Well my goodness. I was reading through all this very interesting topic, replying as though we were all sitting around a kitchen table gabbing and sipping, and I realize I must be the only person awake at this hour - which is late even for me!
I apologize to everyone for running off at the fingertips on here.
But I do so enjoy everyone.

Please do not apologize. your responses were thoughtful, right on point, and very helpful. :thumbup:

It occurs to me after reading all this discussion, that if we do create a design in EQ or any other way, it might be a good idea to keep all of the working files. Just in case someone thinks you copied their design, you could prove in good faith that this is how you arrived at yours. It is not foolproof, and anyone can say you recreated it, because it all subjective. Just a thought. :wink:

I agree :) I enjoyed reading through your recap of the discussion.

I went to a quilt show yesterday with three other ladies and on the way there we had a discussion about the different rules at different shows. We tlked about identifying the designer and what was legally allowed by the designer. We all voiced similar opinions to what was discussed here.

We got to the show and it featured a community of quilters who have overcome very difficult times in the last 100 yrs and who are now being presented as innovative and 'nouveau'. Their designs have been picked up by a major 'chain' store who are selling quilts in these designs as young urban 'chic'. The designs and quality were very 'primitive ' and 'homespun' using a variety of fabrics that may be found in an old clothesbasket or thrift store.

As I walked around looking at the quilts I was thinking about the copyright aspect. I did chat with some of the ladies from the community that had accompanied their display for the show and the history was all very interesting. The problem that I had with this display was (although I appreciate the community's history etc) is that these designs and quilts were similar to something that my daughter would have made and did create when she was 6 yrs old. I am sure some of us have similar ones that have been passed down to us from long ago or if our children dabbled in sewing, when they were very young, some may have been created.

My point here is, now, these very simplistic designs, some of which have been in the public domain for 100 yrs are now 'copyrighted' . Where does the spinning wheel stop? If a children's group decided to make a few wall hangings or quilts that would definitely look similar and they raffled or sold them they would perhaps be in fringement of these designs.

This whole infringment area is really murky waters and can be argued either way. I guess the question becomes, "What is an original design"? What aspects of a design give it the 'original' label? Are past designs that are already in the public domian taken into account?

Even some of the more intricate designs have been around for a very long time - If you walk through the churches in Europe and look at the floor tiles and mosaics that have been there for hundreds of years you will see designs that are now being considered as new or original.

Spot on.
And keep a few photos of your assemblly process when you make your quilt, too. Same reason.

Right.
The only thing that can be copyrighted in these prim quilts is the exact same size and shape strips in the exact same placements as the original prim quilts.
That is to say, Reproductions of an original quilt.
They can copyright that.

you can copyright a reproduction?

copy protect a copy?

are you sure?

I meant the pattern for it, thanks!!
Sorry not to be clear.
The Gees Bend organization own their quilts, which were originally scrappy, and their patterns for them, which are reproductions of the quilts so that others can make those quilts same as the originals.

:) That's the group I saw at the show.

I think anyone who agonizes over color choice or whether their edges are straight or points match need only to look at the accolades that folk art quilts garner, and can relax. It's all wonderful! But yeah, I know what you mean about new designs. Nearly every quilt magazine has a "strippy" quilt of some sort. Is that copywrite infringement? I can't imagine it would be. How about a medallion quilt. Many, many designers do them. Where is the tipping point? hard to say.

If you figure out the apples pattern, which is patented under technology, and you changed it a little you would be ok to sell it. Check under patents.

Now if you came by it while working for apple, be prepared for corporate espionage court case though.

That's because you are using the art as a focal point, ie copying someone elses work. They won't have a case if you used the art as part of story you tell in whatever art you do.

Legal photographers handbook.

I believe selling patterns that you own is like selling books that you own. It's not illegal, any more then half price books selling books is illega.

Copying your pattern into a newspaper is one thing. Selling a quilt you made from the pattern is another thing. I don't think you can equate the two.

If you make money selling the patterns, I'd be listening to what people here are grouching over. I'd also take a look at other industries who try to restrict the sale of electronic stuff. The music industry is feeling the bite of this from discontented listeners. The book industry is getting it as well.

Then McCalls shouldn't print most of what they print as most of it is derivative off of public domain blocks.

That is a very good idea.