The meaning of teaching and learning Fashion Law
Transformative, creative pedagogies are urgently needed in legal education. Far from the cutting-edge of pedagogical practice, legal education is heavily shaped by conservative notions of ‘professionalism’. This, in turn, has often constrained the pedagogical imagination of staff who teach in the field. Where cutting-edge practices are present, they are rarely captured in literature on legal education. Increasingly, scholars and practitioners are pushing for changes in legal education that could enable students to learn differently, creating forms of ‘professionalism’ that demonstrate a deep commitment to social justice and inclusivity. In this blog series, Who said that learning law is boring? Bringing Creative Teaching Methods into Legal Education, we explore how arts-based, affective and embodied teaching methods can deepen students’ learning of law and enrich socio-legal teaching. These blogs start from the premise that everyone is creative, and that taking creative approaches to legal education can build critical analytical, vocational, and civic skills. Read more about the blog series and our motivations here.
Maria Mercedes Frabboni, University of Sussex
Keywords: fashion, art, copyright law, craftsmanship
Fashion law is a privileged field for creative pedagogies. What is fashion law? How do students become interested in this area of the law? (A Chung interview with Professor S Scafidi; Rosati, Eleonora, and Irene Calboli (eds), Introduction to the The Handbook of Fashion Law (2025; Oxford Law Pro)).
One may question whether pieces of furniture (C-168/09 Flos v Semeraro), apparel (Case T-647/22 Puma v EUIPO), technology, film costumes (Lucasfilm v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39) could be items of fashion. The connection between creative practices and pedagogy is a complex process, which raises apparent paradoxes. In fact, it takes us back to the etymological root of the word ‘paradox’ – something that is contrary (pará) to common opinion (doxa) – and, in doing so, raises deeper questions. Often, this aligns with what fashion is about. It is supposed to trigger questions.
When questions permeate the classroom, a fruitful dialogue develops within the dynamics of formal law teaching and learning, and the interaction with media. From my perspective, such dialogue is based on the imagination of students and their teachers. It starts, continues, and does not end with the inspiring direction to learning that reads: “homines dum docent discunt” – people learn as they teach (Seneca, Epist., 7, 8). As I discuss in this blog, both the people who docent and those of us who discimus (the teaching and the learning) come from experience of fashion as a human phenomenon, to fully appreciate the intricate affinity that exists between creativity and its interpretation in the legal language.
Fashion as art pedagogy in Law
When art is at the core of a law subject, there are paradoxical dialogues that develop through the processes of teaching and learning. In intellectual property law, this happens, among other things, through the experience of craft, clay, colour, and other creative materials. What is at stake in cases of fashion law can itself be contested: it may be framed as a form of expression (C-683/17 – Cofemel), speech, or activism (Vivienne Westwood, Get a Life, 2016). While the focus of this blog is on human creativity, fashion law must also contend with artificial intelligence within creative processes.
One of the fundamental issues that I explore in my classrooms is the act of design itself: who can be considered a designer? On what grounds? With what legal consequences? These apparently simple questions are highly complex. Some designs in fashion are fully non-conscious designs. These include products made by people who are not aware of being designers or not driven by any design considerations. Their only concern is to make the product work (Frabboni & Suthersanen, 2025). Design can be understood as a symbol. It is something that carries meaning, but this meaning is fraught with questions. Fashion law may formalise, facilitate, or challenge different ideas about ‘design’ through legal judgments.
My creative approach to teaching fashion law enables a diverse range of students to engage with these paradoxes through the lens of their own acts of design.
Fashion and the law through first-hand experience
The universal and inclusive language of fashion can work through communicative tools across jurisdictions, artistic traditions and skills. Would a work of plasticine raise legal issues for copyright authors? The motion picture may offer several examples (Aardman Animations is one of them). To put legal principles to the test, I asked students to address the meaning of what a work of art may be in relation to costumes. The cohort was provided with plasticine and worked with the medium towards the creation of a prototype for a film costume or accessory.
The pictures below show that, when students were called to devise costumes and fashion accessories to be worn by actors in a film, they were keen to travel “[a] long time ago in a galaxy far, far away” to imagine what those props might look like. The medium was instrumental to the discussion of the legal principles in Lucasfilm v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39. This was a decision concerning the boundaries of copyright protection for props, including the ‘Imperial Stormtrooper’ helmet in the Star Wars productions. Could they be considered sculptures, i.e. artistic works under the law? The legal issue before the Supreme Court addressed the definition of ‘sculpture’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and specifically the approach to be adopted when three-dimensional objects have both an artistic purpose and an utilitarian function. As the case established, the notion of ‘artistic work’ for costumes stumbled into what a court could consider a mainly functional, instrumental and useful item for a motion picture (Frabboni & Suthersanen, 2025).
Image 2 and 3, Fashion Law Cohort (University of Sussex) (permission was obtained prior to the devising of plasticine items).
Following the cohorts’ craftsmanship in creating prototypes for costumes, students were asked if they considered themselves as authors, and if their creative efforts were worthy of protection under copyright law. Responses were mixed. An unequivocal answer, however, was that copyright laws or other intellectual property laws did not have the same flexibility that fashion should afford. This insightful observation raised more questions. What is the notion of a sculpture or art when someone creates a work for a functional purpose such as a film costume or a fashion collection?
Plasticine was one of the media used to experiment with a sensorial experience of the intersection between fashion and the law but it is just one example of the creative processes that can be used. Perfumes, for example, can be equally demanding. This is possibly the topic for another blog entry, to continue the narrative on the existing boundaries and challenges between fashion as craftsmanship and the law in its non-traditional definitions.
Questions and dialogues
Through the experience of the medium and forms of expressions, the classroom (including their teachers) can challenge legal principles on how fashion and fashion law fit within learning journeys. Through their own creative journey, students can consider whether they can create a work of art which becomes a costume for a film or a ballet, an outfit for the catwalk, a piece in a museum, or something they would use in their everyday life. The formal question remains: under the law, where is the relevant threshold for a work to be sufficiently artistic and original for copyright protection? And does this matter?
The medium plays a crucial pedagogical role, helping students to examine the principles of subsistence, originality and infringement in copyright law. It also helps them to consider the respectful treatment of the work of an author (Delves-Broughton v House Of Harlot Ltd [2012] EWPCC 29) against derogatory action. Similarly, the perception of colours in trade mark law enables students to explore what constitutes a valid trade mark and the relevant litigation going forward.
The dialogue between students and their teachers is an exploration of experience and expression, with participants remaining protagonists of the complexity that resides in fashion law. This often goes against trends, paradigms and formalisms. From a teacher’s perspective, it is fundamental for all participants to pose questions at the core of the intersections highlighted above. Expanding on the concept of law pedagogy and imagination, it has been pointed out to me that “[t]he most subversive people are those who ask questions” (Jostein Gaarder, Sophie’s World, 1995). Learning and teaching fashion law is most creative, transformative and subversive because (and as long as) we – the people who learn and teach in this field – ask the difficult questions about the experience of fashion through media, the semantics and languages of art and legal education.
Comments