Role of Copyright Law in the Media Industry

By Megan Carvalho

What is Copyright?

Copyright is a form of Intellectual property that gives its owner exclusive rights to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute a creative work. Copyright relates to literary and artistic creations, such as books, music, paintings and sculptures, films and technology-based works (such as computer programs and electronic databases). In certain languages, copyright is referred to as authors’ rights[1]. Copyright in India for literary, dramatic, artistic and musical works last for sixty years after the death of the author, while copyright for cinematographic films, photographs and sound recordings last for sixty years.

Unauthorized reproduction, importation or distribution either whole or of a substantial part of the work protected by copyright is called copyright infringement. Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 deals with infringement of copyrights. However, all unauthorised use of copyrighted works are not infringement as certain acts are not considered to be infringement of copyright. They are treated as fair dealing of copyright work, such as, private and personal use, criticism or review, and reporting of current events and current affairs.[2]

Copyright and the Media

Media of all types, TV, radio, film, music, advertising, press, publishing and even the internet, are regulated by various different laws and statutory and non-stautory bodies. While the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India broadens the scope of the media, laws such as the Press And Registration Of Books Act, the Cable Television (Regulation) Act, the Copyright Act, and even the Indian Penal Code lay down certain restrictions on the media industry.

Copyright Law plays a great role in the media industry, since the owner of an original creative work holds the exclusive rights to reproduce, copy, publish, broadcast and even translate or adapt his work. The economic benefit given by virtue of a copyright provides an incentive to the author to create new works and protect them against infringers, encouraging new and creative works by many different people. Thus, the media industry is very much affected by the provisions of the copyright laws and the exceptions provided under it.

Copyright and Press Media

Press Media is mass media that delivers news to the public. This includes print media (newspapersnewsmagazines), broadcast news (radio and television), and more recently the Internet (online newspapers, news blogs, news videos, live news streaming, etc.). Press media is concerned with facts, so not all press is copyrightable but among those that are, the written works such as newspapers, news-magazines and blogs are copyrighted as ‘literary works’, while TV news broadcasts and news videos can be considered ‘Cinematographic films’[3], and radio broadcasts and news podcasts as ‘Sound recordings[4]’ under the Copyright Act.

Works that are not creative or original cannot be copyrighted, so, news, facts or information cannot be copyrighted as they have not originated from the author (even if he was the one to discover them). While the news itself cannot be copyrighted, a copyright can exist in the expression of that news[5]. Copyright in India only protects original and creative expressions of ideas and not ideas themselves.[6] Even Article 2(8) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1886 excludes the protection for “news of the day or to miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information.”

The reproduction or publication of anything in the public domain does not amount to infringement of copyright[7]. Therefore, if a person gains knowledge of an event and creates news item or publishes an informative story on an online blog or shares a report, perhaps on Whatsapp or Twitter, he cannot be said to be violating any copyright as long as he does not copy anybody else’s creative expression.

Copyright and Advertising

Advertisements are paid, non-personal, public communication promoting causes, goods and services, ideas, organizations, people, and places, through means such as direct mail, telephone, print, radio, television, and internet.[8] They serve a dual purpose, first, they inform the consumers about the product, giving information about price and potential performance, secondly, they persuade consumers to buy their product by various means such as attractive captions, slogans, characters, repetition etc.

Advertising is a very fast growing and highly competitive industry, where using intellectual property laws to protect the advertisements is of utmost significance. The copyright law is of relevance not only to the advertisers and advertising agencies, but to the creative persons such as visualizers, art directors, copy script and slogan writers, performers and so on, who are engaged in creating valuable advertising property.

Like all other creative work, for an advertisement to be copyrightable it must be original[9], must involve some form of expression and not be just an idea (there is no copyright for ideas)[10], it must not be from the public domain[11] and must involve some sort of labour, skill and capital[12]. If these conditions are satisfied a copyright can be given to an advertisement of any type, an advertisement has various components involving literary, artistic, dramatic, musical skills each of which may be protected under the classes of work mentioned in section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Catalogues, brochures etc. fall under the head of literary works and copyright subsists in them. Courts have on a number of occasions held that copyright subsists in trade advertisements and catalogues. In Collis v. Carter[13] it was held that copyright subsisted in a dry list of ordinary medicines sold by a chemist, arranged in alphabetical order, which had required labour, expense and trouble, but no literary skill in its compilation. In Maple and Co. v. Junior Army and Navy Stores[14] an illustrated catalogue for advertisement and not for sale was held to be a book and subject matter of copyright. It is always open to doubt whether the component parts of the catalogue are original but a catalogue is generally a compilation upon which the compiler has exercised skill and judgement[15].

