Has everyone heard about the Butterick 6015/St. Louis Fashion week kerfuffle by now? If not, I will give you a precis.
— St. Louis recently had a Fashion Week. (They sent me the release and a gazillion large jpgs. I don't really cover fashion shows, so I didn't post about it.)
— A blogger (who asked me not to use her name) did look at the photos, and noticed right away that one of the dresses was line-for-line a copy of Butterick 6015, aka the Walkaway Dress. See it here?
— The blogger tries to find out who the designer was that submitted such an iconic dress to a fashion show.
— She finds the designer, Ashley Dayley, and talks with her. Ms. Dayley doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with just making a dress from a vintage pattern and submitting it to a show.
— She posts all this on her blog. In her post, she gives Ms. Dayley the benefit of the doubt, calling her "young" and "enthusiastic".
Now here's where the story gets interesting — the last three comments on that blog, before the post was taken down, were from anonymous "friends" of the "designer", calling the blogger out for posting about this. They were so nasty that the blogger took down the post.
Dumb. Don't those "friends" know (or doesn't the "designer" know) that the best and ONLY thing to do when you've done something dumb is to take your lumps and own up? Why not say "I didn't know?" Why not say "I won't do it again?" Why not say (as hard as it is, through gritted teeth) "Thanks for letting me know?"
Instead they decided to wear their matching "I'm a Bully" t-shirts (which are probably pink, with sequins) and harass the person who had the temerity to call them on their misdeeds. The commenters, if they are the designer's friends, were just making her look MORE clueless. (If they're her enemies, they're doing a stand-up job.)
Now, I'm not saying that fashion doesn't tolerate knockoffs. (Victor Costa, anyone?) But a fashion show, especially one that was put on to feature "independent designers" is not the place for knockoffs; it's the place for original work.
The best part is the commenters saying that the original blogger didn't have the right to post the pictures of the show. So … let me get this straight: she can't post images that were widely distributed to bloggers just for that purpose, but "designers" can knock off old patterns and that's just fine?
The best way to fix this would be for Ms. Dayley to issue a formal letter of apology to the show's organizers and post it somewhere public online. Then at least the first hit for her might show her doing something thoughtful and grown-up instead of something clueless.
[On a happier note, Marge of Born Too Late Vintage is turning 49, and is offering 50% off shipping on all items in her store to US and international customers from April 18 up to and including April 24th. On everything: patterns, clothes, accessories … Use the code "49 and holding."]
A Dress A Day 
Now, if that dress had been worn the other way around, it might look somewhat original.
LikeLike
I’m from St. Louis. I’m embarassed about the situation and the designers response. Wow, thanks for posting about this.
LikeLike
I’ve always learned more from my mistakes than my successes. Let’s hope that this is a life changing moment for Ms. Dayley and she will learn from the experience.
LikeLike
Another blog has taken up this issue: http://fashionindie.com/fashion-controversy-is-it-still-fashion-design-if-you-use-a-butterick-pattern/
LikeLike
this pattern has been re-issued and is available, brand new, from Butterick (http://www.butterick.com/item/B4790.htm?search=retro&page=2)I can’t believe any designer wouldn’t want to feature their own work and show of their creativity.
LikeLike
Wow–this blows my mind. It’s plagiarism in the fashion/design industry. Who would’ve thought?Speaking of the dress, Butterick has reissued it in their newer collections; I ordered mine from their website. And it’s fabulous. I’m making three versions of it. 🙂
LikeLike
Not knowing what the comments said, I think that the blog poster made a mistake in taking down the post. By doing that, haven’t the bullies won? Didn’t they accomplish what they set out to do?If the St. Louis people want to have any credibility whatsoever, they need to ask that designer to withdraw her submission, and issue a formal statement disapproving of the action.
LikeLike
Yes indeedy, a case of such obvious plagiarism is best admitted to straight away. What cheek! I’m fuming…
LikeLike
Maybe she thought original work meant her choice of fabrics? By her logic if I make the gorgeous Chado Ralph Rucci Vogue dress pattern that just came out in a different fabric, that’s my original design. I don’t think it works that way.
