Theft is theft. If the company is a multi-million dollar one, that means the theft is on a higher magnitude than with a smaller company. It also means job welfare and security of many more employees are at stake.

A multi-million dollar company gives me a nice paycheck every two weeks and awesome bennies at no cost to me. If I see someone doing something that could be detrimental to my employer I am not going to turn a blind eye and think "Fight the power! Stick it to the man!"

That's certainly a possibility, and an important consideration, but pretty unlikely, and possibly irrelevant. They'd need to make a case that their reputation was damaged as a result. In any event, the team kit design isn't about A&S the drugstores, and I doubt the design of the kit belonged to the one sponsor; it's about bike racing and surely belonged to the team. When A&S backed out of sponsoring, was the design of the team kit assigned to them? Maybe, maybe not.

Seems to me the presence of their branding is just an incidental - like product placement in a movie - they can't complain if later on the movie is revived and becomes a cult classic that they don't want to be associated with. In this case, their branding, as an element of another larger design and concept, it's not really a new use or expression, or, to that extent, one that they didn't authorize anyhow. If the larger design of which it is only a part has taken on a life of it's own, there really doesn't seem to be much A&S could do about it.

I really think the manufacturer is the only one who could still have much of a claim, since they made the thing in its entirety, but again, if their original market was the team exclusively, then no one could possibly infringe on that.

No, they'd just need to know about it (which they might not) and defend their trademark (which many people see as "petty" even though it's mostly required). No "damage to their reputation" is required to defend the use of their trademark.

Plus, it's probably impossible to get any favorable action from the Chinese legal system.

If it's so meaningless, why even produce it? If it's so meaningless, why even buy it?

It's really this that I'm arguing against. It's sounds sort of like extortion (providing a "service" and then asking for payment).

The company might not want the "generated interest". They might even see it as a bad thing.

It's more like creating a new movie with product placement (and product placement is a big deal). An old movie is a historical article (created in the past). You are talking about people manufacturing new clothing.

OK, it seems I'm playing the devil's advocate here, but your points are well worth addressing.But there is also such thing as fair use (which I'm suggesting this may be), and in that case they generally can't complain unless the would-be fair use is rather unfair and damaging.

Great question. It's produced because it has visual appeal, and it's bought (well, not by me just yet) for the same reason. In the case of the A&S kit, nobody is buying or selling soap or coffee, nobody cares about A&S or Mokambo particularly or has the least interest in any of it at the moment, what's being marketed is a red and white skinsuit that just happens to have their logos (and a few others) on it. We found an old design that was cool looking. If it really belongs to someone else, they need to claim it, but if it doesn't - if they discarded it, no harm, no foul.

A lot of people are surprised by the laws that deal with salvage. It's not extortion, it's compensation for going to the trouble of recovering something. Salvage is an honest line of work, and if no one did it, valuable things would be lost for good. If the original owner wants it back, they can get it back, they just have to face the fact that that they lost or abandoned it and compensate the party that went to the trouble of recovering it. If nobody was in the salvage business, they'd never get it back. If they didn't intend to use it, (in this case, the graphic design of a skinsuit) abandoned it and don't make any effort to claim it, it's absolutely the property of the party that recovered it for their own use.

Maybe new prints, but ostensibly it's the same movie. The kit I've been talking about is a replica, not a new design that happens to have the A&S and other logos on it. But yes, it is a new individual garment that I've been tempted to buy. Which is why I keep going back to the question of who made them originally. Still haven't figured that out. I mean, if there's any doubt, we do need to make a reasonable effort to determine whether we'd be receiving stolen property, right?

Watch out for the imitation skinsuits that tear easily.

Then you'd be wrong.

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

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.

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

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.

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.