

PS If you live in New York, you would know a lot of people read New York Magazine. The "Reasons to Love NY" thing is a relatively known annual feature of the magazine. I, for one, would recognize some of those immediately (and did), specifically the Robert Moses and the Madonna ones. ESPECIALLY the Madonna one. I find it interesting that that is the one Tim chose to read aloud, and that he did so with a certain...tone. I think he knew where it came from, or at least that it did not come from Irina. Perhaps at that point they did discuss it and that is why the edit was weird. Either way, get real - Irina did not seek permission from NYMag to use those quotes. Please.

a wrote
"I am trying to wrap my head around why it would be deemed more ethical and creative for her to come up with her own list if BUT FOR THE FACT that she came across the NYMag list, she would not have thought to do her own list. I don't see how a bastardized version of the list would be more kosher than using NYMag's list with permission and attribution. Irina's conundrum was that she wanted to incorporate NY iconography in her collection and could not because of copyright protections, well the same thing that prevented her from using the 'Conney' Island Rollercoaster would shut her out from most if not all of the other iconic NY images, save an apple.

"We can poo-poo and state that no creativity was used, but when the collection first came out, Irina's collection was the one received most favorably and among impressive things cited were the T-Shirts. However, it was not as if the buzz around the T-Shirts were the actual reasons noted, i.e., there was not lots of posts stating, 'I lurve Look #X, because it says "There Is Dancing in the Streets."' So perhaps that somewhat supports the point that 'there is no critical component to Irina's use of the article,' but I think that she wanted an explicit reference to New York in her collection. I don't think that she is the only designer who had a reference point but did not expect the reference to spark a mainstream discussion on the themes, e.g., did St. Laurent want to spark discussion on the Russian peasant class or McQueen spark discussion on rape in the Scottish Highlands.

I think you missed my point—

I was responding to your likening of Irina's use of the NY Mag piece——in the event she got permission——to Warhol. They are not the same, as Warhol was using the appropriated image to offer cultural commentary, to open our vision, our understanding. He never claimed authorship of the soup can image——indeed, that was the point.

Irina's use of the NY Mag piece is completely different: 1) from what we can tell, she claimed it as her own and 2) she did nothing critical with it, such that her use stays at the level of cliche, fails to achieve the level of art. There is nothing post-modern going on here, save to the extent that post-modernism, itself, can be reduced to its worst cliches (everything is a copy, nothing is original, bad readings of Baudrillard, etc).

I was also not faulting her for failing to offer a critical angle on NYC. She is not a conceptual designer, and I would not expect it from her——nor would I damn her for not being one. I was disappointed, however, that her choice of a literal reference to NYC (a reference that we both agree she needed) was, from what we can tell, plagiarized.

And the analogy you make to St. Laurent and McQueen also does not hold: their works were not meant to spark discussions of actual Russian peasants, etc., but they did give us something to think about fashion itself, tradition, etc. And while I like Irina's collection, it does not really give use much of anything to think beyond itself.

Why would she pick reasons to love NY that weren't hers? I mean, at some point in the next episode, she's going to have to tell the judges something when they ask her about her inspiration. let's see if she continues to omit that she got them from a magazine article.

The copyright issue is only a problem for Lifetime, not for, not Irina. They are selling the image of her clothing for advertising dollars. She isn't selling the clothing. So, either some deal was struck with New York Magazine to allow for the use of that text or the entire scandal was fabricated to add some drama to an otherwise horrible and unrewarding season.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Irina offer that as a defense, but it's not true. She is in the competition for profit. If she wins the prize money or attracts positive attention with her entries, she will have benefitted financially from the intellectual property of New York.

I don't see how a bastardized version of the list would be more kosher than using NYMag's list with permission and attribution.

It wouldn't be particularly creative of her, but it would be legal. You can't copyright ideas, just expressions. This is why every successful original property in every conceivable artistic medium inspires tons of very legal knockoffs. (Case in point: Marla Duran and the Chloe dress, for which she was criticized but allowed to remain in competition.)

The question is not "should the judges hold this against Irina when choosing a winner," but rather "should Irina be outright disqualified for using copyrighted material without permission."

man, irina virtually carried this season...she had to play the villain, the hot chick (opposite cute, but weak logan with the unfortunate hair)AND the show needed her to inject all its controversy. girl did her part for season 6!

and legal aside, i love that irina took an article from new york magazine (new yorker or nyt might've been more iconic?) and even better that it quoted new yorkers...it's the whole point of that piece. it's gorgeous.

well the same thing that prevented her from using the "Conney" Island Rollercoaster would shut her out from most if not all of the other iconic NY images, save an apple.

I'm curious about this, and I found some info about trademarked landmarks:

Image Catalog: Copyright and Trademark Infringement Policy

What Next? A Fee for Looking?

Flatiron Grip

Roll Over Beethoven, I've Got Trademark Blues Today

According to the "Flatiron Grip" article, the Chrysler Building trademark holders eventually "backed down," and Fishs Eddy still sells dishes with New York landmarks on them.

Could Irina have depicted the Coney Island Cyclone on her T-shirts if she had drawn her own picture of it instead of copying a published photo right down to the people on the ground? What if she had made a sketch roughly approximating its shape? What if she had sketched it and made it a small part of a larger design?

Rainwood said:
"What copyright issue? As Irina herself would tell you, she invented love, she invented reason, she invented New York. Anything having to do with reasons to love New York is therefore stolen from her, just the same as Althea did with Sweatergate. New York Magazine probably owes her money."

That's great Rainwood. My sentiments exactly.

The highlight of the finale would be seeing her hubristic ass disqualified and that semi-permanent smirk wiped off her face.

There are a few Irina haters on here that need to switch to decaffeinated coffee. Seriously.

--GothamTomato

"man, irina virtually carried this season...she had to play the villain, the hot chick..."

and the best designer. [just editing myself]

With regard to the limited images available to her:

If she had stayed with text, there are many possibilities——

Say, with proper attribution, lines from New York's first great poet, Whitman——

His texts are all in the public domain...

And marvelous, sexy, far from dated...

Perhaps something from "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry" or "City of Orgies"

At this point, however, I think she would be better served by Melville's Bartleby——

"I would prefer not to."

Ahem, I believe my 2 semesters of Business Law makes me an expert on this. [kidding]

Plagiarism is "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."

So if she credited the author somewhere on the shirt in teeny weeny print wouldn't she be in the clear?

So if she credited the author somewhere on the shirt in teeny weeny print wouldn't she be in the clear?

Plagiarism and copyright infringement are two different, if related, things. Using the image would have been infringement but not plagiarism (since no one would have thought she took the photo herself), while using the text is both (since everyone did assume those were her own words).

Plagiarism is an issue of ethics. Infringement is an issue of law--the owners of copyrighted work are entitled to be both credited and paid when that work is used by others for profit, and have the right to refuse to grant permission.

And the teeny print would not show up on television in any event. That's not a good faith effort at compliance.

aim said...

Ahem, I believe my 2 semesters of Business Law makes me an expert on this. [kidding]

Plagiarism is "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."

So if she credited the author somewhere on the shirt in teeny weeny print wouldn't she be in the clear?

The problem is the at the end of that definition. "and the representation of them as one's own original work." She stated they were her words. If that isn't representation of them as one's own original work, I don't know what is.

Has Lifetime edited it throughout the season to create and exacerbate Irina and copying villainy? I don't know. There have been many times when they've publicized something (the greatest love story ever, the biggest lie ever) in this meager season and didn't have the goods. Are they really smart enough to keep quiet when they did have the goods? We'd be seeing pre-publicity of the "most shocking PR finale ever".

TLo, I'm not MouseAnony-Taitz but I would have liked to have seen you mentioned in your initial posting that you'd been given from viewers/readers some hints about this copying in the summer. Nothing wrong in what you initially posted, but knowing that there had been rumours for months places it in a different context than if it had just been uncovered.

