hcarpanini

This article came out on the AQS (American Quilters Society) website. Hopefully it will answer your concerns.
http://www.americanquilter.com/shows...permission.php

renee765

After thinking about this for several days, I think the thing that makes me angriest about McCall's article is that they must assume most of us quilters are like sheep, having no ability to think on our own. Reading through the comments on this thread, it is very evident that we are a very intelligent group, and we don't follow blindly just because someone on a glossy page tells us to! I am also done with McCall's magazine.

JJs

Interesting - that's the SAME thing that's in the McCall's rag - sounds like these places have gotten together and "hatched a plan".

or the "designers" are creating a stink.

Which reinforces MY plan to design my own quilts in EQ - as I've said before, I hate sounding like a commercial (I asked myself if I could quote myself and myself said, "yes" ) but it looks like we all need to take a step back from magazines and books for INSPIRATION and just frequent places with free quilt blocks (read: public domain) - there are enough of us on this board that we CAN make our voices heard.

If I used "designer" quilt patterns to make wowie quilts I would have no problem with acknowledging the designer and/or asking permission to show some far-out fantastic quilt but this claiming LONG TIME PUBLIC DOMAIN blocks in DERIVATIVE works and then saying we have to ask permission is really a dirty deed.

Ok, here's another thought, that says that if you see a displayed quilt that you have to ask permission to make/display a similar quilt. How many have seen a double wedding ring quilt hanging in a show or museum? NUMEROUS quilts. Soooooo, do we dig up the dead old lady who made the first one? And who was she? And if we can't get to her WHO IS CLAIMING *****HER**** DESIGN and making you ASK to show it???????? And has everybody who came after her asked her permission?

As I said, it's totally stupid and if they say they are not claiming public domain blocks they are LYING.
Go over that crap with a fine tooth magnifying glass and you'll see....

LindaR

I did too...read the comments on the maple leaf quilt...very interesting...how could she claim it is her "design"...mind boggling. LOL

watson's mom

Canada has the Maple Leaf on our flag. Maybe that is where she saw it and decided to infringe on our flag copyrights. This is getting absurd. We will have to watch every stitch we make if this keeps up. I wrote to McCall's also. Told them the Maple Leaf quilt in this month's mag looks too much like Ruth Powers' October Weekend Pattern Plus quilt to be a coincidence. They should practice what they preach. If anyone complains about the designs they publish, McCall's can't claim they didn't know. They published the article and left themselves wide open.

Dodie

I did write McCalls a letter and canceled also sent it at their expense in the envelope asking for my renewal but here is the difference a few days later I got the Fon's and Porter magazine the Fon's and Porter people had 3 of their own patterns in it for free download Jenny Beyer Had one plus some websites to fabric manufactures who had free patterns so who needs McCalls there was an answer back not answering anything just said to watch for short article next
month this will take much more than a short article for me
Dodie

garysgal

I emailed McCalls Quilting magazine and here is there answer:
Dear Carol,

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the article about copyright law for quilters in the September/October 2010 issue of McCall’s Quilting. Due to overwhelming reader interest, we are working with the author of the piece, Janet Jo Smith, to prepare a short follow-up for our November/December issue.



Copyright law is a complex topic, one which we would never have space enough to present completely to our readers. But it’s also a very important topic, and one we believe all quilters need information about in order to protect their rights and respect those of other quilters. It was with this in mind that we presented Janet Jo’s answers to quilters’ most common copyright questions. Unfortunately, some readers seem to have drawn inaccurate conclusions based on the limited information presented in the article, and are feeling alarmed about situations where copyright law has little or no application. For example, vast numbers of our favorite quilt blocks and patterns have been within the public domain for years and are not encumbered by copyright law as we understand it.



We’re glad the article has spurred such interest and discussion in the quilting community, and hope you’ll watch for the follow-up.



Sincerely,



Beth Hayes
Editor-in-Chief
<emailed by Kathy Patterson, Senior Editor>

So, I guess that now we wait.

plainjane

I hate to beat a dead horse, but this is very irritating!
today I got in a fabric to make my granddaughter a little dress (1 1/2 yd) and on the selvage was printed Linda Spivey for Elizabeth's Studio For personal use only! Well, if I have scraps left, yes I will put it in a quilt (postage stamp) and if I decide to some day, I may sell it! How does anyone think they can control the secondary market-Just that PRINTED selvage is soooo irritating-I will think twice about any $$$ going to this line of fabric.
Jane

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.

JJs

Interesting that McCalls is telling us to wait with bated breath and to buy the next magazine to see what else they have to say.
"Inaccurate conclusions"? and then they mention public domain blocks - WTH - if that quilt made with public domain blocks is not subject to copyright why don't they just say so? Why not put the copyright rules for EACH quilt in the mag right with the quilt instructions. Why have to contact the magazine AND the designer - why not one central person/place/email, why not just say, you can make this quilt and show it in a quilt show but not make twenty billion to sell. Why make such a pain in the wazoo out of the whole thing.
Stupid

What's so difficult about granting the permission along with the pattern? In this day and age of bazillion patterns, boocoo quilt shows, blah blah, why make everybody jump through hoops.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if (and that's a huge, big if) I decided to make a fantastic COPY quilt from somebody's design I would have no problem (maybe) of HAVING TO TAKE THAT EXTRA TIME, ENERGY, TROUBLE to ask permission when it should be inherent in the PRICE $$$$$$$ of the pattern in the first place.
Nobody is 'stealing money from the designers' - they paid for the pattern....
cripes

inaccurate conclusions? ok, we are too dumb to understand and they are going to graciously explain it for us.... can't wait....