Thread: Not to beat a dead horse but I have a question?

I agree 100 percent.

When I buy a pattern, I am buying the set of instructions and nothing else. That is what the copyright is for. I am in no way obligated to give credit to the pattern designer each time I use the instructions to make a quilt. The designers of quilt patterns are trying to take the copyright laws and make you believe they have way more control than they really do. Think about a pattern you buy to make pants/shirts/ect. Do you wear your pants with a label giving credit to the pattern designer for everyone to see? This is my take on the subject. I refuse to get all bent out of shape because the designer feels entitled to something he isn't.

I agree. I'm not sure why this particular article on the subject was chosen for a sticky? We have all ready many, many articles on the subject of copyright. As with many legal issues, it frequently boils down to interpretation in a specific situation. This particular article may have been the author's interpretation vs a specific situation; legal interpretation? I'm not sure that we can know. Personally, I think a more broad-based article/interpretation might be a better guideline for those with questions??? Just my opinion. This is, obviously, a very 'hot bed' issue for many.

I have wondered the same thing--especially why such a radical take on the subject.

I mean, If you make a pattern and win a prize, you are supposed to share the money with the designer of the quilt?

What about the designer of the fabrics that you used?

What about the "designer of the thread" if you are using something special?

It can get ridiculous, and I'm actually disappointed why that particular article has been made a sticky.

And just because a lawyer somewhere wrote a "cease and desist" letter and someone obeyed doesn't mean that the lawyer was following the law--maybe they were just being a bully.

How can a pattern be copyrighted? Copyrights are for ORIGINAL DESIGNS ONLY. There are no original designs. The quilts you see today are all made from patterns created hundreds of years ago. I see pages and pages of red white and blue 9 patch quilt patterns. These folks did not design the 9 patch pattern, nor did they design the concept it's self. ANYONE can put red, white and blue together in any combination and it would not be a copyright infringement. If this were the case all quilts made today would be illegal. The words they use are mostly the same words used when the blocks were made back in the 1700's and before.

Here is a whole page full of quilt blocks designed long before many of us were born but touted as original designs today.
http://earlywomenmasters.net/quilts/LAC/index.html
The method of placing the blocks can not be copyrighted. The method of cutting the blocks can not be copyrighted. The method of sewing the blocks together can not be copyrighted. Even if I made a quilt exactly like one I saw online, in a store, in a show it would be legal as the ORIGINAL BLOCKS are not copyrighted. Even the style of the quilt is public domain although many try to claim it as their own. Many of blocks and quilts are copies of quilts made long ago and shown in vintage magazines. You can change the colors but its still the same quilt. Even many of the instructions are the same as printed in the turn of the 20th century (late 1800's- early 1900's)
Now if someone, somewhere, came up with a totally new block not inspired by someone else it could be copyrighted.

Originally Posted by crocee

H

Here is a whole page full of quilt blocks designed long before many of us were born but touted as original designs today.
http://earlywomenmasters.net/quilts/LAC/index.html

Thank you. It's an interesting site.