Watch out for the imitation skinsuits that tear easily.

http://i.imgur.com/RRneP2J.jpg

Then you'd be wrong.

I wonder what makes you so sure. Do you have case law on point? :p

Never mind, though, because I finally got around to finding a better picture, and it seems the maker was Biemme. I sent them a note - let's see what they have to say.

Look up "fair use" and it should be reasonably obvious.

Reasonably, yes, but arguably not. ;) Granted, reproducing the kit in its entirety for generally the same purpose (to be worn by cyclists) is absolutely not fair use of the design of the kit. However, the issue of fair use of the individual brand designs that happened to be on the original kit design is a separate question. Significantly, (with the exception of the maker's mark) it is not branding per se, but advertisement - no reasonable person would assume that the kit had anything to do with soap or coffee. Add to that the fact that there is no confusion about the kit's status as an in-authentic replica - that current use has entirely different meaning and is intended for a different audience/market (people who want a novelty costume rather than professional racers) - and it's not all so obvious after all. The A&S kit becomes something more like Wharhol's painting of Campbell's soup cans than the clearly unfair counterfeit Castelli that the same vendor also offers.

No, it's still very obvious. Also obvious is that you're willing to put yourself through a mental obstacle course in an effort to justify supporting counterfeiters. Buy the crappy kit and be done with it but stop pretending that you're occupying some decent moral grounds in doing so.

This.

Oh, please.... This issue is much more interesting and potentially has a far greater impact on my life and livelihood than the silly question of whether to buy a cheap piece of cycling stuff. That's just the catalyst for discussion. Being engaged in a somewhat/occasionally creative profession, I happen to be in a position to make complaints about copyright infringements. Fortunately it has never come to that, but I wouldn't want to get bent out of shape thinking I had a case when I really didn't - I'd rather "know my enemy," so I hope you don't mind my taking the opportunity here to explore the issue. Of course if I really did think I had a case, I'd consult an attorney, not bikeforums :) But this kind of issue comes up often enough in this forum, and I think it could stand a little more thorough analysis than the usual "I should be paid to wear advertising" and "wearing the uniform of a team you don't belong to is d-baggery" opinion- spouting alone, and I think some good points have been made so far.

No, it's not interesting. It's not fair use. It's not educational, transformative, commentary, etc, etc. It's false endorsement (advertising runs both ways - do you really think that trusted brands are happy to have their name associated with poor quality goods?) in an effort to sell cheap kit. Attempting to make it a bigger issue is pathetic mental gymnastics in an effort to justify your desire to buy, sport and support the counterfeiters looking to make a quick buck off of the efforts of others.

As it's not even close to the "deep thoughts" issue that you'd like to think it is, I don't have anything more to offer on the subject, so I'll bow out here, but feel free to let the perpetual motion cranks keep spinning. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: right back at you.... Honestly, I don't understand how we've managed to stay off each other's ignore lists for so long.

https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1TyzEO...pg_640x640.jpg

This is one of my favorite things ever. It infringes on two different intellectual properties. It makes me laugh and is cheap so I forgive it.

I don't believe it satisfies the criteria for fair use. Fair use requires either an excerpt of the original work (quoting parts to critique it) or it has to be derivative*/transformative (something that looks more than just a copy).

What might be a good example is Warhol's Campbell Soup paintings. They are not simple copies but rather (arguable) transformations of the original image).

It's not salvage either.

(* The legal definition of "derivative", not the lay definition that implies "not original").

I don't think so because it's derivative. It add something (satire?) to the original images (it isn't a simple copy; it adds something.

+1. Whole lot of rationalization goin' on.

That's for a jury to decide. IP holders are obliged to litigate regardless to keep their property out of the public domain.

I mentioned that (in another way).

You decided here.

Then, you say only a jury can decide.

I often remind my wife to pay her phone bill in a timely manner, as my pension depends on it. :lol:

I won't wear the jersey of a team that I don't belong to, whether it's legit or pirated.

Then I am wrong. I will rephrase.

I like this jersey because I think it infringes on two different intellectual properties.

