when dupes go after dupes
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2024
- Go to Lelo and get yourself a Enigma Wave today! lelo.to/lhh
I have spoken about Djerf Avenue when talking about successful influencer companies, so it's frustrating to see this crazy misstep from them. Let's talk about tiktok, recommending dupes as an affordable option, and me butchering explaining patents, trademarks, and copyright.
Check me out over on Twitch! / swellentertainment
Check out Swell Entertainment on Spotify! open.spotify.c...
www.swellenter...
✅Want to take your TH-cam channel to the next level? Get your first month of VidIQ Boost for just $1!✅ vidiq.com/swell
My links!
website: www.swellenter...
withkoji.com/@...
Twitter: / luvu2golka
Instagram: / luvu2golka
Patreon: / swellentertainment
vidiq boost affiliate link: vidiq.com/swel...
Podcast: anchor.fm/swel...
amazon store: www.amazon.com...
merch: swellentertain...
swellentertain...
If there are any products you would like me to try, topics you would want me to cover, or films, or series you would like me to review feel free to reach out to me!
Like, comment, subscribe, and share this video!
Thank you for watching and a special thanks to my patrons for supporting me!
My P.O. Box-
Swell Entertainment
P.O. Box 714
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
My Gear (I earn a commission from purchases)
www.amazon.com...
Current subscriber count: 418,277
#djerfavenue #dupes #swellentertainment
Go to Lelo and get yourself a Enigma Wave today! lelo.to/lhh
"Hey dad, do you have sponsorblock for TH-cam? Let me set it up for you quick."
get that bag but know that LELO is one of the more problematic sexual wellness brands. They've infamously collaborated with known abuser Charlie Sheen, their air pulse toys have been reported to cause injury, all while LELO fails to acknowledge customer concerns. Again no hate I just want to share this in case you weren't aware!
Not gonna lie, you KILLED that ad read, I hope they sponsor you again. 🙌
Please ban "notville__" from your comments, they are impersonating a mod and spamming copy replies
When i think "elevated basics" i think natural fabrics like cotton, linen, etc not polyester. Like what am I paying more for if not quality? Without the quality its just overpriced imo
Edit to add: also the sustainability, fair trade, etc but thats just part of quality to me
100% agree why are you expecting me to pay for a product that’s “elevated” but literally still made with plastic materials
No shade to you but its the fact that consumers dont know what they think they do. Consumers think natural fabrics like cotton and linen are high quality, when they actually wear out way way before polyester or nylon will. Its technically higher quality to have a blended fabric or polyester because it will last three or four times as long without holes or pilling etc.
@@thebat7505I would be interested to read a source on that, since that is the exact opposite of every single study on fiber I have ever read. Yes, poly, acrylic and nylon technically last longer. They take decades if not 100s of years to degrade, but they don't stay looking fresh and nice nearly as long.
Exactly, I would expect to be paying for better fabrics and stitching. I'm having a better time buying this sort of clothing through Etsy shops than I had through Nordstrom or any of these 'elevated' pop-ups that keep getting advertised to me on Insta and TikTok.
@@thebat7505 that has not been my experience at all. The plastic blends don’t seem to hold up as well as the natural fibers with my clothes, anyway…
Patent = Products like Inventions, Machines, and Processes
Copyright = Artwork like Music, Literature, and Architecture
Trademark = Branding like Logos, Designs, and Phrases
In theory, fashion is copyrightable (or, technically is copyrighted, since someone decided that everything ever committed to a medium by anyone needed to be automatically copyrighted). However, fashion is so cutthroat and changes so rapidly that there's really no value in long-term enforcement, so copyright has essentially been ignored by the entire industry. It's only now that social media platforms have made copyright such an easy club to wield, without understanding what enforcement actually requires, that little podunk fashion houses think it's worth trying to defend their fleeting little spot in the thunderdome with it.
Also, designs can be patented. Usually, the designs have to serve some function.
@@Sami522 In fashion, that's not going to be common, though. You'd have to literally design a new kind of clothing, that wasn't just new for the sake of being new, it would have to do something new. There are only so many ways you can have functional person covering, and there's a lot of prior art for anything someone's likely to come up with, precisely because fashion changes to rapidly.
@@FeelingMimsyso, like running shoes and their anti-impact technologies?
@@LunaWitcherArt Sure. Something to keep in mind though is that the patent process can take years. A genuinely innovative impact-absorption material is likely to be more successful in other industries before ever making it to consumer footwear.
making dupes is viewed as a negative thing but there is actually a good reason for it to be legal. like imagine if burberry patented the beige trench and chanel patented the black cocktail dress and so on. there'd be only a few styles left that are affordable for ppl with lower income and wearing those would immediately signal your class to everyone around you. it would recreate feudal class dynamics and would be a huge violation of the human right to adequate clothing.
Plus you can't patent basic styles. Ask several people what they think is a basic black dress. Every person will likey have different necklines, different shades of black , different fits, cuts..
Same with a trench coat. They'll been around for ages.
This sounds like a Cher Horowitz quote
Human right to adequate clothing 😂❤
this whole "clean girl" "scandinavian" style literally just feels like target basics but it's somehow elevated because it's on skinny blonde white women.
You are very correct. It’s a case of “is it fashion or is she skinny”?. Most of the time, we know what the answer is
As a Scandinavian, I feel very offended. We don't wear this weird beige "clean girl" shit. It's probably just because Matilda is Swedish. Swedes are weird. They don't represent all of us. 😭
@@CJAmara I think that every time I see a slightly ugly outfit I'm like 'would this look good on literally anyone else' and the answer is usually no (it also rarely looks good on them half the time)
Well...skinny blonde white women are generally how Scandinavian people look so, I wouldn't be surprised if people think Scandinavian style looks best on them. 😂
Literally brandy Melville. Looks like stuff at target but way more expensive and "one size fits all"
Something like this happened in the paper crafting community. Someone created a stamping platform, basically a mini printing press to help with rubber stamps being correctly placed on your paper. It was $100. So bloggers came up with a dupe (an empty CD case or a piece of plexiglass and a wooden board, etc). Just cheap alternatives that other crafters could DIY to get the same effect. NO ONE was selling said dupes. But what did the business owner do? They sent legal threats to the *bloggers* who shared *DIY pictures* on their own blogs. Some didn't even mention the official product they were duping so it wasnt' slander or infringement. While other things shook out, I still, 10 or 15 years later, will *never* buy this official product or own it if it were given to me for free, because of the owner's behaviour against private citizens just trying to help other crafters for 0 monetary gain.
