As you can tell, I love wearing high heels, and I wear them quite frequently. They just make my work outfits look a lot sharper. I am generally pretty good about buying shoes that I can walk comfortably in, but let's face it, heels stop becoming comfortable after a few hours of constant walking or standing. The balls of my feet would eventually hurt from having to bear my entire body weight, and the problem is especially pronounced with the cheaper shoes (at least good leather soles feel a bit more pliable and absorb some of the shock). I generally try to make my feet last longer through good posture, putting more weight on my heels as I walk, and so forth, but I definitely need a little bit of help. As much as I like fashion, I am not stupid enough to sacrafice podiatric health for it. Potential medical costs clearly outweigh the stylistic benefits.
A couple of weeks ago, I decided to try a couple of things in pursuit of comfort. After spending a better part of the day walking around in my Maison Martin Margiela wedges (the lucite ones), my feet were quite unhappy. I decided to stop by a Walgreens to get a pair of $5 private label gel pads that are made specifically for the balls of the feet. While they provided some cushioning, they failed to do enough.
The next time I went to the store, I came across some Dr. Scholl's insoles that claim to take the weight off the balls of the feet. The insoles are a bit pricey ($8-10 a pair), but I thought I'd give them a shot. I figured that padding the balls of the feet is merely a short term remedy--the real solution is to shift and spread the weight. To my surprise, the insoles worked quite well...to an extent. For heels that are of medium height (2-3 inches), I could really feel the extra cushioning at the arches, which redistribute the pressure over a larger surface area and off the balls of the foot. However, for the 4-inch heels, they don't seem to do much good at all, at least on their own. When I inserted a ball of the foot pad underneath the weight-shifting insole, I instantly felt the difference. The balls of the feet became sufficiently padded, and the arch support portion is lifted up such that it finally does some work, though not quite as well as they performed on the lower heels.
I still can't say that I swear by my insoles, but they do make a discernable difference in terms of comfort. Foam insoles have been fairly useless for me, so this is definitely a step up. Because the insoles aren't cheap, I just bought a few pairs and rotated them amongst the shoes I wear. I dare say the rotation method works out quite well. Three pairs of insoles are plenty to keep the fleet of footwear ready to roll at all times.
I have heard of the roll-on sticks (look kinda like deodorant) that can be applied to the back of the foot to reduce friction, but I have not tried it yet. Those should be good for the summer sandal season.
Know of any good and affordable footwear-related products out there? Comment away.
5.31.2009
5.28.2009
A Cut(out) Above
Is it a boot? Is it a sandal? How about both?
[Top: Piko top with fluttery sleeves, Paper Denim & Cloth jeans, Maison Martin Margiela shoes. Bottom: Tally-Ho sweatercoat (bought it years ago from Ross for $13, and it's still alive and kicking. Lucky Number 13, indeed), Forever 21 tunic, Target tights, Maison Martin Margiela shoes.]
These shoes have proven to be icebreakers: on the first day I wore them out, 4 complete strangers asked me about them. I guess I should wear them next time when I have to go to a party where I don't know very many people.
[This was what I wore for a Memorial Day barbecue. When it came time to play Rock Band, I was dressed for the part. Blake t-shirt with side ties (from Loehmann's), White by Development corduroy mini ($5 from a blowout sale), Maison Martin Margiela cutout sandal/bootie.]
Some people are drawn by Jimmy Choos, others love Louboutins, but I'm mesmerized by Martin Margiela. However, in order to own anything Margiela, I have to get very lucky; it is amusingly ironic that the brilliant designs are synonymous with the figures on the price tags--some shirts are missing a sleeve, while some pants are missing a leg. I lucked out last time at Loehmann's. I got lucky again this time at a sample sale, which I didn't plan to go to, but things worked out. This is the first sample sale I've been to at which current season merchandise were offered at sample sale pricing.
