Culture and the Copy : Response

Lara Kriegal looks into the culture of the calico industry in England in the early eighteenth century through the nineteenth century. Calico, Indian in origin, was domesticated by the English. It soon came to being replicated in the provinces, which printed designs using the roller, produced much faster than the block used in the city. The provinces came to shade the industry in the city. Parliament established a three-month copyright on printed designs in 1794. Printers in the city however, were not satisfied and argued for an extension to the copyright. Given arguments for the extension of the copyright are:
- Honest printers found themselves at the mercy of pirates who could copy designs at incredible speed. One dress design was claimed to have been copied in just eight days following its release in the market.
- Present copyright was pointless when it takes about a year to determine the success of a design.
- French industrialization would pose a threat to the British dominance
- In France since 1730, design copyright went from one year to the life of the designer.
- Designers are no longer as inspired when knowing their design may be stolen and profit gained by another without punishment.
- Original designers (ones in the city) employed more people.
- “Farce, ballad, or waltz, enjoyed a twenty-year copyright” but calicoes only three.
- “Stronger copyright would engender an English style.”
Arguments against the copyright extension by the so-called pirates include:
- legal to a laissez faire market
- “advocates of extension …[establish a] monopoly”
- Extension will bring an increase in prices
- Extension would place England at an unequal level with other competitors
- Extension applies to local designers but leaves out foreign competitors who will profit from this
- “Patterns did not fall within the domain of art” when observing that one designer could create six to eight patterns a day, just rearranging already existing designs
- “impossible, to decide when originality in design ended, and copying commenced.”
In August 1843, the English parliament extended the copyright of industrial design to nine months.
Both sides made a strong points, especially those against extension in their argument claiming how impossible it would be to establish where original finishes and copying starts. But at the same time it’s an apparent truth that the copying frenzy halts development of the industry. The way the industry works (how new patterns are created) is complicated as opposed to other artistic jobs like literature or art, where the line separating copy is clear. If designs with flowers become popular, it is expected that everybody will want to produce some, but is it copying when people are following a tendency???