When recreation is given more worth than creation
This whole mindset (of the companies) is insane to me because I feel like anyone who's into crafting knows that buying a premade, professionally produced tool is nearly always going to produce better results than a DIY. Meaning that most people who go for the diy will be people who can't afford the real version and wouldn't buy it anyway.. meaning the og company really won't see any loss in sales. Same with djerf, obviously their pieces are going to be better quality and people getting the worse $20 Amazon version wouldn't buy the $120 djerf
Which is why it's WILD that these companies will absolutely nuke their own reputation to go after things in the worst way possible when it probably didn't impact them to begin with
It reminds me very much of the Addison Cain/ Erica Mitchell school of being extremely protective of your IP, which you founded on the basis of published derivative works. Christopher Nolan and StephenieMeyer don’t go after these authors for creating derivative works for money, yet the authors are extremely aggressive and litigious towards any “plagiarist” who makes derivative works based on their derivative works.
MISTI is way overpriced imo
lol how is it ridiculous? TH-cam’s reply system sucks, and also what are you even asking from the person you’re replying to? You just said “pronouns??”, are you asking for their pronouns?
6:55 "It lists the fabric as Turkey"
Ah, yes, my favorite clothing fiber to wear on my skin. Turkey.
Ruffled feathers indeed lol :)
The most sensual fabric, I must say.
LOL, this whole comment thread made me giggle uncontrollably! 😆
I'm just picturing being covered in deli turkey slices. 😂
Wait like Turkey the land or the bird Dx?
Seeing Djerf's style described as "clean Scandinavian" is funny to me as someone living in Sweden. Yes, a lot of people dress in incredibly basic neutral tones.(mostly seen in big metropolitan areas), but it is weird seeing it as an "aesthetic" for me though (I understand it is, however). A crowd of Stockholmers is a sea of boring black quilted jackets and beige trench coats because people are terrified of standing out in a crowd. It is all born from a culture of social conformity.
Thanks for your perspective!!
That’s so true. And it’s so romanticized everywhere outside of Scandinavia. Especially in Western Europe (France, Germany, England, Belgium) where they look up to Scandinavia so so much. It’s seen as the ideal in many ways. They don’t just love the look, I really get the feeling they want to import the whole lifestyle. I say this as someone who lived in France and saw the Scandinavia obsession firsthand lol. Not to say there aren’t good things about Scandinavian culture, but the complete romanticization of it by Europeans (and now many Americans) has always puzzled me.
I mean are you truly even dressing the Swedish way if you are not also plagued by the idea that you aren’t special and that you shouldn’t stand out. It is what really brings the look together
As I am an expat based in Scandinavia, I feel you. As someone who is from a country where we love colours, patterns and textures, the locals just eat up all the stuff I wear and even asked me to get a few pieces for them. I have bought or gifted a few statement cotton pieces (other natural fiber pieces) for like 100 - 400 Kr, when these stuff are like sold for an arm and leg locally.
Given that it is rainy or windy for like 80% of the time, and you need wind-water-proof jacket and pants every time you head out (cykelkultur). So, yah I understand the need for beige, navy blues and blacks to keeps things formal and classy when you heading to work.
@ville__ I am really feeling the irony of me trying to be funny and then this bot steals my reply by editing their reply.
I am sorry Swedish culture I won’t ever think I am special enough to make jokes or be funny. 💀
You are correct. Fashion designs and their patterns cannot be copyrighted or patented. I had a teacher in Fashion Design college tell me straight up “If it’s any good, your stuff will be copied”. “Knocking off” a pattern is quite literally a lesson in your patternmaking class. You can hand me any garment and I could replicate the exact fit of it so well that if we had the same fabric, I could cut and sew it in a way that you would never know which one was store bought. That’s the skill set they teach you in a good Fashion Design program. They sell you with a fashion illustration demo where a teacher scribbles a beautiful stick figure wearing ballerina pointe shoes and you think you’re gonna spend all your time water coloring ballgowns in a French cafe. You are learning technical drawing and sewing at a level they only do in factories.
So cool :> thanks for sharing
If you don’t mind, could you share where you went to school? I’m researching Fashion and/or costume design/construction programs right now, and that really sounds cool!
basically capitalism?
You could watercolor ballgowns all day if you want but that means you’re designing prom or bridal and they also don’t tell you how incredibly boring designing for those markets is.
I'm pretty sure that isn't actually correct, at least not in its entirety. Certain aspects are undoubtedly copyrightable and happen automatically (eg. Prints) -- enforcement and proving your copyright exists is another matter, which is where registration comes in to assist with enforcement. The reality is that you simply cannot ever properly enforce those claims since you'll be chasing after all sorts of people and will probably run out of money attempting to do so, so there is little to no point in doing so. It's why you don't usually have artists running everywhere claiming copyrights against every other person who makes something with the same exact composition or pose - because time and money spent doing so are valuble and not necessarily available for use on those things when other needs exist, such as making new art or earning a living. Big companies may go around chasing after dupe or counterfeit makers if it feels worthwhile (eg. If whoever they are chasing is big enough fish to give a large payout that makes the time/money investment worthwhile) -- individuals will rarely do so unless they aren't sane, or if they have a very heavy investment where they think the payout is worthwhile (typically against a larger company because there is good money that could be earned if successful). There are also issues of international laws and needing to basically cross borders which makes any sort of enforcement all the more difficult, along with discrepencies between laws of different countries because they are not all the same (eg. Registering a copyright/patent in one country does not mean it will be recognized in another)
The technicality is that if both the person who made the original design and the person making the knockoff are in the same country, there is reasonable likelihood of a lawsuit occurring since it is within reason to get it launched and judged. But if they are in different countries, there are far too many hoops to jump through so it typically isn't practical to chase after the infringement, especially if there isn't a large enough sum of money involved
No but brands like this make me so mad. A few years ago people started realizing they should buy fewer, higher quality clothes to be more sustainable and ethical - and what happens? BS influencer brands decide to target peoples goodwill by producing shitty polyester clothing made cheap, sold expensive, giving people the idea its in any way high quality. I wish people were more educated about WHAT high quality good clothing is!!
It's so strange, when I was in a fashion program they described exactly what's happening here in a positive light. High fashion is not attainable for most people so the style "trickles down". There's a reason you can buy a $20 purse accessory at high end stores, it's because that customer is important too. A successful brand sells clothes, a super successful brand will have dupes.
