Originally Posted by MZStitch
It's unlawful to sell a product that displays someone else's image without the image owner's permission -- even if the maker of the product lawfully purchased the fabric (or any other material) that contains the image. The fabric comes with a "personal use license".
The rationale is: consumers would likely falsely believe that the image owner either made the product or sponsors, endorses, or is somehow associated with the maker of the product made from the fabric (in violation of trademark law).
Sorry!
Designers could effectively shut down interstate commerce if this interpretation of the law is correct. For example, if I use a Smucker's jar that once had jelly in it and which clearly has Smucker's etched into the glass to make a pin cushion to send to a friend in Oklahoma as a contribution to a charity auction, I would be breaking the law?
Or, if I decide to start driving to Dallas in my Ford Freestyle and people pay me $10 each for the ride (assuming I have met all the insurance, et.al. requirements), could Ford limit my use of the automobile I paid $23,000 for by writing on the inside of the hood, "for personal use only?"
Give me a break! The people who designed the fabric get their cut when they sell the design to whomever, and manufactuers get their cut when they sell to wholesalers who get their cut when they sell the fabric to a retailer and the retailers get their cut when they sell it to a consumer who then should be free to use that product for any purpose not specifically forbidden by law. Run it up a flagpole, cover the baby's rump with it, or make a quilt for sale for profit--if I give the item I made away and the prson to whom I give it decides to sell it, does the person who created the design still have an ecoomic interest? This whole thing is absurd.
I don't know of any law that gives a person or business a perpetual right to say what an individual can do with legally acquired property. froggyintexas