Last month there was all of this kerfuffle going on about the new Simplicity pattern released, designed by American Duchess, and inspiration taken from “The Red Dress” seen in Outlander, Season 2 designed by Terry Dresbach.
I thought I’d share my rambling ideas on this [apparently] controversial sewing pattern.
Simplicity Pattern Company asked Lauren Stowell, owner of American Duchess, to design a costume sewing pattern for the particular dress.
We must remember that in 2016 Lauren had designed two other patterns in the Outlander vein for 18th century costuming (Simplicity 8162 Undergarments and Stays and Simplicity 8161 Dress, Bodice and Petticoat).
And then they asked her to make another pattern based on The Red Dress.
My question is: Why all the hoopla now? Why this dress? Is it because it’s red?
Or is it simply because the fabulous costumes are drawing people into sewing because of the popularity of the Outlander series going on right now?
Quite honestly, I don’t understand why the costume designer flipped out about this sewing pattern… one that was merely inspired by but not taken directly from her original dress on the show.
I’m curious: Why didn’t she flip out about the show-inspired undergarment pattern? Or the day dress pattern?
The day dress pattern is clearly taken from inspiration from the Outlander series. Inspired by. These sewing patterns are not designed as exact replicas of TV show designs. (You’d need the original pattern the show costume was made from in that case.)
Instead, Lauren has based them more on 18th century garment cut and styling but with the flavor of Outlander thrown in.
Everyone who has seen Outlander can look at the patterns and conclude they were inspired by the show costumes. Lauren has been very open with her inspiration especially on this red dress. But she has also shown original 18th century examples (in the above blog posts) of where she took her inspiration from to make it more realistic, based more on historical garments.
But again – Why such a big blow up over this particular pattern from Simplicity?
When we look back 20 years ago with the blockbuster Titanic, Simplicity released costume patterns where you could *clearly* see they were inspired directly from the designs Deborah Scott had created for the movie.
Historically, releasing sewing patterns (and fashion items for that matter) based on popular films is a common thing.
Jump forward a few years from 1997 and we’ve got Star Wars and The Matrix as inspirations. We see Lord of the Rings inspired patterns produced with lots of capes and kirtle gowns.
I didn’t catch wind of the costume designers of those films blowing a fit that their designs were showing up as sewing patterns. (At least not so publicly.)
Fashion, because it’s clothing, is not copyrightable. Apparently, there is some momentum, at least in the USA, in trying to get the actual designs from TV shows and movies to get copyrighted. Or at least get their name printed on advertising and labels of these inspired fashions.
Yet, that’s not going to stop this multi-billion dollar wheel of fashion from spinning. I’m sorry, no. No, it’s not going to happen.
[Read more in this conversation on Terry Dresbach’s Twitter.]
Because you’re going to see companies in China (among other places) viewing a TV show and doing their own sketches, producing their own patterns, and then creating their own costume pieces to sell.
Anyone search Etsy lately?? Yeah….
There’s nothing stopping folks from looking at a design and re-creating it.
All of us who do historical costuming – that’s what we’re doing!
We’re basing our designs on what we see historically… in antique garments that are available and we’re reproducing them… putting our own little spin on them. Using fashion plates for inspiration. Photographs we try to copy.
Like the recent “Dress Like Your Grandma” challenge where people used a vintage photo – something from the 20th century – to re-create it. A garment your grandmother or great-grandmother wore and you’re copying what you see in the photograph.
I just don’t understand why THIS latest Simplicity sewing pattern has caused SO much conflict and bitterness from the costume designer. So much so that she had a rant on Twitter and threatened to take her blog down (which is still down as of today).
It projects very unprofessional behavior.
I would think, if you have a design or are designing for a show and another designer gets with one of the big commercial pattern publishers like Simplicity or McCalls/Butterick and they produce a sewing pattern inspired by your work then you have all of these new people who want to dress like their favorite character from *your* popular TV show or favorite movie.
They get an opportunity to dress up as that character. They get a sewing pattern that allows them to do that.
It inspires that person to be creative, but it also inspires their friends who see what they’re doing to want to get creative too. It makes this whole industry go around!
It gets new people saying: “Oh wow. That’s a great costume! What’s that from? Where did you get it? What’s your inspiration?”
“Oh, I’m watching [in this case] Outlander.”
More people start watching the show which means more money for the producers and for advertising and everything that goes along with that.
The producers see that there’s this growing popularity so they say: “Hey! Let’s do another season.” And they hire everybody back – the crew, the production people, and the costume designer. Gee! Their jobs are continuing at that point.
This gets more people being creative and inspiring more people to sew. What a grand thing!
