How Not To Respond To Criticism

Has everyone heard about the Butterick 6015/St. Louis Fashion week kerfuffle by now? If not, I will give you a precis.

-- St. Louis recently had a Fashion Week. (They sent me the release and a gazillion large jpgs. I don't really cover fashion shows, so I didn't post about it.)
-- A blogger (who asked me not to use her name) did look at the photos, and noticed right away that one of the dresses was line-for-line a copy of Butterick 6015, aka the Walkaway Dress. See it here?




-- The blogger tries to find out who the designer was that submitted such an iconic dress to a fashion show.
-- She finds the designer, Ashley Dayley, and talks with her. Ms. Dayley doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with just making a dress from a vintage pattern and submitting it to a show.
-- She posts all this on her blog. In her post, she gives Ms. Dayley the benefit of the doubt, calling her "young" and "enthusiastic".

Now here's where the story gets interesting -- the last three comments on that blog, before the post was taken down, were from anonymous "friends" of the "designer", calling the blogger out for posting about this. They were so nasty that the blogger took down the post.

Dumb. Don't those "friends" know (or doesn't the "designer" know) that the best and ONLY thing to do when you've done something dumb is to take your lumps and own up? Why not say "I didn't know?" Why not say "I won't do it again?" Why not say (as hard as it is, through gritted teeth) "Thanks for letting me know?"

Instead they decided to wear their matching "I'm a Bully" t-shirts (which are probably pink, with sequins) and harass the person who had the temerity to call them on their misdeeds. The commenters, if they are the designer's friends, were just making her look MORE clueless. (If they're her enemies, they're doing a stand-up job.)

Now, I'm not saying that fashion doesn't tolerate knockoffs. (Victor Costa, anyone?) But a fashion show, especially one that was put on to feature "independent designers" is not the place for knockoffs; it's the place for original work.

The best part is the commenters saying that the original blogger didn't have the right to post the pictures of the show. So ... let me get this straight: she can't post images that were widely distributed to bloggers just for that purpose, but "designers" can knock off old patterns and that's just fine?

The best way to fix this would be for Ms. Dayley to issue a formal letter of apology to the show's organizers and post it somewhere public online. Then at least the first hit for her might show her doing something thoughtful and grown-up instead of something clueless.

[On a happier note, Marge of Born Too Late Vintage is turning 49, and is offering 50% off shipping on all items in her store to US and international customers from April 18 up to and including April 24th. On everything: patterns, clothes, accessories ... Use the code "49 and holding."]

Comments

[the_lazymilliner]

Now, if that dress had been worn the other way around, it might look somewhat original.

[Katy]

I'm from St. Louis. I'm embarassed about the situation and the designers response. Wow, thanks for posting about this.

[Marge, Born Too Late Vintage]

I've always learned more from my mistakes than my successes. Let's hope that this is a life changing moment for Ms. Dayley and she will learn from the experience.

[Anonymous]

Another blog has taken up this issue: http://fashionindie.com/fashion-controversy-is-it-still-fashion-design-if-you-use-a-butterick-pattern/

[Anonymous]

this pattern has been re-issued and is available, brand new, from Butterick (http://www.butterick.com/item/B4790.htm?search=retro&page=2)I can't believe any designer wouldn't want to feature their own work and show of their creativity.

[Miss Kitty]

Wow--this blows my mind. It's plagiarism in the fashion/design industry. Who would've thought?Speaking of the dress, Butterick has reissued it in their newer collections; I ordered mine from their website. And it's fabulous. I'm making three versions of it. :-)

[colleen]

Not knowing what the comments said, I think that the blog poster made a mistake in taking down the post. By doing that, haven't the bullies won? Didn't they accomplish what they set out to do?If the St. Louis people want to have any credibility whatsoever, they need to ask that designer to withdraw her submission, and issue a formal statement disapproving of the action.

[Eirlys]

Yes indeedy, a case of such obvious plagiarism is best admitted to straight away. What cheek! I'm fuming...

[Little Hunting Creek]

Maybe she thought original work meant her choice of fabrics? By her logic if I make the gorgeous Chado Ralph Rucci Vogue dress pattern that just came out in a different fabric, that's my original design. I don't think it works that way.

