Talk:Fashion law

Should this be a separate article?
I notice that this has been tagged as an orphan for nearly 4 years; the article itself is little more than a self-explanatory definition.

Does it even deserve to have its own article? "Fashion law" is merely an umbrella term for the legal issues that affect the fashion area - you don't have to learn anything new doctrinally to learn fashion law. I've spent a few minutes searching Google for more info that could establish notability: doesn't seem to be any specialty legal journals devoted to the subject, only a handful of fashion law practice groups in larger firms, and a sprinkling of student organizations at law schools across the country. I've tagged it expand for now.

Some blogs that may serve as a starting point for a more ambitious editor:
 * http://www.abajournal.com/blawg/fashion-apparel-law/
 * http://fashionistaatlaw.blogspot.com/
 * http://fashionlaw.foxrothschild.com/
 * http://www.fashionapparellawblog.com/

Hartboy (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

3 Professors
That three professors in the US teach this topic strikes me as far from notable. First, it presumes that who teaches what in the US is of the greatest importance. Second, the references were not reliable (this is not inherently reliable--at the very least that needs to be argued, here, on the talk page). Third, was the implication that there are only three such professors in the US? That certainly needs a references--and if such a reference were given, that may provide a reason for inclusion. Until then, I don't see any reason to single out these three. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * [Copied from my talk page]: There are 3 well known professors in the US that teach Fashion Law. Prof Scafidi, Prof McNamara and Prof Jimenez.  The Wiki page on FL talks about how this is a new and upcoming area of the law and references that both law and design schools are offering courses in the subject matter.  This is a new thing.  There is a citation on this re Fordham to Scafidi and her blog demonstrating the first class on the topic at a US law school.  I have added the proper citation to the other (design) schools (and profs) that offer courses in the subject as well.  This is by way of citation and historical fact.  It is not acting as a directory.  In addition, historically, I believe that Prof McNamara was the first prof to teach a Fashion Law course at any US academic institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.230.26 (talk • contribs)
 * All of these things, that there are three, that they are well-known, and that this is relevant in the first place, etc., needs to be proven using reliable sources! You have not cited any of those, and I urge you to give WP:RS a good reading. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiki states "Fashion Law is a quickly growing legal specialty, and several American law and design schools have dedicated clinics and courses to its study." Based on this it is appropriate to cite the law and design schools that offer such courses and clinics.  You could provide links only to the schools - this is Fordham, Parsons and FIT (and not mention any of the profs).  Or, you can link to the actual pages that make it clear that such courses are being taught.  These links include, Scafidi's Blog Counterfeit Chic, McNamara's Parsons page with a link to the course description, and Jimenez's Blog.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.230.26 (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability
The years since 2010 have shown the above concerns as to notability to be unfounded. Fashion law has grown into a global field, recognized widely not just within academia, but the practicing bar, the fashion industry and major press. My revisions of 16 November 2014 update the article to reflect the field's growth and current parameters.

In reviewing this broad introductory overview article, I noticed and removed recent anonymous edits that skewed the article toward one side of one issue discussed within fashion law, with references to recent work/comments by one individual from the same place as the IP address.

Fashionethics (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensive Revision
My 12/13/14 contribution is a comprehensive revision of the Fashion Law article. The aim is to help the article move past its core weaknesses over the past few years, such as presentism, U.S.-centrism, ad hominem attacks, questionable sources, and repeated deletions by single-purpose accounts that strip out most references other than those by or quoting a particular individual.

In regard to the single-purpose accounts, just in case you're reading this talk page I'd just like to make a gentle note that it's OK to contribute - at a certain point it's unavoidable that folks with a connection to a topic have a strong desire to post. The key thing is here is to remember that fashion law (not to mention Wikipedia!) is far more expansive than just your own latest quotes and perspectives. It's also useful to take account of the fact that not all sources are equal - for example, there's been a considerable amount of discussion regarding the relative value of material posted in the Forbes Contributor Network content farm, particularly when that material is written by a publicist.

As I make clear in my Wikipedia bio, I have my own connections to the fashion world - I'm an attorney & consultant with major clients, and I also teach a course for the Fashion Law Institute. However, I'm also a credentialed historian, ethicist and longtime professor (including a former university chair), and providing well-documented, broadly representative, and historically accurate articles is why I'm here. I know from years of classroom experience that this is the first place many students will turn when preparing for class or writing a paper, and I hope that by seeing the breadth of topics, perspectives, and secondary sources, they'll pursue their own interests and someday add their own contributions to this site. Fashionethics (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! I am working on this page and wanted to get some other opinions. I am thinking that the second paragraph of the history section should be either deleted or expanded. What do y'all think? If it were to be expanded, I think it should talk about what the theses said. However, I am wondering if that is relevant enough to the article. Watsonkamryn (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, some revision is still needed. In particular, it's mistaken to solely focus the article on the current forms of law in the fashion world—as dear to the heart of WK, Esq., above as they might be—and omit any details or links to the specific sumptuary laws and fashion bans and regulations that have existed over time. It may just need better treatment at sumptuary law but there should be a place on Wikipedia where we could find at least the major and well documented instances across history (e.g. the taxation, regulation, and—in France—outright ban on Middle Europe's long-toed shoes). — Llywelyn II   20:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)