The minute I walked through the door, my eyes were trained on these shoes. Although it is now the most expensive pair of shoes I own (by a small margin, "thanks" to the recent sales tax hike), it is considerably less than the heart attack-inducing in-store price (which made be gasp when I found out afterwards), and probably has the best cost-per-wear value I could get. Before dropping serious cash on them, I thought about why I wanted these shoes so much, and whether those reasons were worthy of a splurge. Although boots look great with shorts, the summer heat makes boot-wearing a rather unpleasant experience. Conversely, open-toed shoes would break up the monotony of wearing boots all the time, but sandals do not translate that well for the winter. This is one pair of shoes that truly can be worn year round. The lovely fuschia color is perfect for the summer, but it also looks great with tights and the darker Fall/Winter pallette. It glams up a simple t-shirt and jeans outfit. I knew I made the right choice when I was able to wear the shoes in all these different ways, and when I wanted to wear them all the time. It is interesting to see how other people work with this style--Jane from Sea of Shoes has a pair in seafoam green, and they look amazing with the light, flowing fabrics.
[Top: Piko top with fluttery sleeves, Paper Denim & Cloth jeans, Maison Martin Margiela shoes. Bottom: Tally-Ho sweatercoat (bought it years ago from Ross for $13, and it's still alive and kicking. Lucky Number 13, indeed), Forever 21 tunic, Target tights, Maison Martin Margiela shoes.]
These shoes have proven to be icebreakers: on the first day I wore them out, 4 complete strangers asked me about them. I guess I should wear them next time when I have to go to a party where I don't know very many people.
5.22.2009
Forever 21?
[UPDATED 5/27/09--The whole thing came crashing down on a mistrial, which means both sides have to start the trial process all over again. In my personal opinion, I think the odds are slim for a second trial to go all the way to verdict, if it gets tried at all. Then again, people thought it wouldn't have gotten tried in the first place...]
Trademark and Copyright are definitely on the list of my favorite classes throughout my very long stint in academia (along with 20th Century American Literature, Shakespeare and, oddly enough, Physical Chemistry). They are loads of fun, but definitely not easy (copyright is particularly intricate). One of the topics we studied in Copyright was fashion, which, of course, got my attention. It was quite shocking to me that some things that seemed like blatant copying was not infringing, while certain uses of copyrighted materials, which resulted in some very different products, were infringing. Yes, it is that complicated. It really depends on how the issues are framed, and what the facts are, but generally speaking, it has been very difficult to prove copyright infringement in fashion design.
Forever 21 is an establishment that epitomizes "cheap chic." While it was not a case study in my classes, everyone pretty much knows that sooner or later, it would become one. It would have been very hard to catch the people who run it for copying designs alone under the existing state of copyright law, and so, runway- and red carpet-"inspired" styles have been made abundantly available to the masses at a tiny fraction of the cost of the Real McCoy. Most designers are irate about the inability to do anything about it (and rightly so, for the most part), and it seems as if stores like Forever 21 would be able to copy with impunity for, well, forever.
Until now, perhaps.
Trovata sued Forever 21 for copying its designs. This would have been just a splash in the pond, as Forever 21 predictably gets sued all the time for the same thing. What makes this stand out from the many lawsuits Forever 21 got involved in is the theory under which they were sued--trade dress infringement--and the fact that it got tried in the first place and went all the way to the jury. [Since I was doing edits for grammar anyway (I was tired when I wrote the initial post), I figured I'd go back to my old notes and find a definition of trade dress. It is defined as "the total image of the business." Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992). It includes the shape or general appearance of the exterior, the inside floor plan, color/color combinations, etc. (if you haven't guessed by now, Taco Cabana is a restaurant).]
I find that going after trade dress is an interesting and arguably stronger approach than plain ol' copyright infringement. Trovata claims that certain elements of their clothing, such as the buttons, stitching, stripes, etc. make them unique in such a way that people who see it would associate the clothing with the Trovata label. Hence, stealing the design is more than just stealing a design--it's almost like stealing or taking advantage of an established brand. (An oversimplification, but you get the idea.) I'm a total geek about this stuff, so I find it interesting, but I think some of the deposition testimony would be rather entertaining to the casual observer. [If you want to learn more, I found a very instructive and easy-to-understand white paper from the Morgan Lewis firm.]
