Tartan Law Suit - LL Bean & "Maine" tartan

[ccga3359]

may be.



it's only the taxi to the cash settlement. That tartan was worth nothing until LLBean unwittingly added a $ value to it.



not intentionally...

So do I summize that you feel it's okay for L.L Bean to profit from someone else's product, without compensation, but the legit owner is just SOL? Don't you think L.L. Bean should have investigated and gotten permission from, before using? What if the head of Labatt's accidentally came across one of your postings, said "hey that's cool" and started selling Blu(Ontario) t shirts for $25.00 a pop? Don't you think you should be compensated had you copyrighted your handle?

[macwilkin]

So do I summize that you feel it's okay for L.L Bean to profit from someone else's product, without compensation, but the legit owner is just SOL? Don't you think L.L. Bean should have investigated and gotten permission from, before using? What if the head of Labatt's accidentally came across one of your postings, said "hey that's cool" and started selling Blu(Ontario) t shirts for $25.00 a pop? Don't you think you should be compensated had you copyrighted your handle?

Point of clarification: it's not her product. Mr. Gillis designed it. She only bought the rights to it, and given her statements, it doesn't sound like she cares very much about the symbolism behind it. Yes, LL Bean should have been more careful, but she's no "angel" either.

T.

[Fearnest]

Point of clarification: it's not her product. Mr. Gillis designed it. She only bought the rights to it, and given her statements, it doesn't sound like she cares very much about the symbolism behind it. Yes, LL Bean should have been more careful, but she's no "angel" either.

T.

Wait a minute here! Following that line of reasoning publishing houses and movie production companies who purchase the rights to stories so they can produce the book or the movie (and make a profit) "aren't angels" either.

The wheels of commerce are driven by profit, not altruism. There are producers who have an emotional commitment to their product, but it's certainly not a requirement! You're not somehow evil just because you're an entrepreneur... just ask any of our sponsors or members who sell their wares.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Does the person who designs a tartan have a copyright on that tartan, and therefore a right to restrict production if he or she chooses? Yes.

Does any person that the original copyright holder assigns copyright to have those same rights? Again, yes.

However, as I advise people when I design new tartans for them, if you ever want to see your new tartan become popular or well recognized, then you better not attempt to restrict the production of it too much.

Someone who is actually in the business as a tartan producer, like House of Edgar, or Lochcarron, or Strathmore, etc., will obviously want to restrict their new tartan designs, so that only they may produce the cloth. This is their business, after all, and they need to be able to prevent a competing woolen mill from making money off of their proprietary design. However, they are producing the tartan, which means that it will be available in tartan shops, and the public will have an opportunity to purchase and wear the tartan.

When a private individual tries to restrict production of a tartan they have copyright of, it's a different matter. If the tartan is not in production, that means anyone who wants it will have to have it custom woven. And if the copyright holder requires that anyone who wants it woven must first seek and acquire their permission (or even pay them a fee), then obviously that is going to limit how much the cloth is produced and worn.

Question: How many of you have ever seen a kilt in the McKerrell tartan? Not many, I'd wager. Because Madame McKerrell of Hillhouse has chosen to restrict the production of that tartan, and it is only available through her, with her permission. Consequently, it's not going to be a very common or widely available tartan.

I'm not saying that individual tartan copyright holders are not perfectly within their rights to do so. And they may have legitimate reasons for doing so. But understand that this is going to make the tartan rather rare, and not well known. Maybe this is exactly what you want.

But while this may add a bit of "unusualness" to a rare family tartan, like McKerrell, in the case of a state tartan, one has to ask how prudent this actually is. If the tartan was designed to commemmorate a state, or be used by the residents of that state, it only stands that you'd want to make it available to those who want to wear it. You'd want it to be widely known about.

