New Texas Tartan

**Zardoz** · 26th October 12, 05:27 PM

well, the Bluebonnet was not always copyrighted. I get this from a personal friend of the designer. It was designed by June Prescott McRoberts, (1922-1999) in 1984 for the upcoming Texas Sesquicentennial, she intended it to worn by any Texan. The first official recognition of the tartan came in 1986 when the Sesquicentennial Committee of Texas adopted the Bluebonnet Tartan as the official Sesquicentennial Tartan. In 1989, Representative Stan Schlueter became aware of the Texas Bluebonnet Tartan and put forth the motion that it be officially adopted as the State Tartan. In May 25, 1989, by In-House Concurrence Resolution #242, the Texas Bluebonnet Tartan became the official State Tartan for the great state of Texas.

Before her death in 1999, Mrs.McRoberts commissioned a founder of the Texas Scottish Heritage Society, singer Sia LaBelle Beaton to represent the bluebonnet tartan and gave her the first ladies kilt made from it. Sia promoted the Texas tartan throughout her Scotland tour in 1999. She never knew it was copyrighted either.

Sia Beaton and I in 2010

The current owner is Robert Shelby Foitik, who I was told is Mrs.McRobert's brother, but his copyright was not applied for till 1998, just prior to her death. Scotland Forever are nice folk, and they will sell you wool or PV yardage (at retail) that you can do with as you may. It's a damn shame to me that things are like that, limiting the avalibility of what I think is a truly beautiful tartan that I'm so proud to wear.

All ramble that being said, yeah I don't really care for that new one either, it looks like a Stewart variant to me. But I hope the folks at Things Celtic do well with it.

**M. A. C. Newsome** · 27th October 12, 04:43 AM

I really have to question not only the common sense, but also the legality of a private copyright being held on what is essentially a state symbol.

Once a tartan is officially recognized as the state tartan by the legislature, it becomes effectively a symbol of that state. For a private citizen to hold all rights to that design is a bit counter to the spirit of a state symbol. Especially if the timeline that Zardoz has just given us is correct. (The tartan being adopted by the legislature in 1989, but the copyright not applied for until 1998). I have to wonder, if anyone ever chose to challenge that in a court of law, how successful that effort would be.

Some of those other "state" tartans Rocky mentioned that are privately owned are not really state tartans at all, because they have no official recognition by the state. For instance, the tartans designed by David McGill are by and large not formally recognized. His "Florida" tartan has no official approval (I doubt many in Florida even know about it). His New Jersey tartan is questionable. The notes in the National Register say it has been "recognized" by Gov. Coraine, but McGill has been known to use the word "recognize" rather loosely. His North Carolina tartan is said to have been "recognized" by our State Secretary Elaine Marshall, but to the best of my knowledge the only recognition involved in that case was her polite reception of a gift of a tartan scarf sent to her by McGill.

True recognition of a state tartan involves that tartan being adopted as a state symbol through proper legislative channels, just like any other state symbol is adopted. And in this case there will always be a formal record of that legislation being passed, so no need to quibble over "well the Governor said this" or "the state representative said that" about the tartan. It's adoption would be a matter of public record.

And I, for one, would think it exceedingly odd that a state legislature would knowingly adopt as an official symbol of the state a design which was privately copyrighted and restricted, and held for commercial gain. It would appear from Zardoz's information that when the Texas government adopted the Bluebonnet tartan in 1989, it was not restricted in this way. I think had it been, that would have affected their decision.

**M. A. C. Newsome** · 27th October 12, 05:04 AM

Back to the Texas Lone Star tartan, here is a photo of the actual tartan from the Things Celtic web site.

What is interesting to me is that the web site states specifically that this is 13 oz wool, woven by House of Edgar. But from the photo you can clearly see that this cloth has a tuck selvage (and a rather obvious one, at that). House of Edgar's looms have been specially refitted so as to weave cloth with a traditional woven selvage. In fact they take great pride in this aspect of their cloth. While some of their cloth, notably their less expensive Nevis range of heavy weight, is woven double width with a tuck selvage, all of their 13 oz cloth to my knowledge is woven single width with a true selvage.

Yet here we have 13 oz with a tuck selvage, supposedly woven by House of Edgar. I'm left just a bit confused, but there you go.

**RockyR** · 27th October 12, 05:43 AM

Matt...

I didn't mean to imply that the tartans by David McGill were official. His normal MO seems to be that he creates a tartan, weaves it and makes ties in it. He sends a tie to a person in authority at the state / government and waits for his "thank you" letter. Once he gets his Thank You, he calls it "officially recognized" and prints the letter. It's THIS process that I (we?) see as most dubious and deceitful.

I agree that having a state tartan copyrighted seems to be against better judgement for the state. I agree that it may not hold up in court. Here's the issue: Who has the money to challenge it? Attorney fees for an IP attorney (which I just hired for a separate issue of copyrighting other things and drawing up Intellectual Property agreements / contracts) run about $270 / hour in Pennsylvania. Obtaining a copyright is relatively easy and can actually be done without an attorney for a few hundred or WITH an attorney for a couple grand. If you wanted to challenge an existing copyright, it would cost you upwards of $20,000 (and probably much more) in the blink of an eye... and that's not guaranteeing a win. What little mom and pop Irish shop is willing to put out that kind of money on the HOPE that they'll overturn a copyright and maybe get to use the tartan in question? The practical question is how much money would they make from the tartan itself? Most likely, the hassle of all this wouldn't be worth it.