While advertisements printed in newspapers or magazines or even on the internet may contain written material, copyright does not protect names, titles, individual words, short phrases, and slogans. Words cannot be given copyright even if the in question is an invented word[16], though it may be protected by trademark.

TV commercials and advertising films can be included in the category of cinematographic films as defines in section 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957. In R.C. Products Ltd v. S.C. Johnson Ltd.[17], where there was an adaptation of the elements of advertisement or get up by the respondent and there was material on record clearly suggesting that the subsequent TV commercial was a copy of the earlier one, the court passed an injunction order against the respondent in a suit for infringement of copyright.

Radio Jingles may be copyrighted as a sound recording according to section 2(xx) of the Copyright Act. With regard to musical works in advertising, using familiar songs or catchy music in the advertisement is an effective marketing strategy and thus many advertisers use licensed copyrighted music. In the case of William Music v. Pearson Partnership[18], an advertising agency produced a TV advertisement for a bus company, which parodied the lyrics and music of “There is Nothin’ Like a Dame” from Rodgers and Hammerstein’s musical “South Pacific”. The plaintiffs sued the respondent agency. The judge held that no special rules applied to parodies when it came to copyright and that there was infringement of copyright held by the plaintiffs in the music.

Advertisements are generally creative works created by many people in the employment of the advertiser, therefore, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the employer will be the owner of the copyright. Generally, in case of an employer-employee relationship the copyright lies with the employer, while in case of an independent contractor the copyright lies with the author.

Copyright and the Internet

The Internet has become a vital platform for delivering digital content such as movies, music, books, news, and software. The global reach of the Internet enables digital content to be nearly instantaneously delivered to any part of the world, meaning that international barriers are significantly reduced or eliminated in the case of digital content. Which means that copyright is a very important mechanism for creation and dissemination of digital content. However, the ubiquity of the internet also means that copyright infringement and online piracy is easier than ever.

The Copyright Act, 1957 gives certain rights to the owner and lays down the provisions relation to the infringement of copyright, but makes no provision as to whether such infringement occurred in cyberspace or in physical world. However, the internet is a very different type of media, due its wide accessibility, the ability to disperse information to a huge audience almost instantaneously at a cheap cost, and the difficulty in telling apart the original and the copy, which makes it difficult to apply the traditional theories to the cyberspace.

While it is clear that reproducing any copyrighted work, issuing copies of the work to the public or communicating the work to the public would amount to the copyright violation under the Act even on the internet, in cases of copyright violations like in linking, framing and in-lining there is no reproduction of any copyrighted work.

Linking means connecting two web pages on the internet. The user is provided for an access of a website through the original site. It is of two main types, surface linking and deep linking. In surface linking, the site provides the link to the homepage of another site. In deep linking, the site offers a link to the inner pages of the website, bypassing the homepage. Deep linking can amount to copyright infringement as such a hyperlinker’s actions can amount to ‘communication to the public’[19]. In the Shetland Times Ltd. v. Dr Jonathan Wills and Zet News Ltd.[20] both parties offered Internet-based news services. The “Shetland News” reproduced verbatim a number of headlines from the online edition of the Shetland Times as hypertext links to the corresponding news articles which led to users bypassing the front page of the Shetland Times’ web site and reading only the linked texts. It was argued that both their web site and that of the defenders were cable programmes, and that the defenders infringed copyright under s20 of the Act[21] and the Court granted an interim injunction for Copyright protection.

Framing is the juxtaposition of two separate Web pages within the same page, usually with a separate frame with navigational elements. It is generally viewed as stealing another website’s content, however, framing does not directly reproduce or distribute any copy of the original web page. Therefore, because case law has not been developed definitely regarding framing, it is more likely to be regarded as copyright infringement if copyrighted material is modified without permission or if customers are confused about the association between the two sites[22].

