Breaking Up with ZARA

When I saw the title of this story in my feed, Why You Should Be Rooting Against ZARA, I had some idea of its content, but still felt compelled to read it. I visit ZARA often, despite my better nature, because there's an obvious attractiveness about the brand and its clothes. I seldom purchase, however, and when I do it's (almost) always on sale because, let's be honest, ZARA's sale prices reflect its products' actual worth.

I wrote a thing on H&M and their claims to sustainable fast fashion not long ago, and it felt like a self-intervention. OK not really, because I was inspired to write that based on another article I read, but I started questioning why I ever go in to H&M in the first place, and the reasons aren't unlike why I, or anyone for that matter, go to ZARA. So it's no surprise that I'm having similar feelings about ZARA that I have with H&M, which are two species of the same genus.

Source: HighSnobiety

ZARA's Streetwise collection and "great value" YZY 

The first image from the article confirmed what I thinking to expect, and it wasn't like I was surprised but more like "Alright..." followed by a mellow sigh—a 'sad epiphany' is the best my vocabulary can muster because it brought out the realisation of what ZARA had always subconsciously represented to me.

The Yeezy Season 2 ripoff (above) wasn't inconspicuous at all and was widely reported early May this year. When I first saw the mannequins displayed at the window I thought "Tch! Cheap-ass Yeezy knockoff bullshit..." (I'm quick to scoff curtly) and that's when I had my first sad epiphany; the second came when reading the HighSnob article, and the two sad epiphanies are what necessitated my part-opinion, part-rant about why I'm breaking up with ZARA.

Source: TeamKanyeDaily, cropped for sizing

Yeezy Season 2. I had the insane expectation that Kanye would be smiling and happy... |:{

The HighSnob piece, which has since changed its title to ZARA & Tuesday Bassen: Why You Should be Paying Attention, lightly touches on the cheap rehash of Yeezy but mainly focuses on the story of Tuesday Bassen, an LA-based indie artist accusing ZARA of stealing her art. Her friend and fellow theft victim Adam J Kurtz set up a website to showcase ZARA's alleged handiwork in stealing Tuesday's and other artists' work. The most aggravating part of this story is the arrogance of ZARA's legal team issuing this actively passive-aggressive statement:

"The lack of distinctiveness of your client's purported designs makes it very hard to see how a significant part of the population anywhere in the world would associate the signs with Tuesday Bassen... This is our firm view, and being fully aware of the 3rd party notifications that you have brought to our attention. In this last regard, please not [sic] that such notifications amount to a handful of complaints only; when it is borne in mind that millions of users worldwide visit the respective websites monthly (Zara: 98,000,000 average monthly visits last year, Bershka: 15,000,000 average monthly visits last year), the figures clearly put those few notifications into sharp perspective." 

Source 

... followed by this PR-fueled template response, presumably after the story picked up:

"Inditex has the utmost respect for the individual creativity of all artists and designers and takes all claims concerning third party intellectual property rights very seriously. Inditex was recently contacted by the lawyers of artist Tuesday Bassen who noted the use of illustrations in some badges sourced externally and on clothes in its Group stores. The company immediately opened an investigation into the matter and suspended the relevant items from sale. Inditex’s legal team is also in contact with Tuesday Bassen’s lawyers to clarify and resolve the situation as swiftly as possible. We are also currently investigating other allegations of illustrations used on badges provided by external suppliers on a case by case basis."

Source

Classy, ZARA. Classy.

While ZARA "investigates" and supposedly "suspends relevant items from sale" they aren't really going to do much, and why should they? ZARA's brand is worth $10.7 billion, bringing in annual sales of nearly $16 billion, and its parent Inditex has a market cap worth $103.2 billion. While this dispute is ongoing ZARA continues selling its morally tainted pins and patches until the next production cycle when they appropriate other artists' work. They can argue that they are no longer selling relevant items but it'll be because they've likely sold through, and not because they're ceasing and desisting. This is a war of attrition where ZARA wins all the battles and the war.

But ZARA is far from being the only retailer to commit this petty theft. The fast fashion copycat business model scheme is best illustrated by Art Law Journal using another apparently more serious offender: Forever 21, who I deem lesser than ZARA.

"... the threat of a lawsuit doesn’t deter a fast fashion retailer because the retailer has come to build in losses for copyright infringement suits into their business model. The best example of this model would be big-box retailer Forever 21, who has been sued and has settled claims over 50 times for stealing prints and designs from designers like Anna Sui, 3.1 Phillip Lim, and Diane Von Furstenberg. Since prints and textiles are copyrightable, Forever 21 has in many instances infringed irrefutably.

The company has come to regard copyright infringements as an unavoidable and overall profitable strategy for their business—they earn more money by producing and selling copied designs than any legal loss or public discord that may result from their infringement. In many cases, infringing on the copyright and settling the suit later is more cost-effective than licensing the design. Legal experts have noted that the company’s response in these cases is almost methodical: When Forever 21 settles a dispute over copying, it typically includes a non-admission of guilt, financial compensation to the designer whose work was copied, and a confidentiality agreement."

Source; select text bolded for emphasis

It's important to distinguish what is and isn't legally protected. I scrunch my face at ZARA ripping off Yeezy because that's my personal bias against ZARA—the copying of other designers' physical garment designs which, unfortunately, is not legally protected, at least according to US law. Does that make it OK though? The short answer, from a business standpoint, is yes; from a consumer standpoint, it depends, but for me, no. Hypothetically speaking, if I wanted Yeezy I would pay for the real thing.

What is protected are things like unique logos and symbols that should not cause confusing associations with other, similar iterations which would favour the proven originator of the work in question. Art falls under this category, which is why these cases usually involve artists rather than designers (who are artists in their own right but for the sake of staying on topic...) going after fast fashion retailers, and after a bit of Googling it occurred to me how often this happens. It certainly made me evaluate my relationship with ZARA. That and ZARA's quality is complete shit.

I don't know what the average shopper sees when they enter a ZARA, but I see 99% garbage. I often visit to look for that 1% worth considering on sale, but realistically that 1% isn't worth it. I was originally going to defend the ZARA Studio collection because I like the three pieces I own, but no. Between stealing artists' work and shit quality, it's an easy choice to make.

Goodbye ZARA. Can't say it was a pleasure.

My wardrobe is better off without you.