Originally Posted by
JMCDA
I have more than a few friends who have spent years in court fighting infringement claims against companies that thought they could make and sell items with the artwork of the artist on it without permission - every time the big company lost. (think cute snowmen on gift items and a big national store) I have many times had studios teach my designs without permission and without even purchasing the patterns for each student in the class - each time I have found out about this I have confronted them and been compensated for my lost income.
None of what you claimed in the above quote has anything to do with patterns and their use to make and sell articles. Nor does 30 years experience as an artist, etc.
The US Supreme Court stated in 1879 that copyright protection in a pattern does not extend to a dress made from that copyrighted pattern. Then, in 1908, the US Supreme Court stated that a copyright owner cannot invoke restrictions on use of a copyrighted article by printing those restrictions on the article, it required a contract between the parties. A contract requires agreement between the parties before the transaction. And the federal courts have long maintained that the owner of a copyrighted article loses control over that particular copy once it has been sold or given away.
No permission is needed to make and sell articles. Only ONE copy of a pattern is needed to make more than one article. And the copyright protection that is automatic under the law is the protection of ownership, not enforcement of the copyright. A copyright MUST be registered with the copyright office before any civil action can be initiated. The exclusive rights provided under copyright law do not become effective until after it is registered because if it cannot be enforced in court then there are no rights simply upon fixation.
We have researched thousands of federal court cases. There are no federal court cases that have gone to trial over the use of a pattern to make and sell articles. The closest one was from the 1930s where a designer had copyrighted a drawing of a dress. The designer then tried to sue someone who making copies of the dress to sell. The federal court in New York rejected the claims saying that it was the drawing of the dress that was copyrighted, not the dress itself. And that is consistent with federal decisions on other copyright matters.