As a neophyte in IP, I am repeatedly struck by the absurd level to which protection has been taken. Matt Yglesias has a short but striking example involving Senator Schumer's proposed copyright for fashion design and refers us to this website link here. Its authors point out, "To understand exactly how the Schumer bill would affect fashion innovation, it helps to review one basic point about copyright law: it does not simply prohibit "exact" copies. Rather, copyright law makes unlawful any use of a copyrighted work that results in a new work that is 'substantially similar' to the old."

Yglesias then goes on to compare the vitality of the cookbook industry based on the fact that recipes cannot be copyrighted, even while the cookbook can be link here. Without that, he suggests, "the bulk of the market would already be locked-down by older cookbooks, and to publish anything new you'd have to be prepared to lawyer up and fight off a thousand lawsuits alleging that your recipes are too derivative."

Recipes are 'ye olde comptoir programmes' of yore, that someone realised in the nick of time shouldn't be 'protected' (monopolised).

As to copyright, and by all means double check this, but it's nothing whatsoever to do with similarity (you may be thinking of patent).

Similarity merely helps support an allegation that copyright may have been infringed, but it doesn't necessarily constitute infringement. Sometimes similarity may exist that is incredibly unlikely to arise through independent origination, and this can constitute circumstantial evidence of copying.

Conversely, one thing can be quite dissimilar from another and yet be a copyright infringement. There have been recent judgements that it matters not whether copying can be recognised, but whether even one iota of original expression has been copied into another expression.

So, you can have two dissimilar objects, and yet if one involved copying of 'original' expression in the other then infringement has occurred (unless authorised).

Perhaps the fashion industry would prefer design patents, trademark or something like that?

The problem is, copyright doesn't protect ideas from being copied, but the expression of those ideas from being copied (whatever the heck that distinction means in the context of fashion). Patent provides a monopoly over the ideas. Trademark enables an image to be used as a name - which may extend to a fashion label, but not the designs (unless perhaps they always incorporate some distinctly recognisable design affectation).

It seems to anyone with a functioning brain cell that the fashion industry is fundamentally based upon copying the expression of ideas, that the new is informed by the old. Moreover, the ideas of fashion are pretty much congruent with their expression. Unlike language where one set of words may express an idea directly copied from the idea expressed in another set of words (without copyright infringement), it is difficult to see how one fashion design can copy the ideas in another without expression necessarily being copied (by eye).

Perhaps copying would be strictly defined as the disassembly of one garment to be used as the template for another garment or a derivative template? Perhaps copying by eye wouldn't be regarded as infringement?

In any case, the moment some lunatic enacts a prohibition against copying in the fashion industry, we'll probably see it grind to a halt, when fashion designers realise there's more money to be made in litigation than design.

Which, will probably be good, as then perhaps people will realise that culture is built upon copying, and whilst commercial privileges against copying may well be highly attractive to those in receipt of such privileges, they are neither ethical nor beneficial to the public. Because, if culture didn't really thrive upon copying, monopolies wouldn't be very attractive.

Something tells me that protection against copying is not what the fashion industry is after, but protection against plagiarism and counterfeiting - completely different animals.

But then, introducing copyright into your industry is the latest fad.

If Sen.Schumer's Bill should make it,having current laws which would prevent the referencing of fashion DESIGN,could essentially cause a time warp among economic tiers.The lower tier department stores will be three years behind,before they can copy (reference) a pattern. Just wait two weeks and the artic cicle will have fahionable apparel. We do not need this bill to protect a 350 billion dollar industry,leave it alone.