“In-lining” is the process of displaying a graphic file on one website that originates at another. Instead of copying the elements to the composite page, the elements are linked in by “pulling in” graphic or image files from another site and displaying on the composite Web page. According to section 14 and 51[23], reproducing any copyrighted work, issuing copies of the work to the public or communicating the work to the public could amount to copyright violation, but the person who employs an in-line link on his site is not causing any reproduction of the copyrighted content. However, in-lining creates moral issues as Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows the copyright author to claim authorship of the work and provides that author of the copyrighted work has a right to see that his work is not being distorted, mutilated or modified. Therefore, the courts to decide upon the legality of in-lining from case to case. In case an in-line link amounts to aiding in distribution or communication with dishonest intentions, the courts will come forward and declare such it illegal.


Media is a broad and ever-changing field, especially with the advent of the internet, and since the media is made up of much creative expression and labour, copyright plays a great role in this industry. What is and isn’t copyrightable, what constitutes infringement and how enforceable copyright is, all greatly influence how media is made and consumed. Therefore, since copyright plays such an important role in the media industry, it is imperative that copyright laws stay abreast with the times and provide a clear path for the equitable development of the media industry.

[1] Understanding Copyright and Related Rights, WIPO, 2016

[2] Sec. 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957

[3] Sec. 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957

[4] Sec. 2(xx) of the Copyright Act, 1957

[5] Springfield v. Thame, (1903) 89 LT 242 at 243

[6] RG Anand v. Delux Films, (AIR 1978 SC 1613)

[7] Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008) 1 SCC 1

[8] advertisement (ad). WebFinance, Inc. August 16, 2020, <>.

[9] Cramp & Sons Ltd v Frank Smythson Ltd [1944] AC 329


[10] RG Anand v. Delux Films, (AIR 1978 SC 1613)

[11] Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008) 1 SCC 1

[12] Mishra Bandhu Karyalaya And Ors. vs Shivratanlal Koshal AIR 1970 MP 261

[13] Collis vs. Carter [1898] 78 LT 613

[14] Maple and Co. vs. Junior Army and Navy Stores [1893] 21 Ch D 369

[15] Lamb v. Evans (1893) 1 Ch. 218.

[16] Exxon Corp. v. Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] Ch. 119

[17] R.C. Products Pty., Ltd., vs. S.C. Johnson Pty. Ltd., 26 IPR 98 (Federal Court of Australia)

[18] William Music vs. Pearson Partnership [1987]FSR 97

[19] Section 2(ff) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957

[20] Shetland Times Ltd v Dr Jonathan Wills and Zet News Ltd ,(1997) FSR 604, 1997 SLT 669

[21] Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

[22] Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957

[23] The Copyright Act, 1957


Role of Intellectual Property in the Fashion Industry

By: Diya Mehta

“Fashion is very important. It is life-enhancing, and, like everything that gives pleasure, it is worth doing well.” – Vivienne Westwood[i]

Indeed! But what is the fashion of the day? The task of defining it has become exhausting as ever, owing to the speed with which what’s in the trend and what’s not changes- a process called “fast fashion”. One may now be able to relate as to why the ‘culottes’ that were so trendy when you went shopping last month are now suddenly old-fashioned and why the racks in the stores are now filled with the ‘boot-cut’ jeans.

The giant industry, however, is not free from the rampant practices of ‘imitating’ and ‘counterfeiting’-the terms having larger legal and moral implications than a common man might be able to accentuate. Therefore, to combat this evil, most legal systems have intellectual property law in place. Intellectual property law helps protect the creative and inventive creations of human intellect.[ii] The technological advancements and digitalization have made it necessary to extend protection to the creative minds that have nurtured the fashion industry and made it a billion-dollar industry.