Irina is not even that great of a designer. All her ensembles, especially the gross tan atrocities, are so Joyce Leslie circa 2002.

Have any of my fellow writers done work for NYMag? I write for a similar publication in my city, and they pay for first rights only, so if someone stole an article of mine for a tee shirt, they would be stealing from me (damaging my resale/second printing options) and not really so much from the magazine. (who already used their one-publication contract) So, it isn't clear who is the victim of the copyright violation, here, the magazine or the writer.

And, yes, there is a victim. If it's a writer who works freelance, you are actually talking about a significant loss. A writer would be delighted to get a licensing deal where their article would be reprinted on a tee shirt, I'm sure....but that is not the same as having it lifted without attribution or compensation.

I already have a "50 reasons to love Irina" T-shirt. It's blank. (Bah-dum-dum!)

GothamTomato said...

There are a few Irina haters on here that need to switch to decaffeinated coffee. Seriously.

Actually, I think it's the TLo haters that need the decaf. Sheesh!

As a writer, I'm dismayed by the cavalier attitude some are showing towards people's creative output. It truly doesn't matter how YOU would feel about someone using your work in this matter, what matters is that it's a flagrant violation of someone else's intellectual property, and even if you don't care, anyone else would have every right to.

Maybe a big crowd should form and take her down to the East river and hold her head under for 10 minutes, if she survives she's a witch and should be burned at the stake. If she drowns, well then she proves she was innocent.

There are a few Irina haters on here that need to switch to decaffeinated coffee. Seriously.

--GothamTomato

You've given me such a lovely idea! *Goes to brew decaf*

I'm not an Irina-hater, but I AM an English teacher, so such a bald-faced, shameless case of plagiarism makes me feel all medieval.

magic said:
man, irina virtually carried this season...she had to play the villain, the hot chick (opposite cute, but weak logan with the unfortunate hair)AND the show needed her to inject all its controversy. girl did her part for season 6!

I wouldn't call her the hot chick, this was quite a hot-chick-intensive season.

and legal aside, i love that irina took an article from new york magazine (new yorker or nyt might've been more iconic?) and even better that it quoted new yorkers...it's the whole point of that piece. it's gorgeous.

What _is_ the genesis of the "Reasons to Love New York" feature? I've seen some suggestions that the reasons might have been compiled from reader submissions, but I haven't seen any confirmation of that. And all the articles I've clicked on have been written by regular NY magazine staffers.

StateofSiege97 said:
If she had stayed with text, there are many possibilities——

Say, with proper attribution, lines from New York's first great poet, Whitman——

His texts are all in the public domain...

I sort of put down some of my* thoughts on Irina:

I am he who knew what it was to be evil;
I too knitted the old knot of contrariety,
Blabb’d, blush’d, resented, lied, stole, grudg’d,
Had guile, anger, lust, hot wishes I dared not speak,
Was wayward, vain, greedy, shallow, sly, cowardly, malignant;
The wolf, the snake, the hog, not wanting in me,
The cheating look, the frivolous word, the adulterous wish, not wanting,
Refusals, hates, postponements, meanness, laziness, none of these wanting.

* And by "my," I mean "Walt Whitman's". And I don't actually hate Irina, I'm just enjoying the snarking opportunities.

Lifetime's solution could be similar to Bravo's solution to Shoegate in Season 1-- Irina can use the t-shirts but no one's allowed to look at them.

Anonymous wrote
>>Lifetime's solution could be similar to Bravo's solution to Shoegate in Season 1-- Irina can use the t-shirts but no one's allowed to look at them. <<

Or Bravo's solution with Top Chef. Re-cut the footage between the first showing and the second showing to obscure the evidence of an assault on one of the cheftestants. Maybe the bit with Tim and the new t-shirt will be absent from the next showing of that episode.

love that there are so many writers, artists, creatives posting here... serious procrastinators we be!

I have faith that this will come up in the finale. Why?

The editing. Clearly, enough people saw these shirts after Irina showed at fashion week to be able to do a google search and figure out where the text originated from. Once someone contacted New Yorker about it, they would have contacted the Weinstein company. THEN, they would have had a good extra six months to edit the finale exactly how they thought was most appropriate. Putting so much emphasis on the "who's copying who" stuff during the season, and then to let the "copyrighted Coney Island imagery" scene seep into the finale, they know full well that viewers are going to bring up the Copyright Issue when they find out about the New Yorker article (and come on New Yorker was going to weigh in on this, which they already have).

So...if Lifetime knew about it once they started editing the season together (which I'm sure they did), they wouldn't have included so much of Irina's "they're ripping me off" stuff, the Copyrighted Coney Island image, or Tim quoting the "Because Madonna is back" line, all of which makes it clearly suspicious what Irina is doing. She's either going to be dinged for the text in the same way Kara Saun was for the shoes (i.e. be able to show them but the judges aren't allowed to let them affect their final scores) OR the producers didn't catch it at the time and they actually revoke Irina's win after the fact, which would be even more delicious.

IMO, the two looks of Irina's that use the New Yorker text are BY FAR the two best and most distinctive looks in Irina's collection and the two that made her the clear winner in my eyes (over Carol Hannah's collection, which had some equally good pieces). I have a feeling that this is all going to lead up to a Carol Hannah win. Call me delusional.

Seems to me, if she's going to plagiarize, she could at least be somewhat original and translate the text into her native language. It would look more interesting, and perchance, nobody would have made the connection.

Better yet, why not reasons to love her country of origin?

Jeez.

It is sad and pathetic that she couldn't come up with her own reasons why she loved NY. If Lifetime knew about the article I wish it played out on the episode it would have made for a better season of blah. I must say I am now excited for the reunion show, if there is one. Thanks TLO for a great post.

I just rewatched that section of the show and Irina clearly says "MY thoughts about NY" and then she follows up her lie with "I like Madonna" as if it were her own idea.

I don't think Lifetime knew about this until this week.
I think, if they did know, they would have hyped it to a fare-thee-well. Look what they did with 'the biggest LIE ever' (and I don't even remember what the hell that was...) or the twinkle in Logan's eye and the possibility of sex under the worktables - all for naught.
And the fact that the comments page for last week's episode seems to be missing or disabled according to another poster.

Robin's Egg Bleu said...

Seems to me, if she's going to plagiarize, she could at least be somewhat original and translate the text into her native language. It would look more interesting, and perchance, nobody would have made the connection.

it would still be copyright infringement. an author/owner has rights extend to "derivatives" or new versions of their work, which include translations.

Didn't the BP runway show happen last February? Is it possible that they didn't know about the NYMag references until the TLo readers pointed it out-- 10 months later? If they knew about it in time for Bryant Park, why would they have had to disable the comments page?

Anonymous said...

TLo, I'm not MouseAnony-Taitz but I would have liked to have seen you mentioned in your initial posting that you'd been given from viewers/readers some hints about this copying in the summer. Nothing wrong in what you initially posted, but knowing that there had been rumours for months places it in a different context than if it had just been uncovered.

We're not sure what difference that would have made. Although to be fair, we inadvertently made it sound like this was something we discovered on our own and we do regret that.

We have no idea if Lifetime knew about this. While it's true that our blog is read by people involved with the show, we've never really heard any indication that the comments on the blog are read with any regularity. In fact, we doubt very much that the comments to that particular post were read at all by anyone involved with the show because the collections were posted a full 6 months before the season started airing.

This is a hysterically funny blog. I read it throughout the day and it gives me a chuckle EVERY TIME.
You two are witty and charming and should never change a thing.

Thank you, TLo.

TLo said:
Although to be fair, we inadvertently made it sound like this was something we discovered on our own and we do regret that.

