时尚设计对当前扩张知识产权的热情提出了一个显著的挑战。尽管时尚设计缺乏美国版权法的保护,但其开发与创新依然十分活跃。然而,也存在许多观点支持授予时尚设计某种形式的版权,最近,一份《禁止设计盗版法案》被重新提交国会。这篇短文是《斯坦福法律评论》对话文章中的一部分。本文分析和批判了C.Scott Hemphill和Jeannie Suk提出的对时尚设计提供有限版权的辩护。我们认为,即使是有限的设计保护也是非必要和不明智的,并且可能会损害其原本旨在保护的设计师们。尽管如此,我们仍在许多其他分析要点上赞同Hemphill和Suk,包括理解被称为“区分”(differentiation)和“群集”(flocking)的对抗性冲动之重要性,它们刺激了服装销售,以及更一般性的问题,即时尚设计不能简单纳入传统版权法的分析。 Fashion design poses a significant challenge to the current enthusiasm for expanding intellectual property. Although fashion design lacks the protection of U.S. copyright law, its development and innovation are still very active. However, there are many arguments that support the granting of some form of copyright to fashion design, and recently a Prohibition of Designing Piracy Bill was resubmitted to Congress. This essay is part of the Stanford Law Review conversation. This article analyzes and criticizes the defenses proposed by C. Scott Hemphill and Jeannie Suk for providing limited copyrights for fashion design. In our view, even limited design protection is unnecessary and unwise, and it may damage the designers who originally intended it. Nevertheless, we still agree with Hemphill and Suk on many other points of analysis, including the understanding of the importance of confrontational impulses known as “differentiation ” and “flocking ”, which have stimulated apparel Sales, and the more general issue that fashion design can not simply incorporate the analysis of traditional copyright laws.