They are not the ones directly involved with finances, so there can be discrepencies between the viewpoints of people teaching and the people who are actually working in the industry. The matter of dupes/copycats is maybe a little... sensitive...? Is that the right word...? =_=;; anyhow, there are positives and negatives for the situation, and that is going to vary quite a bit depending on who you ask and in what context. There are reasons why creating new clothing designs is not profitable, and why high end brands end up using things with better profit margins (or that keep people consuming more and quickly) to fill in the gaps, such as investing in perfume lines
@gaerekxenos I agree with you, especially on the matter of prints which was the main issue in this convo. But one thing i would like to say is that I feel none of the brands involved here actually count as "high end" which is also why it's silly for them to be mad at the creators that seek out dupes for their clothing, it's certainly no Birkin or Balenciaga even if they charge a lot
Honestly. I've decided I am no longer spending natural fiber money on plastic clothes. Your 200 dollar sweater is acrylic poly blend? No. Not happening. You can make arguments for fast fashion like Shein and Forever 21 being accessible because of the low price point, and the quality you get is generally reflected in the price. But you're selling plastic "elevated basics" and pajamas for hundreds of dollars? Absolutely not. Also isn't it dangerous to wear polyester pajamas? In the event of a fire you could be severely burned and the clothes would simply melt onto your skin. Seems dubious.
Even in fast fashion you can find natural fiber stuff, you obviously shouldn't buy there if you have any alternative at all, but even there you can find a 25€ cotton/wool sweater
Don't forget allergies. Last time someone gifted me polyester clothes it itched so much I looked like a lobster
@Nadia1989 I mean a lot of people are also allergic to animal fiber so I understand why someone wouldn't be able to wear it. And sometimes synthetic materials work better for some garment applications. But in general, the prices some people ask for what are frankly low quality clothes are appalling. Like don't pretend this stuff is high end and charge a pretty penny for it when it's not. Paying for labels and status and not garment quality belongs in the trash.
people who say that they support shein for "poor people" are just making consumerist excuses. buying fast fashion is a capitalistic "luxury". there's nothing beneficial for the impoverished community -- from dumping unused fabrics into poor people's backyards, to ruining developing country's agriculture with litter, to tricking people into basically "subscribing" to clothes because they're purposefully made so cheaply, to inducing health problems from toxic dyes, there's nothing "poor people friendly" about it
Polyester is less flammable than cotton. It does melt but at a similar temperature to what it takes for cotton to catch fire. It also tends to self extinguish (which cotton doesn't), so you might get a more severe burn (from the melted material) in a small area but with cotton you'd likely have a larger burn (depending on how quickly you were able to take it off/put it out).
That being said, if your pyjamas are catching fire you're probably going to have a poor outcome whatever they're made of. You're better off focusing on other things eg. making sure you have a working fire alarm, closing all the doors at night to slow the spread of a fire and turning off anything that might overheat.
Even if dupes were illegal, it would STILL be NOTHING to do with the creators promoting them!! I'm pretty sure if you read TikTok's copyright rules "promoting a product I wish didn’t exist" does NOT appear as a valid reason for a copyright strike!
I know that youtube can be funny about people talking about dupes, because some people will refer to something as a dupe when it's actually a fake (something that includes trademarked logos to try and pass itself off as the real thing - which is illegal).
My dad watches a lot of watch review videos and apparently it's been an issue for them - with people having videos demonitized or taken down for referring to a perfectly legal watch as a dupe. My understanding is that watches are even more complicated than fashion, because some elements (like the mechanism) are patentable but some companies do licence other companies to use their patents - so I guess they went with a blanket ban on using the word dupe so they don't have to investigate every case.
How is copyright claiming a person simply talking about an item of clothing even feasible? They didn’t make the clothes, they’re simply talking about them. Makes no sense.
It's not. It's illegal lol
Right?! It is like coming after the people who watched a tiktok compilation instead of going after who posted the videos without authorization.
Maybe it was intended as a cease and desist for disparagement on their registered trademark, but then again nope, even then it’s protected speech. Who knows what they thought they were doing. Sounds like they had some automated message for any posts made using their hashtags that weren’t from their team or approved influencers.
Can’t even copyright clothing
@@pantomimegooseit's probably about using the name brand - you could argue that it's using their brand to promote another brand of you are directly citing them
FYI -- even if Djerf Avenue _had_ copyrighted the print on the pajamas, that only means people couldn't make fabric with that print. It doesn't mean people can't make videos featuring the pajamas.
I respect that you actually showed the Lelo product in the ad read! Completely understandable why some creators try to be subtle about these kinds of sponsors and no shade to them, but it's refreshing to just see it in the video -- we all know what it is anyways.
Tbh I wish she hid it because I watch TH-cam on the TV in my family's living room and I had no idea what the Lelo was until Amanda just pulled it out one day with no warning.
Same I had it on at lunch at work😂
@@amphithere i mean shes an adult (by age, not as in "adult content") creator with a mature audience, if she goes "watch out!! im gonna show a discreet sex toy!!!" thats weird lol. we're all adults here, its just an ad
@@kittycastle_ true, and it’s not like it’s graphic or showing/saying anything weird or embarrassing. Pretty tame compared to some TH-cam ads or what’s on tv
But as soon as I started promoting my fleshlight. I’m the pervert
I read an interesting academic paper about cults a few years back that found that most cults that failed fastest were the ones where there was the loss of a charismatic leader and I can't help but see a parallel with these influencer brands.
Is this a "Marks & Spencers sues Aldis for the Colin the Catepillar cake that neither of them invented" situation?
😭😭
THE CATEPILLAR CAKES I FORGOT ABOUT THAT!!! 😭😭🤣🤣
This was the most exciting news week in Britain in a long while
Omg! I forgot about Colin! What happened in that case? Was Colin freed or is he in jail forever!?
There’s no ‘s’ in Aldi, idk why it bothered me so much but I had to point it out
Its interesting she picked Portugal, our minimum wages are extremely low, a wooping 750 euros (around 830 ish USD), which tells me a lot…
Basically she can claim her clothes are “European made” which sounds super fancy but in reality she is going to the cheapest option
Which is still many times more than in China.
If I had rent paid for, I could live with that in London.
Do you guys measure your wages per day, week or month?
@@tatiana4050It’s not a lot for an European country, inflation hit us really hard and our salaries did not increase with it, it’s impossible to get a decent monthly grocery haul here with our minimum wage let alone pay housing in a city like Lisbon, our capital.