When I initially read your blog, I really thought that you all had uncovered it -- maybe ;) I say in kind-hearted jest, angling for a guest spot on Law and Order - PGU (which I would pay $ to see replace Leno!).

Robin's Egg Bleu said Better yet, why not reasons to love her country of origin?

Perhaps because she came her when she was a child and hasn't much recollection of it? Perhaps because the family had darn good reasons for leaving what was then the Soviet Republic of Georgia? Perhaps because New York City has been her home for practically her entire life?

-----

Oh, this is amusing. I just went back and looked at TLo's original posting about her. They said, "We have no predictions as to what she'll be like on the show but we're kind of hoping she's a huge bitch and a pain in the ass.

You got your wish, guys!

Mike B. said...It wouldn't be particularly creative of her, but it would be legal. You can't copyright ideas, just expression

I stated in my original post, with permission and attribution and therefore legal.

StateofSiege97 said...I think you missed my point—I was responding to your likening of Irina's use of the NY Mag piece——in the event she got permission——to Warhol. They are not the same, as Warhol was using the appropriated image to offer cultural commentary, to open our vision, our understanding.11/15/09 1:40 PM

I brought up Warhol's Campbell Soup Can, along with rapper's who do sampling, to make the point to another poster that not all creative efforts are 100% organic. I guess I am not all that caught up in the fact that Warhol had a higher purpose and believe that therefore Irina had to have one or otherwise she should not use it, IF NYMag didn't care about the higher purpose and gave her permission, then my panties are not in a twist over whether or not there was cultural commentary, that vision and understanding were opened, or that she rose above the cliche.

And the analogy you make to St. Laurent and McQueen also does not hold: their works were not meant to spark discussions of actual Russian peasants, etc., but they did give us something to think about fashion itself, tradition, etc. And while I like Irina's collection, it does not really give use much of anything to think beyond itself.
Lots of designers put out collections and I don't think that just because a single viewer did not respond to it does not mean that no one did or could. I did not respond to this Dolce and Gabanna creation, but I am not about to presume that no one did or take them to task for not meeting some higher purpose.

Let me conclude this by stating for the bajillionth time that IF Irina did not get the appropriate permissions then that is unethical, illegal and most of all S.T.U.P.I.D. and that I am anticipating the finale and Irina's post show interviews.

Let me put on my tinfoil hat for a moment and point out that the look that had the most stuff from the NYMag list is being worn by the 13th model.

Frogponder said: Or Bravo's solution with Top Chef. Re-cut the footage between the first showing and the second showing to obscure the evidence of an assault on one of the cheftestants.

I'm assuming you're referring to Marcel? Did Bravo really re-cut it? (Not doubting you, just shocked that Bravo would try to play down what was clearly an assault) I guess I must've seen the first cut, then. Not to get all off-PR-topic, but in the recent Top Chef All-Stars Reunion Dinner Fabio lectured Marcel when Marcel said he didn't want to talk about it, and then they played it down like it was no big deal, right after replaying the tape of what was, IMO, clearly an assault.

"TVKimmy said...
'GothamTomato said: There are a few Irina haters on here that need to switch to decaffeinated coffee. Seriously.'

Actually, I think it's the TLo haters that need the decaf. Sheesh!"




True. They should have a klatch.

--GothamTomato

"anon said: It is sad and pathetic that she couldn't come up with her own reasons why she loved NY."





Clearly she can. She did mention the NY dream during her home visit.

'The Reasons to Love NY' is an annual issue, and her use of the lines could be as simple as it was recently out when she had to make the changes, and she was looking for something iconic to replace the iconography of Coney Island (which she didn't know was trademarked).

We still don't know whether she had permission or not. But her own reasons for loving NY would not be iconic - the titles from the iconic NYMag issue would be.

--GothamTomato

The whole concept of "intellectual property" is misguided and illegitimate and involves confusion about what property is. It would be fraud for her to claim the text as her own to any customer and it is perfectly OK for the producers to make rules about what can or can't be used in the competition (and I can't blame them for doing a little CYA because of the de facto legal liability, however theoretically illegitimate, that would result) but let's be clear: in a just legal framework, there should not be anything illegal about the act of copying and I support the rights of artists to creatively "mash up" the work of others. But along with this freedom, a just legal framework would include mechanisms - fraud laws - for dealing with lying to facilitate the transfer of another's property (e.g. either a customer's money or the prize in a competition in this case).

Starlite said... PS If you live in New York, you would know a lot of people read New York Magazine. The "Reasons to Love NY" thing is a relatively known annual feature of the magazine. I, for one, would recognize some of those immediately (and did), specifically the Robert Moses and the Madonna ones. ESPECIALLY the Madonna one. I find it interesting that that is the one Tim chose to read aloud, and that he did so with a certain...tone. I think he knew where it came from, or at least that it did not come from Irina. Perhaps at that point they did discuss it and that is why the edit was weird. Either way, get real - Irina did not seek permission from NYMag to use those quotes. Please.

Starlite, I noticed that certain - uh - tone too, although at the time I thought it was because Tim was wondering why anyone would be happy that Madonna is back. After reading this, it occurred to me that it could be because he recognized it. And the edit did seem weird.

Elaine said: I'm not an Irina-hater, but I AM an English teacher, so such a bald-faced, shameless case of plagiarism makes me feel all medieval.

And it's not even necessary to be an English teacher to be appalled by this. You just need to have some ethics.

are you guys going to ask bravo for a comment?

I hope you interview Irina.

OT :-)

>>I'm assuming you're referring to Marcel? Did Bravo really re-cut it? (Not doubting you, just shocked that Bravo would try to play down what was clearly an assault) I guess I must've seen the first cut, then. Not to get all off-PR-topic, but in the recent Top Chef All-Stars Reunion Dinner Fabio lectured Marcel when Marcel said he didn't want to talk about it, and then they played it down like it was no big deal, right after replaying the tape of what was, IMO, clearly an assault. <<

The first broadcast showed Elia, crouched on the floor, laughing, as Marcel ran by. Elia with a full head of hair. The second time it was broadcast the shot was cropped in, just Marcel as he ran from the room. The 'storyline' was that they all decided to shave their heads and *then* oh! let's shave Marcel's! Didn't happen that way with Elia, at least, her head was shaved after the assault on Marcel.

I agree with MouseAnony, we (viewers) are possibly being set up--not by TLo, by Project Runway. I think this whole plagerism issue will come out in the final episode to add some interest to this season, and the insert of Tim warning her about the copyright infringement on the Coney Island images was added to play into the story (I suspect she was warned, but perhaps not by Tim and not on camera). And, for that matter, because these episodes were taped so long ago, all those little clips of her claiming others copied her work could have been edited in (I'm sure she said those things, but perhaps of all the little snippets they gathered of her, they focused on these comments because they knew about the big copyright problem that was coming up at the end of the competition. If this is right, kudos to Project Runway for handling this little drama so well.

On the other hand, since the second-to last episode didn't have a little preview of someone (Tim?) saying dramatically--we have a big problem here (cue music), perhaps Project Runway did not know about this problem until this week. If that's the case, I wonder how they'll handle it in the final episode. Will they have to pixilate the dress to avoid a copyright infringement themselves or will they get permission from New York Magazine to show the quotes (with appropriate and prominent attribution). After all, these dresses are not for sale, so the only violation at this point would be if Lifetime goes ahead and airs the quotes without getting prior permission first.

TLo -- Thanks for doing the impossible--making this season interesting (or at least adding a little drama to the run up to the last episode).

Well, if no other good comes from this scandal, at least MouseAnony's been blessedly silenced.

>:)

She's so whack anyway...And had the nerve to talk about other people stealing ideas. Please..I SOOOOOO hope she doesn't win...I don't like any of them this year, but I like her the least.

