who "owns" a tartan?

[John McQuillen]

I see a theme (sometimes repeating) of people asking about wearing tartans to which they feel they have no actual right. I don’t want to rehash all those comments, but suffice it to say, it usually comes down to respect. Inevitably someone always comments that the inquiring person ought to just ask the Clan Chief for permission. This poses a new twist on the question for me and one that I hope can generate some discussion.

Who actually OWNS a tartan? Asked another way, I have understood that Clan Chiefs “endorse” a tartan to be worn by their family/clan. And can endorse additional tartans pretty much as their exclusive right as the Chief. Is this paramount to ownership?

As an example, I have noted that very few family/clan tartans are actually restricted. So, where does the “ownership” come from? If I were to decide that I wanted to use Auld Scotland for my family and thereby declare it as my family’s tartan, would that somehow mean that others were not allowed to wear it without my permission? Taken a bit further, if I were to have several friends and our families mutually supported each other and so we all agreed to wear Auld Scotland to show our mutual support for each other, does that make us a clan? And if so, does that finally preclude others from wearing Auld Scotland without our newly formed clan’s permission? Or by another example, what if I too wanted to use Black Watch for my family instead…

Perhaps a bit tongue in cheek, but on a serious note, at what point does a pattern of colors become the implied (or explicit) possession of a group of people such that social pressure excludes others from wearing it without permission? As noted, there is not a restriction on most tartans so no legal rights actually exist.

(Side Note: For restricted tartans and those with copyright owners clearly there is a legal right to ownership and therefore this topic is null and void)

Granted, there are those here that will respond with, “Then just wear what you want and don’t bother with what others think.” Fair enough, but I am merely striking up a conversation (I already have “my” tartan and kilt) for the sake of academic discussion.

As I understand it (and I readily admit I may not be entirely accurate) many tartans reflected different regions and variations of dyes etc. At some point various clan chiefs appointed a tartan to be the one appropriate for the clan, in some cases this was registered with Lord Lyon.

As you have mentioned there are those that are designed and registered as restricted tartans and presumably their designer or the person who commissioned the design is the legal owner. Otherwise tartans can be lawfully used by anyone.

So yes you could adopt a tartan, however, adopting a tartan with an established history/purpose I would imagine woud prevent it from becoming exclusively your clan's tartan specially in these litigious times. One might also ask why not just design a new tartan and register it as a restricted taran?

In any case adoption of a tartan or not, I think unless you register it as restricted when you design it there is no precluding others from using it so it becomes a moot point.

The social pressure you mention is a kind of etiquette in certain circles....... No one is forced to do it but neither can one expect to be accepted in those circles if they choose not to. The 'pattern of colours' isn't just a pattern of colours, it has a meaning/heritage/symbolism attached. It represents groups of people and the events of their lives......From an academic point of view I would guess that designing a tartan and having it associated with a group of people for several hundred years without a more substantial association to the same pattern and voila...... People will expect only people of that group to wear it in certain circles .......seems easier to just design and register a new tartan as yours with full legal ownership rights.....