Editorial
NFTs and copyright, the conflict between two systemsTechnology ethics,Web 3
04/2022

 Upcycling Fashion: Remix as a Creative, Environmental, and Collaborative ToolCulture
04/2022
 A Study of the History of Chinese Media in Canada: Third Space and the Formation of Chinese Canadian IdentityCulture
04/2021

Race and COVID-19: An In-Depth AnalysisSocial Equity
01/2021

Health Code and the Creation of Digital Identity under the PandemicSocial Equity, Technology ethics
01/2021

Digital labour, the dilemma of Instagram influencerSocial Equity, Technology ethics
12/2020
Chevonne Xue
Product Designer & Entrepreneur based in Toronto.
Bridging Art, Community, and Tech.






Project
About me























ResumeEmail
Instagram
Upcycling Fashion:
Remix as a Creative, Environmental, and Collaborative Tool

 Joanne Feng (Original), Chevonne Xue (Remix)




AbstractSince the turn of the twenty-first century, the fast fashion industry has seen unprecedented growth, but so has critical recognition of its devastating impact on the environment and global working conditions. Today, individuals in Global North nations such as the United States are increasingly participating in upcycling practices as a way to push back against the traditional production and consumption models of the fast fashion industry. With the help of digital technologies that enable the formation of dialogical communities as well as provide greater access to technical resources, upcycling can be a tool for more sustainable, meaningful, and collaborative creativity in fashion. At the same time, upcycling will also be prone to face the problem of infringement, especially when it incorporates some well-known trademarks or copyrights designs. So, how can we avoid causing infringement? In addition to strict compliance with the law, it is more important to generate new values and meanings in the process of upcycling.

 What is upcycling Fashion?Fast fashion is a clothing business model premised on the rapid and mass production of cheaply-made garments. Over the past two decades it has seen significant financial success and growth, with brands such as Zara and H&M producing double the number of collections today as they did pre-2000 during the beginning of the fast fashion phenomena. The average person is also buying more clothes at much lower costs than ever before. However, the affordances of fast fashion come at the expense of the environment. Studies estimate that the fashion industry alone is responsible for ~10% of global CO2 emissions, ~20% of industrial water pollution, ~35% of oceanic microplastic pollution, and over 90 million tonnes of textile waste per year (Niinimäki et al., 2020). Fast fashion also relies on exploitative labour practices that contribute to poor and often fatal working conditions in the Global South. Nonetheless, the industry continues to expand with its growth driven in large part by increasing consumer demands that result from widespread technology use (Vadicherla et al., 2017). Communications technologies allow consumers to access information and trends at unprecedented rates, and enable brands to gauge consumer interests and cheaply reproduce high fashion designs within the span of a few weeks. However, these technologies also provide the groundwork for the proliferation of environmentally-conscious and creative fashion practices such as upcycling.


The term upcycling first began circulating in the late 1990s and early 2000s to describe the transformation of old materials and objects into new ones with greater value as opposed to recycling, which denotes a transformation that reduces object value (Vadicherla et al., 2017). Examples of upcycling in fashion include refitting a blazer to achieve the desired silhouette or size, or turning a dress that is too short into a skirt of wearable length. In both cases, the practice of upcycling increases the value of the original garment, thereby reducing the possibility of the garment ending up in a landfill or in disuse at the back of a closet, while also eliminating the need to purchase a new piece of clothing. In essence, upcycling is a material form of remix that transforms a garment’s life model from one that is linear to one that is cyclical (Shim et al., 2018). Much like literary or digital remix, fashion remix rejects the notion that an original piece of clothing is strictly an end product. Rather than being thrown out once it has reached the end of its original life, clothing can instead be reconfigured and repurposed through upcycling to assume a new life. In fact, upcycled clothing can be understood as “fertile” in the definition given by Knobel and Lankshear (2008) as there is always future possibility for it to be further remixed by the original owner and others, therefore living multiple lives through multiple cycles. 