Irina was never my favorite but after looking at the collections, I agree she has the strongest (though most depressing) collection. I expected her to win.
I'll just have to wait until Thursday to know the official outcome but whether she wins the competition or not, she loses. She could be beaten by CH or Althea, she could be disqualfied, or her win could always be questioned. Years later, we still discuss if Jeffery "cheated" on his collection.
Unless she actually did get advance permission to use the article, she will always be known as the girl who used someone else's creative work without permission. Unless viewing the original footage shows otherwise, she will always be known as the girl who took credit for someone else' work. She will viewed through her behavior on PR for a long time. She could push past this and make it to the top but as hard a business as Fashion seems to be, the dead weight of "cheater" makes it harder still.
She may win but she will have lost some very important good will with the fans and industry.

I don't understand. Who cares? Designers use everything from song lyrics to quotes to text from acclaimed novels in their work. Raf Simons, Martin Margiela, John Galliano, and Hedi Slimane have all done it and nobody sued/abused them for it. Irina asked, Irina didn't ask, it doesn't matter. Her collection was good and its unfortunate her acerbic personality got people to resent her, but let's face it, Karl Lagerfeld has said worse and more to his contemporaries and we still love him. She took words from a ubiquitous, uninspired article that for the record, I've heard, and found completely lacking of a single unique thought. Just calm down cause she's probably going to win, and deserves it more than Southern looking blonde girl and meek looking blonde girl.

Listen, I've lost faith with the producers of this show this season, but damn if this isn't the perfect opportunity to win me back.

Please, fashion gods, let it be Nina who questions Irina on her "original vision" while Duchess quietly smiles and Heidi puts on an amped up Gordana-glare face. Let's face it, Tim can be stern, but he has no real power and Irina knows it. Put this information in the hands of the judges and let Irina explain herself on stage.

If these producers cannot squeeze drama out of this, then they need to go back to creating date-rape scenarios for Mtv. This is big leagues Lifetime, seize the day.

Unless she actually did get advance permission to use the article, she will always be known as the girl who used someone else's creative work without permission. Unless viewing the original footage shows otherwise, she will always be known as the girl who took credit for someone else' work.

I'm wondering what kind of original footage could possibly exonerate her.

Irina: I sort of... put down some of my thoughts about New York... then I rolled them up in a bottle and threw it in the river and called New York Magazine to see if I could put their "Reasons to Love New York" on my T-shirts, and they said sure, they love Project Runway and they'd love to have the exposure.

PR Lawyers and Editors: Hold it! New York Magazine isn't one of our official sponsors, like hell we're giving them free publicity. We're still mad about Dollhouse from Season One! Cut everything after "some of my thoughts about New York"!

But personally, I just think Irina lied.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned how Irina's plagiarism directly hurt the other designers. If I were CH or Althea, I'd be very angry at Lifetime & BM if they gave her the win but paid off the magazine writers and publishers. I may even sue, because that payoff would put Irina's budget into the red. If Irina was given the win, Lifetime/BM will need to do something to appease CH and Althea. As Tim would say, what a conundrum!

Sewing Siren, yes, some footage is on the editing room floor, but I'm skeptical that a desperate (only 10 days to fix this!) Irina would have confessed to Tim that she got those words elsewhere. She *seemed* to be saying they were her ideas. Throughout this season, Irina seems to feel very entitled. From her has emanated an anything-to-win ambition. Such people often take matters into their own hands. I could be wrong, but would be surprised.

Washington State

one thing that i've been thinking while reading these comments, is that it doesn't matter if ny mag let irina use the phrases if she didn't pay for them. since the phrases were published, they have value, and we all learned during shoe-gate that the designers aren't allowed to receive anything of value for free. so, if they didn't charge her (which i find doubtful), or if the producers/lifetime paid them after the show (which i find a little conspiracy theory-ish), irina should still be penalized.

"Wow, I missed all the fun. I'm going to create a T-shirt that says "Reasons to Love Irina""

And it will be blank, I guess? LOL.

Elaine said: I'm not an Irina-hater, but I AM an English teacher, so such a bald-faced, shameless case of plagiarism makes me feel all medieval.

I agree with this. I don't understand about the witch hyperbole at all--it doesn't seem like most anyone is talking about anything but the act itself. Which is shady, especially when she misrepresents it. I actually find Irina sort of delightful and she's clearly very talented. People screw up, most of them not on national television, people do shady things. But as someone who earns her keep on words, I do want to stand up for the idea of ownership here.

Have any of you said "I love NY"?

Now pics of birds are copyrighted?

Letterman does Top Ten lists - so noone else can?

Apparently EVERYONE is copying from LeAnn (sp).

plenty of people are using those (and many other) quotes in their posts - for everyone who did so without proper permission and attribution - do you are deserve the same criticism?

When we KNOW whether she violated a law or rule - then the criticism might be fair - at this point it is supposition.

Althea went on and on and on about others copying her while copying (see headband, tie belts, sweaters)
- and by the way didn't Logan use (exposed) zippers in his FIRST look (and ALP in his earlier season). Althea also copied Malvin hideous pants - Logan(?) even called her out. Contestants in a competition are going to react more to their competitors than to others.

just some thoughts...

With all this talk of plagiarism, I feel there needs to be some clarification (not that I'm the person to do it, but what the hell?)

First, all intangible ideas aren't copyrighted. There have been lawsuits (some successful) filed by designers to defeat knock-offs, but generally speaking in the world of fashion no one can claim an idea. Hence words like "inspired by" or "derivative" not "plagiarize." Zara is basically founded on knocking off designers' collections, at a pretty substantial profit to boot. In these respects, no intellectual property is stolen.

Moving on to printed word--in magazines, nonetheless--that are pretty much deadlocked in where they stand, legally. Sure, some journalists borrow styles and cover the same stories, but when it's printed, it's property.

What Irina did constitutes plagiarism. It's in a weird grey area given the circumstances, but basically speaking a lawsuit is unlikely to happen, especially since she didn't print these words in an article, she used them on clothing. The big problem is the rules of the producers, which will probably be amended again after this debacle.

AND keep in mind some things you commonly see are in public domain. I'd do a quicky search, but something tells me Milton Glaser isn't clutching to the rights of his "I Heart NY" logo. I'm sure it belongs to someone, but generally speaking a lot of things are up for grabs now. Magazine articles from last year are not.

Anyway, this debate is inconsequential, since neither party involved seems to give a damn.

And keep in mind I'm drunk.

Tim said, Irina asked, Irina didn't ask, it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters! It's the difference between a copyright violation or not a copyright violation.

Raf Simons, Martin Margiela, John Galliano, and Hedi Slimane have all done it and nobody sued/abused them for it

Probably because, unless the text or images were in the public domain, they asked (and likely paid) for the rights.


All that being said, I'm withholding judgment on what Irina did or didn't do, because I've seen far too much extremely misleading editing on this show every damn season.

The controversy over Irina's shirt is the only interesting thing about it, cause I swear I've seen that design so many times over the years, including on a t-shirt nightie I had back in the '70s. Of course, that's not illegal, just unoriginal.

I'm no Irina fan, but I think she (allegedly) did this out of ignorance. As writer and producer for a large health information website, I'm amazed at how many people have no clue about plagiarism and copyright infringement...and this includes people with impressive degrees. My theory is that many of them are so wrapped up in their own professions that they don't pay attention to things they view as irrelevant. Until it bites them in the ass...

Electronic copyright violation has spread as fast as cockroaches and seems to be just as difficult to kill. If anything good comes out of this (aside from Irina losing the finale), it's that a lot of people have gotten a crash course in copyright/trademark law.

Hey, it could be the topic for the pilot episode of "TLo L&O: PGU." The boys could make even that plotline interesting.

The most interesting thing to come out of this season is Law and Order: PGU.

I am so ready for a pair of dapper, funny, acerbic, well-spoken queeny detectives!