So what does this mean for bargain shoppers? I don't know whether Trovata's arguments would prevail, but if a verdict comes down in its favor, it might have a big effect on copycat fashion. But then again, the case may settle and the status quo goes on, or the ruling might not do much for designs that are not associated with branding. Either way, I think it may create a short-term situation in which retailers would be a little more cautious; even if the outcome is uncertain, it might not be worth the cost of slugging it out.
In the long run, it might not matter much. There will always be accusations of who is copying who, but in fashion, many creations are inspired by others, so there will always be a place for some copying (just not blatantly). From a business standpoint, a lawsuit might be a "cost" that copycats are willing to take if they think enough people buy the knockoff to offset it. There is certainly enough consumer demand for "inspired" pieces, since many people who want to look stylish can't afford to spend that much on "the real thing."
Personally, I don't think this whole brouhaha will affect me much. I don't have a particular interest in buying knockoffs just so I can dress like a celeb or look trendy; it is my belief that people in the know can always tell when it's not the real thing, so why bother trying to pretend? However, if something in Forever 21 happens to be "inspired" and I like it, I'll buy what I like. While I may find something that resembles the "real thing," I just won't seek out blatant copies.
What do you think?
Trademark and Copyright are definitely on the list of my favorite classes throughout my very long stint in academia (along with 20th Century American Literature, Shakespeare and, oddly enough, Physical Chemistry). They are loads of fun, but definitely not easy (copyright is particularly intricate). One of the topics we studied in Copyright was fashion, which, of course, got my attention. It was quite shocking to me that some things that seemed like blatant copying was not infringing, while certain uses of copyrighted materials, which resulted in some very different products, were infringing. Yes, it is that complicated. It really depends on how the issues are framed, and what the facts are, but generally speaking, it has been very difficult to prove copyright infringement in fashion design.
Forever 21 is an establishment that epitomizes "cheap chic." While it was not a case study in my classes, everyone pretty much knows that sooner or later, it would become one. It would have been very hard to catch the people who run it for copying designs alone under the existing state of copyright law, and so, runway- and red carpet-"inspired" styles have been made abundantly available to the masses at a tiny fraction of the cost of the Real McCoy. Most designers are irate about the inability to do anything about it (and rightly so, for the most part), and it seems as if stores like Forever 21 would be able to copy with impunity for, well, forever.
Until now, perhaps.
Trovata sued Forever 21 for copying its designs. This would have been just a splash in the pond, as Forever 21 predictably gets sued all the time for the same thing. What makes this stand out from the many lawsuits Forever 21 got involved in is the theory under which they were sued--trade dress infringement--and the fact that it got tried in the first place and went all the way to the jury. [Since I was doing edits for grammar anyway (I was tired when I wrote the initial post), I figured I'd go back to my old notes and find a definition of trade dress. It is defined as "the total image of the business." Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992). It includes the shape or general appearance of the exterior, the inside floor plan, color/color combinations, etc. (if you haven't guessed by now, Taco Cabana is a restaurant).]
I find that going after trade dress is an interesting and arguably stronger approach than plain ol' copyright infringement. Trovata claims that certain elements of their clothing, such as the buttons, stitching, stripes, etc. make them unique in such a way that people who see it would associate the clothing with the Trovata label. Hence, stealing the design is more than just stealing a design--it's almost like stealing or taking advantage of an established brand. (An oversimplification, but you get the idea.) I'm a total geek about this stuff, so I find it interesting, but I think some of the deposition testimony would be rather entertaining to the casual observer. [If you want to learn more, I found a very instructive and easy-to-understand white paper from the Morgan Lewis firm.]