Everyday people’s practiceIn addition to designers and brands, everyday people are increasingly participating in upcycling in their own homes. For many, the reasons for upcycling typically include growing awareness of environmental issues, an interest in living more sustainably, and the financial benefit of not needing to spend money on new garments. Additionally, Sung (2015) identifies several social benefits including “experience benefits (the upcycling process as a meaningful journey and learning experiences), empowerment benefits (unlocking potential, and becoming more capable and self-reliant), a sense of a community through upcycling networks if any, and burning stress and relaxing” (p. 31). While participants of upcycling are of all ages, those of a younger demographic are more likely to know of the term “upcycling” and recognize their everyday practices as such (Shim et al., 2018). This is perhaps not surprising considering the abundance of digital content such as blogs, articles, YouTube videos, and most recently TikTok videos that provide instructions on upcycling, many of which have been created for young people by young people.

For example, Fashion Wizardry is a creator on YouTube who makes videos guiding her viewers through different ways to upcycle old pieces of clothing into trendier or better-fitting styles. As of February 2022, she has almost 600 thousand subscribers and some of her most popular videos, including “How to Easily Transform Low Waist Jeans to High Waist Jeans” and “Easy Ways to Upgrade Your Old Boring T-Shirts,” have over 4 million views. “Thrift Flipping” is also an extremely popular genre on TikTok, with millions of users, some of whom have millions more followers, creating short videos showing and describing the process of turning second-hand garments into fashionable pieces. Speaking on the popularity of Thrift Flip videos, CeCe Vu, the fashion and beauty partnerships lead at TikTok, claims that the digital platform’s audience “is drawn to the level of innovation, the education how-to angle, and the oddly satisfying DIY process” (Massony, 2020). The layers of remix in these videos are therefore manifold, as users engage with videos that provide instructional tools and creative inspiration for upcycling clothing, but which are themselves a product of digital remix involving a combination of music sampling, editing, and performance.

However, it would be wrong to assume that these videos, despite their instructional quality, are forms of one-way communication. Rather, they encourage experimentation and creative interpretation of the upcycling process, and help foster the creation of self-organized fashion communities that engage in constant dialogical exchange within digital spaces (Maione,2020). Kuhn (2012) describes digital remix as discursive and “an argument that is assembled by units of meaning that, when stitched together, become a larger statement.” Within this framework, YouTube and TikTok videos on upcycling can be understood as creative projects that appropriate and modify different media such as text and music to make a larger argument on fashion remix, creativity, and sustainability. These “digital arguments” then become sources of creative influence for viewers, often themselves also content creators, and are remixed and reinterpreted by others on the digital platform, thereby sustaining an ever-evolving space of dialogue.

For example, TikTok Thrift Flip videos tend to follow a similar structure involving before and after edits of the garment, and instructional text overlaid on top of overhead shots of the upcycling process. However, users will often take creative liberties with this structure, such as by creating fun and unexpected transitions between the before and after shots, in order to make their videos more innovative and entertaining. Additionally, viewers will often adapt the upcycling techniques shared in these videos and apply them in unique and inventive ways to their own garments. While many of these viewers do so in private, some others will choose to document their process and share it through their own TikTok Thrift Flip video. Therefore, the style and content of Thrift Flip videos are constantly evolving in creative ways as its community of users, whether directly or indirectly, engage with and respond to one another’s content. This creative exchange between members of fashion communities can be similarly observed on different platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, and online forums (Maione, 2020).

Moreover, not only do digital communications technologies engender greater public participation and creative innovation in upcycling practices by creating spaces for dialogical communities to be formed, they also increase the amount and ease at which resources for upcycling can be shared and accessed. A lack of understanding and practical experience with tools such sewing machines have been cited as key reasons for why many are hesitant to practice upcycling (Shim et al., 2018). However, there is an abundance of digital resources including blog posts and YouTube videos that provide education on sewing, as well as numerous others that introduce innovative ways to achieve the same desired result without sewing.

