Sun, 2009-10-18 14:47 | by Carles
I was recently shopping for some miscellaneous items at my local Target store, and I walked through the 'clothes' section to see if there were any 'sweet buys' that I could find that 'didn't look like they were from Target.' It's always rewarding to 'get compliments' about elements of my wardrobe, since I am a rlly trendy person, and then 'surprise' people by telling them that I 'got it for cheap at a relatively mainstream outlet.' Then I made 'the ultimate discovery' that might turn the entire alternative world upside down.
Photo via flickruser
It seems like the display rack in Target looks 'a whole lot like' the display racks in American Apparel. Like the products are 'complete rip offs' or something. At first I was excited, since I thought I would get a ton of Am-Appy-ish materials 'on the cheap' but then I started to wonder if these knock-offs would enable me to achieve the same brand goals. Not sure if I would be able to 'lie' to myself, kinda like women who use fake purses. Not sure if the $5-$10 prices would be worth paying if they weren't officially amAppy.
Can't believe Target 'totally ripped off' Am Appy. Wonder what they are trying 2 do.
I feel like Am Appy owns the 'design rights' to this aesthetic, and probs deserve to sue any1 who rips them off. They are responsible for branding this aesthetic as 'kewl.'
Maybe Target decided to 'rip off' the Am Appy clothing aesthetic in order to 'get back at them for 'stealing their logo aesthetic.'
I did some internet research and found out that Target was founded in 1902. American Apparel was founded in 1989. I feel 'very surprised' by that fact, since I have only known about Am Appy for a few years (I first found out about them when they moved into my suburban market mall.) It is interesting that they both have similar logos that rely on 'the power of Helvetica' to get across their store's aesthetic. It seems like Am Appy might have 'ripped off' the Target logo by using Helvetty/Arial as their font.
Yall can probably notice the similarities in the store logos.
Seems like most 'everything' stores are trying to appeal to alts. Or maybe alternative aesthetics have 'taken over', and they are trying to enable the poors to wear solid coloured shirts. Maybe poor people will no longer think that they need 'branded logos' + scribbly shit [via Ed Hardy] on their t-shirts to make them look like they are rich/fit-in.
Just don't know what belongs to who, and what type of 'intellectual design property' can really be owned. I feel like the Font Industry and the Music Industry are really similar. I think I expect to utilize fonts for free, much like I expect to listen to music for free. The person who creates a font is looking to 'go mainstream' by 'getting included' on tons of personal computing machines. This is the same thing that buzzbands need to try to accomplish. Fonts + Music can't really 'change the world' but they can definitely be an under-appreciated element of ur every day life.
Bands need to create files that make it on to as many computers as possible. MP3s, JPGs, MOVs, FLVs, PDFs, EXEs, DMGs, and any other type of file known to man. Buzzbands need to 'make it' on to pplz computers.
Having a huge crisis.
Do u think that Target will get sued by Am Appy?
Do u think Am Appy will get sued by Target?
Do u still think Am Appy is a 'relevant brand'?
Is there a new Alt brand?
Should I be a font designer, or should I start a buzzband?
How does the law decide 'who owns a font'/font-based logo?
Previous Target Coverage
http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/2009/09/is-target-the-most-authentic-everything-store.html