Let's make this happen!

And can we have the whole cast be gay, with one token hetero for comedic interest?

Tim! I LOVE U I LOVE U I LOVE U! That's EXACTLY how I feel! WHO CARES. Many people have used print in design. So the fact that she used the print DOESN'T make her a bad designer. The fact that she may have not known or decided not to get permission first is unfortuante - but that speaks to a decision that she made as an individual. WE ALL MAKE BAD DECISIONS! But in the end, we are not our decisions - and Irina's collection, not even that shirt can be defined by what happened behind the scenes. Her getting permission has nothing to do with the shirt that she made, it's a fact about the shirt is all. Had she gotten permission or written the article herself - it would not change the actualy style of the shirt or the shirt itself. It's a visual piece of art. It is just there. Her collection is beautiful - and to squabble over such nonsense is childish. People just don't like Irina - so since she's human and made a mistake, everyone is going to jump down her throat and massacare her for the one thing she tripped up on that is tangable. Because if she is a "bitch" or not is way to nebulous. This is a witch hunt. If say Gordana did the same thing, everyone would be dissappointed, but making excuses for her.

"Anne
11/15/09 2:53 PM As a writer, I'm dismayed by the cavalier attitude some are showing towards people's creative output. It truly doesn't matter how YOU would feel about someone using your work in this matter, what matters is that it's a flagrant violation of someone else's intellectual property, and even if you don't care, anyone else would have every right to."

Actually - it does matter what we all think about it because in the end what we all think doesn't really matter at all. "intellectual property" is a social construction of our own thinking. Wether Irina had the "right" to do what she did or not is quite debatable - as is what intellectual property/art etc is. She used print to make a design on a shirt - if you can't see the gray area there it's because you have personalized your own opinions about this topic since it's close to home or you don't like Irina or.... The fact that you care isn't any more valid then the fact that I don't care.

I live in California and it's illegal to pick up my cell phone when I'm driving. Am I doing something "wrong" when I pick up the phone while driving? We have to look beyond the "rules". They are there for a ceritan reason, but this case is not the reason the rules were created so to apply them so literally doesn't make that much sense to me. This isn't BLACK AND WHITE is all I'm trying to say.

Anonymous
11/16/09 12:20 AM

Tim! I LOVE U I LOVE U I LOVE U! That's EXACTLY how I feel! WHO CARES. Many people have used print in design. So the fact that she used the print DOESN'T make her a bad designer. The fact that she may have not known or decided not to get permission first is unfortuante - but that speaks to a decision that she made as an individual. WE ALL MAKE BAD DECISIONS! But in the end, we are not our decisions - and Irina's collection, not even that shirt can be defined by what happened behind the scenes. Her getting permission has nothing to do with the shirt that she made, it's a fact about the shirt is all. Had she gotten permission or written the article herself - it would not change the actualy style of the shirt or the shirt itself. It's a visual piece of art. It is just there. Her collection is beautiful - and to squabble over such nonsense is childish. People just don't like Irina - so since she's human and made a mistake, everyone is going to jump down her throat and massacare her for the one thing she tripped up on that is tangable. Because if she is a "bitch" or not is way to nebulous. This is a witch hunt. If say Gordana did the same thing, everyone would be dissappointed, but making excuses for her.

So a student plagiarizes an essay. When I confront said student, I get the "I was under so much pressure... I made a bad decision... I am sorry... "

Am I supposed to say, in a comforting way, "WE ALL MAKE BAD DECISIONS! But in the end, we are not our decisions -"; then pat the student on the head, grade the essay as if someone else had not written it, thus implicitly condoning the action?

Well, on some level I might say something akin to the quote above, as a way of telling said student that he or she can recover from this lapse over the course of coming semesters——but only after explaining in no uncertain terms the principles of intellectual integrity involved, the gravity of the student's actions.

And then I would fail the essay and, for the course, the student.

Perhaps we all make bad decisions, but we are nonetheless responsible for them: they have consequences.

And for the record, I do not hate Irina. While have been underwhelmed by her villainy and her design aesthetic over the course of the regular season, I do deem her final collection the strongest.

But the virtues of her accomplishment there do not excuse her plagiarism. She made a very bad decision, and there should be consequences.

re:11/15/09 5:22 AM

yeah, cause we're really talking about murder.

I'm really referring more to the conversation than the situation. Actually, I agree that it's a little gray, here, and really I am guessing Irina was clueless--but couldn't help acting as if the words were hers. It's just people's failure to understand that there's any possible problem here bothers me. Just as an artist has a right to say whether or not his song is used in a movie soundtrack (and where in the film it is) a writer has a right to control where her words are published and be compensated for them. And just because someone in a band might be THRILLED at the idea that their song might be used in a torture scene in Saw 9 doesn't call into question the broader principle.

And before anyone jumps on me, I am not likening Irina's collection to torture, just the entire first half of the finale episode.

Again, I've really enjoyed Irina. I think she was clueless, but somehow sensed something might be a little off and tried to cover for it.

I do, though, dislike having my motives questioned. I'm just trying to have a conversation here.

housewife - good point about the difference between the newspaper challenge and this here we're all scrappin about. so, if Irina taped the newspaper article on the shirt it's okay - but it's not okay if she copies and pastes in on the shirt. that makes me feel even more like it's not a bid deal. and the size issue because of it being on TV doesn't matter to me because of the ability to do close ups.

To Vian——

Thanks for the Whitman.

There can never be too much "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry."

to Anne -

I wasn't questioning your motives as a personal attack which is why I added the "or..." so that you can fill in your own blank. I was just trying to make the point that those motives for jumping on Irina's case do exist - and are a possibility. I also did say "IF you can't see the grey area" meaning - I fully see the possibility of you seeing the grey area. I am a very open to infinate possibilities type of person.

I don't hate Irina, really I don't. But I'm in college to become a teacher, formerly worked in law, and am siding with those who say this was plagiarism and unethical. When others have acted unethically, there have been consequences. There should be this time. (No, not drowning in the East River!)

Seriously, though, I love PR (or at least I DID). The show is successful when there are consistent rules and standards for judging. To paraphrase Tim Gunn as he sent Keith home, "Project Runway is nothing without its integrity." Cheri

Aren't all the quotes from the "article" just a collection of anonymous submissions from readers? So Irina was lazy for not coming up with her own list, but so was New York Magazine. Perhaps she herself submitted all the quotes she used on the tshirts. ;)

Too bad Tim didn't question Irina about the Robert Moses line-- I rather doubt Irina even knows who Robert Moses was ("I love Robert Moses, Tim!")

I wonder if the fair market value of what NYMag would charge / did charge Irina for using their writings for a prototype is that much?

Also is the winner's line going to be reproduced? I don't recall it being mentioned, unless it's when I am in the kitchen fixing a snack or somesuch.

Anonymous said:

This is a witch hunt. If say Gordana did the same thing, everyone would be dissappointed, but making excuses for her.

11/16/09 12:20 AM

No, if Gordana had done this, or any other designer on this or any other season of PR, I'd be damn disappointed and I'd lose respect for that person.

TLo put this topic up for discussion, which is what is going on. Some people are more virulent about Irina than others.

Personally I think Irina didn't think this through, perhaps due to time pressure, since this issue came up late in the run-up to the BP shows.

Lilithcat said...

All that being said, I'm withholding judgment on what Irina did or didn't do, because I've seen far too much extremely misleading editing on this show every damn season.



That is exactly it! Believing the edit on Project Runway is like believing Fox News.
If Lifetime has edited it to make it appear that she was taking credit for those quotes it is far far worse (in my opinion) than if she had actually plagrized them.

It shouldn't be surprising that Irina breezily appropriated text to use as her print-- is there any industry as matter-of-fact about copying as the fashion industry?