@@chickpea no I know its not a lot, especially if you have family (you cant just rent a single room with bills included if you have kids). But I think it's much more than sweatshops in China or other Asian country.
And probably better labour laws.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Djerf/Mathilda and her family bullying another influencer for "copying" one of her shirt designs which again is copied from another designer, nothing original about a white shirt. Mathilda taking advantege of disabled models and this whole "inclusivity" yet not paying the models..greenwashing, horrible quality, ghosting and taking advantage of fans who own small businesses, etc. Her gullible fans purchasing the clothes thinking they're a part of her angel community, lol.
if it helps, Swell, instead of pattern you can say "print". a garment is made using a pattern, and a fabric has a print on it. ty for covering this!
Hey Amanda, as someone who does a lot of yarn craft, I would like do add that you can also patent knitting and crochet patterns, as in, the instructions to make it. Of course, there are several ways to make a knit cable sweater (like the one you wear) but the exact instructions to make it can be patented and many in the fiber arts community make their living by selling them.
IANAL and I don't know about patents (although considering their intent I would assume it to be similar law), but in the US you absolutely cannot copyright knit/crochet patterns, since they are just considered instructions to make things. Nobody owns the idea of a single crochet/knit stitch, etc., so remixing those "public domain" stitches into a pattern, even if it's a unique idea or design, is not protected under copyright. (Relatedly, I think this is why so many companies that make food/drink items have "secret recipes," since if they were made public anyone could recreate them without breaking copyright law.)
Yeah you can patent designs but not construction I believe, so your specific pattern is protected but not the concept or general construction is protected.
@ASmidgeOfPidge You can copyright knitting instruction patterns, but not specific stitch patterns. IE: If I make a pattern (instructions) for a garter knit sweater, I can copyright the instructions, but I can't copyright the garter stitch pattern itself.
But the copyright only extends to the written instructions, not the created items. Patents would not extend to knitting/crochet as you're not inventing a new way to knit.
Where it gets murky is that a majority of knitters can look at an item and figure out how to make the items from photos. They aren't breaking copyright because they did the work on figuring out how to make it on their own. If they bought the instructions, made copies of it and then sold those copies, that is copyright infringement.
Copyright is regarding the wording of a pattern and all written wordage actually, like, this statement is automatically copyrighted as it is an original written work made permanent by the act of me writing it. Therefore, knit/crochet/sewing patterns are certainly copyrighted as they contain written instructions. Patents are the government acknowledging an invention such as a better mousetrap, therefore patterns are not patentable.
You can’t copyright or patent, say, a sweater, even if it is made from a pattern that is copyrighted. Now, say Djerf artists drew the pattern that was printed on the pj’s, that is copyrighted under the fact it’s an original work of art. Copyright is literally a right. No further action is needed other than the writing/drawing/painting etc being made in the first place. At least, that is how it works in the US. Different countries have different copyright (and patent) laws.
ETA: I’ve written and published patterns as well as aiding designers in theirs.
My husband will be upset if someone doesn't explain copyright law correctly here so I will do my best:
The law is that 'useful' items like clothing, recipes, some toy designs, do not have copyright protections, in terms of being used to create things.
The exact text and images you create for your pattern have copyright protections for redistribution purposes. This is similar to how all artwork and creative writing has copyright to protect people from copying and pasting the same exact article and claiming they wrote it. Your pattern drawing can't be passed around without your permission, but they can follow the pattern, make their own thing out of it, take pictures of the thing they made and make a video talking about how they made it.
Copyright is automatic as soon as the object is created by the creator. That right can be sold to a company separate from selling them access to use the design (i.e. buying a print to produce vs owning the rights to redistribute the digital print to other companies to buy for use). Yes digital art printed on fabric has a copyright, but no the shirt design itself does not if someone wants to do the work to figure out how it was made.
Trademark is for Words/Names/Symbols to represent a brand. These should be filed officially, and if so can get a 'R' for Registered Trademark. Trademark applies for logos printed on fabric or using official names to market your product like 'Marvel Avengers Plushie' instead of 'Superhero Plushie'.
And Patents are for inventions, which honestly has the widest range of possibilities. You can patent a new sewing process, like a new machine or technique used to stitch things together that has never been used before, but sewing has been around for so long that's going to be very difficult to do unless you are literally designing and manufacturing new machines. If you manage to create a brand new crochet technique you could patent that, but good luck finding something never been done before.
And Lastly,
I genuinely don't quite know how this brand could have taken down all those videos for IP infringement, unless it was a Minecraft TH-cam drama thing all over again, where Microsoft tried to claim TH-camrs needed to take 'minecraft' out of their TH-cam titles a while back that scared everyone. I think the conclusion was they were upset that people were using their logo or claiming to be official Minecraft tutorials/content. So my only guess is the IP company crackdown was looking at video titles that were using the company brand name?? Cause that's trademark, and techhhhnically that might be a loophole, but I don't think it's a very solid one that would hold up in court 😂😂😂
Oh man what is wild to me is that Djerf Avenue looks like a relatively cheaper version of The Row. Who just makes higher quality basics essentially. Everything they make is just something that you add to an outfit to give it more intentionality. They have a 9k Cashmere trench coat that looks exactly like the one Swell showed. I don't know it just feels like all these people are getting mad at a beige cami top was being sold by another brand for an even cheaper price? It's really annoying that the company decided to start attacking content creators rather than the people who were copying their black shirt with a cut in the shoulder lmao.
Also wild that all the stuff on both those websites looks like it could also just be bought at Aritzia and some pieces, even UNIQLO LOL.
@@bringthatbooty lmao you can go even a step further. Half their products also look like ready to wear basics from Marc Jacobs, Givenchy, and Versace lmao. Like that camel trench coat I know for a fact Versace is currently selling lmao
I'm not the only one that kept hearing the brand name as "Derp" right?
@@Catheidan😮it’s not?
@@SokkaToEm I think its a recreation of a London Fog trench that Matilda has worn, still incredibly ironic 😭
This reminds me of when humans of Bombay sued people of India for ‘copying their idea’ ignoring the fact that humans of Bombay originally copied humans if New York, lmao
People just want to think they’re special and unique when the truth is almost every thought we have is far from unique. Even if you hadn’t seen something similar to a product you make/sell, it’s not like another human being across the planet doesn’t have the same idea or product
You just unlocked a memory from my teenhood, I completely forgot about this! I remember thinking that humans of Bombay was owned by humans of NY and they were the ones suing, then was confused when that was not the case
@@fathimamuhammad3799 yeah the original creator I think spoke out about the issue and I saw it on their Facebook page
One thing to note: original artworks (including patterns) are automatically copyrighted, so you don't have to file anything to "own" a pattern you made. You do need to register a copyright if you want to bring it to court, but that's more about informing the government that your copyright exists. According to the US Copyright Office, "registration is voluntary" because "copyright exists from the moment an object is created."
