Frugal Corner has ISLE OF SKYE!!!!!

[pipesndrumsnun]

Or you can just not buy an Isle of Skye kilt from them until you are personally satisfied, instead of calling for a commercially damaging action on something that may not even be the case...

A voice of reason! Thank you, Chrome Scholar!

I'm actually sorry that I ever posted the info about the kilt in the first place...I was actually just trying to help, knowing that many people had expressed interest in that particular tartan. I did not realize that this thread would set off such a ruckus or open such a can of worms. I do apologize to Frugal Corner and to anyone who has been upset by this thread!

[ChromeScholar]

I suspect that the licensing question will be brought to someone official's attention fairly soon. If they aren't licensed kilt, they will be off the market fairly soon. If they still have it for sale when I have the money for another kilt, I will probably buy one. Otherwise, there are other tartans on my list.

[Mike1]

Facts, gentlemen. Bring some facts to the table, else this thread is going to go away. Enough of the speculation already.

[pipesndrumsnun]

Facts, gentlemen. Bring some facts to the table, else this thread is going to go away. Enough of the speculation already.

Please, Mike, make it go away! Make it go away!!!

[Alan H]

Facts, gentlemen. Bring some facts to the table, else this thread is going to go away. Enough of the speculation already.

HEAR, HEAR! Enough of the speculation. I Hope that the next post is by a representative of Frugal Corner, and that we all leave this thread ALONE until then.

I know that I'm going to NOT POST IN THIS THREAD AGAIN until we hear from FC.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I suspect that the licensing question will be brought to someone official's attention fairly soon. If they aren't licensed kilt, they will be off the market fairly soon. If they still have it for sale when I have the money for another kilt, I will probably buy one. Otherwise, there are other tartans on my list.

Not necessarily. To bring in an example from another proprietary tartan, the Pride of Scotland tartan is a design well known to be owned by McColls of Aberdeen. I know that in the past they were having this tartan produced by Lochcarron of Scotland, and that for a while Lochcarron was making it available to all of their retailors.

However, at some point about two years ago (if memory serves) Lochcarron stopped supplying it, at the request of McColls. Whether they still produce it for McColls or if McColls is now having it produced elsewhere, I have no idea.

But my point in this is that the Pride of Scotland tartan was being sold everywhere. Just do an Ebay search and see what comes up. McColls was attempting, as best they could, to control the production and sale of one of their proprietary designs. Other companies, many of which were owned and operated outside of the UK, were copying their design and making profit off of it. Last I heard, McColls was trying their best to crack down on this, which amounts to theft of their privately held corporate design.

The fact that the Pride of Scotland is still widely available on Ebay and elsewhere is testimony to the fact that there is only so much a UK company can do legally to protect itself against this kind of intellectual property theft by companies based in Pakistan or China, selling their products to the USA or elsewhere.

I'm using this as an example to illustrate that even IF (and it is an "if) the company supplying FC does not have permission to produce this design, and IF the copyright owners are made aware of the situation and attempt to take action, the reality is that there may be very little they can effectively do.

It boils down to this -- there is a difference between what is right and what you can get away with.

This conversation may seem to be getting very messy to some, but it brings up some serious points about our moral responsibility as consumers. In general, the question of whether or not a tartan is copyrighted, or who owns that copyright, is not going to be an issue for those of us purchasing and wearing the tartans. Tartan copyright has absolutely no bearing on who can wear the tartan -- only who can produce and/or sell it.

In the following statements I am not referring to any single company, but rather making general observations that I think are applicible anywhere.

Generally, the consumer takes it on faith that the person they are buying their goods from has obtained any permission that may be necessary and won't ever have to worry about it.

However, when put into a situation where there is either sure knowledge, or a reasonable suspicion, that the retailor or manufacturer may be supplying something illicitly, then it does become a personal moral delimma for the consumer -- do I purchase this anyway and support this company with my dollars, or don't I?

A good example -- last summer while doing some work out in my yard, a rather rag-tag looking man pulled up in a pick-up truck and offered to sell me a variety of tools and hardware (all in new packaging) that he had loaded in his truck bed. He told me he drove up from South Carolina because his "manager" told him he needed to sell this surplus "inventory" today. Yeah right. I had every reason to believe that these were stolen goods. And while there is nothing objectively wrong with me buying a tool from a private individual, in this case I could be reasonably sure that by doing so I would be monetarily supporting an illegal and immoral activity and I could not in good conscious be a participant in that. I politely declined and the person drove on.

There is such a thing as "consumer ethics" and I think this thread, at its heart, is dealing with these questions.

[Kilted Stuart]

Wow did this thread ever grow in a hurry!!!.
I think the point of letting FC answer to the agreement is right.
They may well have paid there dues and are offering the tartan with the royalties built in.
I think that is why MacHummel at CCK stated right off the top before the threads even started moving on the Canadian Maple Leaf and the IOS at MM that he would have to charge a slight surcharge on top of the usual kilt price so first time and especially repeat customers didn't get put off and alarmed by the material cost being slightly higher. If you bought your last kilt with him and you order again and he charges you more there usally is a reason why it's more. It saves going through all this and puts it out there.

When you deal direct with a reputable supplier like MM they state right off the top all fees, surcharges, royalty fees ETC. to have them weave this tartan. If they make the Tartan public domain to buy (on there regular list) the royalties and extras have been built in or are surcharged at time of purchase as a separate fee. They will list it as a specialty or surcharge able available to purchase tartan. No hidden costs.

I'm sure if you look around you could find some supplier to do anything you want in any tartan but that doesn't make it right.
When you buy off the rack previously made kilts from an offshore suppler the quality may remain the same but the suppler they buy material from may change without notice. As long as the quality stays the same and your kilt sellers and customers like the product these things may go unnoticed or overlooked. Do you question your suppler where this batch of tartan was purchased and made into pre-made kilts??. Buying direct avoids this grey area.

Like some say and I have always agreed, sometimes you get what you pay for.

Kilted Stuart

[Riverkilt]

Fact: If you go to Marton Mills website and look at their 16 oz wool Jura in Isle of Skye tartan, right after the words Isle of Skye they note the tartan is copyrighted by Rosemary Nicolson Samios.

That's a nice thing to do.

Ron

[Sheep In Wolf's Clothing]

Fact: If you go to Marton Mills website and look at their 16 oz wool Jura in Isle of Skye tartan, right after the words Isle of Skye they note the tartan is copyrighted by Rosemary Nicolson Samios.

That's a nice thing to do.

Ron

And it is realy nice......

[Kent Frazier]

I can't see a photo of the Isle of Skye on their website. Isn't it possible that the tartan they are listing is one of the non-copyrighted ones Matt mentions in this thread?