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.

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.

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

As always, suit yourself.

-Bandera

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.

You mean the one that says "Fastelite" in the font and colorway of "Castelli"?

Some are walking a finer line than others, I think. Let's remember, one can copyright an expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. It's perfectly legitimate to create a different expression of the general style that Rapha happened to introduce.

Heh, I was only vaguely aware of Castelli and didn't make the connection. I assumed it was all Rapha knock-offs since it said Ropa in the description. I guess it's still kind of greasy and I wonder how much difference it would make to just sell random geometric patterned jerseys without any kind of branding.

I just bought some stuff from the black bibs, the prices are almost as good as the knock-offs and they ship from the US. Quality seems really good from the reviews I've seen.

On closer inspection I think it actually says "FASTCUTE". I'm pretty cute but not that fast.

"Ropa" is Spanish for clothes/clothing.

Ah, that makes sense.

Looking through the Castelli site there are definitely a bunch of jerseys that are very thematically similar but I didn't see one that matched this funky triangle one. Here's an example of a Castelli jersey and anAli express knockoff jersey. They're different but even being generous and calling it an homage might be a bit of a stretch Seems like there are plenty of plain jerseys there if anyone is looking for plain kit so I don't think I'd ever buy knock-off team kit.

And "maillot" is French for shirt. The "maillot jaune" is the yellow shirt/jersey worn by the overall leader of the TdF.

I can't find a matching jersey, but I own some of these Castelli Fausto socks:



There are also caps:

That one I get, I speak French... my Spanish is pretty much non-existant though.

I just have something against wearing "team kit". Seems sort of wanna be foolish poser to me.

It's still not how it's understood to work.

It would be very unusual for a business to not have some control over their advertising.

Advertising (adding logos to objects) isn't something that businesses expect other entities to "volunteer" to do.

So, logo = advertising = doing the owner of the logo a favor = not subject to copyright.

Brilliant.

I don't disagree with your last point, but the distinction between advertising signage/ graphics and product branding is material to the kind of control the owner can have. A sponsor or advertiser buys the use of time and space that belongs to or is controlled by others, while product branding goes on their own stuff before they sell it.

If someone puts up a billboard, they have no control over its replication in photos, videos, etc. The baseball games we see on TV are copyright exclusively by MLB: Citibank, Coca Cola or whoever have no rights to their rebroadcast or redistribution - or to limit it - no matter how big their billboards in the outfield are.

That's why I kept going back to the manufacturer. In the absence of the team for which the design was created, they would have copyright for the thing as a whole. As for the sponsors whose graphics serve only as advertisement, their rights are subordinate - if they exist at all. Of course if Team A&S/Mokambo was still alive I'm sure it would be a different story.

I know about that. You aren't talking about photograph or videos. So, even though this is true, it's not relevant.

MLB and Coca Cola certainly have copyright/trademark control over their logos put on shirts. It's bizarre that you think they'd be fine with what you are talking about.

This makes no sense.

In all these cases, it's the decision of the owner of the branding. ("Volunteer advertising" isn't really a thing.) The "others" don't get to do anything they want with the logo.

What the "others" do is at the will of the owner (the key distinction you keep ignoring.)

Copyright and trademark laws exist. There have been lots of legal cases about them. Much has been written about fair use.

Yet, your weird argument ignores all of it.

You assert this but that doesn't make it true.

No, you can't opt out of copyright/trademark laws by calling it "advertising".

"You have entered the Twilight Zone."

(This might be one of the most disconnected-from-reality arguments I have ever seen here.)