It would be much easier to be a designer if you could just go to the fabric store, pick out your patterns and fabric and sew it up. If that counts almost every 50′s housewife should be called a designer.

The whole “kerfluffle” (Erin of ADressADay’s word, and I think it’s perfect) is a tempest in a teapot, but it shows what a hot topic this is. Yeah, “Originality is the art of concealing your sources,” but there’s also the whole concept of *intellectual copyright*. We’re all a bunch of “Rainmen” when it comes to the details, aren’t we? otherwise we’d be slouching around in stretch pants and oversize T-shirts and not caring. But we do notice and we do care. Quoting a detail, using a concept, borrowing a proportion — it seems like that’s in the realm of the design process. “Reproducing” is, I’d say, artisinal instead. It’s a art; it’s creative; it’s an impressive and aweinspiring thing when done well; but it’s just a different animal than “original design.” Me, I do both (tho I won’t say how well) and they feel very different.

My final thought … it just seems that if Ashley had displayed some grace though this, she’d be showered in respect now rather than venom.

Ive read all the blogs & posted comments concerning this incident. Even the one posted by Ms Dayley. I did not find her response to be very believable or sincere. I dont for a second believe that she would be so forgiving if the situation was reversed & her creativity was being copied.

And placing blame on the original blogger is just ridiculous. She herself works in a creative field and just wants to give & be given credit when its due. Leave her out of it & focus on the one who actually messed up.

What the hell???

Start making it a discussion about who insulted autistic people and it just gets to be stupid. I have no doubt there are plenty of other forums in which to share your feeling about the pejoratives used for autistic people that are more appropriate than this one.

This part of the fashion design process is NOT -as you say- “focused on showcasing” and “less on the business of the beast”. I am floored that you say/think this. Is your background on the retail floor? Comparatively, coming from the manufacturing side, we would describe *you* as being on the “showcasing side” so I guess it’s all a matter of perspective.

Pattern making (or stealing as in this case) is ENGINEERING; the polar opposite of sales “showcasing” and is very much a business decision. This is something so obvious and well known. Home sewers are well educated and very sophisticated these days; on the internet, they have access to (most) of the material formerly only available to the trade. I recognize most of the names here as being visitors to my site.

About copying in general (it’s wrong, illegal etc as everybody above said): It is through skill that creativity is born. That’s why people who are unskilled are not very creative. Their work is compromised on two levels. Poor execution and limited imagination. They cannot envision making a perhaps more difficultly styled product because they can’t imagine how to make it. They copy until they can catch up; entire nations have done this! And copying -in theory/practice but not *for profit*- isn’t a bad thing; it’s a way to acquire skills (see Paul Graham) -Which brings me to my next point.

As someone who has been described as the “Rainman of Fashion” or the “Temple Grandin of Fashion” the whole discussion of Rainman was even more annoying. “Rainmen”, iow, autistic people, are not master copyists, regurgitators of factoids, trained human seals performing splinter skills to amuse “normal” people at cocktail parties. The most famous of designers and the most skilled of pattern makers, have decidedly autistic characteristics. Iow, “a Rainman”, far from being a no-talent, is precisely the opposite. The comparison of autistics to imitator copyists like Ashley (or any other stylist cum “designer”) is insulting. Don’t insult autistic people by comparing us to others too limited in imagination, skill and intellect to do for themselves. We’re autistic, not stupid, unskilled or lacking in imagination. Autistics tend to dominate the upper tiers of any industry requiring intellectual rigor and a high degree of skill.

http://www.dressaday.com/2008/04/how-not-to-respond-to-criticism.html

Uuummmmm….no.

You can use established design ideas, but hopefully you’ll make them your own by choosing your own seam placement and construction, your own slant on finishing, whatever skills and instincts you have that made you want to pursue design. But you don’t buy a Butterick pattern for $4.99 (which, incidentally, is their most famous and best selling pattern ever) and call it your design. There is no creative instinct that is called upon when cutting out a commercial pattern and following the instructions included in the packet.

