Tartan Law Suit - LL Bean & "Maine" tartan

[gilmore]

...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....


...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.

A solution might be to create two (or more) tartan designs, one restricted and the other in the public domain and widely promoted.

This seems to be what Graham Alexander Robieson of Dunfermline has attempted to do, but in three different ways, according to the info on the Tartans of Scotland website.

He designed this one, 3016, "Resticted as a family tartan" and presumably copyrighted: http://www.tartans.scotland.net/tart...an_id=7000.htm

But Mr Robieson also created 3116 "A tartan for all with the name:" http://www.tartans.scotland.net/tart...an_id=8080.htm

...as well as a third, Robieson Kith and Kin, 3064, that seems intended for more popular usage: http://www.tartans.scotland.net/tart...an_id=7640.htm

"Although this tartan was created for Graham Alexander Robieson's family (the designer), there are no restictions on who may wear it."

The intended usages of the first and thrid tartans is clear; however, interesting issues are raised in the description of the second one, "for all with the name." How does Mr Robieson intend to go about managing the production and wearing of it, maintaining his copyright protection while at the same time allowing all with the name to wear (and produce and reproduce?) it. Will those Robiesons not in his family get an assignment or license? How would "family" be defined here?


As you know, something similar has occurred several times over the history of clan or family tartans, with a chief's tartan that is customarily (it is said) worn only by him or her and the immediate family. The Struan Robertson tartan is an example. The chief's tartan is the same as the general clan tartan, but with the addition of a white stripe.

[flairball]

I think I'll stock up on these shirts. Could be worth something in the future....???

[ccga3359]

I went to LL Bean and searched americana tartan, they list US service tartan shirts. From the description from Fearnest's original post, it would appear that LL Bean is calling it the US Navy tartan. Cajanscot is this the official US Navy tartan or did I not find the shirt in question?

[arrogcow]

Don't know about that one, but the one called US Army ain't.

Adam

[macwilkin]

Don't know about that one, but the one called US Army ain't.

Adam

It's the West Point tartan.

I went to LL Bean and searched americana tartan, they list US service tartan shirts. From the description from Fearnest's original post, it would appear that LL Bean is calling it the US Navy tartan. Cajanscot is this the official US Navy tartan or did I not find the shirt in question?

It's the USN Edzell tartan:

http://www.lindaclifford.com/Images/USNavy.jpg

Cheers,

Todd

[The Wizard of BC]

It must be pointed out that like a Patent, a Copyright must be applied for, paid for, and defended.

The Copyright is only valid in the country it was issued in. It has a time limit just like a Patent. There are many cases of Copyrights lost or "stolen" by being used in another country, or simply waiting for the time to elapse, or by the Copyright holder not defending it in court.

Just because a person designs something does not automatically provide protections in the courts. It is also not guaranteed that just because you aquire the rights to something, from someone, that Copyright protection is included.

It takes an active effort (and the cash) on the part of the designer to get the Copyright.

I have not taken the time to find this case and do not know if an actual Copyright exists. I just wanted to point out some things people may not know.

[Blu (Ontario)]

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?

I'm not passing judgment. All I'm saying is that LL Bean has, by their lack of due dilligence, created a "golden opportunity". The story would have been just the same if it was widgets or whatever.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Yes, the Maine tartan is recorded in US Copyright office records, I can verify that because I looked it up.

While I am no copyright lawyer, I have understood things slightly differently than how Steve presented them.

My understanding is that, with any kind of intellectual property (a poem you wrote, an article, a painting, or in this case a tartan) you automatically have copyright simply by virtue of the fact that you are the creator of the "thing."

Registering your "thing" with a body such as the US Copyright office is not neccesary for you to have copyright, but simply provides a means by which you can prove, if needs be, that yes you did design this "thing" on such-and-such a date and the US Copyright office has record of it.

If the question of copyright ever comes up in court and you need to prove that you actually are the original designer of the "thing" having it recorded in the US Copyright office really helps. Otherwise you will have to find some other way to prove your claim of copyright.

But the copyright status itself is not dependant upon formal registration of your "thing." Registering it only makes it easier to defend your copyright.

M

[scoutniagara]

LLBean used to sell merchandise with a tartan they called Bean of
Freeport. It was exactly the same as my MacIntosh hunting, but with a light blue overstripe.

Does the size of the sett matter? See US Navy tartan below.

[macwilkin]

Yes, the Maine tartan is recorded in US Copyright office records, I can verify that because I looked it up.

While I am no copyright lawyer, I have understood things slightly differently than how Steve presented them.

My understanding is that, with any kind of intellectual property (a poem you wrote, an article, a painting, or in this case a tartan) you automatically have copyright simply by virtue of the fact that you are the creator of the "thing."

Registering your "thing" with a body such as the US Copyright office is not neccesary for you to have copyright, but simply provides a means by which you can prove, if needs be, that yes you did design this "thing" on such-and-such a date and the US Copyright office has record of it.

If the question of copyright ever comes up in court and you need to prove that you actually are the original designer of the "thing" having it recorded in the US Copyright office really helps. Otherwise you will have to find some other way to prove your claim of copyright.

But the copyright status itself is not dependant upon formal registration of your "thing." Registering it only makes it easier to defend your copyright.

M

So the tartan is registered as "The" Maine tartan, then? I have a problem with this individual registering a tartan as a state tartan, and then turning around and not even allowing it to be printed in a book about district tartans. If she doesn't want people to use it, then she needs to change the name of the tartan. Why, as Matt stated earlier, even design a tartan for a state and then restrict it's use?

Regards,

Todd