cupnoodler

You're not understanding what I'm saying.

"TV show falls under the commercialization, that's why brand paid to be in the show and how product placement is a things [sic]."
A TV show is a commercial product, but the items in the show aren't what the show is selling. The "commercialization" of a TV show is itself. In other words, if a flying Ford is featured in Harry Potter, the Ford is still not what Harry Potter is selling. Harry Potter is selling its franchise or brand. It sells its character, story, aesthetic, themes, etc.
Product placement is a thing because other producers are paying the production company to advertise their products in the shows. The production company is not paying other brands for it to use their products and show their logos in its show; that would be ridiculous and backwards thinking. The reason why logos are blurred is because production companies don't want to give free advertisements or the logos are trademarked. Yet, it is impossible for fashion designers to have a trademark over clothing designs unless there's some unique technology to which they can patent. You can bet that none of those hanbok designs are patented nor trademarked, which makes makes it a nonargument whether it is acceptable to portray them on film or not.

"Michael Jordan sued chinese company that used his chinese name romanisation and using basketball pose to sell shoes that similar to Air Jordan and he got compensation."
The key phrase is "to sell shoes that [are] similar to Air Jordan." If this drama started to sell the designed hanbok as merch, then that would be liable to go to court over. This is exactly what I claimed isn't happening: "A TV show can legally show your creations without permission as long as it doesn't commercialize your product."

"It's not embarrassing to fight for your right as not everyone is actually watch every designer show, just because the designer invited into named fashion show doesn't mean they can just brush off people who don't credit them."
The point is, if you're in that stage, you're expecting people to know your designs and your influence without your direct compulsion and name plastered to every creation. You have all the right to complain and shout to the world that people are "stealing" your work, but I'm saying that that's an embarrassing look. You can feel free to disagree.

White Christmas and Solomon's Perjury.
If you don't mind Japanese movies, Werewolf Game series. I'll warn you that the acting is pretty campy and annoying if you're not used to Japanese-style acting.

A TV show can legally show your creations without permission as long as it doesn't commercialize your product. This falls under fair use in every Western country (maybe Korea is different, though I doubt that). If it were otherwise, producers would have to be overly cautious all the time to write or showcase things on any platform for the risk of getting sued. It's out of courtesy production credits the person's work. Yet, if you publicly lash out about something so trivial as this designer had done, it only gives people the impression that you're desperate for exposure.

You need to understand that in the film industry, the design/writing team very often references the actual thing and without credit. There have been so many moments where characters directly quoted, word for word, philosophers and scientists to give the impression that the characters were smart(er). Countless times actual architectural blueprints, car blueprints, and various design sketches have been used as long as they were in public domain. And never once have I witnessed an esteemed creator cry that his or her work was stolen or uncredited. It's probably because they understood that their products were merely used as props to amplify the film's illusion.

For someone who was featured on Milan's Fashion Week, it's an embarrassing look that a designer of this caliber chose to wail on her socials how the design team, for decorations to simply raise the ethos of their character, referenced what was shown on the walkway, SOMETHING THAT IS INTENDED TO SHOW FASHION TRENDS AND INSPIRE. It'll be like if Einstein started getting upset a show used E=MC^2 without crediting him or Feynman started to complain that his proof was shown in one of those blackboard decorations to portray a genius. How laughable would that be? The people who are interested will find out on their own, and for the laity, they'll be impressed by the jargon or the props. I think if you really want the exposure either privately message the production team or mention in social media how your products were featured on the show.

"I am in the art world and original work not derived from existing work is by far in the smallest minority."
Amen to that. I'll also say this isn't exclusive to art, but almost every industry. You've got to have the naivety of child to believe that most artists are creating original content and works. Most if not all build upon from each other's creations.

"The designer will certainly benefit from the exposure."
Yes, and she most certainly did from her post.
But the debate isn't whether she deserves credit. I don't think any critical post has argued that she doesn't deserve credit or not. We are, or at least I am, arguing for whether she took the best approach and whether her public outrage is warranted. I don't think it was because she had probably referenced and used other people's works and designs (top right is literally just 90s satin slip dress in hanbok style), so to get upset at another team for making the blunder of not directly referencing her work, while MOST artists, and especially designers including herself, don't keep a list of references for works that they've referenced, is outrageous. Have a little humility and sympathy.

I think she ultimately got what she wanted, which is exposure for her brand. But she also got her hands dirty in the process. Her standing on high horses and acting like she's entitled to not just credit but money is off-putting, especially for those who understand the (fashion) industry,.

Someone here is extremely naive.
In the professional art world (not 'artists' in Reddit subs, DA, Insta, etc), many artists' works get used without any credit. Sometimes they get paid, but most don't. In the music industry, "thefts" by sampling and interpolations are commonplace. In traditional art, artists reference other artists all the time. They also use other artist's layouts, designs, and general concepts. This is why art movements exist.
In the context of a drama, where the decoration team used someone's designs as a prop to establish some credibility for the protagonist's role in the show for a 15 second clip: Is this closer to plagiarism or how musicians sample and artists reference? I'm thinking it's closer to the latter. Should they credit the designer out of courtesy? Yes. Did they commit some grave sin? No. Can they get sued and should the artist expect compensation? Definitely not.

(How pathetic of you to respond then block)

As others have pointed out, her designs aren't exceptional enough to lash out in public. It is not as if she invented the hanbok and MBC stole her patent. She just made slight alterations, inspired by other characters and other outfits, to create her designs. Then, the drama used her designs as a tiny prop playing a tiny role in the story. It's conceited of her to think that her designs are so special and original that she needs to throw a tantrum for everyone to know her business. If she thinks they referenced her work without her permission, then she should have just contacted them privately.

Please don't exaggerate. Even if there is a lawsuit, at worst, the show will either scrap that scene or blur the designs. You're acting like the show will be forced to give a large chunk of its royalty because it has a fifteen second scene with someone else's designs in the shot😂😂