Who Belongs To The American Cheerleader'S Uniform Copyright?

The Supreme Court held a debate to clarify cheerleaders.

Who does copyright belong to?

Case number 15-866, Star Athletica and Varsity Brands have been fighting for 6 years in two American fashion companies.

The former was sent to court on suspicion of plagiarizing the adornment of the Varsity Brands 5 Cheerleading Uniform, bow, zipper and stripes.

In view of the judicial circles in the United States

The definition of copyright is ambiguous, and the verdict was once overthrown.

In 2014, Western District Court of Tennessee considered decorating.

It can not be separated from clothes as an independent measure object, because it does not belong to the category of copyright law protection.

After a year, the retrial court of the circuit court of appeal is on the side of Varsity Brands.

The copyright law of the United States does not protect the specifications of clothing design, such as shape, tailoring and size. But in judicial practice, the court has long considered that the special fabric patterns used in clothing are separate works protected by copyright law.

For uniforms, is it theoretically possible to be protected by the copyright law, and can be separated from the unprotected practical part?

The US Congress and the Supreme Court have not yet given the criteria of judgement, and the judges have reached a consensus.

For example, when people print the paintings of Mondriaan, Picasso and Duchamp, is it tort? The John J. Bursch, a lawyer hired by Star Athletica, thinks that when the pattern does not have any effect on the functionality of the clothes, it should be protected by copyright.

He debated: "Varsity (design decoration) is not the same, uniform design makes the wearer look more curvy."

Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg does not agree that "bow tie or other decorative designs are not like Mondriaan's paintings, but as clothing accessories, they should be treated separately."

The chief justice of the United States, John G. Roberts Jr., will bring the discussion into circulation: "we are discussing not only plane fabrics or accessories, but how to determine when the latter has functionality."

Unlike the continental law system, the common law system followed precedents in principle of trial.

But when the discussion group introduced "camouflage" into the topic, people felt that the answer was getting farther and farther away.

William M. Jay, a lawyer representing the plaintiff Varsity company, believes that it should be protected by copyright and then authorized to be used on backpack and iPhone mobile phone shell.

This argument was quickly knocked down, and judge Elena Kagan said: "it can be used for concealment when clothes are used."

More realistically, it is unrealistic to ask the army to authorize the cost.

In this protracted judicial process, the CFDA (American Fashion Designers Association), Fashion Law Institute (New York fashion law school) and intellectual property scholars have expressed their views.

CFDA warned that if the court finally stands on the side of Star Athletica, it means placing American fashion designers in a zero defense dilemma.

Circuit judge David McKeague called the public discussion on separability in the dissenting opinion last year "the dilemma of metaphysics".

He said to NBC: "if the United States has a special design power for clothing that is similar to many other European countries, it is unnecessary to discuss this feeling very abstractly."

Because of the absence of the right to design, many companies in the United States "save the country through curves" by applying for three dimensional trademarks and design patents.

In 2010, the US Senate Judiciary Committee proposed the the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Act.

The bill makes up for the lack of copyright law and provides three years of protection for original and innovative fashion designs.

But in the end, none of them voted.