Came here to comment this. *Patents* do need to be specifically filed, which is what I think she's mixed up about, but creative works are not usually covered by patents (patents are usually for a new invention or a process that can be used in industry)
NAL (and not in the US), but I'm pretty sure you don't need to register copyright to take it to court (that's just the easiest way to prove copyright). Otherwise someone could steal your unfinished novel, file for copyright in their name and you'd have no way to sue them - when, as you say, it was your copyrighted work from the moment of creation.
ETA: The pattern you make counts as original artwork, so if you sell patterns someone can't just sell copies of your pattern. But if someone takes a finished garment and reverse engineers the pattern from it (which is generally pretty easy to do if you know what you're doing) and makes their own gament from that pattern I don't think that counts as copyright infringement.
@@kaspianepps7946 I think you misunderstood my original comment. While you do not need to register to enforce your copyright in the US, according to the US Copyright Office, you do need to register in order to file a lawsuit for copyright infringement. In the novel example you gave, it wouldn't matter whether you filed for copyright registration, but you would have to file for copyright registration as a part of filing the lawsuit if you haven't already, though the fact that the book is unpublished might make it more difficult to prove your case in court. As for your second paragraph, if by "reverse engineer" you mean make their own version of the design, then you would be correct. However, if you meant "reverse engineering" the exact design, then yes that would be copyright infringement. You "reverse engineer" something when you want to replicate it, and replicating a design exactly is the same thing as copying. It doesn't matter if they just scanned your pattern or recreated it by hand. That's one of the reasons art forgery is still illegal even though it's hand made. For example, if you draw a fruit pattern that goes lemon, apple, banana, orange, you don't have copyright over that order of fruit in the pattern, but you do have copyright over the drawings of the fruit you made. Someone else could draw their own fruit pattern that also goes lemon, apple, banana, orange and it wouldn't be copyright infringement, but if they used your drawings or recreated your drawings, then it is copyright infringement. They can make their own version, but they legally can't use the exact same pattern.
@@bad_bau By "reverse engineer" I meant taking an actual item of clothing and making a pattern from it - I'm not sure if this is technically copyright infringement, but it's basically impossible to prove that someone did that and didn't just see photos of the clothing and got 'inspired' to make something that looks the same - which as far as I'm aware is not copywrite infringement unless you use identical images on the fabric.
@@kaspianepps7946 Okay, I was talking about patterns as in stripes and polka-dots, not sewing patterns.
You look like youre about to tell me that you dont believe my test scores and you need to call my parents before you launch an investigatuon
😂😂😂
Now I can't unsee... Hehehe
With that spelling I wouldn’t believe you either
@@Thepeanutcollectorliterally the only thing they forgot was an apostrophe and a comma. Calm down 😅
As a Scandinavian, these bullshit beige polyester outfits are NOT what we wear 😭 I know she's Swedish (which makes this make a lot of sense, Swedish people are weird) but CMON.
She's not wearing the polyester, she's just selling it.
She’s not wearing the polyester, she’s just selling it.
I’m scandinavian and genuinely, off-tone, grey-ish and beige is the back bone of a lot of people’s wardrobe over here. Even influencers. It’s not what people wear in my personal social circle but if I take the tram to the richer area where people value conformity above other things I see it everywhere 💔
She's not wearing the polyester. She IS the polyester.
She's not wearing the polyester, she's just selling it.
Living in Stockholm it is wild to see how fiercely ppl uplift ""evelvated basics"" bc of quality while simoultaneously sourcing 90% of it from fast fashion (H&M, synthetic fibres, poor tailoring) is mind boggling 💀 it really is all branding
Some of these are so basic that it’s hard for me to say that they can be duped at all. It’s a tan tube top. How many ways can you make that “unique”?
My favorite part is when Swell said it's duping time and then duped on em
dudeee the dupe fight scene was lit
this has nothing to do with the subject of the vid other than I kept hearing "Djerf" avenue as "Derp" avenue. I don't know if that was on purpose, but it kept me giggling throughout the video. I kept seeing high fashion clothing being modeled by a two legged horse....
I thought it was just me LOL
My brain auto-corrects to derp as well.
Came looking for this comment
There's a very different meaning for Djerf as well in mormon culture haha, spelt durf in that case, but pronounced the same.
@@ChitRiderLMAO I CAME HERE TO SAY THE SAME THING LMAO
Just to help breakdown the way patents, trademark, and copyright works, cause this stuff is confusing af
Patents cover inventions, new processes, and scientific creations
Trademarks cover slogans, logos, basically the Brand itself
Whereas copyright protects original works of authorship
The thing about copyright is if you create an original work, you inherently own copyright of it, meaning you decide who gets to copy/distribute/use it etc. However, filing a copyright gives you more legal protections. Obviously there's a lot more nuance to this given certain areas, like what Swell said about patterns
Going after people talking about it seems like an intimidation. I'd like to know the state which these lawyers practice because this would seem to be SLAPP-like. People don't really have power and so when they get hit with a SLAPP, it keeps them silent because they don't understand the law nor do they have resources to understand it/get representation. At least, that's what it seems. Many lawsuits get filed and they all don't go further than that. Usually, as soon as the person getting sued becomes afraid & acts out of that fear, the suit gets dropped. This emboldens these people to continue on using lawsuits to intimidate. In many states, SLAPP has legal ramifications w/ a "SLAPP-back". These people who are getting sued are engaging in protected speech, IMO. The people going after them are in the wrong.
Now watching more of this, I am not sure if these are lawyers... In the most usual cases, the creator would be contacted by a firm. Signature would include the lawyer's name, the firm's name, and additional contact information. This seems, at least to me, that this company is duping legalspeak. In-house lawyers typically have their own thing, too. I just can't make any assumption based on the facts I know given here that this is above-board. It all feels well out of norm to be considered legit. Occam's Razor, ya know?
What is SLAPP?
I work with patterns for my business, the creator of a pattern have full copyright/ownership for the pattern, so usually clothing companies purchase the "license" from the creator to use the pattern for a period of time or indefinitely, where the pattern is either EXCLUSIVE or NON-EXCLUSIVE. So several businesses can use the same pattern. So a clothing company doesnt automatically have the copyright to use the pattern just because they sell it!