So what does this mean for bargain shoppers? I don't know whether Trovata's arguments would prevail, but if a verdict comes down in its favor, it might have a big effect on copycat fashion. But then again, the case may settle and the status quo goes on, or the ruling might not do much for designs that are not associated with branding. Either way, I think it may create a short-term situation in which retailers would be a little more cautious; even if the outcome is uncertain, it might not be worth the cost of slugging it out.
In the long run, it might not matter much. There will always be accusations of who is copying who, but in fashion, many creations are inspired by others, so there will always be a place for some copying (just not blatantly). From a business standpoint, a lawsuit might be a "cost" that copycats are willing to take if they think enough people buy the knockoff to offset it. There is certainly enough consumer demand for "inspired" pieces, since many people who want to look stylish can't afford to spend that much on "the real thing."
Personally, I don't think this whole brouhaha will affect me much. I don't have a particular interest in buying knockoffs just so I can dress like a celeb or look trendy; it is my belief that people in the know can always tell when it's not the real thing, so why bother trying to pretend? However, if something in Forever 21 happens to be "inspired" and I like it, I'll buy what I like. While I may find something that resembles the "real thing," I just won't seek out blatant copies.
What do you think?
5.19.2009
Everyday Superheroes
Yes, I wore a cape to work today. Imagine that.
Before you think I have gone completely bonkers, let me explain. I do realize that this is not typical workwear. I can see myself bringing this along with me come Summer, when it is hot during the day and cool at night. I think it will be great with a casual tank top and jeans. However, I wanted to wear my favorite shirt today with my current favorite skirt, but the rolled sleeves are too bulky for a cardigan. Also, it is simply too warm for another layer of clothing, but not quite warm enough to go without. A short cape in a lightweight fabric is actually a great transitional piece. I found this stretchy cotton cape from the kids' section at the Ella Moss sample sale sometime last year (the kid section was significantly cheaper than the grownups' line), when it was too hot to wear one. But when Fall rolled around, I completely forgot to pull it out. Now is actually the perfect time to break it in.
The big kid's cape is actually perfect for someone of my build. It's short enough to look like a 3/4 sleeve kimono sweater. The neutral color helps a potentially dramatic piece stay surreptitiously under the radar during the day. The hood lays fairly flat such that it is not readily apparent. The cape can really swish if I want to make it so; just the thought of it satisfies every whimsical dream of a secret life as a superhero. This is way more stylin' than hiding Spandex under glasses and a suit a la Clark Kent.
[Forever 21 sunglasses, Converse One Star for Target shirt (seems like all my favorite dress shirts come from Target), Ella Moss kids cape, Rachel Comey quilted skirt, L'Autre Chose patent flats in navy]
Before you think I have gone completely bonkers, let me explain. I do realize that this is not typical workwear. I can see myself bringing this along with me come Summer, when it is hot during the day and cool at night. I think it will be great with a casual tank top and jeans. However, I wanted to wear my favorite shirt today with my current favorite skirt, but the rolled sleeves are too bulky for a cardigan. Also, it is simply too warm for another layer of clothing, but not quite warm enough to go without. A short cape in a lightweight fabric is actually a great transitional piece. I found this stretchy cotton cape from the kids' section at the Ella Moss sample sale sometime last year (the kid section was significantly cheaper than the grownups' line), when it was too hot to wear one. But when Fall rolled around, I completely forgot to pull it out. Now is actually the perfect time to break it in.
The big kid's cape is actually perfect for someone of my build. It's short enough to look like a 3/4 sleeve kimono sweater. The neutral color helps a potentially dramatic piece stay surreptitiously under the radar during the day. The hood lays fairly flat such that it is not readily apparent. The cape can really swish if I want to make it so; just the thought of it satisfies every whimsical dream of a secret life as a superhero. This is way more stylin' than hiding Spandex under glasses and a suit a la Clark Kent.
[Forever 21 sunglasses, Converse One Star for Target shirt (seems like all my favorite dress shirts come from Target), Ella Moss kids cape, Rachel Comey quilted skirt, L'Autre Chose patent flats in navy]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
visitors since July 2006, plus a handful more before that