I don’t understand the lashing out of why this is such a bad thing. Why be bitter about it? That people from other companies got together to produce a sewing pattern of a 18th century design that’s been influenced (only) from a TV show – what’s wrong with this?
How is that bad??
It’s not, in my opinion.
I can understand that a costume design should be copyrighted from the designer’s personal point of view.
But this “red dress” pattern is not the same design. The lines are different and the pattern based more on historical references. The width of the skirt is completely not the same.
There’s some disconnect I see with the designer. To be honest, I don’t know much about her or her designs. I have watched Outlander. But I don’t know her history and what’s involved on her end.
[Sidenote: in my editing and research of this post I found this tweet (screenshot below) from Ms. Dresbach. Something doesn’t jive here when she’s complaining of a sewing pattern for cosplayers yet encouraging them to copy her designs………..]
I still can’t fathom the attack that happened in mid-April 2017 about this newly published pattern. (And rants not just from the costume designer.) And why is it NOW?
Why didn’t it happen when Lord of the Rings-inspired sewing patterns came out? Not only by Simplicity but McCalls and Butterick too. What about with other famous movies as well? Why this particular pattern?
It’s a bit disturbing. I can comprehend the designer (and others) wanting change. I can appreciate the change they want and to have their designs copyrighted.
If you draw a sketch, that sketch is copyrighted. Fashion and clothing is not copyrighted, though.
With this “red dress” pattern, Lauren based it more on 18th century fashion. She did her research. And the pattern was merely inspired by the famous Outlander costume. (According to her, Simplicity chose the color red for the pattern envelope garment. It has since been changed on their website.)
I’m sorry to see my friend Lauren and her company, American Duchess, along with Simplicity, get wrapped up in all of this. It saddens me as one who sews and loves to re-create historical garments and designs.
Let it go, I say. Move on. Generate new stuff.
If you are a designer, don’t start comparing yourself (which is what I see Ms. Dresbach doing with Lauren and Simplicity).
Comparison is the thief of joy and creativity.
You start comparing; you start complaining that other people are ripping you off. So what. Protect what’s rightfully yours but don’t let it consume your life.
Keep going and doing what you’re doing. Keep designing. Keep creating.
Because, you know, if it all burned down you’re only left with your knowledge, your skill. Use what you have today and keep moving forward. Don’t worry about what’s going on. Don’t try to drag it out. It doesn’t make for a good impression of yourself and squashes others at pursuing their creativity. And that makes for a very dark and depressing world.
As an artist I can understand the desire to copyright your work. At the end of the day, the difference between a fantastic dress design and, say, a painting or a song, is the medium. And I think it is perfectly fair that unique and iconic costume designs can be copyrighted: If we can point at a certain reproduction and say “oh, I know that dress, it’s Worth, isn’t it” then surely it’s right to treat iconic garments from contemporary films and theatre with the same respect, which includes paying royalties where they are due.
On the other hand, there is the difficult question of who gets to copyright what. As you asked youself; Why THIS dress, but not THAT dress? Why can one be considered public domain and the other private? I suppose one way that clothing differs from most other forms of art is that it doubles as something practical and needed. If it were possible for designers to copyright, say, a nylon stocking, or a plain white T-Shirt, it would be very difficult indeed to produce affordable clothing for regular people to wear. Specific patterns or trimming layouts, on the other hand, may be more reasonable to copyright.
And I do suspect that this is where Ms. Dresbach is coming from. The previous Outlander costumes by Simplicity were fairly standard 18th century undergarments and undress, and could represent costumes from any number of 18th century films and shows. The Red Dress is a little more identifiable. Personally I’ve always HATED Outlander’s costume designs because of the liberties Ms. Dresbach took with historical fashion, adding these weird and uncalled-for anachronistic features that left her costumes looking, well… costumey, and a bit confusing… bet memorable, albeit not for the right reasons. Those terrible design choices are unique to Ms. Dresbach. Nobody else in their right mind would have come up with that weird sort-of-a-round-gown-that-is-apparently-a-court-gown-and-has-a-modern-heartshaped-neckline-and-made-up-strappy-things that we refer to as “The Red Dress’ so as far as I’m concerned, the design is all hers, and could certainly justify a copyright.