Seventh Avenue is a topsy-turvy world where blatant ripoffs are affectionately known as 'inspiration'.

"I live in California and it's illegal to pick up my cell phone when I'm driving. Am I doing something "wrong" when I pick up the phone while driving?"

Yes, because you're endangering lives when you do so. Studies have shown that people who talk on the phone while driving have reaction times similar to driving intoxicated.

Sewing Siren - if you want to impugn proven disreputable "news" sources - please use the proven liars such as Dan Rather and CBS.

Michelle
11/16/09 3:27 AM Aren't all the quotes from the "article" just a collection of anonymous submissions from readers? So Irina was lazy for not coming up with her own list, but so was New York Magazine. Perhaps she herself submitted all the quotes she used on the tshirts. ;)

Michelle this is THE post of this entire subject.

I really hope that someone figures this out before the winner is announced. This, alone, should keep her from winning, regardless of the caliber of her designs.

Sadly, this is one of the most interesting things to come up the whole season.

"Anonymous said:

This is a witch hunt. If say Gordana did the same thing, everyone would be dissappointed, but making excuses for her." FOR DAMN SURE!

How long before we-all-know-who comes along and *waves* "Hi, Irina!" at you

I'm pretty sure the Mayan calendar says something about Irina being responsible for the end of the world in 2012 too.

Too bad she didn't write something using Georgian script -- it's beautiful. Alta

GothamTomato
11/14/09 7:22 PM "Tlo said: One thing's for sure. It's not something you'll be doing again. Not on this site. Because future comments by you will be deleted as soon as you attempt to post them. Go start a blog so you can post your paranoid ravings to your heart's content."




BRAVO!

--GothamTomato



WOO HOO!

Hmm...projectrungay is in touch with Lifetime on a regular basis. Hmm...you posted a "spoiler" pic.
Hmm...could it be that YOU are the ones flaming the controversy so as to possibly improve the ratings for a season that, no matter who plagiarizes what, is still the worst do to date? Hmm...

I still don't see what all of the fuss is all about.

No big deal. She was told to change it, she most likely did. End of story.

Anonymous said...

Hmm...projectrungay is in touch with Lifetime on a regular basis. Hmm...you posted a "spoiler" pic.
Hmm...could it be that YOU are the ones flaming the controversy so as to possibly improve the ratings for a season that, no matter who plagiarizes what, is still the worst do to date? Hmm...

Hmmm...no. Hmmm.

If TLO wanted to improve PR's ratings, why have they ceaselessly acknowledged what a lame season this has been, in their last forty or fifty posts?

How remarkably perceptive of you, Anonymous-- they're clearly Lifetime shills!

Because future comments by you will be deleted as soon as you attempt to post them

With all due respect, obviously it is your blog and it sucks to be accused of doing SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T DO (or saying something you didn't say)..

I hadn't seen that entry ... but I did see some innocuous posts/entries appear to have been removed.. so all that we can ask is that other people not be treated in such a manner.

Someone posted that they thought that the article NY magazine was a list of ANONYMOUSLY SUBMITTED ENTRIES. And in a simple web search it appears that that is the case.

"Reasons to Love New York · Because Everyone Has a Reason. Why do you love New York? That's the simple question we posed on nymag.com earlier this month, ...
nymag.com/news/articles/reasonstoloveny/2007/"

http://nymag.com/news/articles/reasonstoloveny/2007/

The precise content of that article is copyrighted, but the idea that there are reasons to love New York is in the public domain and cannot be copyrighted. Her work may not be a copyright infringement unless it copies exactly from the article. -victoria

Lisa said: "It shouldn't be surprising that Irina breezily appropriated text to use as her print-- is there any industry as matter-of-fact about copying as the fashion industry? ... Seventh Avenue is a topsy-turvy world where blatant ripoffs are affectionately known as 'inspiration'."

Agreed, but the way to be "inspired" would've been to scrabble around for an idea, recall the annual NY Mag feature (you know people in NY who're interested in happenings in the city read the mag) & then come up with her own take on the list.

For example: Irinia's reasons to love New York: My 300 square-foot apartment costs $2000 a month, but it was worth it to get out from under the glare of my "old world" father.

Or, write some text: Reasons to Hate New York where she lists all the neighborhoods destroyed by Robert Moses.

Or, cut up the NY Mag text: Madonna designed the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

Or: Why New York was better when I was a kid. Or: why it's better now.

Or: The immigrants view of the city.

We'll probably find that the edit was a bit tricky.

I can't help thinking of Kenley's direct ripoffs of Balenciaga & the recent Alexander McQueen wedding dress ("I don't look at fashion magazines" or whatever she said to Nina).

Never mind: Don't bore Nina.

The most important rule is: Don't insult Nina.

Victoria "The precise content of that article is copyrighted"

If that is true it doesn't seem right that THEY get to copyright OTHER people's submissions. And then Irina is getting attacked for using words that were not even theirs.

jmo

Anon 11:37 - mea culpa, I now see the post. Not sure what happpene earlier

This controversy has done the impossible: It's made me interested in seeing the upcoming episode, something that Lifetime hasn't managed to do this cycle.

"If that is true it doesn't seem right that THEY get to copyright OTHER people's submissions. And then Irina is getting attacked for using words that were not even theirs."

Do you honestly think no work went into making that article? How many hours were spent reading submitted comments and winnowing out the chaff from the wheat? I am sure the article went through many iterations of rearranging the quotes as well to have them in a good order, with rhythmn. And of course they edited each and every submission (most likely each person who sent something in sent a lot of reasons to love New York, maybe one of which the magazine would want to use).

that article is so well-known because it was so well-done, and that was not effortless. Just because something looks easy doesn't mean it didn't take work.

And on another point: clearly the submitters gave their consent to the magazine using their words. They voluntarily wrote in, hoping to be picked. magazines didn't contact irina, hoping to be picked by her for some creditless plagiarism...

So far, and as far as I can tell, this scandal hasn't made it past TLO, New York Magazine, my little blog and awkwardaim.blogspot.com

This may bode ill for our planned L&O TLO.

As a trademark and copyright lawyer, I have been finding all this discussion really fascinating, especially to see how the general public understands intellectual property issues. From an ethical standpoint, I think Irina is entirely full of it, having bitched and moaned about others ripping her off for the most generic ideas (sweaters!), and isn't showing that she's a creative being while competing in a creative contest. From the legal perspective, I feel like we're lacking so many facts as to make speculation about her possible liability for either appropriation impossible. I'd look forward to a whole post-mortem on what exactly went down here, not that I think we'll ever really get one.

Anonymous 12:00 said f that is true it doesn't seem right that THEY get to copyright OTHER people's submissions.

I think you will find that most newspapers and magazines, when soliciting such contributions for an article, will state something to the effect that "contributions become the property of [name of journal]".

Someone posted that they thought that the article NY magazine was a list of ANONYMOUSLY SUBMITTED ENTRIES. And in a simple web search it appears that that is the case.

"Reasons to Love New York · Because Everyone Has a Reason. Why do you love New York? That's the simple question we posed on nymag.com earlier this month, ...
nymag.com/news/articles/reasonstoloveny/2007/"

Thanks, I was one of the commenters who asked about that, and looking at the feature as a whole, it appears to me that that is _not_ the case. "Because everyone has a reason" and "68 more reader reasons" are linked to lists of reader-submitted reasons, each one bearing the name of the submitter. Meanwhile, the reasons that appear on the main page go to articles written by NYMag writers and are not attributed to readers.

The 2008 edition has the same format--reasons with staff-written articles (source of the quotes on Irina's black T-shirt) making up the bulk of the feature, and reader-submitted reasons with attributions in a sidebar/subfeature.

Even if they were anonymous entries, though, I'd call bullshit if Irina claimed to be the original writer for all the ones she put on her shirts.

