Commercial Shabby Chic
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2025 10:53 am
Good morning all
Was wondering whether anyone has any thoughts on the fashion copyright ‘inspired by’ tag, please? Apologies for a bit of ramble here.
As a needlewoman who has seen a few decades come and go (
), I have always been a big fan of appliqué (working on the principle that any garment was greatly improved by the addition of a few roses, hearts, birds, etc). ‘More is more’ has always been my motto.
I seem to remember that sewing bits of old lace, patches, motifs and found objects onto stuff was a thing in the ‘70s (‘make do and mend’, or fondly thought of as ‘wearable art’, which was probably debatable in my case), and I recently decided to upcycle an old Laura Ashley quilt to make a jacket.
However, while searching for interesting bits and pieces to apply, I discovered that the old shabby chic idea has now been largely monopolised by a US company called Magnolia Pearl (which boasts the rich and famous amongst its clientele). The clothes are extraordinarily expensive (£500+), pretty and ‘hand finished and distressed’ to within an inch of their lives, presumably accounting for the fact that that they have been accused of creating ‘poverty chic’. Their distressed style range is truly massive and extreme, so it would be difficult to find anything stylishly ‘make do and mend’ they haven’t covered.
In the interests of being able to ignore this unexpected obstacle, I searched online for something similar to no avail. Every pretty print jacket on sale (which isn’t Magnolia Pearl) is devoid of any additions, and appliqué appears only in small tasteful quantities on plain stuff. Does this mean that I am no longer to apply appliqué flowers and birds to a jacket with a floral background without being clapped in irons?
I’m uneasy about the fact that there are no rip-offs (online at least), so I’m assuming the company has a robust policy of policing copyright infringement. Or it could just be that hand embellishing is expensive to reproduce and there isn’t much commercial mileage in providing the means for buyers to look dishevelled?
I’ve tried to think of ways round this, and am hoping that ‘inspired by’ looks to be my best bet? There doesn’t seem much room for wiggle, though - although the actual garment shape would be different, one flowery print and randomly placed rose or bird appliqué looks much like another, so anything I did would appear to be copy.
I notice that a few brave souls in fB groups I belong to have used ‘inspired by’ (despite the fact that they have used almost identical motifs and placement as Magnolia Pearl garments).
On a purely abstract level, I’m a tad curious to know how commercial concerns are able to slap a brand on something which was, historically, a widespread, fun, creative undertaking for ordinary people to repair or beautify old, worn clothing in their wardrobe. This is seemingly at odds with the idea that copyright provides a springboard for creativity when, in this particular case, it hampers it. I appreciate that ‘craftsy’ hobbies are in decline, but gosh.
Any ideas and suggestions gratefully received, please. Huge thanks in advance, guys, for anything you can think of.
Was wondering whether anyone has any thoughts on the fashion copyright ‘inspired by’ tag, please? Apologies for a bit of ramble here.
As a needlewoman who has seen a few decades come and go (
), I have always been a big fan of appliqué (working on the principle that any garment was greatly improved by the addition of a few roses, hearts, birds, etc). ‘More is more’ has always been my motto. I seem to remember that sewing bits of old lace, patches, motifs and found objects onto stuff was a thing in the ‘70s (‘make do and mend’, or fondly thought of as ‘wearable art’, which was probably debatable in my case), and I recently decided to upcycle an old Laura Ashley quilt to make a jacket.
However, while searching for interesting bits and pieces to apply, I discovered that the old shabby chic idea has now been largely monopolised by a US company called Magnolia Pearl (which boasts the rich and famous amongst its clientele). The clothes are extraordinarily expensive (£500+), pretty and ‘hand finished and distressed’ to within an inch of their lives, presumably accounting for the fact that that they have been accused of creating ‘poverty chic’. Their distressed style range is truly massive and extreme, so it would be difficult to find anything stylishly ‘make do and mend’ they haven’t covered.
In the interests of being able to ignore this unexpected obstacle, I searched online for something similar to no avail. Every pretty print jacket on sale (which isn’t Magnolia Pearl) is devoid of any additions, and appliqué appears only in small tasteful quantities on plain stuff. Does this mean that I am no longer to apply appliqué flowers and birds to a jacket with a floral background without being clapped in irons?
I’m uneasy about the fact that there are no rip-offs (online at least), so I’m assuming the company has a robust policy of policing copyright infringement. Or it could just be that hand embellishing is expensive to reproduce and there isn’t much commercial mileage in providing the means for buyers to look dishevelled?
I’ve tried to think of ways round this, and am hoping that ‘inspired by’ looks to be my best bet? There doesn’t seem much room for wiggle, though - although the actual garment shape would be different, one flowery print and randomly placed rose or bird appliqué looks much like another, so anything I did would appear to be copy.
I notice that a few brave souls in fB groups I belong to have used ‘inspired by’ (despite the fact that they have used almost identical motifs and placement as Magnolia Pearl garments).
On a purely abstract level, I’m a tad curious to know how commercial concerns are able to slap a brand on something which was, historically, a widespread, fun, creative undertaking for ordinary people to repair or beautify old, worn clothing in their wardrobe. This is seemingly at odds with the idea that copyright provides a springboard for creativity when, in this particular case, it hampers it. I appreciate that ‘craftsy’ hobbies are in decline, but gosh.
Any ideas and suggestions gratefully received, please. Huge thanks in advance, guys, for anything you can think of.