LikeLike
Gee, it was my understanding that this was a show designed to let new designers show off their creativity, not a 4-H sewing contest.Now, I think that 4-H sewing contests, Simplicity-sponsored sewing contests, fabric-store-sponsored contests, Woolmark-sponsored contests, etc., are all fantastic. They’re inspirational, and I have seen a lot of creativity. But this wasn’t a Butterick-sponsored sewing-contest, it was a fashion show for new designers. Now, I will grant that Nicholas Ghesquire took a whole LOT of inspiration – like 97% – from a vest designer Kaisik Yoon made in 1973. BUT – it’s not the only piece Ghesquire ever did, it certainly wasn’t his debut piece, and he at least had to make his own pattern up. He didn’t use a Butterick Fast ‘N Easy vest pattern.It is absolutely true that designers are often “inspired” by other designers to an embarrassing degree, and are often the first to shriek about being copied. But this was just a dress somebody made from an existing pattern under current copyright, and tried to pass off as her own work. That’s outright theft, and no pretty words about it.The designers response, upon being caught, is reprehensible. Everyone makes a mistake, and she could even have profited from the notoriety; she could have pulled out something shed already made, and said, Look, this is what I can really do and gotten a lot of publicity for it. But she didnt. Maybe she didnt have anything else. Maybe its the only thing shes ever done. In which case, shes not a designer. Shes a girl with a sewing machine, and delusions of grandeur. She certainly doesnt stand up to the youngster featured in a recent Threads profile she decided to copy Princess Dianas wedding dress as (I believe) her first project. Drafted it all, made it all herself, Just Because. This woman, this fraud, this bully, cant begin to compete with the folks who come to visit here at DressADay, and the people everywhere who love to create.
LikeLike
I read the original blog page and there where mean comments from both sides. Not necessarily from the original blogger but from comments that followed. Perhaps the designer should issue a formal apology, but for right now, she probably feels attacked from many different angles.
LikeLike
Whoa. I’m stunned. The blogger who’s been linked who’s “taken up this issue” is siding with Ms. Plagiarist. His blog cites the reader who caught the plagiarist as a “Rainman.” For spotting an extremely well-known pattern being passed off as original work.Un. Believable.
LikeLike
How does McCall patterns (who own Butterick) feel about this? And I while I know knock-off are tolerated (thank goodness, I learned a lot of what I know copying RTW) but isn’t this dangerously close to crossing some kind of copyright infringement line? Its not like the ‘designer’ put her signature (I don’t mean her name here, I mean her unique style details that are supposed to differentiate her from other designers) on this by changing a thing. I would think that Butterick would both be happy for the publicity and not so happy for the rip-off.
LikeLike
My blog wasn’t a good forum for the issue of design plagiarism. It’s just a little blog about my own projects. It’s my happy place. I resent that my blog was weaponized by over-the-top commenters from both sides of the issue. I stand by my observations and my original post, but I also realize that no good would come of leaving the post there. I chose not to let my blog be a tool to kill a young designers career. All it cost me to take it down was a tiny bit of pride and righteous indignation. The costs of leaving it up were much greater, especially to the designer in question. The designer did not ask me to remove the post. I did it because I thought it was the right thing to do.I hope that the larger issues of design authenticity can be explored in more suitable settings, like this blog and the fashion blogs.I’m sure that lessons were learned on both sides. I say debate the issue, but leave the specific designer out of it and let her get on with her life.
LikeLike
I am more stunned at how intolerable some people are. The designer made a mistake. I think she should be given some time to react. I would hope that the world of fashion bloggers would take the rope that would be for hanging her – and rather throw it to her to help her up from whence she’s fallen. The designer, I hope, wasn’t aware of this mistake, however I doubt she will ever do this again. This is a good lesson for any young designer / seamstress.
LikeLike
Melissa, the original blogger DID try to throw her a rope (she even called her on the phone!) but it’s hard to throw a rope to someone who seems intent staying in the water.If Ms. Dayley wants to make a public reply, in her own name, I’m happy to post it.
LikeLike
Plagiarism this blatant is hardly an easy mistake to stumble into. To quote the back of my Butterick 4790 pattern envelope (the reissue of 6015):”Sold for individual home use only and not for commercial or manufacturing purposes.”I don’t think it gets much clearer than that. Most of the sewists whose blogs I read manage to work more originality into their designs than someone who calls herself a designer.
LikeLike
Does anyone know the rules for the show? None of the dresses in the photo demonstrate much originality. I think more than one vintage pattern was involved. Walkaway just happens to be readily identifiable.
