The notion that one cannot photograph a garment without permission from the garment industry, coupled with the copyright industry's notorious unwillingness to convey permissions, would converge to suggest that the laws would prefer us to limit our photographs of humans to those of nude humans. The film industry often gives credit to the fashion designers -- I always thought it was because they wanted the best possible fashions for their actors, but perhaps it is because they have bought the copyright on the fashion (as a work for hire) simply to avoid having to write the garment industry for permissions. It might be easier. I suspect that it is generally not easier to manufacture a car than to get permission to photograph one, but with garments it may be. In addition to the garment manufacturer there are also the possibly distinct rights of the graphic artist who made the geometric design. Most likely, the graphic artist has signed away certain very limited rights to the garment maker: other exclusive rights probably rest with the artist. I would be curious to know of any case in which a photographer has been sued for infringing the rights of a garment designer through a photo of someone wearing the garment. Presumably when we purchase garments, we have been conveyed an implicit license (through the first sale doctrine?) to display those garments in public, by wearing them -- clothes would seem rather useless if we cannot wear them in public. But any contract we as models may enter into allowing ourselves to be photographed may be void so long as we are clothed in someone else's intellectual property.