Copyrights for closed business
07-28-2015, 07:14 AM
#21
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Homosassa, FL
Posts: 2,267
That is not a hard pattern, strip sets sewn together and use a Dresden plate pattern to make the pieces, I would then make a solid lining OR different strip colors for other side and make it reversible. Cute.
07-28-2015, 08:21 AM
#22
Super Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Littlefield, TX, USA
Posts: 1,077
Still an active company...they are on facebook and have a blog:
http://greatamericanquilt.blogspot.com/
You may want to contact them and ask to use the pattern.
http://greatamericanquilt.blogspot.com/
You may want to contact them and ask to use the pattern.
Originally Posted by AudreyB
I would like to teach a class using a pattern that I purchased many, many years ago. In researching the company and pattern for class members to purchase, I cannot find them! I have exhausted all my resources to find them. My assumption is that the creators of the pattern have gone out of business and the pattern is out of print. It was copyrighted in 1995.
Does the copyright law still apply? Can I photocopy the pattern for my class?
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
Does the copyright law still apply? Can I photocopy the pattern for my class?
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
07-28-2015, 11:30 AM
#23
Power Poster
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 26,018
Any copyright from 1995 would still be in effect, but if the business closed long ago and they wrote the pattern, there may not be anyone around to enforce the copyright, or care if the pattern is used in your class.
07-28-2015, 01:02 PM
#24
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Longwood, Florida
Posts: 2,910
Oh gosh, I just made this and I made it out of my stack of squares without any pattern. This is a pattern that anyone can do. It is also a block in block base. I think maybe the instruction may be copyright and not the plate.....I have seen it also in magazines just different fabrics
http://www.quiltingboard.com/picture...g-t266254.html
http://www.quiltingboard.com/picture...g-t266254.html
07-28-2015, 01:15 PM
#25
Power Poster
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 19,131
Originally Posted by Stitchnripper
does it cloud the issue too much if I ask why it is okay to sell a pattern on eBay without giving all or a portion of the money to the original designer? Please understand I am not trying to look for trouble or make trouble for anyone. This copyright situation is very confusing to me. I've read I think all or most posts on the subject here on the Board. There are a few that agree and some have different interpretations. Do the original people in this example, Nancy J. Smith and Lynda S. Milligan, have the right to question this sale? Or is just that no one is stealing their intellectual property? They still get credit on the pattern for it's design, just no money from the sale of it? Apparently this is okay since eBay does sell patterns. Someone please enlighten me or correct me? thanks.
07-28-2015, 01:28 PM
#26
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 640
Originally Posted by PaperPrincess
Nancy J. Smith and Lynda S. Milligan published many books & patterns. Their publisher, Possibilities, is still in business.
I would contact them
http://www.possibilitiespublishingcompany.com/
I would contact them
http://www.possibilitiespublishingcompany.com/
07-28-2015, 02:13 PM
#29
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Mt. Vernon, VA
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by Kristi.G
This makes no sense - I believe you have things backwards or otherwise confused. First of all, Copyrights and Patents apply to completely different things. You can copyright a work of art, or written instructions and you apply for a patent for an invention or an idea for an invention. For instance, you can copyright a painting but you can't patent it. If you come up with a new airbrush tool for making paintings, you could apply for patent for the tool, but not copyright it (although your instruction for using the tool would be copyrighted).
Also, copyright is free - it is implied for all pieces that it applies to. You can strengthen your ability to uphold the copyright in court, should you ever need to do so, by registering your copyrighted works with the appropriate agency, but it's simply a matter of submitting a sample of the work along with a modest application fee. But as I said, it is technically copyrighted whether your submit the registration or not. Submitting the registration simply makes it easier to prove in the future that it was your original creation.
Patents on the other hand usually require the assistance of a patent attorney who specializes in the type of invention you are attempting to patent, at the cost of many thousands of dollars, along with the patent application fees, which I believe are well over $1000 themselves.
Also, copyright is free - it is implied for all pieces that it applies to. You can strengthen your ability to uphold the copyright in court, should you ever need to do so, by registering your copyrighted works with the appropriate agency, but it's simply a matter of submitting a sample of the work along with a modest application fee. But as I said, it is technically copyrighted whether your submit the registration or not. Submitting the registration simply makes it easier to prove in the future that it was your original creation.
Patents on the other hand usually require the assistance of a patent attorney who specializes in the type of invention you are attempting to patent, at the cost of many thousands of dollars, along with the patent application fees, which I believe are well over $1000 themselves.
Here is the definition of a design patent - it applies to the design of something, and is good for 15 years. (source: the sometimes fallible Wikipedia). it seems that it can apply to a quilt pattern ("design") as well as other objects. Invention can mean creating a unique pattern...
A US design patent covers the ornamental design for an object having practical utility. An object with a design that is substantially similar to the design claimed in a design patent cannot be made, used, copied or imported into the United States. The copy does not have to be exact for the patent to be infringed. It only has to be substantially similar.[SUP][2][/SUP] Design patents with line drawings cover only the features shown as solid lines. Items shown as dotted lines are not covered. This is one of the reasons Apple was awarded a jury verdict in the US case of Apple v Samsung. Apple's patent showed much of their iPhone design as broken lines. It didn’t matter if Samsung was different in those areas. The fact that the solid lines of the patent were the same as Samsung's design meant that Samsung infringed the Apple design patent.[SUP][1][/SUP]
07-28-2015, 07:09 PM
#30
Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by Trene
Here is the definition of a design patent - it applies to the design of something, and is good for 15 years. (source: the sometimes fallible Wikipedia). it seems that it can apply to a quilt pattern ("design") as well as other objects. Invention can mean creating a unique pattern...
A US design patent covers the ornamental design for an object having practical utility. An object with a design that is substantially similar to the design claimed in a design patent cannot be made, used, copied or imported into the United States. The copy does not have to be exact for the patent to be infringed. It only has to be substantially similar.[SUP][2][/SUP] Design patents with line drawings cover only the features shown as solid lines. Items shown as dotted lines are not covered. This is one of the reasons Apple was awarded a jury verdict in the US case of Apple v Samsung. Apple's patent showed much of their iPhone design as broken lines. It didn’t matter if Samsung was different in those areas. The fact that the solid lines of the patent were the same as Samsung's design meant that Samsung infringed the Apple design patent.[SUP][1][/SUP]
A US design patent covers the ornamental design for an object having practical utility. An object with a design that is substantially similar to the design claimed in a design patent cannot be made, used, copied or imported into the United States. The copy does not have to be exact for the patent to be infringed. It only has to be substantially similar.[SUP][2][/SUP] Design patents with line drawings cover only the features shown as solid lines. Items shown as dotted lines are not covered. This is one of the reasons Apple was awarded a jury verdict in the US case of Apple v Samsung. Apple's patent showed much of their iPhone design as broken lines. It didn’t matter if Samsung was different in those areas. The fact that the solid lines of the patent were the same as Samsung's design meant that Samsung infringed the Apple design patent.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
