Originally Posted by
jaciqltznok
Brenda did NOT lose...she won when the lady had to change the name of the quilt!
This is splitting hairs. Brenda most certainly did loose. She could NOT keep the woman from selling the finished quilt, the product of the pattern purchased. The ONLY thing she could do was prevent use of the Name of the quilt.
So, her copyright did not prevent anyone from selling a quilt made from the pattern that was purchased because she cannnot control the outcome of the finished product of a purchased pattern. She could only say "you can't call it what I called it".
That is not winning the case when she wanted to control the finished product of a purchased pattern.
Whether you like taberone or not, her site gives the cases and results of those cases that the copyright.gov tolk about but does not explain very well.
Most of the these cases do not go to court because too many souls out there will not stand up for their rights. The designers get a lawyer to send a letter to intimidate the seller and threaten with suits and $$$ so the rightfully selling party backs off and allow the designer to continue believing that they can control everything they've thought of since sliced bread. The designers must have a Patent to do this, not a copyright. And, there is no copyright on intelligence, and creativity. That is pure gibberish, and enflated ego.
If more quilters would realize that copyright ande patent are not the same things, and stand firm on their right to make a quilt according to a pattern, and sell it, or give it away, the designers' power would wane.