Trademark is a type of intellectual property right that helps the consumer to identify the source of the goods. That interlocking GG of Gucci, YSL letters of Yves Saint Laurent’s, raises eyebrows of the masses for the twofold reasons-the instant association of the goods with their source (a well-known luxury brand) and the whooping price that a person in the possession of such goods might have paid. Trademark, therefore, acts as an effective source of protection for the designers who incorporate trademark protected symbols and logos in their designs.[iii]

The ongoing battle between Kanye West and a fragrance company for their respective “YZY” trademarks is one such trademark issue that adumbrates how two companies are forbidden from having identical marks that might confuse or deceive the consumers concerning the source of the goods.[iv]


Trade Dress

Trade dress is a kind of protection extended to a product when it is distinctive or acquires a secondary meaning. The robin blue color of tiffany’s packaging or the infamous red sole heels of Christian Louboutin’s, helps the consumers to directly link it to the source. What’s new is Valentino’s quest for acquiring trade dress protection for its “three-dimensional configuration of a shoe with a single ankle strap and T-strap and collar which are adorned with pyramid shaped studs”.[v]



Patent law protects the novel, useful and non-obvious innovations. Applicable to both design and utility patents, patent protection even though watertight, hardly comes handy to the fashion industry because of time-consuming procedure of patent applications and frequent changes in fashion trends.[vi] However, there are still some designers that hold successful patents. One such patent is Virgil Abloh’s Off White patent for paperclip jewelry. The patent is not for the paperclip shaped jewelry which has nothing novel in it but for the jewelry pieces with elements shaped like paperclips and which are studded with small jewels or rhinestones.[vii]


Copyright and Designs Act

There has been a lot of dilemmas and back and forth with respect to the protection granted, under the two Acts, to the designers in India. Copyright Act, 1957 protects the ‘artistic work’ and the Designs Act, 2000 on the other hand extend protection to the ‘original designs’ including the shapes, configurations, pattern, ornament, and composition of lines or colors.[viii] However, the line between permissible copying and design piracy is blurry due to the difficulty in defining the originality of the designs.[ix] Also, the mandatory provision of getting your designs registered which entails a lengthy procedure further adds to the hardships faced by the designers due to fast-changing nature of the fashion industry. Additionally, the sanctions imposed against the infringer is of minuscule amount of Rs. 25000.[x]


The Ripple Effect

The intellectual property available to the fashion designers, though varied, is still deficient. The claim stands because of the lack of a proper mechanism to protect the designers and their creativity, the failure to fight against the prevalent organized crime of counterfeiting, rampant copying of designs and selling it for cheap, and its domino effect on sustainability.[xi]

As asserted above, there are some legal, social, and moral impacts associated with the practices of counterfeiting and knocking-off.


Effect on the Environment

The thirst to be up-to-date with the latest fashion trends come at an enormous cost. The fast-fashion era though quenches this thirst of people belonging to different economic cadres, it leaves a catastrophic impact on the environment. There are only so many resources available on the earth and keeping up with the ever-increasing demand has thus become a daunting task. Cotton production requires land masses and water for irrigation which in turn leads to water, air, and land pollution.[xii] Manufacturing a piece of clothing also requires a ginormous amount of water. What further adds to the environmental concerns associated with fast-fashion is the chemicals and dyes used for the production of clothes. These harmful substances are dumped into water bodies leading to hazardous implications. Adding even further is the mountainous land-fills, overfilled due to discarded clothes that were once the ‘new thing we had our eyes on’.


Crushing Human Rights

How fast is too fast? The question will hold relevance when instead of turning blind eye to what goes behind the veils of the gigantic fashion industry is known to the general people. The very same designs introduced by a designer on a fashion show which might take him around 6 months to make it available for sale, takes less than 2 weeks to hit the stores of the participants and promoters of the fast-fashion race. The impossible becomes possible only because of the labor law violations involved in the process. The British fast-fashion giant ‘Boohoo’ has been accused of cramped high-density conditions, with wages falling below the standard basic wages.[xiii]. Brands like GAP, Zara, and Forever 21 have been as guilty as Boohoo for employing underaged children and paying them by the system of per-piece, forcing them to put in longer hours at work under inhumane conditions and for the payment of the size of a peanut. What’s required is to ponder whether paying cheap prices for knock-offs is even worth it when the plight of children employed in the garment factories with filthy conditions and poor wage system is on the rope. After all, Lucy Siegle (journalist and author) puts it correctly, “Fast fashion isn’t free. Someone, somewhere is paying.”[xiv]


