who "owns" a tartan?

[ThistleDown]

David Thorpe: I do know that some Chiefs officially recognize some tartans as clan tartans, and exclude some others.


That is so. As one example, the Duke of Argyll regards plain undifferentiated Campbell as the only tartan for his clan, apart from those associated with particular branches (such as Campbell of Breadalbane).

There is a difference of course between the Chief stating that members of his clan are to regard such and such as the clan tartan, on the one hand, and owning that tartan, which would imply that it would be improper for anyone outside the clan to wear or use it

In other words, in the first instance a particular tartan is approved for clan members to wear or use as the tartan associated with their clan, without reference or prejudice to whether other persons wear or use it. The second instance would be a claim that only such clan members had a right to wear or use that tartan; in most cases there would be no legal basis for such a claim.

The legal issue is a moot one in Scotland. Other than by specific copyright, tartans have no ownership. Weave and wear what you like -- even the Balmoral. Respect is entirely different to ownership, as David said. In most of the world the wearing of corporate or "restricted" tartans without due authority is simply shameful. Not illegal, just worthy of shame.

As was said, though, the recognition of a tartan as a representative symbol of a clan belongs to the present Chief of that clan. This Argyll has recognized "this" tartan, and the next may acknowledge another or others.

[O'Callaghan]

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Copyright is an odd animal as intellectual property rights go. It lasts 50 or 70 years past the death of the 'author' depending on where in the world you are, and it can arise anywhere in the world and then extends everywhere else by treaty without doing anything in terms of filing any paperwork, provided each country has signed the Berne Convention. It protects copying of original work.

Most of you are in the US, and copyrights can be registered at the US Library of Congress, indeed have to be if you want to file suit, but only immediately before you do, so the absence of something from the register means nothing. OTOH, most of the tartan designs originate in the UK, where no register of copyrights even exists. In the case of tartans, though, there are several registers of tartans, and registration in one of these is prima facie evidence that copyright exists, although in this respect the 'official' one is no more official than any of the others.

A few tartans are also protected as registered designs, as they are called in the UK, or design patents, as the US equivalents are called. These protect the appearance of an article, only last 14 years, and the US ones are not even in colour! These are rights that only extend over a particular country or region, although there are also European designs, and have to be examined for novelty before they are issued. As copyright is far more extensive and arises automatically, it is the dominant form of legal protection, but it is worth noting that at least some design protection exists for certain tartans.

Patents per se, other than design patents, can't protect a tartan. There are clothing patents, but they cover the fabric or the details of construction, not the pattern.

Trademarks can protect the name of a tartan, but not it's appearance, and indeed the names of some tartans are trademarked, like Flower of Scotland, for example.

As for restricted tartans, this is mainly a system of controlling availability of certain tartans that were designed by groups that don't want others to wear them. Obviously, copyright is used to restrict who may weave them, but at the level of the wearer it just operates by refusing to sell the cloth to those outside the group.

Beyond that, nothing stops you from buying any unrestricted tartan. Most of us prefer to wear something associated with ourselves, whether it represents our clan, our country or that of our forefathers, or something else of relevance. I am of Irish descent, and I have solid green and solid saffron kilts that represent Ireland, as well as two in different generic Irish tartans, one in a tartan representing the Irish county my family came from, and a solid black kilt that represents nothing atall.

If I could get them for the right price (and had unlimited funds) I would happily wear the tartan of my Irish clan (see my user name), the St George tartan (England), a tartan representing my home city of London (probably London 1988, as I am aware of another one but not of anyone that weaves it), the tartan of my wife's Scottish clan, maybe the clan tartan of my Scottish cousins, and probably even the tartan of the US state I live in.

ETA: The football (soccer) club I support has a tartan too. I would wear that too, in a kilt or perhaps a nice wooly scarf, but all I have seen made in it was a dog collar, and not being of the punk persuasion I will pass on that!

OTOH, I wouldn't personally wear the tartan of a highland regiment that I have no connection with, even though Black Watch is touted as a universal tartan for reasons I don't understand, nor Isle of Skye (where I have never even visited) just because it is pretty. I confess I do fancy the Caledonia tartan for aesthetic reasons, but with a limited budget I am not honestly likely to buy it (Caledonia is another name for Scotland, for those who don't know).

Some don't give a hang, though, and nobody can really stop them wearing whatever they want.

[ThistleDown]

(Caledonia is another name for Scotland, for those who don't know).

Well, no, not really, but "you can call me flower, if you want to". A superb post, O'C. Thanks.

[Father Bill]

Some don't give a hang, though, and nobody can really stop them wearing whatever they want.

...and we sure see evidence of that even in comments in certain corners of this very forum. Respect is a precious commodity, and those who don't give it don't deserve it either.

[Chas]

Respect is a precious commodity, and those who don't give it don't deserve it either.

Strange thing, isn't it? It has no value, till it is lost - then men will go to the ends of the Earth and give up all they have, to regain it.

Regards

Chas

[figheadair]

O'Callaghan - an excellent and fullsome post is which you sum up the situation very well.

[bodhran4me]

Here we go, did not take long at all.
http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...ictions-61036/

Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers!