Thread: Copyright Perplexities

Reference informative information http://www.quiltingboard.com/main- f1/copyright-article-must-read-t261286.html
"We all understand that photocopies are copies. That’s easy. Anything, however, in any artistic or print media that uses the artist’s design is a copy. This includes quilts based on the original design (even with significant changes they are derivatives), copies of the pattern, photographs, slides, drawings, etc."
There are very few actual original works out there for quilt patterns, as far as I can see. Quilting and piecing have such a long history that what was once old is now new -- and copyrighted as original. There is not a "new" supposedly copyright quilt pattern and design out there that is NOT based on the historical and open source designs of yesteryear
In an effort to wrap my head around what the article is saying I looked at ten different "Flying Geese" patterns from a variety of blogs, books, magazine articles. All are copyrighted. According to the article, if I make a flying geese quilt, I infringe on all of these copyrights. How can all hold the copyright on the design. How can my end product, in different materials/quilting be under the "rights" of any of these ten pattern/process makers?
Or take the pattern discussed elsewhere on the QB where someone is trying to demand copyright domain on a bargello pattern BUT pattern is based on historical design. They created the new name but if I make a quilt using the historical design and put it for auction, for sale, or for show I would fight, and win, if they demanded I take it down. A pattern is directions on how to do something. I would not use their printed pattern, their colors, their size, their name, etc., and thus, would not have a need to buy, let alone copy their pattern. I would be looking at centuries-old designs and applying to a quilt. Some may need and/or want direction and purchase instruction materials for this old favorite from a pattern maker/pattern designer (they wrote to pattern not the design). End product is not copyright liable. The end quilt is not a copy the print material. It is building from the plans. Not copying the print material. I weigh this all against the introductory quote which is an exaggeration of copyright powers.

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the contradictions in the "Magic Tiles" example when reading the quote above? How do the suits and examples result in transfer to ownership of the finished product? The German lawsuit was one for the use of the name "Magic Tiles" and the use of the word "grout" (which by the way was what a friend's Polish grandmother called 'borders' between squares when I was a little girl; long beforehand and the Magic Tiles designer). The design is merely a variation of scrap/crazy quilts made for generations. She does not have a copyright on the design, even if she is successful at getting people to not use it. The block is a basic 9-patch and according to the article falls under the article's, "This includes quilts based on the original design (even with significant changes they are derivatives).." See the contradiction? Her end product is based on another’s design yet, anyone who does similar with Magic Tiles is infringing on her copyright? I find this contradictory and confusing. How can her design be copyrighted when she is infringing on the copyright of the 9-patch? Oh, there is not a copyright on the 9-patch. Her copyright is on her printed material, not the end result of someone else's creativity. The copyright is on the name but cannot and is not on a final project. Logics defy it to be so. Too many old-time quilts were made the same way, same design. It is just a scrappy slanted nine-patch with bordered blocks and too many have been made independent of the Internet and knowing of the author or even seeing her works. I had a store-bought comforter as a teen with almost the same design except instead of completely solid had some flower power designs thrown in and was printed onto the fabric. We called it my "Church Blanket" as it reminded us of the stained glass windows at church. Using the same logics as the article I cannot sell any baked goods at a bake sale if I used a recipe without asking the author

How do we, using the guidelines in the article apply something like "Fold & Sew". Anytime someone makes a quilt that they take a short cut and fold, instead of cutting, no matter the design, the quilt cannot be sold or displayed? Think of it like this; a book is written on the correct way to run. When someone applies that technique, along with other things like specific shoes, arm position, diet, etc., to their running and wins a race with a cash prize, do they have to share the proceeds with the book author? If they go on to make millions in commercials, does the book author have a right royalties? With all the variables put into the outcome how would the book's level of contribution be identified? How much of the content of the book was already known and common knowledge? Wouldn't the copyright be on the print compilation and formatted content? The book said to eat right, high protein. If the runner told aspiring runners to eat right, high protein would he be infringing on the copyright?

Article says, "The point to remember: strictly speaking, copyright law does not allow us to display someone else’s design” Most "new designs" are not actually new, but recycled. Is it a factual statement to including "quilt" in this list, "Copyright infringement occurs whenever someone uses someone else’s design (photograph, painting, poster, quilt, etc." Including "quilt" is a very broad interpretation. Reading the links provided in the article, if "quilt" is to be in the list it would need be a picture of a quilt from an author's copyright print material or actual pic of one of author's quilts. At some point, the end product can and does cease being the authors design. Someone buys how-to watercolor book with some scenes to practice, including trees. If the artist exhibits or sells his painting with trees is he guilty of copyright infringement? After all, it is a tree and the article says, "This includes quilts (insert painting) based on the original design (even with significant changes they are derivatives)."

I do not submit these scenarios to be argumentative. The broadness of ownership this article spells out seems misleading. If an author contacts me I will ask:

*Did Icopy Author's print material or use copied material? If yes, I infring the copyright
*Is the Author's copyright for a brand new design, never used before; were they free to copyright? I use Magic Tiles as an example, "What is it?" Answer, "It is a 9-patch and crazy quilt, both with long histories; not original. Did I copy the print material which is original? As the article states, "An individual automatically holds copyright on any original work upon its completion" The key words are "original"; Magic Tiles design is not. "Work" which is the pattern/book are original to Author. Thus, my interpretation and end result are not bound by copyright. I still CANNOT print copy pattern/process Author's material but can do whatever the heck I want with the finished product. (Well, except label it Magic Tiles)
*Am I selling, auctioning, or displaying quilt and calling it "Magic Tiles" or using traditional description of 9-patch, scrap 9-patch, crazy quilt, crazy 9patch, tumbling 9-patch, stained glass quilt, stained glass 9’s, crooked squares, etc.,? IF labled "Magic Tiles" I am infringing on copyright.
*Am I using the author's directions and duplicate/imitate her quilt to look like hers? Does my quilt look exactly like any of author's published photos
According to the aticle the "Photos Forum” needs to be eliminated as most of the quilts shared are infringing on some copyright somewhere. Every crazy quilt, every nine-patch, every squares, every solid, every unevenly spaced, every, every, every quilt shared falls under just the copyright of Magic Tiles per, "We all understand that photocopies are copies. That’s easy. Anything, however, in any artistic or print media that uses the artist’s design is a copy. This includes quilts based on the original design (even with significant changes they are derivatives), copies of the pattern, photographs, slides, drawings, etc.," combined with, "Copyright infringement occurs whenever someone uses someone else’s design (photograph, painting, poster, quilt, etc.," and "The point to remember: strictly speaking, copyright law does not allow us to display someone else’s design."

The article’s main reason for education of the copyright law states, "If we continue doing this we will make it unaffordable for the designers to continue their work." Supply and demand relies on having a genuine product. It has to be original enough to sustain beyond the "newness factor" If people try to take the ordinary and easily accessible and feature it as unique, people are going to figure that out and not purchase long term. Limited sales would indicate limited or irrelevant information, equating to limited demand. Original sells. Marketing old as new does not sell for the long haul. Lack of authentic demand is not the quilting community's financial responsibility or burden. Being a true designer is not a jobs program. Neither is being a pattern maker.

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction is lumping end quilt into copyright patterns?

Copywrites are a slippery slope for sure. The Magic Tiles issue--her son is a lawyer--enough said.

Originally Posted by Tartan

Copywrites are a slippery slope for sure. The Magic Tiles issue--her son is a lawyer--enough said.

And every lawyer knows it is best to try to get what you want without going to court, especially if trying to enforce an interpretation vs actual rule of law. I laughed (good kind) at your comment because it seems these days everyone's son or daughter is a lawyer and reminded me of visiting my mother in a senior living place years ago. In the community room my mother introduced me one by one to each of the people and each time my mother introduced me afterwards she would whisper, "Her son is a lawyer." The last lady she introduced me to, Mom said, "Her son is not a lawyer. But. Her three daughters and five granddaughters are. The others don't talk to her much because she has more bragging rights than they do!" I asked my mom what she tells the other residents about her children, "Oh, I just say I have eight children and thirty grandchildren and not a lawyer in the bunch!" (which wasn't quite true, though)

Unless you use the copyrighted name, how does someone prove that your design (influenced by many you have seen "somewhere") which resulted in a finished product that happened to be similar or maybe even very much like what someone else came up with, is copyright infringement?

Most times when I make something, I'm not following anyone's instructions to the letter, even if I started with a pattern.

And most of what I do is pieced geometric blocks, almost if not all of which can be found with half a dozen different traditional names.

And most of the copyrighted material I've seen is based on use of traditional blocks, just maybe in unique color ways or combinations.

If that article is really correct, then I think the laws need to be changed. I do think it's ridiculous, that someone should have to request permission to share a photo of a quilt they've made from a pattern they've purchased. I think the crux of the matter, where quilting is concerned, is that very little is original. This woman's Magic Tiles quilt (I've not seen it) is probably not original. From whom did she get permission to produce and sell the pattern? With whom did she share her profits?

I believe, once a pattern is sold, that should be the end of it, as far as end product is concerned. The designer has received her monetary due; there should be no further claim on the purchaser who uses the pattern to make a quilt for personal use -- whether to give, or to sell, or to display. If a designer wants to keep such control over her design, then don't produce a pattern and sell it! She is trying to have it both ways. She wants to profit from her design by making it available for purchase, and she also wants to keep exclusive control over it. It's just absurd when you consider the implications in practical terms. Hopefully copyright law will evolve so that it makes more practical sense.