Drug Trafficking and Terrorism

Better technology has made it effortless to manufacture counterfeit products that look convincingly real.[xv] With counterfeit products, the wrongdoing does not stop at trademark infringements but it also abets crimes like drug trafficking, human trafficking, and terrorism. In 1993, when law enforcement officials raided a warehouse in Manhattan full of counterfeit products they found drugs sewn in the lining of the handbags.[xvi]It is also believed that Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations fund themselves through the sale and trafficking of counterfeit goods.[xvii] What is even scarier is obtaining the goods legally by producing knock-offs and adding labels of known brands like Prada, Chanel, Gucci, only after the goods have cleared the customs.[xviii]


But how is it possible that the practices of counterfeiting and piracy are still flourishing when there is law in place? The design piracy and counterfeiting are possible because of the lack of globally synced intellectual property law available for the industry and shortcomings of the existing laws. Ironically, there is an ongoing debate on whether or not the scope of intellectual property protection available to the fashion industry should be widened. The reason for debating on what should have a black and white answer is because of what people call- piracy paradox. It is believed that faster the cycle of fashion, greater will be the incentive for top tier fashion designers to innovate, only to be copied once again, giving a push to keep the wheel of fast-fashion rolling.[xix] The advocators and believers of this so-called conundrum fail to recognize the domino effect that lack of intellectual property rights sets. This onset a vicious cycle of which a common man becomes not only a part but also a major contributor. Apart from policy reasons there are moral arguments as well for granting larger protections to the creativity of the designers.


Prisoner’s dilemma

Application of the theory of prisoner’s dilemma to content creation, access, and copying that goes excessively in the fashion industry portrays a greater need to have intellectual protection[xx]. According to the theory, it will be prudent for an individual to copy the designs and creations belonging to others. However, its sub-optimal outcome will be demotivation for the designers to come up with new designs. Moore advocates on the premise of ‘self-interest and prudence’ and asserts that we should have a system that provides a scope for the designers to be creative and in which they can realize the investments made in the research and development.[xxi] According to him, copying ubiquitously will only lead to oppression of the will of designers to innovate.


Aristotelian-Randian approach

In Aristotle’s political-philosophical work The Politics, he states that “when everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress because everyone will be attending to his own business.”[xxii] He believed that property rights create a socially inducive society. Rand on the other hand believed that every man should have a right on the product of his mind. The designs and creativity of the fashion designers are the product of their mind and their property, which deserves protection by granting them legal rights. A legal system that induces greater creativity, provide an environment where society values the product of a human mind and its efforts, is the key to an ideal framework. The greater protection combined with legal sanction will only help break the chain of woes of illicit activities that go behind the smokescreen of fast-fashion and provide a safer environment to the creative minds to come forward with their creativity.



Keeping up with the fashion trends is indeed a drill of the 21st century that is followed religiously. However, what is worrisome is the ignorance of what it takes to make the latest trend available at a cheap price. There are the efforts of designers that go uncompensated for, the sustainability of the environment and undervalued life of human beings on the line, behind that dress worth just Rs. 900 in a Forever 21 store that brought a spark in your eyes and you had your heart set on ever since you spotted its look-alike while turning over those glossy pages of the latest issue of Vogue. Ignorance in this case is, therefore, anything but bliss. Stringent and uniform intellectual property law tailored for the fashion industry, educating the public, making brands more responsible and accountable for their actions by bringing them closer to the supply chain, are some of the measures that need to be adopted for detoxing the fashion industry that is though worth billions today, is highly contaminated. The circularity and concatenation of events, whose starting point is a lack of effective intellectual property regime for the fashion industry, needs to be broken and the designers need to be rewarded for their hard work. What’s required is to give serious consideration to Andrew Morgan’s (filmmaker and director of ‘The True Cost’) words, “What if we started by slowing down and not consuming so much stuff, just because it’s there and cheap and available. It’s amazing how that process makes sense financially, it makes sense ethically, it makes sense environmentally.” [xxiii]



[i] Siegle, Lucy. To Die for: Is Fashion Wearing out the World ? Fourth Estate, 2011.