LikeLike
I agree with Marianne, this is blatant plagiarism and the designer must have known that was she was doing was wrong. Still, it would not have been a problem if she had admitted to it right away when confronted by The Original Blogger. If I remember the original post correctly, Ms Dayley was rather dismissive to Ms Original Blogger.I’m a young scientist and my work is inspired by /builds on other people’s ideas in a similar way to that in the fashion industry. But whenever I use someone elses work, I say so. If I did not, and someone found out, my career would be over, instantly. No second chance. Ever.I don’t say Ms Dayley does not deserve a second chance, but I think to get it she should say sorry first. To the fashion show organisers, and to Ms Original Blogger. And I haven’t seen her doing that yet.
LikeLike
It really shows how completely clueless she for picking THE MOST POPULAR PATTERN IN THE HISTORY of Butterick to plagarize! She could ahve at leaset picked something obscure…not that I am advocating that – hopefully you know what I mean.
LikeLike
I’m a fan of the original poster’s blog, so I read that post, but didn’t comment; I thought the comments already made about the wrongness of passing off a current (or ANY) unaltered pattern as your own design. Sorry, E, I don’t think I’ll be able to hold back this time!We all know that designers gain inspiration from eras and from other designers – what’s worked in the past, will work in the future – look at bell bottoms. They’ve been around the wheel twice, and will be back in 2010, mark my words!The original blogger’s post, I though, was pretty darned even-handed, and though some of the comments were pointed, I don’t think that’s anyone’s fault but the designer’s. As one commenter pointed out, one of these things was not like the others, as it were.Upon being contacted, and realizing there would be a fuss, The designer should have made a statement then and there. It could have been something simple, like that she wished she had gotten more creative with the pattern, and while she’ll continue to be inspired by past fashion, she’ll exercise her creativity a little more in the future. Story killed!Someone on the Fashionindie site posted this in the designer’s defence; “Ashley, and other designers world wide have used shapes as well as patterns to design or create a newer, fresher version of a garment.” But you know what, she didn’t create a newer, fresher version, she CREATED THE EXACT SAME GARMENT! And seriously, if you’re going to duplicate a garment based on a past pattern, at least do enough research to find out whether the pattern’s been reissued in the last year, or was the most popular sewing pattern ever sold. Because honestly, that’s just asking to have bloggers all over the world call you down. There are literally HUNDREDS of patterns available at thrift stores that have NOT been reissued. Bottom line? Fail. Admit you were wrong, be gracious, and make all of us sharp-tongued commenters feel guilty for being so mean to you. Don’t get your posse to post a diatribe against a blogger kind enough to call you “young and enthusiastic”.Kudos to you, original blogger. I’ve enjoyed your blog for a long while, and will continue to do so.
LikeLike
Ms Dayley’s bio on the fashion-show site says she studied fashion design at SCAD. If that’s true, she should *absolutely* know better! She’s not just some girl sewing stuff in her dining room and hoping to make it big; she’s a trained professional – and she should act like one if she wants to be treated like one.Also, this description of Ms Dayley’s line (from the fashion-show site) is hilarious to me, “AFV is a very personalized brand that wants to cater to the shopper that ‘doesn’t want anyone else wearing the same shirt or dress that they have!'” Really?On another note, aren’t those some of the most haggard-looking models you’ve ever seen? Wow… :-p
LikeLike
I went to Western Michigan University for a while as a Design major in their Apparel and Textiles group. They have a club there that puts on fashion shows twice a year and I was so excited about the idea until I realized that the majority of the garments in the show were knock-offs. This did allow less experienced designers the ability to show off their color and fabric choices, but I couldn’t understand the juniors and seniors that did the same thing. Perhaps this woman had a past where doing this was considered acceptable, but she still should have known better by now.
LikeLike
Still, the Walkaway Dress is drop-dead gorgeous, don’t you think?At least two of those designers must read your blog. Isn’t that an alphabet shift?
LikeLike
It is one thing to ‘copy’ a design by looking at a garment and then drafting a pattern on your own to make another garment… it is an entirely different, and illegal thing, to use a printed pattern that is protected by law and widely available to the general public and then call it your own design. For the record, this is not the only pattern that Ms. Dayley used. She also used Simplicity 3964, a Wendy Mullen pattern. There isn’t a direct link to a picture of this rip-off. To see it, go to the St. Louis Fashion Week website, click on “Fashion” on the right side of the page, and then “Designers”, and then “AFV” (they are the first in the list, so the window might open up with them), and then click “View Gallery” at the top of that window. You can see the dress in photo 3.
