well i think the key here is the money.

if you're reproducing something for your home or friends no one is going to charge you with a crime.

if you start making money that should have been in their pocket then they might come after you.

tons of people reproduce music in their home and it never becomes an issue until its released to the public and makes money.

From the second article:

"If you make pictures of the finished quilt, then I think there is likely to be a problem..." That depends upon the purpose of the pictures. If you have made the quilt from a lawfully acquired pattern, that pattern purchase gives you the rights to the item made from that pattern. Your quilt; your pictures of your quilt. If you want to sell the quilt, copyright law specifically gives you permission to use pictures to sell it.

"Finally, don't make money off anyone else's work" Why not? If you purchased the pattern you have that right. They voluntarily sold it to you. NASCAR drivers don't build their own cars; they buy Fords and Pontiacs and modify them. They have that right. Don't you think Ford dislikes when the race is won by a Pontiac? But imagine Ford saying "This car can only be used for non-commercial home use". Profit is a perfectly reasonable motive and is recognized under the law.

In a follow-up post she says, "Again, it's not the creation of the potholders that matters, it's trying to sell them." Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is perfectly legal to do so and we have established that fact in lawsuits against Disney, Major League Baseball, Sanrio, and United Media (Peanuts). There is absolutely no court case that says otherwise

Me again... that goes for the pattern and any copywritted fabric that is used in the pattern. I just can't start printing copies of the pattern or make the fabric and sell it.

If a piano player at a restaurant plays a song then I believe that they would have to purchase a copy of the sheet music? Doesn't that give them the right to then play it in public and they are getting paid for it? That doesn't mean that they can commercially release a CD of copywritten songs but they can play them in public, right?

My not so humble but honest opinion if you're interested...

"There really is nothing new under the sun." You've all heard that, right? Well, if I make a quilt - or any other craft - through a magazine, book, or other meduim, how am I to know that particular item does not exist somewhere else on this planet? Last year I tossed out mags (sewing and cross stitch - gasp!) that went back 20 years (not 20 years worth, just some I've had that long) because the patterns were simply reproduced. Ever sew an a-line dress? You tell me what the diff is between an a-line dress pattern by Simp, McCalls, or Vogue. Same with doll clothes patterns, they are childrens patterns only smaller. What about fabric yo-yo's? Or real ones? Everything is copied. Are there really 101 ways to cook hamburg? Yuck.

You must have been to craft fairs where the fad of the time was sold - sock dolls, fabric bowls, clown dolls, cable-knit sweaters, painted rocks, beaded jewelry. I don't think these people got permission from The First Person To Make The First One to sell these items. And to take this one step further, how do we know that these books, mags, or internet patterns aren't copied from someone else? What about 1930's reproduction quilts? Same thing, right? Let's take an old whatever and reproduce it.

I'm beginning to think this entire copyright issue is more liability protection, similar to peanut or egg warning labels. You can't possibly cover all situations, so you generalize with a "law" that is so vague no one seems to be able to offer a globally understood, direct explanation. If copyright is that much of an issue, the definition should be as understandable as 2+2=4, and not subject to as much interpretation and question as it is.

(edited) I also believe that it is reproducing and selling the pattern itself, and not your result or interpretation of that pattern. Just about every pattern book I have has the disclaimer that says something to the effect of "we are not responsible for the actual end result, based on the crafter's choice of materials, products, abilities..." etc. So how can it possibly be a copyright infringement?

Whew.

The author of the Dear Jane book is DIRECTLY copying the designs of the original book.

And Jane Stickney probably copied some of her designs from some she'd seen elsewhere.

The original Jane has been long dead, Even though the author is giving Jane full credit for the designs - where is the line between homage and plagiarism?

I just think most of the geometric designs have been around for so long, that it is hard to know the "true" source (I happen to think it's the Creator, but that's another line of thought)

my entire life is surrounded by musicians and not one of them buys sheet music.

you don't need to once a song is released to the public anyone can doing it live.

some one could hear a song on the radio this afternoon and play it live in the club tonight.

the problem comes when you decide to release the song for money (CD, download, etc) then you need approval.

and she now has that copyright because of her book.

paula nadelstern was in a lawsuit with, i believe, hilton hotels because they had a rug in houston that looked like her quilt.

hilton's attorney argued that since she used copywritten fabric that her quilt was not protected by that copyright and that the book it was published in did not get permission to use the fabric for commercial (read for profit) use.

they settled out of court which is a shame because i would love to know what a judge thought about the issue.

I bet she would have won. Like the case sited in that link, a store was selling bedding made with Precious Moments fabric. The makers of the fabric sued and lost. You purchase the fabric, you have the right to USE it however you see fit. That doesn't negate your copywrite to your work with that fabric. That is so ridiculous! If a clothing designer purchases a fabric do they then have to give the fabric manufacturer a cut of the sales? I don't think so.

just because something is legal doesn't make it morally right

morals is a subjective state without laws its nothing. what some consider moral is not considered that way by everyone.

this is why there are laws and judges to pass the judgement. it is not up to me to decide what is moral to someone else.