[ii] “What Is Intellectual Property (IP)?” WIPO,

[iii] Elrod, Cassandra. “The Domino Effect: How Inadequate Intellectual Property Rights in the Fashion Industry Affect Global Sustainability.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, 2017, p. 575., doi:10.2979/indjglolegstu.24.2.0575.


[iv] “Kanye West Is Fighting with a Fragrance Company Over Their Respective ‘YZY’ Trademarks.” The Fashion Law, 22 July 2020,

[v] “In New Trademark Filing, Valentino Says Rockstud Pump Is Just as Famous as Louboutin’s Red Sole.” The Fashion Law, 11 Aug. 2020,

[vi] Elrod, Cassandra. “The Domino Effect: How Inadequate Intellectual Property Rights in the Fashion Industry Affect Global Sustainability.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, 2017, p. 575., doi:10.2979/indjglolegstu.24.2.0575.

[vii] “Virgil Abloh’s Off-White Adds New Design Patents to Its Growing Arsenal of Interesting IP: Paperclip Jewelry.” The Fashion Law, 24 July 2020,


[viii] “Fashion in IPR Mode: Rohit Bal, Anju Modi, Anita Dongre Copyright Designs as Plagiarism Spreads – Business News , Firstpost.” Firstpost, 1 Sept. 2017,

[ix] “Fashion in IPR Mode: Rohit Bal, Anju Modi, Anita Dongre Copyright Designs as Plagiarism Spreads – Business News , Firstpost.” Firstpost, 1 Sept. 2017,

[x] Borkar, Shubham. “Fashion Law In India – Intellectual Property – India.” Welcome to Mondaq, Khurana and Khurana, 19 Dec. 2018,

[xi] Elrod, Cassandra. “The Domino Effect: How Inadequate Intellectual Property Rights in the Fashion Industry Affect Global Sustainability.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, 2017, p. 575., doi:10.2979/indjglolegstu.24.2.0575.


[xii] Elrod, Cassandra. “The Domino Effect: How Inadequate Intellectual Property Rights in the Fashion Industry Affect Global Sustainability.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, 2017, p. 575., doi:10.2979/indjglolegstu.24.2.0575.

[xiii] “Fashion Industry Giants Keep Failing to Fix Labor Exploitation.” The Fashion Law, 28 July 2020,

[xiv] Nini, Jennifer. “32 Thought-Provoking Quotes About Ethical, Sustainable and Fast Fashion.” Eco Warrior Princess, 13 June 2019,

[xv] Giambarrese, Nicole. “The Look for Less: A Survey of Intellectual Property Protections in the Fashion Industry.” Touro Law Review, vol. 26, no. 1, 2010, p.243-286. HeinOnline.

[xvi] Giambarrese, Nicole. “The Look for Less: A Survey of Intellectual Property Protections in the Fashion Industry.” Touro Law Review ,vol. 26, no. 1, 2010, p.243-286. HeinOnline.

[xvii] Giambarrese, Nicole. “The Look for Less: A Survey of Intellectual Property Protections in the Fashion Industry.” Touro Law Review ,vol. 26, no. 1, 2010, p.243-286. HeinOnline.

[xviii] Felice, Katherine B. “Fashioning a Solution for Design Piracy: Considering Intellectual Property Law in the Global Context of Fast Fashion.” Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, vol. 39, no. 1, Fall 2011, p. 219-[ii]. HeinOnline.

[xix] Raustiala, Kal, and Christopher Sprigman. “The Piracy and Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design.” Virginia Law Review, vol. 92, no. 8, December 2006, p. 1687-1778. HeinOnline.

[xx]   Moore, Adam and Ken Himma, “Intellectual Property”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <>.

[xxi] Moore, Adam and Ken Himma, “Intellectual Property”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <>.

[xxii] Pytlak, Kaitlyn N. “The Devil Wears Fraud-a: An Aristotelian- Randian Approach to Intellectual Property Law in the Fashion Industry.” VIRGINIA SPORTS AND ENTERTAfNMENT LAW JOURNAL, vol. 15:2, no. Spring, 2016, pp. 273–305

[xxiii] Nini, Jennifer. “32 Thought-Provoking Quotes About Ethical, Sustainable and Fast Fashion.” Eco Warrior Princess, 13 June 2019,