Not to beat a dead horse but I have a question?
02-17-2015, 05:18 PM
#1
Super Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: missouri
Posts: 6,311
Not to beat a dead horse but I have a question?
Why has this board decided that this one article that a quilter had published is the one and only correct answer. It as if it is truly a legal answer to the question. I am just not sure that we should be putting all our eggs in one basket. Do we really know that this is the correct answer.
02-17-2015, 05:34 PM
#2
Super Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: South Central Indiana
Posts: 1,931
Good question.
02-17-2015, 05:40 PM
#3
Super Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: starke,Florida
Posts: 2,025
I agree 100 percent.
02-17-2015, 06:21 PM
#4
Super Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Monroe, IN
Posts: 2,283
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.
02-17-2015, 06:38 PM
#5
Power Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 11,276
My question is if the author of the article lives in Canada, and the info is based on Canadian law, what applies to U.S., or other countries? Are the laws identical from one country to another?
02-17-2015, 06:41 PM
#6
Super Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 5,570
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.
02-17-2015, 07:37 PM
#7
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Piedmont Virginia in the Foothills of the Blue Ridge Mtns.
Posts: 8,562
If you are unhappy with this article, why not check out the LEGAL one yourself.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
Jan in VA
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
Jan in VA
02-17-2015, 11:32 PM
#8
Super Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jozefow, Poland
Posts: 4,474
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.
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.
02-18-2015, 12:10 AM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 609
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.
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.
02-18-2015, 01:10 AM
#10
Super Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: The Granite City, Scotland
Posts: 1,635
I'm not sure why this particular article has been pinned. If you read it in it's entirety, then according to the author, Quilting Board itself is breaking copyright 'law' by allowing the publishing of photographs of finished quilts which do not have the written permission of the designer...............
Similarly, if you see a quilt elsewhere - a film, show or internet and post the picture here as you want to find a pattern like it, you may have broken the 'law' as again, you will not have the designer's permission (that in itself defeats the object - if you knew the pattern, you wouldn't be asking).
I think the premise of the article is well intended - people should not copy them, always acknowledge work from patterns and give designers credit for their work. However, common sense needs to prevail.
Similarly, if you see a quilt elsewhere - a film, show or internet and post the picture here as you want to find a pattern like it, you may have broken the 'law' as again, you will not have the designer's permission (that in itself defeats the object - if you knew the pattern, you wouldn't be asking).
I think the premise of the article is well intended - people should not copy them, always acknowledge work from patterns and give designers credit for their work. However, common sense needs to prevail.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