Yet on the other hand, I think particularly in the realm of costume/set design, it would be a bad idea to give designers copyright ownership of any design deemed to be unique. I worry that by doing so, we would be giving costume designers more incentive to take the ‘Dresbach Approach’ of making weird, distracting and out-of-place costumes for the sake of ‘originality’ when, in costume design, originality isn’t the point. Costume designers should feel perfectly comfortable stealing their ideas straight from reality. A costume designer should never have to worry about making a colonial Puritan costume ‘creative’ and different from any other colonial Puritan costume (I daresay that would be missing the point of Puritan colonialism altogether.) And yet, if there is any money to be had in copyrighting a ‘unique’ colonial Puritan costume and selling, among other things, patterns and costumes based on it, that is undoubtedly how designers would co about designing colonial Puritan costume… and of course any film about colonial New England would suffer as a result.
So, TL:DR; While I can see where Ms. Dresbach is coming from in feeling that her Red Dress is her own intellectual property, I don’t think it would be a good thing at all if we could copyright clothing and it would be ESPECIALLY bad if we could copyright costume designs. If Ms. Dresbach wants to take part in a creative arms race where uniqueness takes precedence over contextual appropriateness, she should transfer herself to the realm of haute couture and leave us historical costumers to craft our reproductions in peace.
Great thoughts. Thanks for your input!
And a “creative” Puritan costume does seem rather ludicrous.
This brings me to mind about when Shawna Trpcic, costume designer for many of Joss Whedon’s shows, including “Firefly”, “Angel” and “Dollhouse”, came to speak at Costume College. It was fascinating to hear her speak about the design and production process for television, and the fact that her designs were not copyrighted. This led to the problem of Sony taking her designs, and reproducing them in merchandise, such as dolls, and reproducing it for the movie “Serenity”, and she did not get paid extra for those decisions.
She also said that costume designers, because they are often women, are some of the lowest paid people in the industry.
Copyrighting dress patterns should be an industry standard, in my opinion. Everything else is copyrighted- the music, the screenplay, etc. to keep people from ripping them off. Yes, costumers and cosplayers reproduce those designs in the name of fandom, but compared to the final cost of an outfit, a dollar more for the pattern to go to the person who put in all that work, wouldn’t it be worth it? Shouldn’t we, as costume aficionados, be showing our appreciation and support to the people who are award winning in their industry? (And not just the actors who wear them?)
How is this discussion any different from the discussion of people pirating movies and music?
I’m not saying that the designer was right to have a freak out moment over someone making a similar gown, but maybe Simplicity should be willing to pay the extra funds to her, to get a replica, rather than an “inspired by” gown.
It’s a fine line. And I completely understand (and support) costume designers getting more recognition. Costumes fall under the “clothing” category in copyright law which is not copyrightable as a “functional” item. The design itself, yes, is most definitely intellectual property and copyrighted. The published sewing patterns ARE copyrighted in their form and as a package. The pattern pieces themselves are not copyrighted neither is the finished garment. People inspired by a finished costume have the opportunity to re-create a design as they see it. It’s still different than the original.
And pirating music and movies is different. It would be the same as taking a sketch of Ms. Dresbach’s of the “red dress” and selling copies as your own. The illustration and design are copyrighted. Again, the finished costume is not.
And if Simplicity should pay an extra fee to the designer then EVERY business that makes “inspired by” items from any published film, TV show, theater production, etc. would need to pay too. This would kill the industry as well as small businesses which run this country. The designer has already been paid for her designs, per a signed contract (which we do not have access to) which are owned by the studio after creation. In this case, fees would go to Sony. It falls to studios and designers to negotiate a contract that pays them perhaps a higher up-front (or separate) fee noting that it is compensation for the after-production inspiration products released by the studio. They can’t control other businesses.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I think Lauren is just lovely, talented. Her contributions to costuming novices are wonderful (as are yours!!). The costume designer is brilliant and it’s truly a shame this was a topic of discussion!
This reminds me of the times when authors like Anne Rice have attacked their fanbase for writing fanfiction. The unfortunate reality of current fan culture is that if you’re an artist, you are going to see a lot of people imitating your work. Some of it will be good, some of it will be bad, and some of it will include just enough tweaks for the fan to avoid getting sued by the original creator while making millions off it (Fifty Shades of Gray, anyone?). Fan culture has taken a more prominent role in things, and it’s not going away any time soon. This is part and parcel of it. Is there really any doubt in anyone’s mind that this dress is intentionally intended to be a do-it-at-home version of the red gown from the show? I don’t think Lauren intended any harm, but it’d be foolish to pretend like this wasn’t the case.
Personally, I don’t really like the trend of marketing very specific patterns to very specific fandoms to copy very specific looks from the show or movie. Seems a bit force-fed, and takes some of the fun out of the creation process. But then, I’m a bit of an old-school nerd who doesn’t like a lot of what happened with the “mainstreaming” of geek culture in general. The very fact that Outlander, a show based on romance novels and having almost nothing to do with genre literature, merits its own cosplay line is a symptom of commercial fandom’s become.