The 13 oz cloth from HOE with a tuck selvedge... their Hebridean range (13 oz) comes with a tuck selvedge, though none of their clan tartans do to my knowledge. Clans are all woven on their single width traditional selvedge. USA Kilts has had several tartans woven custom (including the special run of Pennsylvania tartan, the Scruffy Wallace tartan, and a few others for pipe bands and groups) on their rapier looms in 13 oz with the tuck selvedge. It is a bit less expensive than their single width traditional selvedge and it's done very well (IMHO).

**RockyR** · 27th October 12, 05:56 AM

By the way... it looks as though LL Bean had the same logical argument that Matt does about the state tartans being in the public domain and not copyright-able:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=1167,3721977

Matt... do you know for certain if the law suit was won by the couple who own the copyright or LL Bean? I seem to remember it was upheld and a quick search of LL Bean's site shows nothing with the Maine State tartan, but I can't say for 100% that the copyright owners did win. I know you blogged about the issue in 2007. Did you hear the outcome?

**Mainer In Exile** · 27th October 12, 10:23 AM

LL Bean appears to have incorrectly assumed that the Gilis design was approved by the legislature as an official tartan. It never was. And here--five years after Matt Newsome clearly laid out the facts of the matter--there remains confusion about its "official" status. Matt said he contacted the STA, and now the Tartan Ferret entry correctly shows that this is not an official tartan. But the Scotish Register of Tartans still shows it as "official" as of 2001.

In any case, the online shop Tartans of Maine appears to assert copyright over both the Gillis (sic) pattern and its own Maine Acadia tartan, so its another case where a tartan touted as a state tartan is restricted in availability (and again, the SRT indicates no such restriction). The status of the similar Maine Dirigo pattern is unclear.

Allen

**seanachie** · 27th October 12, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by RockyR

Here's the issue: Who has the money to challenge it? Attorney fees for an IP attorney (which I just hired for a separate issue of copyrighting other things and drawing up Intellectual Property agreements / contracts) run about $270 / hour in Pennsylvania. Obtaining a copyright is relatively easy and can actually be done without an attorney for a few hundred or WITH an attorney for a couple grand. If you wanted to challenge an existing copyright, it would cost you upwards of $20,000 (and probably much more) in the blink of an eye... and that's not guaranteeing a win. What little mom and pop Irish shop is willing to put out that kind of money on the HOPE that they'll overturn a copyright and maybe get to use the tartan in question? The practical question is how much money would they make from the tartan itself? Most likely, the hassle of all this wouldn't be worth it.

Amen...Brother Rocky, preach on! It seems to be the way of the world. I know not your circumstances but sincerely empathize if someone has violated your copyright or IP and wind up shelling out thousands of dollars to defend it. I want to keep this on topic so suffice to say I feel your pain.

**triolamj** · 5th January 13, 01:56 PM

Ah yes, I remember it differently. HFD put in the order for regular Texas Bluebonnet but when the material arrived they quickly realized that the mill had gotten the primary color wrong, substituting a darker shade for the light Bluebonnet color. They decided to use the material anyway and I think they actually got a better look. I've joked about it over the years, but I may have been the one to coin the term "Houston Bluebonnet". I felt that it was a worthy relative to Texas Bluebonnet for those who preferred the darker shade and hoped that it would be popular enough to keep down the volume price for HFD. I'm not sure how much of the current bolt HFD has left but eventually I might like to buy a Houston Bluebonnet kilt, too. You can see the difference in the shades of blue by comparing the wallpaper and the photos on their website.

Being a buddy of Sia Beaton, the spokersperson for the Texas Bluebonnet Tartan, I've heard and read the story of its creation numerous times. My understanding is that the pattern was registered as publicly available for weaving by any mill in any fabric in order that any Texan who wished could obtain it. I've been told that the current "copyright holder" or "registrant" is an inheritor of June McRoberts, the creator, and DESPITE her express wishes uttered during her lifetime is attempting to wring whatever cash he can from the copyright. If the situation continues beyond his lifetime, it might be necessary to repeal this tartan's recognition as a state symbol.

As much as I like Things Celtic, Texas Lone Star is an UGLY tartan and too much like Royal Stewart. I would take the pattern for US Saint Andrews which is based on the colors of the US flag, replace the primary color with a bluebonnet blue, and shift the others (navy blue, red, white, etc) over 1 in the pattern. Viola!

**triolamj** · 5th January 13, 02:12 PM

June McRoberts by all accounts was generous with her time and talents in order to spread awareness of how Scots had set down roots in Texas throughout the state. Her openness is just not shared by the current copyright holder which really goes against the grain of what she succeeded in doing. The implications of what would happen 20 years down the road probably didn't come to mind.

**Zardoz** · 17th February 13, 02:24 PM

Sorry to exhume a old thread, but I had a nice talk with the tartan's designer Lanora Davidson, and a up close look at the Lone Star tartan in the Things Celtic shop at Sherwood Forest Faire this weekend. I will say that on closer inspection the colors look much better in person than in a computer image.
And while I still feel like it sort of looks like a 'Stewart variant' from a distance, I'll admit to kind of liking the sett. Still not as much as the Bluebonnet though!