Despite being the largest Native American tribe in the United States, the Navajo Nation lost part of a lawsuit against Urban Outfitters because they could not prove that they were famous enough to own the rights to the aesthetic.
Urban Outfitters is no stranger to controversy in their fashion designs. In 2001, the company introduced a line of "Navajo" clothes and accessories that clearly appropriated the tribe's aesthetic. The Navajo Nation filed a lawsuit in 2011, demanding all profits from the line or $1,000 per day per item. Nevertheless, they failed to prove that the "Navajo" term is "widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States," according to New Mexico District Judge Bruce Black. Urban Outfitters had argued that the term was sufficiently generic to warrant its usage without permission.
Meanwhile, there are still six counts pending against Urban Outfitters, Anthropologie, and Free People that allege trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising. The argument in these counts is that the retailers intentionally created products that were made to look as if they were made by the Navajo Nation, which is prohibited by federal law. Photography is no stranger to appropriation of culture, and thus, it's important to follow both the legal and ethical evolution of its usage.
What's your opinion on this ruling? Is Urban Outfitters justified in appropriating the Navajo aesthetic and culture?
[via teleSUR]
Yes. It should not be a crime to creat things inspired by other things. It would be like saying white people should not be allowed to rap or black people shouldn't sing country. Does that mean westerners can't teach yoga? Or Asians can't play baseball? Now if they falsely implies he clothes were actually made by Navajo, then that's not ok. But it would be a dangerous precedent to say you have to be part of a culture to create something inspired by that culture.
Tough breaks ever since 1622 for any native peoples...Manifest Destiny 2016.
The judgement doesn't seem to based on a sound knowledge of American culture. Anyone who follows the collectible markets, especially collectible textiles, knows that there is name recognition and a cachet associated with the name "Navajo." The use of the name for anything not created by the Navajo, or under their authority, is a form of theft.
Now, the patterns are just patterns. You may create and sell any pattern you want as long as it is not the same as or closely similar to a protected pattern. I can create a plaid pattern and sell it as long as it's not closely similar to a registered Scottish clan's tartan. But I can't say it is a specific clan's official or even unofficial tartan without exposing myself to the risk of legal action.
If Urban Outfitters had called them American Southwest, or Arizona (maybe?), or even Native American patterns, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It is tough to win a copyright/trademark lawsuit based on style, as you can not copyright that. Should the Cherokee people sue Jeep because they used their name? Passion and "appropriation," a term which is so horridly thrown around these days, is not enough to win a suit such as this.
If they 100% stole a pattern or design, then it would be a lot easier to sue and win. Being inspired by something, and even using Navajo, is not enough just because we may feel concern or sadness for past deeds. If a German line of clothing came out, inspired by old bavarian aesthetics, should Germany sue for a company using their country name?
There is a lot of grey area when it comes to copyright/trademark law, and a lot of it is for good reason. It's why Dani Diamond or Ryan Brenizer can't sue us for imitating their styles, even if we state flat out they were the direct inspiration.
i'm still stuck on comparing the navajo to a style of cheesecake