And most people who design or commission such new tartans want exactly that -- they are not in it to make a profit (if you are, you are in the wrong business!). They are seeking to commemorate a heritage and add to the tradition of tartan design and tartan wearing. They would like nothing more than for their new tartan to be widely recognized and worn. So they choose not to put any production restrictions on it, or if they do, they will lisense a particular woolen mill to produce it, so even though it may only be available from one source, it is still available to the public.

The fact is, though, that most American state tartans are not going to be picked up and added to the regular line of any Scottish tartan mill (the exception being the Georgia tartan, which is regularly produced by Strathmore). That means that if someone wants to wear their state tartan, they are going to commission someone to have it woven. And if each and every person who wants to wear the tartan has to first find out who the copyright holder is, and seek out persmission, and perhaps pay a fee, then it is going to make the tartan much less popular than it would be otherwise.

Given the extreme case of the Maine tartan, it seems like the copyright holder does not even want the tartan pictured (given the trouble that arose over the tartan being included in the District Tartans reference work).

In fact, the inability of people to acquire and wear the original Maine tartan is what led to the creation of the new Maine Dirigo tartan, which is available for anyone to wear (and, as my previous post said, is the official tartan of the state).

So, all this is to say that a tartan copyright holder is perfectly within their rights to restrict the tartan in any way they choose. However, it must be understood that it will have an effect on the perception and use of the tartan, and you have to ask yourself what your ultimate goal for the tartan is.

[macwilkin]

Thank you, Matt. That was my point; I just didn't expound on it enough.

T.

[macwilkin]

Wait a minute here! Following that line of reasoning publishing houses and movie production companies who purchase the rights to stories so they can produce the book or the movie (and make a profit) "aren't angels" either.

The wheels of commerce are driven by profit, not altruism. There are producers who have an emotional commitment to their product, but it's certainly not a requirement! You're not somehow evil just because you're an entrepreneur... just ask any of our sponsors or members who sell their wares.

I never said she was "evil", just that some on this board are trying to turn this into a "David v. Goliath" battle, which I don't believe is entirely true, given her past behaviours, such as wanting Teall and Smith to cover up the tartan's image in their book.


T.

[Fearnest]

You're putting words in my mouth, sir. I never said she was "evil", just that some on this board are trying to turn this into a "David v. Goliath" battle, which I don't believe is entirely true, given her past behaviours, such as wanting Teall and Smith to cover up the tartan's image in their book.

And btw, I'm all for small businesses, including the ones on this site. Again, please don't put words in my mouth.

T.

Just my understanding of your use of the phrase "she's no angel." Thanks for the clarification.

[macwilkin]

Just my understanding of your use of the phrase "she's no angel." Thanks for the clarification.

No worries -- and I'm sorry for coming off a bit gruff. I'll edit my posts as soon as I get back from fighting the American Revolution in my history class.

T.

[gilmore]

So, all this is to say that a tartan copyright holder is perfectly within their rights to restrict the tartan in any way they choose. However, it must be understood that it will have an effect on the perception and use of the tartan, and you have to ask yourself what your ultimate goal for the tartan is.

I never practiced copyright law, but remembering back to law school, I recall that it is difficult to have it both ways. That is, if one has a copyright and does not at least try to protect it, it can easily be lost and become within the public domain. There are many examples of this. "Cellophane" and (I think) "bloomers" are two of the best known. Hence, some are very zealous in guarding their copyright, The Coca-Cola Company being well-known for that.

[Monkey@Arms]

I never practiced copyright law, but remembering back to law school, I recall that it is difficult to have it both ways. That is, if one has a copyright and does not at least try to protect it, it can easily be lost and become within the public domain. There are many examples of this. "Cellophane" and (I think) "bloomers" are two of the best known. Hence, some are very zealous in guarding their copyright, The Coca-Cola Company being well-known for that.

Not an intellectual property expert myself, either, but I think the doctrine your referring to is a trademark principle, not copyright.

By the way here's a bit of trivia, did ya'll know that "Heroin" was once a trademarked product of the Bayer Corporation, that has since gone generic?

Best regards,

Jake