[La BellaDonna]

Gee, it was my understanding that this was a show designed to let new designers show off their creativity, not a 4-H sewing contest.Now, I think that 4-H sewing contests, Simplicity-sponsored sewing contests, fabric-store-sponsored contests, Woolmark-sponsored contests, etc., are all fantastic. They're inspirational, and I have seen a lot of creativity. But this wasn't a Butterick-sponsored sewing-contest, it was a fashion show for new designers. Now, I will grant that Nicholas Ghesquire took a whole LOT of inspiration - like 97% - from a vest designer Kaisik Yoon made in 1973. BUT - it's not the only piece Ghesquire ever did, it certainly wasn't his debut piece, and he at least had to make his own pattern up. He didn't use a Butterick Fast 'N Easy vest pattern.It is absolutely true that designers are often "inspired" by other designers to an embarrassing degree, and are often the first to shriek about being copied. But this was just a dress somebody made from an existing pattern under current copyright, and tried to pass off as her own work. That's outright theft, and no pretty words about it.The designers response, upon being caught, is reprehensible. Everyone makes a mistake, and she could even have profited from the notoriety; she could have pulled out something shed already made, and said, Look, this is what I can really do and gotten a lot of publicity for it. But she didnt. Maybe she didnt have anything else. Maybe its the only thing shes ever done. In which case, shes not a designer. Shes a girl with a sewing machine, and delusions of grandeur. She certainly doesnt stand up to the youngster featured in a recent Threads profile she decided to copy Princess Dianas wedding dress as (I believe) her first project. Drafted it all, made it all herself, Just Because. This woman, this fraud, this bully, cant begin to compete with the folks who come to visit here at DressADay, and the people everywhere who love to create.

[Anonymous]

I read the original blog page and there where mean comments from both sides. Not necessarily from the original blogger but from comments that followed. Perhaps the designer should issue a formal apology, but for right now, she probably feels attacked from many different angles.

[La BellaDonna]

Whoa. I'm stunned. The blogger who's been linked who's "taken up this issue" is siding with Ms. Plagiarist. His blog cites the reader who caught the plagiarist as a "Rainman." For spotting an extremely well-known pattern being passed off as original work.Un. Believable.

[lorrwill]

How does McCall patterns (who own Butterick) feel about this? And I while I know knock-off are tolerated (thank goodness, I learned a lot of what I know copying RTW) but isn't this dangerously close to crossing some kind of copyright infringement line? Its not like the 'designer' put her signature (I don't mean her name here, I mean her unique style details that are supposed to differentiate her from other designers) on this by changing a thing. I would think that Butterick would both be happy for the publicity and not so happy for the rip-off.

[The Original Blogger]

My blog wasn't a good forum for the issue of design plagiarism. It's just a little blog about my own projects. It's my happy place. I resent that my blog was weaponized by over-the-top commenters from both sides of the issue. I stand by my observations and my original post, but I also realize that no good would come of leaving the post there. I chose not to let my blog be a tool to kill a young designers career. All it cost me to take it down was a tiny bit of pride and righteous indignation. The costs of leaving it up were much greater, especially to the designer in question. The designer did not ask me to remove the post. I did it because I thought it was the right thing to do.I hope that the larger issues of design authenticity can be explored in more suitable settings, like this blog and the fashion blogs.I'm sure that lessons were learned on both sides. I say debate the issue, but leave the specific designer out of it and let her get on with her life.

[Melissa]

I am more stunned at how intolerable some people are. The designer made a mistake. I think she should be given some time to react. I would hope that the world of fashion bloggers would take the rope that would be for hanging her - and rather throw it to her to help her up from whence she's fallen. The designer, I hope, wasn't aware of this mistake, however I doubt she will ever do this again. This is a good lesson for any young designer / seamstress.

[Erin]

Melissa, the original blogger DID try to throw her a rope (she even called her on the phone!) but it's hard to throw a rope to someone who seems intent staying in the water.If Ms. Dayley wants to make a public reply, in her own name, I'm happy to post it.

[Marianne]

Plagiarism this blatant is hardly an easy mistake to stumble into. To quote the back of my Butterick 4790 pattern envelope (the reissue of 6015):"Sold for individual home use only and not for commercial or manufacturing purposes."I don't think it gets much clearer than that. Most of the sewists whose blogs I read manage to work more originality into their designs than someone who calls herself a designer.

[ired]

Does anyone know the rules for the show? None of the dresses in the photo demonstrate much originality. I think more than one vintage pattern was involved. Walkaway just happens to be readily identifiable.

