To carry this discussion a step further - the McCalls claim to every pattern in the universe as stated... "There is no particular amount of change that will make the new work acceptable. If it is a VARIATION of the original, inspired BY the original, it is derivative" (page 54 "make a derivative work." )
ok, on page 34 is a so-called "new" design claimed by a Renee Peterson - nice quilt but IT'S A MAPLE LEAF! How long has the maple leaf pattern been around? How can this person claim a DERIVATIVE WORK of a Maple leaf patterned quilt?
And then claim anyone who makes a maple leaf (derivative) quilt has to ask this person's permission and possibly McCalls magazine to show a maple leaf quilt???????
There are several "derivative" quilts in the current magazine - so is it McCall's intention to suck up all the PUBLIC DOMAIN blocks in existence over a period of years and CLAIM THEM by making DERIVATIVE quilt designs from them?? And then claiming they are NEW and THEN declaring that YOU have to beg on bended knee and PAY THEM to use a PUBLIC DOMAIN block to make a quilt?
And, what about the people who make maple leaf quilts who have never laid eyes on this quilt in this magazine?
It would be interesting to know how McCalls would explain this.
And that bull-crap about QUILT POLICE spying on other quilters and making sure they have permission to show a quilt - WHAT?!?
ps - *I* made a maple leaf quilt for my daughter back in 1994 - this Peterson person did NOT ask my permission to make a DERIVATIVE QUILT from MY maple leaf quilt, and McCalls did NOT ask my permission to use a DERIVATIVE maple leaf quilt in their magazine!! So how about them apples.