>>I think you will find that most newspapers and magazines, when soliciting such contributions for an article, will state something to the effect that "contributions become the property of [name of journal]". <<

Yup. Forever and ever and ever, to use, or not use, at their discretion. Unless otherwise negotiated or stated.

i think everyone's pretty much weighed in. I just loved this comment:

"Hello, Irina? This the pot. Just calling to tell you that, like your uninspired & totally depressing collection, you are black."

Perfection.

Hmmmmmm-an interesting twist to an otherwise dull season.

And here you are Irina still accusing Althea of Cheating? You were the one who practically 'copied' Jillian Lewis' PR collection! You were the one who was called out for copy wright infringement, and here you are on your final collection .... CHEATING again!

And You DARE to CRITICIZE ALTHEA?

You need to learn to THINK before something comes OUT OF YOUR MOUTH!

If you don't learn from your mistakes, NO ONE WILL RESPECT YOU ... let alone want to work 'with or for' you!

Reason to love New York:

I don't live there.

If anyone has connections with SNL, they should suggest Law & Order: Prissy Gay Unit. I think it could be a really funny running skit.

HAHAHAH - "that article is so well-known because it was so well-done,"
Because Madonna is back.

hahahaha


and ditto Anon @ 2:35pm

Reason to love New York:

I don't live there.

=========

I looked at some other reasons - oye was that supposed to be Loathe not love?

The most excitement in PR Season 6and its blogs, and not just because of the potential plagiarism. Law & Order: Prissy Gay Unit! ROFLMAO.

Some episode suggestions:

Law & Order: PGU and the Collection of Potentially Plagiaristic Quotes (the Pilot Episode)

Law & Order: PGU and the Fashion Mistake (In or Out?)

Law & Order: PGU and "Someone's in the kitchen with Carol Hannah, Someone's in the kitchen, I know..."

Totally off-topic but January Jones on SNL - ooh, stinky bad.

Reminds me of that goofy gal a couple of seasons back who wanted to use her friend's shoes. These chicks are all kinds of stupid.

^Ayn Rand isn't exactly a genius, either.

Whether Ayn Rand was a 'genius' is debatable, but she sure made persuasive arguments against Communism, TheNYCourier.

Tonight I've spotted two commercials from Lifetime about the Project Runway finale *on* Bravo!
I hope they paid a lot for the time!

If by "persuasive" you mean fictional mouthpieces for a fictional philosophy, then yes. Yes she did.

This link below is for New York Magazine.com's terms of use. I'm pretty sure the same rules would apply to the printed version. Number three deals with the issues that have been discussed in this thread. In my opinion, if Irina did not get permission, she has violated these terms. If she is in violation, I'll be waiting to see if Project Runway has any integrity left.

http://nymag.com/newyork/terms/

It's kinda ironic that Irina talks about the reasons to love NY ... on a season filmed on LA.

I'm a collage artist. As such, I have learned that copyright law is incredibly strict and complicated. The safest rule, it's agreed, is: don't use anyone else's image for anything.

Selling or commercial use doesn't make a difference. That's right: even the collage you make in school by cutting out pretty pictures and cute slogans is illegal.

Now of course few will ever be prosecuted for this -- Disney is an exception, as they will fiercely go after anyone caught using their images, except children making the above collages perhaps -- but unless you KNOW that material is out of copyright, or you have permission, or unless it's your original work, don't use it, either for personal work or for sale or commercial display.

Fonts are no exception, by the way -- that's why there are "free fonts" as enticements on so many websites. People make fortunes out of designing certain famous fonts and can defend their sole right to use them.

(continued)

The terms of use of New York Magazine are worth quoting:

Except as expressly authorized by NYMag.com, visitors may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit, distribute, sell, license, rent, publicly display or perform, edit, adapt or create a derivative work of, in any manner, any material, User Content, or design elements obtained from this site, including code and software ("Material"). Notwithstanding the above, visitors may print or download the Material from this site only for personal or non-commercial use, provided that the visitor does not republish the Material and keeps intact all copyright, trademarks, servicemarks, attributions, patent and other proprietary notices.

Use of the Material for any purpose not expressly permitted in this Agreement is prohibited. As noted above, reproduction, copying, or redistribution for commercial purposes of the Material on this site is strictly prohibited without the express written permission of NYMag.com. Visitors are also prohibited from framing NYMag.com's website without the express written permission of NYMag.com.

That's right -- you can't even FRAME "Material" without consent. The definition of "publish" is very broad: it basically means to show or distribute, even noncommercially. (Or use in collage.)

"Fair use" is rarely a protection. That only applies to parody, satire, or social commentary -- e.g the novel, "The Wind Done Gone" which was eventually held to be a satire of "Gone With the Wind" written from the point of view of Scarlett's imaginary half-sister, and thus could be published, after several lower court decisions going the other way.

Some collage work, like Andy Warhol's, may have been found legit under these terms. Other famous collage artists have been sued, successfully, by copyrightholders (Robert Rauschenberg was one, I believe).

This is why so many collages use clip art and/or vintage images. Others are simply violating the law but the owners of the copyright never get to know about it or don't care.

Copyright law applies even to things like designs on scrapbook paper or rubber stamps, which are obviously meant to be creatively adapted and published, which is why such companies explicitly allow for personal scrapbook use or have "angel policies" allowing adaptation, usually not for resale.

(continued again)

But again, as a collage artist, I've learned that I'm only 100 per cent safe when I use either (a) my own original images, stamps, designs, photographs, words, etc.; or (b) such items which have gone out of copyright.

I don't know if Irina obtained consent, but the last episode certainly made it seem she didn't. Even if she did, though, there is the question of plagiarism -- an entirely different offense. You can have obtained copyright permission (let's say from a term paper writing company) to republish their work and still be guilty of plagiarism if you are expected to turn in only your own original work.

I imagine that is in the contract for Project Runway, so even if Irina did get permission from New York Magazine, she could still be violating the terms of her deal with PR, unless she also got permission from Bunim-Murray and Lifetime and whomever to use someone else's original copyrighted work.

Designers already do this in a sense when they use a fabric design, which will likely be copyrighted or trademarked or otherwise protected. Obviously the terms of use here must allow sewers and designers to use the fabric and adapt it for resale, even thought they didn't design it, and so must PR.

Irina may have used the New York Magazine slogans with this understanding. But it isn't the same, and when she had the chance to make it clear to Tim that those weren't HER reasons for loving New York -- that she didn't "jot down some thoughts" -- she blew it. Or so it appears.

The only slack I'll cut her is that as a designer she may have forgotten what she learned about copyright and plagiarism in school. She may have been taught something else in design school. I'm sure they cover copyright issues, because some students will want to design fabric. But she may have forgotten that using the same basic image -- a hydrangea's form can't be copyrighted, only a specific drawing of a particular hydrangea and its layout in the composition of a length of fabric -- is different than using someone else's words and simply making them look different.

See? It is incredibly complicated! And very dangerous, and bottom line is that as an artist who does something very similar to what Irina does, she is standing in a very bad light as far as I can tell.

Apologies for the length of the post -- I just wanted to illustrate how extremely complicated these issues can be, and how difficult it is to know what was in Irina's mind.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but this might turn out to be just like the whole Jeffrey-Laura "scandal" of season three: a lot of windup and no result. I think Irina has been anointed the winner for a long time, so they will resolve this issue lest they face the Teutonic wrath of Heidi.

oh who gives a rat's ass....her collection is the best of the three.

oh whatever Larry - I talk on my phone and drive all the time and never have had an accident. just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's "wrong" is the point.

Anonymous said...

oh whatever Larry - I talk on my phone and drive all the time and never have had an accident. just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's "wrong" is the point.