[merel]

I agree with Marianne, this is blatant plagiarism and the designer must have known that was she was doing was wrong. Still, it would not have been a problem if she had admitted to it right away when confronted by The Original Blogger. If I remember the original post correctly, Ms Dayley was rather dismissive to Ms Original Blogger.I'm a young scientist and my work is inspired by /builds on other people's ideas in a similar way to that in the fashion industry. But whenever I use someone elses work, I say so. If I did not, and someone found out, my career would be over, instantly. No second chance. Ever.I don't say Ms Dayley does not deserve a second chance, but I think to get it she should say sorry first. To the fashion show organisers, and to Ms Original Blogger. And I haven't seen her doing that yet.

[Theresa]

It really shows how completely clueless she for picking THE MOST POPULAR PATTERN IN THE HISTORY of Butterick to plagarize! She could ahve at leaset picked something obscure...not that I am advocating that - hopefully you know what I mean.

[a fan of both blogs]

I'm a fan of the original poster's blog, so I read that post, but didn't comment; I thought the comments already made about the wrongness of passing off a current (or ANY) unaltered pattern as your own design. Sorry, E, I don't think I'll be able to hold back this time!We all know that designers gain inspiration from eras and from other designers - what's worked in the past, will work in the future - look at bell bottoms. They've been around the wheel twice, and will be back in 2010, mark my words!The original blogger's post, I though, was pretty darned even-handed, and though some of the comments were pointed, I don't think that's anyone's fault but the designer's. As one commenter pointed out, one of these things was not like the others, as it were.Upon being contacted, and realizing there would be a fuss, The designer should have made a statement then and there. It could have been something simple, like that she wished she had gotten more creative with the pattern, and while she'll continue to be inspired by past fashion, she'll exercise her creativity a little more in the future. Story killed!Someone on the Fashionindie site posted this in the designer's defence; "Ashley, and other designers world wide have used shapes as well as patterns to design or create a newer, fresher version of a garment." But you know what, she didn't create a newer, fresher version, she CREATED THE EXACT SAME GARMENT! And seriously, if you're going to duplicate a garment based on a past pattern, at least do enough research to find out whether the pattern's been reissued in the last year, or was the most popular sewing pattern ever sold. Because honestly, that's just asking to have bloggers all over the world call you down. There are literally HUNDREDS of patterns available at thrift stores that have NOT been reissued. Bottom line? Fail. Admit you were wrong, be gracious, and make all of us sharp-tongued commenters feel guilty for being so mean to you. Don't get your posse to post a diatribe against a blogger kind enough to call you "young and enthusiastic".Kudos to you, original blogger. I've enjoyed your blog for a long while, and will continue to do so.

[Anonymous]

Ms Dayley's bio on the fashion-show site says she studied fashion design at SCAD. If that's true, she should *absolutely* know better! She's not just some girl sewing stuff in her dining room and hoping to make it big; she's a trained professional - and she should act like one if she wants to be treated like one.Also, this description of Ms Dayley's line (from the fashion-show site) is hilarious to me, "AFV is a very personalized brand that wants to cater to the shopper that 'doesn't want anyone else wearing the same shirt or dress that they have!'" Really?On another note, aren't those some of the most haggard-looking models you've ever seen? Wow... :-p

[Christal]

I went to Western Michigan University for a while as a Design major in their Apparel and Textiles group. They have a club there that puts on fashion shows twice a year and I was so excited about the idea until I realized that the majority of the garments in the show were knock-offs. This did allow less experienced designers the ability to show off their color and fabric choices, but I couldn't understand the juniors and seniors that did the same thing. Perhaps this woman had a past where doing this was considered acceptable, but she still should have known better by now.

[I have an idea...]

Still, the Walkaway Dress is drop-dead gorgeous, don't you think?At least two of those designers must read your blog. Isn't that an alphabet shift?

[Lady Be Good]

It is one thing to 'copy' a design by looking at a garment and then drafting a pattern on your own to make another garment... it is an entirely different, and illegal thing, to use a printed pattern that is protected by law and widely available to the general public and then call it your own design. For the record, this is not the only pattern that Ms. Dayley used. She also used Simplicity 3964, a Wendy Mullen pattern. There isn't a direct link to a picture of this rip-off. To see it, go to the St. Louis Fashion Week website, click on "Fashion" on the right side of the page, and then "Designers", and then "AFV" (they are the first in the list, so the window might open up with them), and then click "View Gallery" at the top of that window. You can see the dress in photo 3.