And We Were Worried !?

[Tobus]

I wonder if Mr Giles Jackson wears a kilt or if this is just another of a long line of money making tartans. How long before we see one highlighting chronic flatulence and another celebrating social ineptitude? Just how many causes can one person espouse in a lifetime.

Yes, I'm suddenly very curious about this Mr. Giles Jackson and the mysterious Liberation Kilt Co. I could not find a public website or any other information with my simple Google skills. He certainly has registered a lot of tartans, and one wonders what his angle is. I can't believe that it's a money maker, the way he's doing it. What's the angle? Boredom? The desire to hijack the tartan registration system to make a permanently-recorded political statement?

Of course, he's free to do as he likes. But stuff like this seems a bit overboard and unnecessary to me. The waters get muddier...

[ThistleDown]

There are many 'clan' tartans with a hundred and more years age on them that are pretty ugly, too. There is no ability to legislate taste but poor design can be ignored.

[Mikilt]

As a geologist/hydrologist, I am quite taken with the "Aqua" tartan. Though I see Chas' point about wearing a kilt to support a cause. Even if it is just fashion/ money maker, I still like the sett.

[Chas]

As a geologist/hydrologist, I am quite taken with the "Aqua" tartan. Though I see Chas' point about wearing a kilt to support a cause. Even if it is just fashion/ money maker, I still like the sett.

It is not so much the supporting a cause, I think we can all identify with some aspect of that. When we wear a clan tartan, are we not supporting our clan?

The question for me is "Where is the money going?" If you support the establishment of a Black Watch Museum and buy the 'Red Hackle' tartan, you know that some part of the price is going towards it.

But if you support any of these causes and buy the tartan, all the profits go into the pocket of Giles Jackson. That just smacks, to me, of profiteering off the backs of people who believe in a cause.

When Mrs Whateverhernameis, designed the Isle of Skye tartan it was understood that it was commercial and that she was going to take a profit. There was no cause, there was no belief that there was going to be a benefit to the Isle in any way.

We knew up front what is going on. But these tartans imply that somehow all these various people will benefit, but they are not going to. And that, I think, is wrong.

Regards

Chas

[Donsel]

I don't find any tartan ugly regardless of color combination. But, I do find that some people (like Mr. Jackson) are in desperate need of a hobby.

[Tobus]

But if you support any of these causes and buy the tartan, all the profits go into the pocket of Giles Jackson. That just smacks, to me, of profiteering off the backs of people who believe in a cause.

I've never considered that before. How does this work? Does he get royalties every time a weaver runs a length of this tartan or something? Or does he hold exclusive rights to be the only kiltmaker who can order this cloth and resell it at a markup? How does he (or any other tartan designer) make money off of it?

[Zardoz]

they make money off of it by obtaining copyrights and selling licenses. Thats what happened with the Bluebonnet tartan, the lady who designed it intended it to be avalible to anyone with Texas and Celtic heritage, and it used to be pretty easy to get. But after her passing one of her surviving family members figured out he could make a buck off copyrighting the tartan and selling license fees.

[fluter]

But if you support any of these causes and buy the tartan, all the profits go ...

Go where exactly? Aren't we reasoning just a few microns in advance of the data?

I see how you infer this from the copyright verbiage, but we don't (yet) know this. Please correct me if I'm wrong/you have hard info.


P.S. I also wonder how Mr. Havel's estate would take the one named for him.

[Mikilt]

Chas,
If I am understanding correctly, your objection is not to Mr Jackson getting paid, per se, but that none of the revenues are actually going to support the causes that the tartans represent. Is this accurate?

Do clans or clan societies get a cut of the revenue from the sale of their tartan? If they do, I am not aware of it. In the tartan business, like every other business, everyone down the line pays and gets paid. If the person with the rights to a certain product, design or resource makes profits and chooses to share those profits with a cause, it is most noble, but hardly required.

My $0.02

[Chas]

Go where exactly? Aren't we reasoning just a few microns in advance of the data?

I see how you infer this from the copyright verbiage, but we don't (yet) know this. Please correct me if I'm wrong/you have hard info.
P.S. I also wonder how Mr. Havel's estate would take the one named for him.

You did read my post, didn't you? The following quote is from it. I took it directly from the tartan registration. If you think he is going to give it away for free - email him, ask him. Why has he not only registered it but also publicly claimed copyright and registered it with the UK Intellectual Property Office.

Restrictions: Yes. Anyone who believes that free expression is an essential component of every healthy society is welcome to wear or display the Havel tartan.
Liberation Kilt Co. holds exclusive rights to the Havel tartan and all derivatives thereof, which may only be reproduced (woven, printed etc) under license. For more information contact Giles Jackson at giles@liberationkilt.co.
Digital images of the Havel tartan are protected by an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) license, which means you may download and share them with others as long as you credit Liberation Kilt Co; however you cannot change them in any way or use them commercially. More info at creativecommons.org.
UK Intellectual Property Office Reg No.: 4022092 Date of Reg: 24th October, 2011

I think that is pretty hard info.

Regards

Chas