Are These Nike Leggings Offensive?

Question

Nike's new tattoo-patterned leggings have been met with criticism after some have pointed out that the tattoo design resembles the Samoan "pe'a" -- "the traditional male tattoo of Samoa." Some critics are offended over the fact that Nike seems to be marketing this specific cultural tattoo, while others are offended that the male tattoo is being printed on female leggings.

Earlier this month, a Change.org petition was filed asking Nike to cease production on the controversial workout wear. The petition only received a little over 900 signatures (less than 5% of the desired 20,000), but Nike has agreed to pull the product.

Check out the picture below and let me know what you think. Are these Nike leggings offensive?

HUFFINGTONPOST.COM reports:
A pair of patterned leggings are causing trouble over at Nike. The tattoo-like print on the brand's Pro Tattoo Tech Tights has sparked ire in Australia and New Zealand for its similarity to pe'a, the traditional male tattoo of Samoa.

Answer 1

It's just a pair of leggings. Calm down. And what's wrong with the design? I think it looks pretty sweet. People just get ******** over petty things.

Answer 2

No. But this is----->

Answer 3

Ok, we can agree that "fair usage" is the key and using a copyrighted tattoo in a movie definitely violates reproduction stipulations and fair usage where a profit is made from it's display.

Answer 4

Fair use is also allowed in most situations where a profit is being made. The only time fair use encroaches on copyright is when it is being offered for sale as another artist's original artwork.

Answer 5

Or where permission has not been received for reproduction as in a movie. There are some exceptions for some non-profit organizations.

Answer 6

There are many exceptions that most artists tend to ignore. This one apparently needed to augment his paycheck. Honestly, I doubt this guy has anyone lining up to get inked after seeing Mike Tyson's horrible failure of a face-tattoo.

Answer 7

I think we are a little too far off the original topic. Nice chatting with you.

Answer 8

Interesting placement for the arrows or points of the design though.

Answer 9

Is there a problem about author rights ? Selling a cultural product as a mere garment ?

It seems like a sensible issue that should be treated by lawyers, and as a potential customer, I see nothing wrong with these leggings. Even though I don't see myself wearing them... who cares about the product itself ?

(as long as there is no ****, no vulgarity, nothing obnoxious... which should seem more important)

Answer 10

I own a software company and I am also familiar with copyright law albeit more so related to my industry. Until this thread, I had not done any research related to tattoos but, from my recent reading, the same copyright laws can apply to tattoos if filed properly. With legal issues, improbable had better be verified prior to making an ********** or the result could be a legal settlement as was done regarding the tattoo in the movie I originally was making my point about.

Answer 11

Just a pair of leggings with a tribal pattern. So whats the deal, females are probable not the only ones purchasing these, I bet there are a few men wearing them to.

Answer 12

They're not offensive they're just plain ugly...

Answer 13

They're leggings... oh my ***, it's not even a big deal.

Answer 14

for the people that doesn't know anything about that culture, never going to find them offensive, but for those who does yes.

Answer 15

huh?

Answer 16

What's wrong with them?

Answer 17

Personally, I think it is just a nice design, but I am not familiar with the tribal style tattoo designs well enough to recognize them. But if it is offensive to THEM and the fact that it is a ale design being worn by women, then i can see why they are getting upset. It is insulting to their traditions and history. Nike should simply stop making them and pull the rest off the shelves. Make it right. Why push something that you know is hurting others by insulting their culture?

Answer 18

Fair use takes precedence. That was the point I was making.

Answer 19

I own many copyrights and know the laws fairly well. Unless the artwork is represented by a copyright and we can be fairly certain that it is not, then this is a non-issue. Samoan tattoos are like fingerprints. It's highly improbable that a pair of leggings would match any one tattoo close enough to identify the original.

Answer 20

No, and they look great on her, but when hot chicks come out with something that accents their beauty, the fatties copy-cat, and this is how styles die.

Answer 21

i'm sure it's a bunch of thin-skinned liberals that are offended...as usual. the only way these leggings are offensive,are to the eyes

Answer 22

the Samoan men didn't like women wearing these! those *******! women should be furious!

Answer 23

Nope, not at all. Man, it's a lot of idiots out there if this is a story.

Answer 24

Sorry,but I only see an ordinary leggings with some random pattern

Answer 25

Look too much like tats.

Answer 26

and?

Answer 27

Just because you're not offended doesn't mean other people aren't. Especially if you're not even a member of the culture.

How is an American (or anyone else) supposed to tell a Samoan how to feel about something like this? We don't even have an equivalent practice in our culture to compare it to.

Answer 28

jeez. its leggings for crying out loud! calm down and start worrying about important things like poverty, the environment, debt crisis. things like that. not what the stretchy pants resemble.

Answer 29

But the article is talking about the artwork and is not talking about technique and your reference until now did not mention patent in regards to technique. Copyright infringement occurs once someone other than the original artist 'copies' the tattoo to skin or anywhere else without the exclusive permission of the owner of the artwork. Once it's purchased legally and not reproduced, you can, of course, do what you want to your own skin. But there was a settlement on Mike Tyson's tattoo being used on the other actor in the hangover movie because it was copied by someone other than the original artist.

Answer 30

Samoans don't hold a patent on tattoo markings. No one does.

Answer 31

Actually, I thought there was a case against the Hangover movie claiming that the tattoo artist that did Mike Tyson's tat was copyright-infringed when they used it on one of the other actors. I don't remember the outcome of the case and didn't research it for this post.

Answer 32

Well, first, I said Samoans and patent, not movies and copyrights. However, the situation with a tattoo is vastly and obviously different as well as being unenforceable since any completed tattoo could be visible anytime the bearer has their picture taken. So, how would anyone license that? That being said, if a tattoo artist were to steal or copy another artist's 'flash' (the artwork itself) or claim it as his own, it would indeed fall under the heading of plagiarism and copyright infringement. It probably happens a lot more than anyone really knows, but since the Samoan print isn't defined as such, I doubt that such a case would stand up in court.

Answer 33

Actually I was referring to tattoos not movies.

Answer 34

Yes, I already knew that. Not to be combative, though, if you'll re-read the second sentence of my earlier comment, I clearly indicated that I was talking about tattoos, tattoo artists, tattoo flash art and the futility of licensing that flash art in film and photographs and you were clearly the one who introduced the subject of movies when you brought up the movie 'Hangover'.

Answer 35

And only to clarify further, I was simply using the movie as a point of reference to a tattoo for which you can have a copyright as, yes, you can in relation to a movie as well. Without mention of the movie, there would be no actor to mention since the movie identified him and I lacked knowledge of his name when I posted. Also at the time of my original post I was inferring that I did not know if a tattoo could be copyrighted and my research since then has proved that it can. A patent is for an invention. A copyright is ********** to a piece of art and a tattoo falls into the art category. Your statement "Samoans don't hold a patent on tattoo markings. No one does" should have replaced the word patent with copyright. Also, somebody can hold the legal rights to a tattoo.

Answer 36

Any rights to the tattoo flash art all but disappear once the tattoo has been applied to skin. There are presently thousands of people walking around with virtually the same tattoos. Patent would actually apply in the case of Samoan tattoos s because of the technique most commonly used at the tribal/cultural level. It is the same tap technique used in at least a dozen other cultures.

Answer 37

those aren't hurting anyone!