LikeLike
Hello, my name is Felicia Pease. I helped Ashley start AFV last year. I have, since the Spring Fahion show, left AFV to explore the world of recovering used furniture, knitting, sewing, etc. Let me start by sincerly apologizing for the part that I played. I was not aware of the magnitude of this issue – I realize that was very naive of me. I was the person that sewed the dress in the above comment – (picture 3). The Fall Fashion show was comprised of items that we created and others that we made directly from existing patterns. The whole concept of AFV was yes, to make items that no one else would have [whether because it was made from a different fabric(s) or because it was from an altered pattern] – but not garments that no one else could make/have – if they knew how to sew. The spring Fashion Show got very out of hand – the show was only ment to showcase gaments that we had made as well as to promote up and coming designers. It wasn’t specified that the lines were to be “originals” only. Again, I am sorry. I can not apologize for Ashley. Nor do I know exactly what was said in her phone conversation with the origianl blogger. I do however, know the motivation of her heart – and I believe it wasn’t to offend anyone.
LikeLike
as far as i can see — there isn’t one “design” there that hasn’t got elements of a couple of thousand years of previous fashion lines. i thought the use of the pattern in question was original and beautiful. far more so than the sloppy t-shirt and mini skirt, or the 60s inspired halter dress… if she had taken the dress pattern apart and used elements from 3 different patterns of three different time periods would that have made it original?
LikeLike
It is important to distinguish between designing and sewing. Almost anyone can pick up a pattern and sew it. Drafting is a whole different ball game.As someone who has been drafting for years, I understand that originality tends to arrive in the form of details, as most every shape and combination has been used at some time or other. For this reason, when showcasing work it is important to be clear as to whether the work has been drafted from the designer’s vision or made from an existing pattern. This is the line that divides designers from seamstresses.That said: when you put your work out there, there will be critics. It is important to learn how to respond apropriately in the face of negativity. It looks as though Felicia is good on this point and will likely understand why it is important to make this distinction in the future. Hopefully, Ashley will learn from this, or her credibility and the credibilty of this show will continue to suffer.
LikeLike
Whatever the rules of the show, if the description was ‘to promote up-and-coming new designers’ and if the people who made the dresses are promoting themselves as ‘designers’, then they give the impression that they have not used someone else’s pattern (inspiration is another matter). Isn’t that what ‘designer’ means–designing something new? You can call yourselves seamstresses, sewists, or fabric technologists, but save ‘designer’ to mean ‘one who designs’, please!
LikeLike
As a student designer, I am extremely disappointed. Any opportunity to show one’s original design and point of view is a big deal, and I feel that the designer is doing herself a grave disservice by not taking full advantage of that opportunity.Also, if the intent is not to show originals, that is NOT design. That is the easy way out, and it’s embarrassing.
LikeLike
Yesterday, on another website I frequent, we were discussing if the parenting trend to make children believe they are so special that everything they do is perfect and wonderful so as not to hurt their self-esteem is now producing lazy, entitled workers who expect the workplace to conform to their norms not the other way around. Erin, you have given us another example in the “yes” pile.
LikeLike
I think perhaps this issue is being beaten to death.
LikeLike
I guess integrity has gone down the tubes all over, not just among mediocre undergraduates who write last-minute papers and pull quotes from internet news sources. *Using* information (news, analysis, patterns) for your own purposes is not the same as *copying* that information wholesale.
LikeLike
Interesting and sad how little self worth on one hand and humility on the other some people are able to live with. Seems a little paradoxical to me.
LikeLike
Felicia, nicely done. Good luck with your new venture …
LikeLike
I agree Erin…best of luck.
LikeLike
I agree with Erin. Well done, Felicia. I am sure it took a lot of courage to post an apology (and explanation) here. Best of luck going forward. My only advice is to “do the right thing” when you are in a situation where you have a choice. It may seem more difficult at the time, but you’ll retain your integrity and people will respect you.I really don’t think anyone here means to crucify Ashley about what she did. Her behavior could have been better, but perhaps she’s just not as equipped to deal with criticism. That will probably come with time if she continues to try to compete in a business that is so public. I think that this incident has just brought up a subject in which many of us are interested and, unfortunately for her, her actions served as the jumping off point for the discussion.
LikeLike
I agree with some of the others – well done, Felicia. Very courageous, and gracefully said.
