Berkie

I am a cake decorator by trade. I do remember all of the stink caused many years ago by big corps like Disney with bakeries copying their images which is by the way now non-existent (they simply don't bother any more) as the options for bakeries had expanded over the years via the use of the little plastic toys made just to place on cakes & the use of edible images.
BUT I do remember one thing that our bakery, as well as many others out there looked into the copy-right laws. In order to "break" a copy right there must be 7 changes from the original picture (pattern) and what you have made. In other words, I can take a customer's picture of Mickey mouse, change his hat, change the direction his eyes are looking, change the buttons on his pants, his shoes.....
If bakeries could fight large corporations to the point of making them stop suing bakeries via this method I can't see why it wouldn't work elsewhere.
Personally, if I stumbled across a pattern that I wanted & saw a big old "COPYRIGHT" label on it...I wouldn't buy it.

Kristi.G

But Disney characters are protected by trademarks, not copyright.

Berkie

They are not only trademarked, they are in fact protected by copyrite.

http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/terms.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo

alwayslearning

The reason someone gets a copyright is so they can publish it and gain income from it. Think of an author.

Christine-

That's right, Disney characters would be protected by a trademark. That's why there is a license attached to every Disney fabric or craft item we may choose to buy. (I'm sure there are copyrights as well, but for the sake of this arguement I'll leave that alone...LOL)

An acquaintance of mine has a brother who is an attorney for Disney. She said he has a chuckle when the hot n' heavy debates start up mentioning gossip about the little old lady who was sued by Disney for selling baby clothes she made using Disney fabric. He says "big bad Disney is at it again". In other words, it's a hoax.

And I agree that copyright debates simply spoil all the fun of buying patterns. Most designers understand this and avoid the debates. They are true business people, who understand the truth about copyright issues, and more importantly, they understand it's not wise to bite the hand that feeds them by adding silly restrictions they don't have the right to add in the first place. They understand it is harrassment of the consumer and it needs to stop.

Do you remember back in the 70s & 80s when knitting was all the rage? There were cheap plastic machines you could buy and all types of yarn, it was a huge business back then. But in the early 80s the pattern designers began public debates about all the copyright issues. There was heated debate in stores, during classes, knitting magazines published 'rules' continuously which led to discussion among knitting groups, clubs and guilds. Some of the debate was fair, since some of the women made copies of patterns to share with all their friends. But most of the debate was heated, with angry words. Slowly, through the early 80s all the fighting caused women to withdraw and pursue other hobbies and the knitting industry died out. The knitting pattern designers shot themselves in the foot with all the fighting.

In the 90s the same thing happened with the machine embroidery designs industry among the designers. In fact, look at the stats for any machine embroidery chat list on yahoogroups and look at the number of messages sent month to month each year. In EVERY chat list you see the messages with high numbers in the early years and then the messages slowly died out about 5 or 6 years ago. All because of the fighting! The designers lost business, put their designs 'on sale' to try and drum up business and then one by one they went out of business. After a certain 'copyright cop' filed a lawsuit in federal court, the judges declared the copyright cops were wrong (to put it in simpler terms) and that was that. But by then the buying public was fed up with all the fighting, they had disappeared. Fed up with the designers, they went elsewhere.

It could possibly happen to the quilt pattern businesses as well... except that the sane pattern designers are telling those with overactive egos where they are wrong.... and slowly the sane designers are helping squash all the false information flying around out there. Conversations like those on quilting board ARE helping! So if you can stand it a little longer, perhaps over the course of the next 3-5 years slowly they'll get the word out and the fighting will die down.

I hope this helps!!!

Christine-

We have to be crazy! Otherwise we couldn't keep our sanity! LOL

Dodie

well said coopah I for one am so sick of these pattern makers and their greed who needs them one thing I have all of the quilting magazines published in the 1970's and 80's and not a word was ever said about copyright it was all about sharing I took many classes from the famous quilters of that time all was photo copied hand outs their books was optional back then quilting was fun and a good get together now it has turned it to a dog eat dog world and I do believe the only reason some people even go to quilt shows is to see how they can make trouble I also use to subscribe to every magazine out there now I want absolutely none of them if I can't sew for fun who needs it sorry for my rant but I am fed up with this so called copyright that means nothing no one has yet answered my question on how someone can steal Bethany Reynolds pattern and
not be breaking this so called copyright

jaciqltznok

this is an industry, thus it is ABOUT making money!
As for Bethany Reynolds "pattern", her "patterns" are not original! They were making Kaleidoscope blocks many, many years before she was born! The only thing she did was create a technique using fabric repeats! and even that was not really original! So whomever you think "stole" from BR, probably just used the Kaleidoscope Kreator to create their own!
http://www.kalcollections.com/

k9dancer

Could you please cite the exact statute you are quoting?

Holice

Let me cite these two examples. Some years ago one of the sewing machine companies digitized a series of truly original quilting designs and sold thousands of them........A direct copy. The designer sued and won.
Another took an existing stencil which was also original and changed the middle and started manufacturing. Said they could do it because they had changed it 30%. The copyright attorney said no. As long as it can be recognized alongside the original it is a copy. He said there is no such things a changing it a certain percent....
Another bought stencils and started marking and printing them as paper patterns. Even wrote a book and put them in the book. Sold dozens in every class. This is an issue that should be defined by a knowledge copyright attorney who knows our industry so we can stop the "10 blind men describing the elephant" method of deciding what is right and what is wrong. Many years ago I made a small tree wallhanging from half square triagles. Nothing special but I did it. The next year I saw a pattern at a show and said to the owner "that looks like my wallhanging that I showed at another show. She said "Yes that is where I saw it and got the inspiration to do a pattern".......So to say "its out of control, just ignore it" is not the answer. It is not only the courteous act to ask by may the legal thing to do.
We need a defination of what those words on the selvedge really mean. And designers need to stop putting a copyright on every nine patch pattern they "design", unless there is something very unique about it, which I can't imagine what it is. If the copyright means one can't copy the pattern and sell it or share......that is one thing.....or copy the instructions and pass it out free in a class or to their guild, then that is another. Now off the soap box.