The second link about about a print, not the dress itself. Kind of like if someone was selling a dress with Barbie on it. The dress isn't copyrighted, but Barbie imagery is and you need a license to use it.
The second is the only interesting and halfway relevant link you have provided. It says Versace was suing another company for ripping off their designs, on the bases of trademark law, it being a trade dress and copyright law.
They would have had grounds on copyright law, but this company didn't just copy one dress it was copying all of their dresses and designs. In any event it wasn't settled because they settled out of court, which means nothing changed, and still to date you can't copyright a dress.
1. US copyright law prohibits "useful articles", like clothing, from being copyrighted.
2. However, as that article points out, "decorative features of a uniform should be treated like two-dimensional artwork". Look at the example on that article - it's basically some abstract stripes and triangles that were seen as deserving of copyright protection, much less than a sweatshirt with a pink "Barbie" logo in recognized font on it.
3. Beyond copyright, you can get a design patent on articles of clothing. Christian Louboutin is famous for their red soled shoes as well as their "spike" sneakers, and they're suing other companies making red-soled shoes and sneakers with spikes on them. We'll see how far they get.
In any case, my original point in posting this and the other examples is that the first comment I was replying to, at least to me anyway, was implying that the fashion industry has thrived without the need for IP protections. On the contrary, there are a TON of lawsuits in the fashion industry related to IP protections where one designer is accusing someone else of "ripping off" their designs. The mechanics may not be exactly the same as with written words but the effects are identical.
You can't copyright a dress. You have presented a bunch of articles (that you didn't even read yourself) where artwork associated with a garment such as logos and textile prints may be subject to copyright in certain circumstances. It is not a matter of fashion having the same protections but under different codes. You simply can not copyright a dress. Fashion designers do not have that monopoly of reproduction.
There wasn't really any need for clarification. I and the other poster were just pointing out that you can't copyright a dress. It's as simple as that.
Other types of IP protection are certainly not the same, not are their effects via enforcement.
That last paragraph is self contradictory. If they had grounds on copyright law, then they must have been able to legally copyright their dresses regardless of whether or not they actually went to court. If you can't copyright a dress then they had no grounds under copyright law.
As far as I am aware you can't copyright a dress, unless it is like the banana that got nailed to the wall as art. The most relevant thing would be a design patent.
> If you can't copyright a dress then they had no grounds under copyright law.
Copyright is automatic and they may have just been hoping/assuming it replies. I should have said they may have thought they had grounds under copyright law.
And why do you think this somehow doesn't apply to the topic under discussion??
Edit: here are two more, https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/versace-fashion-... and https://consumerist.com/2008/01/25/diane-von-furstenberg-sue..., but I'm sure you'll try to argue that the specifics aren't what you had in your head...