On the other hand, it’s nice to think that this sort of thing is introducing younger generations of girls to the magic of sewing. And it’s nice that pattern companies are trying to get actual historical costumers involved in their historical lines.
I think the main issue is how copyrights and profits are handled… am I correct? That’s something that likely needs to be remedied. Maybe the really iconic costume patterns need to have some kind of official licensing process. These patterns are branded with Lauren’s logo and name, not Terry’s, after all. I can see that being very difficult to deal with, especially when one of your most famous creations for your show is being so obviously referenced.
Hi, Jennifer!
I am in the middle of making a crinoline but am having some fit issues. I am size A’s waist but above size A’s hip and am below size B’s waist but fit into size B’s hip. Which size should I use?
Not sure what pattern you are using but I’d go with the larger size to fit your hips then take darts or whatever to get the waistband to fit your waist. This is a general fitting tip when dealing with skirts and lower body garments.
Hi, Jennifer! I was wondering what you thought about wearing a Victorian corset when you are a teenager. I am 15 years old and have been wearing and sewing 18th-century stays and clothing for some time. I feel really ready to venture into Victorian clothing but am a little scared about wearing a Victorian corset since I am still growing. Any advice? When did you wear your first Victorian corset? What is your advice on the matter? Your site has been a great help as I venture into new eras!
Hi Linda, How fun that you’ve been dressing historical already! Even though I have been sewing since I was about 10 years old and made most of my clothes in high school (25+ years ago), I didn’t get into historical stuff until I was in my mid-20s. I was 26 when I made and wore a Victorian corset for the first time. At 15 you’re probably close to done growing but still malleable perhaps, so a corset worn every day might change your figure in the waistline. Wearing every so often, however, shouldn’t make a difference. There are some costumers who’s figure will reflect the corset after it’s taken off after a full weekend of wearing for events (like a reenactment). The body adjusts back to “normal” though. Unless you *want* to change your figure don’t go the “tight-lacing” route. Even if you wear a corset everyday you will notice a figure shaping change.
I’d recommend looking at your goals of wearing a Victorian corset. If it’s merely to dress up a couple times a month I wouldn’t worry. If you want to get into wearing Victorian every day like Sarah A. Crisman then expect a figure change as you start to wear corsets. Hope this helps! Have fun with dressing up in whatever you do. 🙂
The first pattern that came to mind was the Shakespeare In Love gown, Simplicity 8881 from 15 or so years ago. Copying move and TV costumes is nothing new. I didn’t see the Outlander designer’s reaction, but why is she surprised?
I almost used that as my example! But my copy of the Titanic dresses was easier to get to. 😉
And I can’t think of anyone who refers to Simplicity 3812 as anything other than “The Ever After Dress.” 🙂
Exactly!
Hi! This is unrelated but your site has been really helpful as I make my own Truly Victorian chemise! I was just wondering how to adjust the chemise pattern to be off the shoulder. I just ran out of eyelet lace and was wondering if you needed the eyelet lace and string to tighten and loosen the top for it to be off the shoulder or if it could be off the shoulder without it? If it can, how? Thank you so much!
The eyelet lace beading (with ribbon) (or bias casing on the inside) acts as a drawstring to tighten the neckline as needed. Simply leave a bit loose to wear off the shoulder. Tuck any excess chemise fabric down into your corset.
I feel like the whole incident exists in a middle space where nobody comes out looking very good.
You’re very right that TD’s response to the pattern coming out was unprofessional, and it’s also hypocritical since she used Dior’s Bar suit in the show. But the pattern is clearly based on her design – it’s equally far from accuracy, and I can’t see how extant garments figured into the creation – and that’s what’s at stake with the discussion around why costumes/fashion should be copyrighted, which I think some of the commenters are missing. I agree that for consistency and believability, the earlier Outlander patterns should have gotten the same response, but at the same time they’re very generic: there are accuracy issues, but they’re average for 18th century costume patterns.
While it’s true that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and that exposure is good for the show, costume designers are treated pretty horribly by the industry. Simplicity should really have reached out, and maybe tried to do some kind of double-header with TD bringing her watching fanbase and AD bringing the costuming fanbase.
Being under contract with Sony probably limits her from designing independently for a pattern company. Perhaps Simplicity DID reach out to Sony and they said no or didn’t respond. (Who’s to know?) Or perhaps they wanted to release a popular sewing pattern design based on a current show because that’s what they’ve done for years. Change in recognition can only come from the contractual agreement between studio and designer – letting a designer work on an independent project for a sewing-related company (pattern publisher, trim maker, etc) with a royalty or license agreement.