I love to learn about drama I would have never heard of otherwise. Thank you for your service Amanda
for everything you discussed my brain latched onto berries and cream "I'M A LITTLE LAD WHO LOVES BERRIES AND CREAM"
thank you for unlocking this memory
Yeah...displaying the pattern on the fabric itself could be a ridic weak copyright violation (and they dont have to file anything to protect copyrights, protection is automatic) but its not a great PR look.
You actually can get a patent on clothing articles (but its hard!) The Burberry trenchcoat and Longchamp Le Pliage bag both had patent protection. Shoes, especially athletic wear, often get design patents.
Consider this the point at which I will no longer buy ANYTHING for the purpose of supporting someones brand. It never ends well, I always end up regretting it.
you are indeed right on the money; the exact patterning of a garment can be patented, but you cannot gain a patent on a "style" of garment. I'm not exactly sure about the fabric print, but I do believe that is something you can patent too, since you can do so for tartans.
You should be able to patent the print/pattern on the fabric as it’s technically artwork.
@@DeathyASyou may be able to copyright the print. But there is nothing original or unique about having berries and strawberry on PJ's I think it's very common to have it. And it's important that it has to be original and unique to get a copyright
@@dishadharmraj6986 sorry that is what I meant. unless the dupes are flat out stealing the actual print without the artists consent there so isn’t a claim (nor is there a claim if that fabric is available wholesale and was legally purchased). As the fabric itself is pretty much the only part that might be copyrighted on the pjs.
I've heard of derfjfhsdf avenue before but I had NO IDEA they sold SHE*N quality clothing at Louis Vuitton prices. 😭
As someone with very little money for extras like makeup and clothing I don’t mind dupes, especially from big companies. Now counterfeit items are another thing, that’s wrong and can even be dangerous when it comes to cosmetics.
Also I don’t think you can copy basics, like every brand ever has a beige tube top.
If you can, I'd recommend buying from charity shops. I bought a really nice shawl type thing a few weeks ago for less than £3 and it's one of the best things I've ever bought.
Oh yes, I get most of my wardrobe from thrift stores.
she's just a pretty dropshipper. most of her garments are clearly inspired by 1688/alibaba dupes of high fashion
Yeah, first comes fashion, ideas, inspo, then it becomes mainstream, because affordable dupes are being made available Shein, Ali express, etc. It happens really really fast.
Fun fact: If you unsend a message on TikTok, it disappears from your history, but still shows on theirs. Ask me how I know. 😅
Nah don't care keep it to urself
I related when you said you got that top at Anthropologie. I work there and the prices are absolutely insane
oh that’s so cool, anthropologie was my dream college part time job when I was hs but I never got hired 😢 and worked somewhere while in school
Hi! I’m a patent agent so I can answer a couple of your questions.
There are two types of patents (well… technically 3 but we aren’t talking about plants here), utility and design. Utility patents are for functional things only, such as machines, methods of manufacture, etc.. Design patents cover only the ornamental design of an item, not its function. Design patents are much easier to obtain, much cheaper, but provide far less coverage legally. So someone COULD patent a novel method of creating a garment (and there is a huge industry around that, garment manufacturers hold many many patents on knitting machines, screen printing methods, novel polymers for materials, etc..) but you cannot copyright that method.
Copyrights, on the other hand, protect origination and authorship of (generally) artistic endeavors such as art, music, or books. The design of the pajamas would have a copyright inherent to whoever created the design, even without registration. Registration simply makes it easier to litigate. You have a copyright on this video, and I have a copyright on this comment.
So TL;DR patents are for ideas for functional items, copyrights are for artsy fartsy designs and shit
My understanding is copyright can protect the printed patterns on fabric but very little else when it comes to clothing.
Trademark can potentially apply to product designs but they're not inherently distinctive and something cannot be subject to trademark if it's functional. There's an on point Supreme Court case involving these knockoff dresses WalMart made and was sued over, but Wal Mart ended up winning because product design is not inherently distinctive for trademark purposes.
i spend a good amt of money on good comfortable work clothes, bc im plus sized and very sensitive to textures, but damn if id spend a ton of money on “elevated basics” that are still just cheap polyester
Preeeaach. Makes me so mad they market themselves as high quality while being POLYESTER. ugh.
I've been hearing a lot of desk noise lately from your microphone. Just thought I'd let you know since I didn't see any other comments about it. May need shock mount. That or maybe the bands on the shock mount are worn.
Still love the content though!
I was going to comment this too. The clunky noises really made the video hard to listen to, for me. Hopefully just a setup issue
This is good constructive criticism as she is still getting her spot established. 🙌
same, the constant "nails on desk" sound got my misophonia real good 😫
So I know this is an old video. But to explain the pattern (from my understanding from Tan's Next in Fashion show) is that either one could copyright the patern. It depends on a few things. Like how when Lockheed Martin makes a new plane design. They often own the patent because they pay their designers and engineers good money. And its because they made it using company money/resources. The big if is whether that person is a contractor or an employee. Employee, the brand owns it 9/10 times. Contractor 100% owns it every time.
I don't normally comment, but this video was so well-informed, produced, explained, edited, etc. I thoroughly enjoyed it & will be binge-watching your videos for the next 3 hours, ty! :)
Swell, ty for existing. I had to make small talk at work to a few famous ppl for 20 minutes, and they like your videos! Cant say who, but talking abt your vids made the time fly!❤ they were all rad too! Just wanna lyk that you've got a nice fanbase!!!
So unrelated but that sweater is GORGEOUS the color suits you so well
Sweater is literally mentioned 3 minutes later my bad loll.
Hey, a clarification: copyright is applied automatically to any form of original expression by a human. A pattern is like a drawing, so it is automatically copyrighted to the original creator (or, more likely in this case, to the company the creator was working for). That being said, a pattern is very easy to change a little and in this case it is no longer copyrighted (the analogy to drawing would be redrawing a painting). A more useful thing in this case is trademarking the pattern - however a trademark is there to protect consumers from being scammed, so you need to prove that the pattern is an integral part of your brand and consumers can get confused if another product has it (think LV’s pattern). A generic (no offence to the artist) berries pattern is unlikely to be able to be trademarked.
Btw I am not an expert in any of this, this is just my interpretation of the law based on reading articles lol.
