Originally Posted by Mattee

I have been watching this thread for days, with growing alarm and concern. First, I know that copyright law can be complex and confusing. However, I believe that a few things need to be kept in mind. Copyright law was not written by McCall's Quilting. It was written by congress, enacted into law, and applies equally to all intellectual property, not just quilting. I think we need to remember context. The article is simply a brief explanation of how copyright law affects quilting. The laws are the same regardless of industry.

Some people here have given very accurate and brief summaries of the "rules," if you will, but I think a lot of people are concerned about things that aren't actually affected by copyright law. No one is trying to recover the maple leaf block and turn it into private intellectual property. What they are doing is saying that if you use those instructions, for that version of a maple leaf quilt, you need to ask permission before displaying it, and cite the designer when you do. Derivative means a derivative of that version of the quilt - not of a block that happens to also appear in the the quilt. For example, if I decide to use a monkey wrench block, something that I'm very familiar with, to make a quilt that I make up using my own head, it's not derivative, since the block is in the public domain. If, however, I see instructions for how to make a specific monkey wrench quilt that I really like (which I did last month in a magazine), but it inspires me to make an altered version of that specific quilt (I'm changing the size, the relative sizes of the sashing, borders, and blocks, and color scheme), then it is derivative. It is derivative because I would not have thought of putting the quilt together in that way had I not seen the pattern in the magazine. That is the key that makes it derivative. I did not think of it on my own - I thought of the design because I saw someone else's design.

Please remember that most designers are not wealthy or greedy individuals who are trying to cheat us. They are hard-working people who are (sometimes desperately) trying to make a living at something they love. If we want them to continue designing, inside and outside of magazines, we should support them, which means following the law and treating them with respect. In order to do this, I never photocopy a design, I buy one copy of a design for each copy of the quilt I wish to make, and if my design is a copy of or inspired by a pattern, I always credit the designer and ask permission before showing it publicly. It's not that burdensome, and it helps keep my favourite designers in business, not only by giving them my hard-earned money, but by being a advertisement for them as well. When others see credit given to a designer, they're more likely to buy something that designer made, which keeps them in business producing more of the patterns I love.

Let's try to remember the purpose of copyright to begin with, and remember that it protects all of us - whether we're professional designers or not.