Hey, don't get snippy. You asked and I gave an answer based on facts and evidence. Just because you haven't had an accident doesn't mean you aren't taking a huge risk whenever you do it. Where I come from, putting other people's lives at risk for your own personal convenience is about as wrong as wrong gets.

I was assuming that when Tim was calling her, it was about her use of fur. I thought I remembered that one of the reasons that Chris March used human hair extensions was the fur was not allowed per the contract?

Anonymous 2:35 PM said...

Reason to love New York:

I don't live there.

That's why I love New York, too: because you don't live here.

*No, I kid. I don't even know who you are. Just couldn't resist the opportunity to use that joke. :)

Lilithcat
11/16/09 12:51 PM Anonymous 12:00 said f that is true it doesn't seem right that THEY get to copyright OTHER people's submissions.

I think you will find that most newspapers and magazines, when soliciting such contributions for an article, will state something to the effect that "contributions become the property of [name of journal]".


So because people want to be "heard" the newspaper/mags just have to say - if you want to be heard, we now get to benefit finanacially for YOUR thoughts and words. (I hate hypocrisy.)

I agee with Tim and a bunch of other posters.
Have any of you looked at the posting about granny panties. There is OBVIOUSLY constant copying. ABS (?) and other companies make total knock-offs the minute something shows up on the runway.

People swipe and re-use software - how many of people "borrow" software.

She is not using them for re-sale and honestly if it weren't for the super close ups that don't happen on the show, almost noone would even know what any of it said.

Margaret - fantastic, thorough, logical analysis of the issues.

ASK - are you being sarcastic about the use of software? Software companies are incredibly protective of their rights, are known to sue, and if you copy or use someone's copy, you run at risk of legal action.

No I was not being sarcastic. I can't tell you how many people who would never consider walking into a store and stealing a dress have no qualms about "copying" software.

And music downloads, etc - you cannot possibly be saying that this would be news to you?

The difference between the Jeffrey-Laura scandal and this incident with Irina is that Laura couldn't prove that Jeffrey didn't sew his own clothes. The use of the work from NY Mag is easily proven and Irina is on camera saying that she put down her OWN thoughts.

Usman said: for text she just as to write the person's name from whom she is quoting. Also, she is not "selling" these shirts so she doesnt have to worry about breaching copyright.

Images work differently.

Speaking as a writer... NO. She might not be selling them, but there is certainly a chance (a pretty good one, I think ) that she will profit from them. And it's not her work. That is stealing, and if she'd stolen MY words you can bet your ass I'd sue.

The "Something/Something" after "Because even in these times" is "fashion lives."

I don't like her, I don't like her, I don't like her...I guess that's why it doesn´t surprise me...

""Highly amusing coming from someone who accused a lot of people of NOT coming up with their own ideas."

I think this is what you call accusing your enemies of your own worst sins."

Great! (oh, she maybe used quotation marks and we didn't noticed it? :-)

Btw, Margaret, I loved your comment. You are completely right, and actually, what I was thinking was that copyright is the real subject to discuss seriously..

Most everything we buy in retail is copy. Lots of things from IKEA are copies. Illustrations are copies (and I'm being critical with me here...blogs are a bit of a disaster using images too...)

Wow, I think this is completely ridiculous and irresponsible on her part. I mean, first of all, it is NOT that hard to come up with a design (of your own, or go take your own photos of Coney Island!!) and silk screen it or stencil it on a shirt. Secondly, if you are all about design and inspiration and giving other people a hard time for "copying" your pieces, you should probably have more scruples as a designer. Meana Irina. Even if she actually GOT permission, which somehow I doubt, it should have been mentioned during the episode when Tim read off one of the lines.

This season definitely wasn't as interesting or worthwhile as the last few seasons, but I do think that Carol Hannah and Althea have some good pieces and there have been some decent designs overall on the show. So to those designers - I say well done... hopefully Irina (and her terrible attitude) gets what she deserves eventually

I'm a very :( sad anonymous poster (also pms'ing which is probably part of it).
In my sad opinion, either B-M did a horrific job of editing and cut out the piece where they got her permission or they just swept it under the rug and dealt with it after the runway show. While this has been the most interesting thing to happen in this season, if it's just avoided (maybe only shown in credits), it will be the saddest, most faith-losing moment in PR history.

I read the Tim interview from the LA Times which TLo blogged about....nowhere in his comments about Irina does it say anything that would indicate there was an upcoming revelation about the plagarism and he still seems to respect her (he mentions antipathy toward Kenley in comparison).

It does cost a lot of money to get the rights to copyrighted material, especially if she lifted a significant amount. Note that significant does not equal volume. In one case, a reviewer copied only a tiny bit of a book for his review. The catch, that tiny bit was the jaw dropping information that was the only reason people were going to buy the book. He was a reviewer and he still got slammed for copyright infringement.

It also doesn't matter whether the original writer would be flattered. He probably sold the rights to the mag or a publisher and they're not going to take it sitting down. They aren't interested in flattery. They're interested in cash. No publicity is bad publicity to be sure, but they can milk it for even more publicity if they sue PR on top of it. And just so you know, it's not Irina they'll be suing, she hasn't got the cash to cover the settlement; it'll be the show. That's why I would find it suspicious that they haven't already settled. Except that if they had settle, I would think that a part of that settlement would include naming the true authors through some sort of editing process, but the result was the opposite, they edited it to appear that Irina took credit for the ideas. So, I don't know.

But if they did settle, that's where I think the cheating gets even worse. There's no way her budget covered the rights to that list. There's no way her budget covered a settlement. So, if they did settle or buy rights, then, they basically subsidized her collection. She gets away with using far more than her budget covered. That's not fair.

It's different from the newspaper dresses because, if you recall, they went to the actual LA Times to get their material. It's not exactly theft if they open the door and say, "Take what you want!"

Last thing, the birds. Even if they were copied, copying is permissible if there are a limited number of ways to depict something. (For example, if she had come up with her own reasons to love NY and they just happened to be the same as a magazine she never read - no problem.) There are only so many ways you can do a bird silhouette, so as long as she isn't taking the entire context of the image, probably not an issue.

And people it's copyRIGHT, not copyWRITE. It's about the legal RIGHT to COPY something and doesn't just apply to things written.

Copyright law specifically allows for awards in suits where the copier had not made any money off of the protected material. The statute even specifies the amount that is to be awarded in such a case. So, even if you don't make money off of something, it's still not fair use. Fair use is a far more specific and limited concept than what common sense might suggest. And given that the TV show makes money, Irina establishes a reputation that will bring in money, and that there is a cash prize, there are all sorts of places that can be assessed for damages.

Oh, and clothing - not protected as intellectual property. You can't copyright something that is practical and necessary to daily life (the fact that many fashion designs aren't practical apparently isn't relevant). So, Irina, and any designer, can copy clothing design to their hearts' content and they haven't broken the law. Even if Irina gets permission after the fact, I think breaking the law outranks plain old copying.

Gotham Tomato said: But either way, the conspiracy theorists should probably take up knitting or something.

You do that, annoying Mouse person and chill out. You'll live longer. As for me, I'm sliding up to TLo's next Lounge for a drink.

Ridiculous.

Well, how this will be handled will remain a mystery for a whopping 48-hours more. Can we dare stand it?? If the producers were aware Irina plagerized and infringed copyright and still let her win, I will really call this season a complete sham of PR. It's teetering close as it is all on its own.

Though Irina has the best collection, Dr. Whitfield for the win, Vanessa Williams-style.

Unbelievable! I had no idea! Wow!

How can they not mention anything? They HAVE to.

Waiting with anticipation when Nina asks Irina where she got her inspiration from.

Did you guys see that NY Mag mention the post?

"Carol in LA said...

I just rewatched that section of the show and Irina clearly says "MY thoughts about NY" and then she follows up her lie with "I like Madonna" as if it were her own idea."


YUP!