Cari-in-Oly

I just looked it up. Apparently this ruling was made in 1998. I... um... borrowed it from an auction listing last year so I didn't have to tell my customers any more to keep quiet about where they got their purses, lol.
BUT - check out this website I just found. Same disclaimer using the same ruling.

http://www.threesisterscountryshop.com/NFL_PRINTS.html

Cari

spstout

I swore I would never get into one of these debates again, but I have to jump into this one just to say that the case you have cited above has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. It was about whether or not a product sold under copyright in another country can be imported to the US and then resold. The part you have quoted is dicta, not the holding of the case, and is the final line of a paragraph discussing importation as it relates to a defense under the first sale doctrine. I would hate to see someone attach that case to some kind of disclaimer on a finished product and think it somehow protected her.

The first sale doctrine applies to the actual copyrighted item in its original condition. So, if you were to resthat's book, for example, that would be a first sale doctrine issue. However, when you then make a product out of fabric with logos that are trademarked and do not have the permission of the trademark holder, that is where problems arise. And this is a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. You cannot sell something with the trademarked logo of a team without a licensing agreement.

Here is my disclaimer: I do not currently actively practice trademark or copyright law. I did consider pursuing intellectual property law in law school but my practice took a different turn.

I am now quietly leaving the debate.

justflyingin

No kidding!

The whole "cease and desist" thing to people who are buying product just amazes me. You are creating business/demand for the fabric.

One person isn't physically able to produce more than say, 100 quilts (bed size) a year--at best.

I don't think that any one manufacturer has anything to worry about from competition from some "home based business" about sales of any licensed product.

I am not sure why they go after the very people who are buying their product--the fabric.

spstout

Stupid autocorrect. I don't even know what it was going for there. That should say "So, if you were going to resell a book"

Cari-in-Oly

You have given me something to seriously think about. I'm not going to stop what I do, but I will re write my disclaimer.

Cari

cactusmomma

You can buy wood to make things to sell and paint to paint things to sell, etc. I don't see the difference in buying material and making things to sell.

PatPitter

The wood doesn't have a licensed emblem on it.

jcrilley

If it is, I would tell them to come and cuff me. The law has better things to do.

spstout

But intellectual property is just that -- property. It is a thing of value owned by someone else. It has the potential to generate income and goodwill. It can also work in the opposite way. The law has determined that people can protect and control their intellectual property through trademark, copyright, and patent protection, just as people can protect their real property through deeds of trust and their personal property through registrations and bills of sale. Surely you would not feel comfortable stealing someone's real or personal property. Why are you so comfortable stealing their intellectual property?

In this age of global marketing and digital commerce, the law in this area becomes more important every day. Especially when people are willing to make statements like the one you have made here.

Weezy Rider

There's another side to this and it was Sony who got sued. They went so far with digital rights that you had to buy the same music for each device you owned. If you played the purchased CD in a player in the house, you couldn't use the CD player in the car or a portable player. You had to purchase the album 3 times. Today some sellers of music are reserving the rights to remove music from the device. Fair use won out.

I don't pirate, I'll pay for the music or book, but I won't use any of the big booksellers that have readers or apps. I'll find an independent and buy and stash the item offline for my use only.

Big stink years ago when Brother included Disney designs on the embroidery machines. Making garments and selling them with the designs was a no-no and quite understandable. They got a bit out of line on selling USED clothing at a garage sale (Seized it). Was just sold as used baby clothing, not the for the design. I'm not sure how this was resolved, but it had to be. You can pay premium for a Disney item at a Disney store and still donate it to the ARC or Goodwill when you no longer want it. People still sell same in garage sales. They haven't stopped doing it. Item was not originally made for sale. Outgrown gift.

Patent law needs an overhaul. Patents should be for a certain amount of time and that's that. Samsung and Apple were having a battle over patents that were sheer stupidity. Rounded vs square corners on cell phones. Both styles had been available for years on other phones with no protests. Black rectangle came under discussion, also dumb.
Every TV sold today is a black rectangle. Copying the design of working hardware or components used is a legitimate gripe. The problem is that Samsung as a parts maker sells to Apple. There's royalty fees all over.

We got quite a bit on copyright in Graphic Design.

This is now going on with ebooks, music and videos. I'd watch articles on these items to see which way the wind is going to blow.