the first half of her statement is correct and reasonable.

the second half just cracks me up. :XD:

Hmmmmm wonder where she obtained her ideas & concepts? LMBO

:lol:
This is merely an example of Freedom of Speech rather than Copyright Infringement! It is funny though.

You cannot change something "a little" and call it your own.
If you can still recognize any part of it as someone elses,
then it is still not your design. You must change it so it
is not recognizable at all from the original design.
I'm a tole painter and I use several artists designs. 99% of
the artists tell you you can use their patterns for fun or
profit, but it may not be reproduced by a manufacturer. I
assume this applies to copyrighted quilt patterns also. I also
personally think its a little hard to copyright a quilt square
that was created back in the 1800's or earlier. Just changing
its name does not make it yours.
You cannot copyright ideas or concepts unless you have used
them yourself to create something. Does that make sense??
Catlady

Exactly -- I don't know if the woman that has that blog is on this forum.....but if she is, I hope she understands how inane her "copyright" statement is!!!!

Correct, this is not true. If the thing is still "recognizable," such as for instance copying a "lookalike but different Mickey Mouse," then it is not original. So changing a little bit does not make it original.

On the other hand, just because someone says their pattern is original and copyrighted does not make it truly original and copyrighted. Maybe they "borrowed" someone's idea. They have to prove it is original, as much as you might have to prove it is not.

i'll never understand this stuff. if it's old, if people have been doing it before you came along, how can it be yours? because you wrote it down? give me a break!
i still don't understand how anyone can 'own' the unmentionable 'dear jane', made of blocks from the 1800's by a long-dead lady.

if i come out of the ladies' room with my skirt stuck into the back of my panties, can i copyright? 'cause you know that it'll happen to someone else soon.
(not a pretty picture, though)

[quote=butterflywing]if it's old, if people have been doing it before you came along, how can it be yours? because you wrote it down? give me a break!
i still don't understand how anyone can 'own' the unmentionable 'dear jane', made of blocks from the 1800's by a long-dead lady.[quote]

The DJ quilt, as with all old/vintage/antique quilts, is owned by someone, maybe a museum, possibly a person.
So they have the rights to it that way.

But the <u>instructions</u> for reproducing the old blocks and the old quilt are copyrighted by the person who wrote them out, even though it comes decades/centuries later.

I suspect more than one person can make up instructions on how to reproduce something that is already old, and both be within their rights to copyright THEIR set of instructions.

You are right, it is very complicated!

the quilt itself is not under copyright. however "Dear Jane" as it applies to the quilt is a registered trademark.

there are fabrics licensed under the trademark. the print designs for those fabrics are protected.

the books, software, and other associated commercial products are protected by either trademark, copyright, patent or some combination thereof.

you can make your own replica of Jane Stickle's quilt without buying any of the commercially available products.

however, i don't think many of us would even know the quilt existed without the research and resulting efforts that went into the book and follow-on products. it's also a giant pain in the butt to draft replica blocks. the book and software are reasonably priced. they make it much easier to recreate the quilt. give the author her "props". she is not a villain.

okay then, got that. now, if i look at the pictures of the blocks and i decide to call it dear janet, and i write instructions my own way, is that allowed, then? or is that still infringement? can i be successfully sued if the instructions are different? does she own the rights to the pictures? not that i'm doing it. just trying to understand the fine points.