Frugal Corner has ISLE OF SKYE!!!!!

[slohairt]

I don't think...and I know NOTHING, exactly NOTHING about this...but I don't think that in fact it would be Frugal Corner that would be paying a licensing fee to whoever owns the tartan. I think it would be the weaver, which I assume is in Indonesia or Pakistan or wherever.

This makes me leery of purchasing the stuff. I have no doubt that Marton Mills would pay such a fee and pass it on to whomever ordered IoS from them. After all, they're in Scotland and are probably personally acquainted with the designer/trade owner. That might not be true of some mill on the other side of the world.

I, myself would be content with Frugal Corners word of honor that they'd investigated this aspect of the tartan and were convinced that it was woven with the proper licensing.

However, I tend to agree that IoS will look a lot better in wool.

When ordering a tartan like Isle of Skye from Marton Mills, one pays an additional couple of pounds sterling per metre for royalties. Oh, and they're in England, not Scotland!

[SFCRick]

Nice tartan

[Larry124]

Is there anything on the Frugal Corner website noting that they have an agreement and our paying royalties with the copyright holders of the Isle of Skye tartan?

Unless the tartan is being properly licensed I wouldn't purchase it.

I'm proud to say most of the people I know here at XMTS would do what is right instead of cheapest.

Respectfully

Jamie

Mods...? Oh wait, he is a mod.
"...proud to say most of the people I know here at XMTS would do what is right instead of cheapest."
Got my scotch up.
Attitude? Wearing too many hats...?
Does not sound "respectfully" to me.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Mods...? Oh wait, he is a mod.
"...proud to say most of the people I know here at XMTS would do what is right instead of cheapest."
Got my scotch up.
Attitude? Wearing too many hats...?
Does not sound "respectfully" to me.

How is this disrespectful? Panache is insinuating here that the good folks who frequent this forum are generally concerned with doing the right thing. That's a compliment! And a sign of respect towards those on this forum. I don't see why that would get anyone's "scotch up."

BTW -- the moderators are also first and formost participating members of this forum, and have every right to express their opinion. That's my opinion, of course! :-)

[auld argonian]

Speculation is pointless. Any copyright issues are between the owner of the property and the manufacturer...third parties don't count. If it's something that you're not comfortable with, don't buy it but ascertain the facts before you make a judgement.

This forum has always been a good place to come to if you want to get opinions on kiltmakers and suppliers. Best way to keep it that way is to stick to the facts; that benefits all of us.

Best

AA

[RockyR]

Has anyone approached Lochcarron or FC directly to ask them?

[RockyR]

Mods...? Oh wait, he is a mod.
"...proud to say most of the people I know here at XMTS would do what is right instead of cheapest."
Got my scotch up.
Attitude? Wearing too many hats...?
Does not sound "respectfully" to me.

As a tartan designer and copyright holder, I think Jamie was being CURTEOUS with his comments. I'm not making ANY accusations as there are no facts known, but I AM saying that people who just RIP OFF other's designs deserve to be reported for theivery (whether it be a tartan, a "knock off" handbag or WHATEVER).

The tartan design process (and recording and copyrighting) isn't THAT expensive that you should resort to stealing.

Again... I'd point out that I'm not accusing ANYONE of doing anything improper. I don't have the facts and wouldn't do that without facts.

[ChromeScholar]

This is how I see it. No doubt someone from this forum has already started the ball rolling as far as finding out if the fabric being used for the kilts is properly licensed. That being said, FC should know whether or not they are buying from a licensed source, but the responsibility for the licensing lies not on their shoulders but on the weaver's. Until they (FC) are told that it isn't licensed (assuming it isn't, and none of us know that right now), It's an ethical question, not a legal question.

The question is this: If FC sees that they can get Isle of Skye from their normal sources, do they have any real responsibility to find out if the fabric is licensed? I think we'd all agree that they have a responsibility to stop carrying it if they find out it isn't licensed, but what about ahead of the fact?

[Colin]

The question is this: If FC sees that they can get Isle of Skye from their normal sources, do they have any real responsibility to find out if the fabric is licensed? I think we'd all agree that they have a responsibility to stop carrying it if they find out it isn't licensed, but what about ahead of the fact?

The answer to your question is yes. If you know there are limitations on a tartan and that it is restricted than it is also the company's responsibilty to do some research to make sure that the source they buy their product from is following laws and licensing restrictions. It's the social responsibility of companies to know where their products are made and if there is any licensing issues as they are commisioning the products. Most people here know IOS and Irish National are restricted so it shouldn't be hard to find out.

We are seeing the perfect example in Vancouver right now with the 2010 Olympic Games. I can buy a bunch of t-shirts that say Vancouver 2010 from a manufacturer if that is what I tell them to make up, but if I try and sell them to the public I will have the Vancouver Olympic Committee on my **** in seconds. They have even shut down places like Olympiuc Pizza (which was open for a long time before we even bid) as the Olympic logo and name are trademarked. It's sometimes hard to go after the firms (in this case a weaver) that make up the product, but it is fairly easy to go after people selling the product.

After all, if there is an issue with copyright and such the weaver that owns the rights to IOS won't be going after just the weaver, but they will likely also be going after FC. For a company that has already had issues for using pictures that belonged to other kiltmakers on their site (to their credit FC remedied that issue very quickly), I would hope they have done some extensive research.

FC may have the authorization to carry this tartan. No one has confirmed that yet, but I am sure we will find out soon. If they do, than good for them for offering a tartan that many people have expressed interest in. I am sure it will sell very well.

That's just my opinion of course and as a Mod, I am apparently not allowed to have a personal opinion

[ChromeScholar]

it is also the company's responsibilty to do some research to make sure that the source they buy their product from is following laws and licensing restrictions.

Legally, it is not the company's responsibility.

I can buy a bunch of t-shirts that say Vancouver 2010 from a manufacturer if that is what I tell them to make up, but if I try and sell them to the public I will have the Vancouver Olympic Committee on my **** in seconds. They have even shut down places like Olympiuc Pizza (which was open for a long time before we even bid) as the Olympic logo and name are trademarked.

Ok, this is a bad analogy, and I'll tell you why.

You're assuming that FC asked the weaver to start weaving Isle of Skye. This isn't likely the case. It's more likely the tartan showed up on the weavers list of available tartans and FC ordered them.

Turning it around. If a t-shirt company with whom you've done business for years suddenly starts offering Olympic t-shirts, you don't have any real obligation to find out if they are officially licensed. Granted, you'd be smart to do so, since you may not be able to sell them, if they aren't. Then you'd have to return them to the seller (or go after him for damages). In order to collect damages from you (at least around here), the Olympic committee would have to prove that you knew they were unlicensed.

The case is the same here.

If FC asked to have Isle of Skye made, and knew they weren't licensed to do so, they'd be at fault.

If FC asked to have it made, and are reasonably sure it's licensed, no fault exists until they are aware it isn't licensed.

If FC saw it was available and ordered it, no fault exists until such time as they become aware that it is not licensed.

In any case, such talk is premature until we know if the fabric is licensed or not.