Digital technologies and platforms can also open up possibilities of what Von Busch (2014) calls “fashion hacking,” which is “a strategic and empowered endeavour that reverse- engineers the inner functions, practices, and rituals of fashion in order to build a plug-in practice” (p. 51). One example is Hacking Couture, a project ran by multidisciplinary artist Giana González which “enhances creativity, collaboration and re-defines the way we experience and consume fashion by remixing and recoding” (“Hacking Couture,” 2006). As part of the project, participants are given digital resources to uncover the design and production practices of major fashion houses such as Chanel and Versace, and then encouraged to creatively reinterpret these “codes” using old garments to create upcycled pieces of clothing.

Another example is the OpenWear project, which ran from 2010-2012 as an open-source platform that provided free access to designs and patterns, as well as a space for the collaborative exchange of ideas and techniques (Von Busch, 2014). More recently in 2021, design label ADIFF published “Open Source Fashion Cookbook,” which contains instructions for a number of DIY upcycling projects including a blanket jacket and a shirtdress made from two button- downs (Farra, 2021). While the book can be purchased online with a portion of the proceeds going to each designer who collaborated on the project, the blueprints are also available to be downloaded on the label’s site for free. Much like how digital tools and open source projects allow for those with limited knowledge of coding to contribute to and exert a level of control over commonly-used softwares, digital resources for fashion remix enable those who aren’t design “experts” to creatively participate in upcycling practices outside of traditional production models (Che, 2014). An open source approach to fashion can therefore foster a more collaborative and democratic environment for fashion design, where everyday individuals can theoretically develop a greater sense of self-determination over what they wear (Barrocas et al., 2019).



Upcycling fashion and InfringementUpcycling is an attempt to challenge and innovate the existing consumer system by rejuvenating old products and breaking the artificial shelf life of planned obsolescence. In addition to people doing DIY at home, there are many businesses and designers who are looking at the upcycling fashion market. But upcycling, as a kind of remix culture, inevitably falls into the dilemma of whether there is any infringement of old "materials". But fortunately, clothing and footwear, as a material form, are more clearly ownership. The first sale doctrine ensures that the first purchaser can resell the goods after they have been purchased and not be considered an infringement or unequal competition (Keats, 2020). However, the first sale doctrine is only valid if the goods are not modified in any way, so upcycling fashions that modify goods are often not protected by the first consumption doctrine. So how can infringement of an upcycled product be established? If a modified product is characterized as infringing, two conditions need to be met. (1) it has a valid senior trademark, and (2) the defendant's junior use creates a likelihood of consumer confusion(Perkins Coie LLP, 2021).


A trademark, under U.S. trademark law, is a guarantee of product quality and a credential associated with the designer. This is to protect consumers from confusion or deception in the course of consumption and service(Keats, 2020). In addition to the consumer law, the logo of a famous brand stands for a certain social capital, because the price of luxury goods itself determines that only a certain group of people can consume or own them. Because of this, upcycling of small-scale designer products with well-known logos or copyrighted designs is particularly welcome. This is because people can buy the luxury look and the identity behind these value symbols at a low price. Upgrades in this category are often vulnerable to lawsuits from the original brand, such as Chanel's lawsuit against Shiver + Duke for remarketing Chanel buttons as earrings. Rolex, meanwhile, sued La Californienne for customizing a pre-owned Rolex. (Gawley, 2021)

If an upcycling fashion product is indeed an upgrade to a luxury brand name product and uses or reveals the trademark or logo of that product, then whether there is a detailed description of the transformation of the goods and whether there is a likelihood of consumer confusion. These are important factors in determining whether a product is deemed to be infringing. If the owner has made some repairs to the branded goods, then he should explain in detail what repairs and changes he has made to the goods during the sales process. Which parts are original and which parts have been modified at a later stage. The seller needs to make these explanations to the consumer, because the consumer has the right to know what he or she is buying. And for brand name items, their knowledge and awareness of the item is based on trust in the brand, which is what trademark is all about. A product that has been "substantially altered" is infringing if the reseller has made any alterations in the process but has not clearly informed the user of any eventual problems, or has caused the consumer to be deceived, confused, or misunderstood about the quality, characteristics, or origin of the product. (Keats, 2020)

Nowadays, in addition to following the original design of a major brand bag, only to replace the torn leather or change the original color. Now there is also a new type of bag alteration service. You can often see a lot of videos on this topic on Chinese Tik Tok as well as RED. Most of the stories are very similar, most of them are about a consumer who finds that they has a long-unused bag, either because it is out of style or because of damage and other reasons, and they feels wasteful to leave it at the back of the closed, so decided to send it to the handmade leather workshops hoping to change it into some other style. The video shows us how a used luxury bag is given a new lease of life through just a few scenes. And often a large bag will be changed into two to three small size bags, which is more popular nowadays. With a low modification fee, consumers can have the latest models of bags on the market. 

According to the first sale doctrine, the owner of the item has the full right to dispose of the item he or she purchased. Therefore, it is not a problem to re-modify and re-cut your package, and there is no infringement involved. However, if the modified item is sold for a second time. Then you will face the problem of infringement. In addition to the trademark itself, the design of many bags itself is also registered copyright. Therefore, these brands have full ownership of a particular model.



As an upcycler, creator and innovator
The upcycle of a product, like any other form of media remix, needs to borrow or build on an old thing, to talk to the past and to foster a new flower in the old soil. Music, painting, film or books are all similar. We all have to draw from the knowledge and achievements of the past. No one can get inspiration out of thin air. But what is new and old? What kind of remix can be considered not pure copy and plagiarism ?

New ideas, new experiences, new meanings, these are some of the important things that innovation brings to the table. Remixes of hip-hop music that sample some old sources are not considered plagiarism because they imitate and splice in a way that is critical of or responsive to the original, conveying new information. Scholarly articles also require a great deal of citation, trying to find new content among older scholarly works and ideas, and making new contributions to the existing body of knowledge. (Hess, 2006) In the modification, reorganization, or juxtaposition of different material or media forms, there is the power of change, which can be described as innovation.

This definition of new also applies to upcycling. When we put aside the legal restrictions and return to upcycling itself, what we as upcyclers, as innovators, seek is to create new value from the materials of the past, similar to the desire of scholars to contribute to the existing body of knowledge. This is not because plagiarism is subject to legal judgment. Rather, it is because the value of the creator comes from the creation itself.

At the same time, laws often provide only minimal protection. And there is often an inequality of economic rights involved. Large economies and companies often have more resources and ability to protect their products, but many smaller companies, and even writers, singers, and designers, hardly have the same opportunities and resources (Aufderheide, 2010). While the law is often very vague on the definition of intellectual property, most cases are decided on their own merits. But at any level of remix, consumers actually have a very basic, mundane determination of what each thing is. Just like some musical works, although they may not be judged as plagiarism and infringement at the legal level, they may already be perceived as vulgar plagiarism at the folk level. It is sometimes difficult to really define the perceptions and judgments between intellectual works.

When a creator remixes a new product, he or she should produce some new content and add their own thinking. Let the past become the soil, the raw material, and the foundation. In those past experiences, use an individual's  knowledge and ideas to make some creations. upcycle is the same. If an upcycler decide to innovate upwards. Then make sure to let those innovative parts overtake the old ones and let the new ones shine more. But what really attracts people, or gains attention and value commercially, are the new creations that are created during the transformation process. It may be a new art form, a new cut, or even a critique of the current economic system. An upcycle is really established when people's identification of an upcycle has been separated from the original product, when people no longer think that the product is closely related to the original product. The injection of new ideas, thought and labor work can provide new value to the item. If the consumer is confronted with an upcycling product and believes that he or she is still buying the value (both material and social) of a recognizable brand, then the transformation itself is unsuccessful and meaningless. Creation means the birth of something new. It is not about copying, or repeating the work of others over and over again, or relying on the commercial success of well-known items to make a profit.



