Originally Posted by JJs

Another question:
If these designers and magazines are so gung-ho on controlling YOUR quilt and what you can do with it after YOU make it, that should be clearly stated with each and every pattern in the magazine...
For instance, the aforementioned McCalls - there are patterns in there so why not put the copyright notice right there along with the designers name???? On page 64 is a quilt called "Rosie's Wreaths", designed by Pat Sloan... tells you how to make the quilt, tells you how much of each fabric you need, gives you the patterns - NO WHERE does it say, oh by the way, after you make this quilt you can't show it to anybody or that we are going to keep track of you and your quilt for ever...
On page 34 is a MAPLE LEAF quilt - "designed" by Renee Peterson - You think???? Maple leaf has been around FOREVER...
Same thing for the quilt on page 26, or the pinwheels on page 20 or the Snowballs and 9 patch on page 46 - oh wait, they changed the name to "Swing Dance" - and now they are claiming this oh so traditional quilt design???????????
Frankly the whole thing is getting stupider by the minute.

If somebody comes up with a new, fantastic design (and I've seen some at shows) with a new idea on how to combine colors or something, I can see where they should be credited.
But this taking old standard squares and sticking a quilt in a magazine and then claiming the 'design' is beyond belief.
Especially since the squares used in the quilts I just mentioned are ALL IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN and in the EQ programs AND EQ's copyright info says you can use those squares to your heart's content....

sheesh