Inside a Supreme Court case on cheerleader uniforms, a profound question about copyright


[Read the post]


And a pink robe with blue polka-dots and neon yellow fringe would permit the wearer to perform as a judge, but I somehow doubt they’d call it a judicial robe.

If nothing else, I’d think having team colors on the uniform has the very utilitarian function of being able to identify which cheerleaders are for your team.


Maybe we’re about to see a renaissance in Bauhaus design. Wouldn’t it be poetic justice if, because of this ruling, plain white becomes all the rage, prompting the plaintiffs to ditch their proprietary stripes?


Pertinent questions from Clarence Thomas:

Can we see how a typical female high school cheerleader looks wearing said outfits?

Can they demonstrate the various uniforms’ utility by jumping up and down and maybe some squats?


I thought fashion wasn’t copyrightable?


Well, first we all have to agree on what, exactly, the “utility” of a cheerleader uniform is…

I assume the judges will just “know it when they see it”


Applying this utilitarian logic to sports teams the only function a strip serves is to allow players in the field of play to identify who is on which team, so every team should have two strips, a red one & a blue one, red for home, blue for away and in the event of playing on a neutral ground colours should be randomly applied.

I can see no issue with this whatsoever…


That’s the point - so did the rest of us.


a case that could change the fundamental relationship of Americans to the everyday physical objects in their lives.

Spoiler: it probably won’t.


But a yellow fringe would indicate that it’s an admiralty court and therefore has no jurisdiction, or something.


No, no, that’s a gold fringe. I think neon yellow just indicates that it’s from the 1980s or something.



Is the “this” in this sentence the United States of America?


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.