I work as something like an inhouse lawyer for my country's government and the idea of sending someone a dm instead of at least an email to communicate in a legal matter is wild to me. We still work with letters and have to follow specific rules if we want to communicate via email instead, lol. But then again, the choice to go after the influencers is wild, too. My guess would be she already tried going after the company but that went nowhere because the company making the dupes is in a country that is out of her reach.
The fabric listed as Turkey is hilarious. Giving me Pink Sauce ingredients as random items and calories/servings (can't remember) as angel numbers. I can't with these people.
As far as I know, once a designer makes a print, they own the copyright of it. If they make it as part of an (exclusive) contract, the company owns the copyright.
But something has to be copied to be able to make a claim… showing products in videos… is not reproducing the copyrighted work…
I have one of their blazers and really like it. Would definitely buy again. This behaviour is super strange though, especially bc Matilda had this style before she created her brand, meaning all of the clothes in those styles existed before Djerf Avenue. Now the print is a special case... but I agree they should have just removed the amazon sellers. And to be honest: if your product is the product that people want to dupe bc it's so popular, that's a really good sign for a brand. So them doing this looks super bad and I see a lot of people now coming out talking about how they aren't impressed with the quality etc. That probably wouldn't have happened if they hadn't started this whole thing... so lots of bad choices by them.
The way not a single person pronounces her name the same
So, copyright is inherent as a right in America but patents are not, depending on whether it’s CR or Patent will depend on whether they can claim it or not. (Without filing paperwork)
Isn’t Djerf that fake number that was made up on icarly?
Lmao yeah
I will say, as someone who has bought from Djerf Avenue, the quality is hit or miss. I didn't know who Matilda Djerf was before researching and deciding to buy from her. I was about 60 lbs heavier and considered plus size, so I wanted to find a good brand for work/travel basics that was size inclusive and I was willing to splurge a bit (this was a year and 1/2 ago). The fabric for the "everyday tank top" I have is really thick and durable, it is made of cotton and elastane, but the fit just feels a bit baggy and unflattering. I got the "tube dress" and it was the one I was least impressed with, it was a weird fit, like it hugged all the wrong places, and it just felt like a big tube of fabric with a thin elastic strap at the top. It was not flattering but the material was a thick, comfy cotton. My favorite thing (and the only thing I still really wear, although I need to go get them taken in) is the "favorite pants." I was really impressed with the fit, I struggled most with finding relaxed style dress pants when I was heavier and these were amazing and sooooo soft and comfy even though it is partially polyester (74% recycled polyester, 21% viscose, 5% elastane). Her company is really good with size inclusivity in marketing and practice. While she does use a lot of synthetic fibers, her fabrics are still good quality and I feel like it's just slightly above a $40-$60 Urban Outfitters piece in terms of price and quality.
i thought this video was going to be about the weirdo claiming to have invented velour tracksuits with butt bling, and saying Juicy Couture copied her “design” . . .
a separate issue entirely is the griftfluencer trend of setting up a drop shipping storefront and calling yourself a “fashion designer.” words mean things!
*Modem noises in my head* But.... copyright strikes on videos are for content copying.... not... people wearing them or talking about them..... the copyright infringement is not on the people promoting them.....
I hope this doesn't come across weird at all: that is the best ad read for a sex toy I've ever seen. I feel like I actually learned about the product and it's features instead of just a weird pop-feminism appeal for the same clitoral massager that everyone else has made in the same purple a few shades off from this one. This feels like a company that is actually confident in their product, less like a Link Under A Twitter Post That Says "Girls!!!! You Have To Get This, You Won't Need Your Man Anymore!"
The reason CEOs get paid so much is because they're the fall guy when something goes wrong.
A bit of a problem when your CEO is the only reason the company exists in the first place.
Define “something goes wrong” lol, because in the day to day operations of most businesses… the CEO is NEVER getting involved. And will certainly not be taking the fall.
As opposed to mr. Elongated Muskrated, who took down a company he didn't even make
Yeah..like the ceos of the railroad company that derailed in Ohio and released toxic waste into air, land and water...like owners of the company who sold toxic industrial rug cleaner as disinfectant for humidifiers in Korea which killed and injured thousands of children and adults...and why do they need that money to avoid jail time for negligence...most businesses owners know the fines are worth the fine they pay Because they rarely are fined at a high level or jailed for negligence.
I keep thinking I’m hearing DERP Avenue, and it sounds appropriate in this context
Do Popflex and Cloak count as successful creator clothing companies at this point? Like they don't have fashion shows like Djerf but they've been around longer. Plus I feel like Nonsense has a shot. Maybe its just the circles Im in but I feel like more and more content creators are successfully launching brands that don't really have anything to do with their established brand.
this kind of implies they can and will hit you for happening to wear a piece of clothing they made in an unrelated video, which is terrifying??
i'm so glad you're not defending her and are actually calling her out. i was honestly a little frustrated seeing one of my other favorite youtubers saying "oh she might not be involved let's not all rush to get angry at her" in a video this week so your take was much more refreshing
This is a common complaint in the clothing industry 🤷🏼♀️ she’s literally one in a million. Welcome to the fashion world sweetie.
Your makeup looks so nice in this video! Especially with your dark hair and the color of your sweater
I think throughout time, the Dupes with their success have forgotten the unwritten rule of being a successful dupe.
The last couple of your videos have had a lot of microphone tapping/ bumping noises? Idk what it is, but ive noticed it a lot in the last few!
She’s in a new recording setup, it hasn’t been fully dialed in yet.
@@sidhawkeri figured it was from her move!
A couple friends of mine from art school worked at Carter's Children's Clothing after graduating, and their job was designing the images, patterns, and plaids that went on boys' sleepwear. Carter's owned the things they created because that was outlined within their contract of employment, which is pretty standard.
So while yes, the patterns on fabric that are used in clothing are created by artists, the artists don't generally own the rights to those patterns. Their employer automatically owns the pattern, and the artists are compensated for the transfer of those rights within their salary.
@notville_ Deleted my original reply because nevermind. I looked at your comment history on this channel. Begone, doorstop.
15:46 For Trademarks and Copyrights, you automatically get basic protection at time of creation. When you register your IP, you get more thorough federal protections. :)
Main topic aside Amanda just looks so stunning in this video, couldn't stop thinking about how pretty she is 🥺
I don't know why my brain is like this, but something about the sound of your fingernails going 'tik' on the counter/desk below the bottom of the shot was FREAKING ME OUT. I think because it was a disembodied sound, I kept thinking it was coming from somewhere in the room with me, like a bug or a mouse, and it was random intervals as you did things I couldn't see, so I couldn't predict it, or ignore it.