The fair use issues are not at the level of the kit. It's at the level of the brand design/logo. It's not really advertisement unless the company says so. "You" can't really make that choice for the company.

You can't print a Coca Cola logo on a shirt without permission of the copyright/trademark holder. You can't just copy stuff (that's not fair use) if somebody holds the rights.

Why not? I have an team football jersey that I wear when I go out to watch a game. How is wearing a legit team kit any different?

It's just not done, old boy. See Rule 17.

Are you referring to the same rules that would have us refer to all speed and distances in KMs and that state a bike should be worth more than the car it's on?

Ok. :rolleyes:

The reason is a joke, but the sentiment is the same. I can't race in another team's jersey, so I won't train, commute, or JRA in one. Exception for defunct teams I was on once, of course.

If you want to wear your Barca jersey kicking the ball around the park, or your Lampre jersey riding on the MUP, knock yourself out. I just prefer not to present myself as something I'm not.

[MENTION=3283]caloso[/MENTION] is bound by the proper etiquette of the competitor in the sport of cycling where one wears what kit is/was worn by their team(s) and what palmares one has earned only. :thumb:

The tifossi can and do play dress-up on the bike, a whole other deal entirely. :foo:

As always, suit yourself.

-Bandera

:thumb:
But did it ever occur to you that some of the folks riding the MUP wearing ill-fitting Lampre jerseys may do so because they don't want to present themselves as something they're not (namely "serious" cyclists) by wearing "proper" kit? ;)

In this case it's not my choice, it's by definition. Graphics and signage that direct ones attention to goods or services that are not contained in or available from the thing on which they are placed are, by definition, advertisements. The only sponsor's logo on team kit that could be something else is the maker's. That said, when the maker's branding is big and prominent enough, people rightfully complain that it becomes an advertisement as well, but sure, the maker can rightfully say it is not.

It would be absurd to argue that just any reproduction of a logo on advertising signage and graphics is protected by copyright when the whole point of it is to display it in forms NOT connected to the product or service itself - especially when they become so prominent and pervasive that it becomes virtually impossible to capture an image of a sporting event without including them. They are essentially begging to be copied.

Meanwhile, back to the thing that started it all. I got to thinking that if I could have an original A&S/Mokambo speedsuit, that would be nice, and I found a good photo that revealed that the maker was Biemme. So I asked them if they knew where I could get one. The prompt reply was along the lines of "that's so old - no idea where you might find one," so I'm following up to see what they have to say about replicas available from Hong Kong.

It's not really the definition (it's not how the word is used).

If I write your name and phone number on a bathroom stall along with "for a good time, call", by your definition of advertising, you should be happy to pay me.

J&J and Xerox had their brand names turned into every day words. They weren't happy about it.

Weird.

The point of copyright and trademarks is to have the owner have control how the thing is used or not used. You don't get to decide for them (otherwise, copyright/trademark laws wouldn't mean anything).

I'm pretty sure the law says you can't (that you happen to find it "absurd" is moot).

They aren't really being copied. Not in the same way. You seem smart enough to know that.

==============

You are using unusual "definitions" that are not standard usage, how people generally understand the terms, or supported by law or anything. It appears you are rationalizing.

Question for the knock-off experts here, what are jersey sets like this knock-offs of? Or are these just in the vein of rapha and other designer stuff? I'm more than happy with the plain jerseys I tend to wear but these pattern ones are kind of funky.

It may surprise you to learn that the way I described advertising signage and graphics was not something I made up. ;) It's a paraphrase of a definition I have to be aware of in the course of business - concerning the permissibility of different types of signs (a matter of zoning).

Thank you for your helpful participation in the discussion. Meanwhile, Biemme have responded in an apologetic way to say that the stuff I might get from the Hong Kong vendor isn't as good as what they made and they "do not have permission." Naturally, right? That's good enough for me. Not because that makes the stuff pirated, but because I'd rather do business with the friendly folks at Biemme.

Call it rationalization if you will, but it's much nicer making the decision on such a basis. If they'd been jerks and gotten all lawyer-y in reply, I'd have been tempted to get the HK goods anyhow just to spite them and dare them to do something about it. ;)