LikeLike
‘Scuse me, friends, for lightening the tone this Friday pm, but this seems a good moment to signpost a Tom Lehrer song on the subject of plagiarism: ‘Lobachevsky’. It’s about a mathematician who steals the contents of his first analytical paper, then an entire subsequent book. An audio version is findable on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWsjpt-p1pQ&feature=relatedHope you like. Enjoy your weekends!
LikeLike
I want to say only one thing. The ladies here on ADAD are beynd a doubt some of the most articulte and bright peoplethat I might have the pleasure of reading their posts. They no doubt have high standards and it is rare to see such. The person in question is I think young and no doubt by now feeling the pain of her mistake. I am not standing up for her, but I in my 57 years have been unfortunately irresponsible and stupid too many times to shamefully remember. If age does nothing else it does help you remember sometimes from experience what may be the result of one’s own actions. Thank you ladies and Erin for a great read as always.
LikeLike
Hey Felicia!Let me add my thanks to you for coming on board and offering a lovely apology and some backstory. In the context of what you’ve said, Ashley’s error doesn’t seem anywhere near as egregious as it first did.As a case study of the Internet, this would be an amazingly instructive tool: a local fashion show with no intentions whatsoever of going beyond the local can turn into a national story. Sounds a lot like stupid photos on Facebook or boneheaded videos posted to YouTube. The whole world’s watching, now.Amazing.
LikeLike
ps Anonymous (right above me) said it straight — I certainly have made a ton of public boneheaded mistakes (sorry, Lauren and woman at the newspaper and Phil and Mary Pat and the president of the Univeristy of Scranton). Thank God all of them happened pre-Internet. They only exist in my shamefaced memory, now. LOL.
LikeLike
How utterly talentless she must be if she needs to attempt to masquerade someone else’s work as her own. I also don’t think someone needs to be instructed to showcase her own work in a fashion show.
LikeLike
Bad taste jenny…there was a heartfelt apology and I think some of the malicious comments need to stop. It brings a negative energy to a lesson being learned.
LikeLike
Thank you Erin for your post. Anywhere, anytime the seemingly most-prevalent, unethical, amoral behavior which abounds today is called to “own up,” is a deed well done. Especially well thought of, is that you gave the perpetrators a good alternative to their outrageous response to the original post and comment. Well done. Wrong behavior not commented on as such promotes more of the same and hurts everyone. Bravo to you.
LikeLike
Can you imagine if after the day’s assignment was announced, the Project Runway contestants whipped open their backpacks and started fishing among their collections of Butterick patterns, to calculate how much material they’d need to buy, etc? Or how about if they asked Michael Kors if he had any leftover patterns from his last collection they could borrow for the assignment? I actually feel sorry for Miss Ashley. Haven’t read any comments from her on the Internet, yet. Golly…what can she say?
LikeLike
Felicia, thank you for commenting. Your apology is appreciated, and your explanation is reasonable and respectable. I would hope that Ashley might also come forward, but I can understand if she is feeling a bit gun shy after all of this hullabaloo.
LikeLike
Question for those of you who have made this pattern: Is this how the Walkaway Dress looks when sewn up? Ashley’s dress looks to have a higher neckline, the bodice wrap around the front thing is curved instead of coming down in two diagonals to meet at the front, and the “overskirt” part is fully closed as well as fuller. These, to my mind, give the dress an excitement that the pattern illustration is completely lacking. This is one of the few vintage reproductions that I have not purchased because, frankly, I thought it was boring. Ashley has used a couple of other design details that are minor, but still add to the piece: little bow in front and the edging used also to hem the (over?)skirt. Frankly, I’d like to know if this look can be achieved by using the same fabric with this exact pattern, because if it can I’ll go out and buy it right away. If not, I think I can still replicate but if Ashley made those changes, perhaps she has at least interpreted this design and made it a bit her own, instead of blatantly copying.Please don’t flame me, I really am curious!
LikeLike
Elle, it looks to me like dresses made by other bloggers from the re-released pattern, to be honest. Those I’ve seen (I’ll try to dig some up) have the more curved torso seam and a full skirt. It’s not clear to me how much the runway dress opens when she walks, but it does appear to be partly open because you can see the underskirt fabric in places. A common complaint from those who have made this is that the weight of the back pulls the neckline around so that it sits higher in front, which may explain the difference between the dress in the picture and the pattern envelope.I don’t think adding a bow or edging constitutes sufficient novelty, with or without the other details.
LikeLike
The alphabet shift – didn only one other person notice right next to the Walk Away dress, the alphabet shift.
LikeLike