Not mad, just laughing at my own weird brain and letting you know the mic picked it up distinctly in case you want to change things up in future. Please don't change your manicure for this, they look great. Swell did nothing wrong. 😃
the fabric being listed as Turkey, on the trench, kills me
One of the reasons why I stopped selling on Etsy is because ppl kept stealing my patterns.
It's a huge issue on Etsy 🙁I hoard cross stitch patterns and have mistakenly bought patterns that turned out to be low-quality scans of another designer's pattern. Makes me feel horrible, and it's not always easy to know if I'm buying from the original creator or not. The only way I've been able to be *absolutely* sure is to just follow a few creators that have a recognizable style, and I know that I like their patterns. About half a dozen pattern links have just disappeared from my purchase history because they'd been (presumably) copyright claimed and removed from Etsy, and a number of shops I initially followed have closed up for the same reason. It's the wild west in there...😞
wow i love a deep dive drama update into a subject i know nothing about
Amanda this fit is INSANE
Feels like your style / look has changed the last few vids & im loving it!!! Seems like you’re stepping into your signature style!!! ❤
isn’t everything just a copy of a copy? i’ve always had a theory that Aeropostale is a knockoff American Eagle, which is a knockoff Hollister, which is a knockoff Abercrombie & Fitch, which is a knockoff H&M. nothing is original.
abercrombie & hollister are the same company tho
@@nova-vv4kv oh good to know
congrats on getting sponsored by such a fantastic company!!! normally i'm not really familiar with your sponsors outside of what you tell us, but Lelo is the besstttt
Oh, my favorite! People trying to take ownership of things they don't actually own and falling face first on the floor because of it!
6:53 Cupro is a pretty nice fabric in my experience, and according to a list I just looked at it's listed under natural fibers (under sub-category of Rayon, to be specific), so the price of the pants isn't too bad, IMO. More than I'd be willing to pay for something so boring and basic though. Just thought it was an unfair criticism that they weren't 100% silk when they didn't claim to be.
Ehh imo “silky material” as a description is still misleading.
It’s gonna be interesting to for the first time ever hear my own name being mentioned in a deep dive video 😂
As always excited for your take. Like you I have seen her brand as a successful influencer brand and I have heard very positive things about her clothes from people who bought them.
Gonna.
@@AugustRx lol I left this comment at the beginning of the video. Now I can say it WAS interesting I reacted like she spoke about me at first 😅
Yeah I checked out the brand a year ago and when I saw the price point for mediocre materials I tapped out real quick
The way I was completely shocked by and had mental whiplash when the ad popped up 💀 no shame or shade at all btw I just was not expecting that happen let alone be the sponsor for todays video
Yeah a warning before a sex toy ad would have maybe been nice.
the solution to elevated basics is to take up knitting and learn that instead of buying a $200 polyester sweater you can spend $200 on great wool yarn and another 200 hours on labor to make a sweater that will outlive you!
Oh, seeing this name and 'gate' being analysed brought memory of my recent 'tour de pinterest wannabes' on Twitter where I live.
'The outrage! How peasants can copy the master! How can they attack her?!' There is a group of girlies that truly worships this influencer to no ends and their asporation is to be like her/be the influencer she sends PR packages to.
Personally, I'll never understand the allure to be a beige clone of someone, especially someone 30kg lighter than myself and conventionally attractive, someone not relatable to me. But I guess point of perspective depends on point of sitting.
6:56 Is it made out of turkey the country or turkey the bird?
man finnish style is so different from scandinavian styles. most of us in our fashion care about functionality and sustainability. imagine layers of like wool and stuff 😂. wide leg pants, long jackets, BIG scarves and lots of marimekko
I personally hadn't heard about the brand before this video, but as someone who likes to sew, and keep up on some fashion related stuff from a distance, I always find the topic of dupes, copies, replicas, etc to be interesting. But when it comes to fabrics and prints, I do have to point something out that you didn't seem to acknowledge. When an artist designs something for fabric, you used the example of a photo being printed and used on items. In that case, typically the agreement is more of a partnership where revenue is split and the photographer still owns their image, as is sometimes the case with graphic tees as well. With prints on fabric, like pyjamas, curtain designs, etc. usually the setup is a little different. The fabric manufacturer often will either commission the design (say, if I went to an artist and asked for them to design a tiling print featuring strawberry flowers and berries), or they will buy a design from an artist's work (like picking from a catalogue, what they want to make). In either case, most times the rights to the image, design, graphics, are all owned by the fabric printing company rather than the artist, unless they do a collab style project where both get credited (usually only really famous artists or logos). I think of my local fabric store. They have a bunch of Barbie fabrics in, so it credits both Barbie, and the fabric manufacturer, not the original graphic designer who designed the current Barbie logo, or the designer who put the logos and images on the fabric in that arrangement. Most fabrics there only credit the fabric company, which happens to be the parent company of the store in my case.
There are a few options here when it comes to not owning the design. The first is that the clothing company did obtain the print as original/exclusive to them, but didn't clarify with the artist and/or manufacturer who owned what. The second is that it was an existing print from a store or manufacturer's catalogue (like private label, or buying it from Aliexpress, or some factory) and thus can't obtain the rights to it as they got it through the same channels that any other manufacturer can also access. The final and most likely option based on what this video shows, is that they probably didn't look into how things work, and where fabric is sourced.
Fabrics have 2 main attributes, a fibre content (cotton, polyester, wool, silk, etc) and how it was made often referred to as fabric type (knit, plain weave, satin, felted, etc). And the combination of those things makes up a material. Example, expensive wedding dresses are often silk satin, but cheaper ones use polyester satin, as it's the same weaving pattern to get that shine, but made from plastic instead. There seems to be some oddities in how that info is listed compared to other sites, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were some misunderstandings about how that system all works.
You've been serving fashion in your videos lately and I'm here for it!!
you can also delete emails they can be placed on a timer. i've experienced that before with a support email, as soon as my issue was resolved i couldnt find the email even searching up specific keywords in my entire inbox
Amanda out here giving Andrea sachs, from the devil wears prada
Hey Swell! It's called a "print" when it's the pattern printed on a fabric. Newsprint, paisley, polka dots, a motif etc, are all prints.
I love standing swell trying to control the rage in new ways.
Her Tik Tok is back up now! 🙊
Thanks for this swell video, Swell!