ConclusionIn the face of fast fashion, upcycling as a practice of fashion remix can help create a more sustainable, creative, and collaborative environment for fashion production. Upcycling reimagines the linear life model of clothing into one that is cyclical, and therefore sustainable and fertile for future remixes. The process of using older textiles which often hold deep personal and cultural meaning in the creation of upcycled garments can also be a source of creativity and inspiration for designers and everyday individuals alike. Digital technologies further foster popular participation in upcycling through content-sharing platforms and open source projects that provide space for technical resources to be shared as well as collaborative and dialogical communities to be formed. As the fast fashion industry continues to grow and cause irreversible harm to the environment and working conditions in the Global South, upcycling practices and the digital tools that support them will play an increasingly important role in re-orientating the way fashion production and consumption must be understood and exercised for a more sustainable and socially-conscious future. 

However, care needs to be taken to avoid infringement issues during the upcycling process. If it is unavoidable to use or reveal the trademark of the old product, it is necessary to explain in detail the process and the result of the transformation to the consumer during the sales process. It is important not to imply an association or sponsorship between the upcycler and the brand owner to avoid misunderstanding or confusion among consumers. Upcycling of famous brands can be financially lucrative, and the ability to purchase a social capital mark that represents luxury at a low price is attractive to many consumers. But upcycling is not just about chasing economic profits, it is about creating some new value for society, perhaps a critique of the existing system, or a new attempt at art or tailoring. These thoughts and creations are the greatest meaning of upcycling.




Reference

  • Aufderheide, P. (2010). Copyright, fair use, and social networks. In A networked self  (pp. 282-298). Routledge.
  • Barrocas, L., Bezerra, G., & Rocha, M. A. V. (2019). DIY and the slow fashion movement: Sew for yourself. In A. C. Broega, J.
  • Cunha, H. Carvalho, M. Blanco, G. García-Badell, & D. L. Goméz-Chacón (Eds.), Reverse Design: A Current Scientific Vision From the International Fashion and Design Congress (pp. 241-246). CRC Press. 
  • Che, E. (2014). Weaving an Open Web: Innovation and Ethics in the Virtual Commons. In R. Coombe, D. Wershler, M. Zeilinger, B. Amani, S. Anderson, & K. Asquith (Eds.), Dynamic Fair Dealing : Creating Canadian Culture Online (pp. 113-123). University of Toronto Press. 
  • Farra,  M. (2021, January 15). Open Source Fashion Cookbook Is Sharing “Recipes” for Upcycling at Home, With Patterns by Raeburn, Chromat, and More. Vogue. https://www.vogue.com/article/adiff-open-source-fashion-cookbook-upcycling-diy-fashion-patterns
  • Gawley, S. (2021, August 23). Green is the new black: The legal implications of upcycling in a fashion forward era. Carson McDowell. Retrieved April 20, 2022, from https://www.carson-mcdowell.com/news-and-events/insights/green-is-the-new-black-the-legal-implications-of-upcycling-in-a-fashion-forward-era
  • Hess, M. (2006). Was Foucault a plagiarist? Hip-hop sampling and academic citation. Computers and Composition, 23 (3), 280-295.
  • Keats, A. M. (2020). Trendy Product Upcycling: Permissible Recycling or Impermissible Commercial Hitchhiking?. Trademark Rep., 110, 712.
  • Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2008). Remix: The Art and Craft of Endless Hybridization. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 22–33.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/30139647
  • Kuhn, V. (2012). The rhetoric of remix. Transformative Works and Cultures, 9. https://doi.org/10.3983/twc.2012.0358
  • Maione, D. (2021). Future Pathways of Upcycled Textiles. In K. Sung, J. Singh, & B. Bridgens (Eds.), State-of-the-Art Upcycling Research and Practice: Proceedings of the International Upcycling Symposium 2020 (pp. 65-69). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72640-9