If you mean to say "I can't understand/see why a person can't" it's because that is considered "Commercial Use." Most patterns prohibit that. Why can't you do that? Because you would be making money off of someone else's intellectual property. Doesn't that sound a little like stealing?

I recently needed to have reverse copies of quilt pattern applique blocks made from a pattern I had purchased. Most copyrighted patterns state on the pattern that copies can be made for personal use. This one did not. The block patterns were too large for my copy machine. The commercial copy business will not copy without granted permission to do so. I emailed the owner of the copyright and she responded with permission. Commercial copy businesses know the copyright laws and reputable ones abide by the law.

Libraries typically buy special copies of book with a "School & Library" license. It is different from the standard license and affords them additional rights that we usually wouldn't pay for when we buy a book at the bookstore/online. In addition, they can lend books under the First Sale law. While you have borrowed the book, you are allowed to make copies for Personal Use. If it weren't from a library/school, typically the law asks that all personal copies are either transferred or destroyed at the time of sale/gifting. Being from a library's collection, different laws might apply. I'm not sure. You could always ask your local librarian. They are required to study copyright law as part of the library science curriculum.

Of course the nice thing about libraries is that you usually can just check the book out again & then there definitely would be no issue with using the pattern. I'm not sure about the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law would support you making a copy, keeping it in a file with the name of the book/author & then when you want to use it again, just check the book out. One other thing, the instructions themselves may be copyrighted, but if it's a traditional pattern, the pattern pieces very likely cannot be copyrighted.

No, it doesn't sound like stealing to me. That person made the choice to sell that intellectual property in order to profit from it. Her intellectual property -- the written pattern -- which she chose to sell for profit, is a pattern with which to make useful articles. The useful articles made from her intellectual property, are not her intellectual property! You are not stealing from her if you put 100 hours into making the useful article, and then sell it to recoup the value of your time. She has already made her due profit from your purchase of her pattern. What you do with the pattern represents your work, not hers. If you bought one copy of her pattern and copied it 100 times and sold them for your own profit -- that would be stealing.

Edit to add, I'm speaking of someone making a few items from a pattern; I'm not talking about someone renting factory space, hiring workers and mass-producing a million articles using the pattern. I believe that would truly be 'commercial use', and an arrangement would have to be made with the pattern designer.

thank you for that good explanation.

So stealing a little is OK, but stealing a lot isn't? Unfortunately, "commercial" has already been defined as selling for profit; we don't get to modify that definition to suit ourselves. How much time (or money) a person has spent making copies of someone else's design is immaterial and certainly doesn't justify its theft.

No, I don't believe stealing a little is okay. But I don't believe selling a quilt you've made from a purchased pattern is stealing. My understanding is that US law states that the useful article made from a pattern, is not considered a copy of the pattern. The pattern refers to the written directions for making the quilt, not to the useful article that results from following the copyrighted directions. So, making a copy of the pattern would mean making a copy of the written directions, not making a quilt using the directions.

As far as 'commercial', I'm not sure of the definition, but if it does mean selling for profit, most people selling a quilt they've made from a purchased pattern are unlikely to break even when factoring in the time spent at skilled-laborer wage. Profit would only start to come into it if someone set up a business to mass-produce the item at low cost, and in that case, I agree that an arrangement would have to be made with the pattern designer.

What about this: A woman buys a pattern for a dress, takes that pattern and fabric which she has purchased, to a dressmaker, who makes the dress, using the purchased pattern. The dressmaker then charges the woman $$ to make the dress from the pattern the woman bought. Do you consider that stealing from whoever designed the pattern? Because money was made, using the pattern....money that was not paid to the designer of the pattern.

Seems to me that making items from a purchased pattern and profiting from the making of those items, is the same thing. It's not stealing to sell items one makes from a pattern one has bought and paid for. The pattern designer cannot reasonably expect to either control or profit from all the items that will be made from the pattern he/she designed.

When you purchase a pattern, you are purchasing just the written instructions to make a quilt. The person who wrote the pattern and copyrighted same pattern CANNOT dictate what you do with that pattern. All he/she can do is lawfully expect that you make no copies of same pattern to sell or give away. You can sell that pattern. You can make as many copies as needed for your own use. You can use that pattern to make as many quilts as desired. You can sell those quilts. If you have ever made your own clothes, you most likely purchased a pattern such as Simplicity or McCalls. Those patterns are the same thing. You don't have to call and get permission if you make a pair of pants for someone else using the pattern you purchased. You don't have to label those pants with the pattern makers name. You don't have to ask permission if you want to use that pattern to make three more pair because they fit nicely. That pattern maker can print whatever they want on the pattern, but that doesn't make it true.

Good point.