But I understand that Butterick isn’t claiming any legal action. This is St Louis, not Milan. It’s would be tricky to prove that she has ripped off a design which is pretty generic after all (if it weren’t for the fact that she informally admitted it). She isn’t Martha Stewart, and this issue will be forgotten tomorrow.

Perhaps not if she had used a pattern that really was out of print, but this one is not. I’m sure that McCall Pattern Company would have been thrilled to feature her work as a result of a competition using Butterick patterns.

Alas, this was not a McCall sponsored competition.

But then, perhaps our expectations are just too high. We expect originality from fashion week designers, especially if the design is being passed off as their own.

It is true that almost every conceviable shape combination have been used at some time in history. So, designers tend to draw inspiration from many sources and design to make the elements new and fresh. If Ashley’s idea was to present the dress as new and updated by fabric choice, she’s no more of a designer than my mom, who made this dress back in the day. If she had designed the fabric, that would make her a FABRIC DESIGNER, not a dress designer.

If Ashley wants to promote herself as a clothing designer, it is important that she design clothing. It is also important that she understand that not everyone will love what she does and there will be criticism, which needs to be responded to with grace. Martha Stewart responded to the charges of plagerism by changing the format of her show and featuring the chef. However, if Ashley wants to be a designer, she needs to design.

Someone who can pick out a copy should not be degraded by presenting them as an idiot savant or horribly bored. The right and ability to call a spade a spade is not solely owned by fashion professionals.

“Aside from that, is it really cheating when a designer uses a pattern from a company like Butterick? …Yes some one else designed the pattern, but you designed the dress by picking the fabrics and crafting the dress, right?” Wrong. Designers do not use patterns from any company, save their own.

Would it be different is she said they weren’t her designs? Would that change anything?

I guess I’m just a bit of a novice when it comes to the fashion design process, since so much is focussed on showcasing and less on the business of the beast.

Please comment and educate me.

I’m not “Rainman” though I think that’s pretty funny, actually, I just know that pattern because I own it.

I’m not “Rainman” though I think that’s pretty funny, actually, I just know that pattern because I own it.

Secondly, following your comments logic— Yes some one else designed the pattern, but you designed the dress by picking the fabrics and crafting the dress, right?—-then I, and every other person in the world who sews garments from commercial patterns, knits sweaters, etc., has the right to call themselves designers based on merely their sewing/knitting/etc skills and choice of fabric/fiber/color. Every garment I’ve ever made cuz I picked out the fabric or substituted the yarn for a knitted sweater makes me a designer! Really?!? Do you mean that?!? WOW I never considered myself a designer before, thanks, but I won’t be accepting the title, I reserve that for others who are truly gifted with the insight of innovation and prefer not to dumb down the profession.

I hesitate to respond with comments directed specifically to the designer. (I won’t kick a person when their down) I haven’t seen her other work, only the dress in question. I am not editor in chief of Vogue as your rebuttal commenter suggests I need to be, although I don’t know why I have to be to call a rose a rose. But I would like to send her kudos for being featured in fashion week and wish her all the luck in the world, unfortunately I’m afraid she’s going to need more than most. Hang in there kid and next time knock their socks off if you’ve got it in you!

For the education of the blogger, I’ll quote verbatim from the back of a the Butterick pattern envelope:
“Sold for individual home use only and not for commercial or manufacturing purposes.”

I read a lot of blogs written by seamstresses who work far more creativity into their designs than someone who calls herself a designer. They were not featured at fashion week because they know that choosing a fabric for a commercial pattern doesn’t make one a fashion designer.

As to your commenter’s point that “If this blogger comment was given by a professional whom is a judge or editor-in-chief of Vogue magazine…” … this seems an odd criticism to find on a fashion blog.

http://www.butterick.com/item/B4790.htm?tab=dresses&page=6

Because it is easy to sew, it is very popular with home sewers.