Originally Posted by garysgal
I emailed McCalls Quilting magazine and here is there answer:
Dear Carol,
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the article about copyright law for quilters in the September/October 2010 issue of McCall’s Quilting. Due to overwhelming reader interest, we are working with the author of the piece, Janet Jo Smith, to prepare a short follow-up for our November/December issue.
Copyright law is a complex topic, one which we would never have space enough to present completely to our readers. But it’s also a very important topic, and one we believe all quilters need information about in order to protect their rights and respect those of other quilters. It was with this in mind that we presented Janet Jo’s answers to quilters’ most common copyright questions. Unfortunately, some readers seem to have drawn inaccurate conclusions based on the limited information presented in the article, and are feeling alarmed about situations where copyright law has little or no application. For example, vast numbers of our favorite quilt blocks and patterns have been within the public domain for years and are not encumbered by copyright law as we understand it.
We’re glad the article has spurred such interest and discussion in the quilting community, and hope you’ll watch for the follow-up.
Sincerely,
Beth Hayes
Editor-in-Chief
<emailed by Kathy Patterson, Senior Editor>
So, I guess that now we wait.
There you have it...."Unfortunately, some readers seem to have drawn inaccurate conclusions ..........". Looks to me like a LOT of us drew inaccurate conclusions. (I have a degree in English, so feel that I'm not completely incompetent in comprehending a magazine article.) Seems to me that Beth Hayes is saying that her readers are too stupid to understand their magazine. Perhaps the problem was the tone and focus of the article. JMHO