Why get someone in trouble.

Great link, Chay! Thanks for adding it.

I suspect the differences between what you claim is the case (the resulting constructed items are covered by copyright) and what many others believe to be the case (those items are not covered by copyright) can be explained very simply. You are referring to Canadian copyright law and we are talking about US copyright law. There are multiple significant differences and the US law generally provides more freedoms for users of copyrighted material (e.g., Canada has Moral Rights, the US doesn't; the US has Fair Use exceptions, Canada doesn't).

thanks for the link! Very interesting. I also looked up "federal copyright laws" and read some of it( who can understand "legal ease"). My limited understanding of all of this info is that the PATTERN is copyrighted, PATTERN can not be copied for resale, not valid if "distinguishable variation" of original pattern, can not copyright "common names" ie COKE or basic patterns ie: bowtuck ( has now become name for certain style ), not valid if not know (not printed). I now think that designers just put such statements such as " only for person use or charitable contribution" to scare you into into not making item for sale/profit. Contact your local patent attorney for more info!

I have heard that Fons & Porter are very restrictive in their copyrighted patterns too......

This section of the copyright law discusses how a copyright/registration is obtained: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.pdf

It is generally accepted that anytime someone creates something, it is protected under copyright (providing it is an original work). It is their intellectual property, and no part of the WORDS OR IMAGES may be reproduced for sale without their written permission. Whatever other wording a designer/author adds beyond that is just posturing on their part.

If infringement is suspected, the designer has to register their work with the copyright office in order to seek legal damages.

Thanks, Ghostrider, for good sense. These discussions drive me crazy because, while it is clear that people who buy quilt patterns cannot legally copy those patterns and sell or give them away, the creator of the pattern could not possibly retain control over the items made using the pattern. Suppose he/she stipulated that the item could only be used to cover a bed and not a couch, for a dog bed and not a cat bed, and so on ad infinitum. Of course the designer should be compensated for his/her intellectual property; no one is contesting that, but to say that the person who buys supplies to make an item using that pattern, puts in hours of labor, uses capital goods over which he/she has effective control (sewing machine, cutting mat, scissors, rotary cutters, etc.) has no right to profit from his/her investment is absurd. People get their pay for their intellectual creativity when they sell their pattern. Here's another thing--most patterns I buy come from a third party, i.e., a quilt shop that has already paid the pattern creator or his/her agent. Does that give the retailer a proprietary right in the pattern so that if I am going to use the pattern I have to buy fabric and other supplies from that quilt shop? Give me a break! Use a little sense! froggyintexas

None of what you claimed in the above quote has anything to do with patterns and their use to make and sell articles. Nor does 30 years experience as an artist, etc.

The US Supreme Court stated in 1879 that copyright protection in a pattern does not extend to a dress made from that copyrighted pattern. Then, in 1908, the US Supreme Court stated that a copyright owner cannot invoke restrictions on use of a copyrighted article by printing those restrictions on the article, it required a contract between the parties. A contract requires agreement between the parties before the transaction. And the federal courts have long maintained that the owner of a copyrighted article loses control over that particular copy once it has been sold or given away.

No permission is needed to make and sell articles. Only ONE copy of a pattern is needed to make more than one article. And the copyright protection that is automatic under the law is the protection of ownership, not enforcement of the copyright. A copyright MUST be registered with the copyright office before any civil action can be initiated. The exclusive rights provided under copyright law do not become effective until after it is registered because if it cannot be enforced in court then there are no rights simply upon fixation.

We have researched thousands of federal court cases. There are no federal court cases that have gone to trial over the use of a pattern to make and sell articles. The closest one was from the 1930s where a designer had copyrighted a drawing of a dress. The designer then tried to sue someone who making copies of the dress to sell. The federal court in New York rejected the claims saying that it was the drawing of the dress that was copyrighted, not the dress itself. And that is consistent with federal decisions on other copyright matters.

I was inspired by a design I saw on a set of dishes. I did not copy the design exactly but it is very similar to the design that inspired me. Is it a copywrite issue to be inspired by a design and then made into an entirely new medium? In this case, dishware design to fabric quilt. I have no intention of selling this quilt but I may display it at a fair.

I think I would have done the same thing. I won't buy a pattern if I can't use it to make items for sale. The price of patterns is so high that I can't justify buying them to make once for myself and then packing them away. I don't want several quilts made from the same pattern. I like variety. Designers are going to copyright themselves out of business.

When my grandsons were little I bought a Brother Ult 2001 Disney embroidery and sewing machine. The built-in Disney designs were really cute. The boys soon outgrew the cutsie Disney designs and since Disney copyright prohibited sale of any items using the designs, I traded the Brother machine in on a Babylock Esante. It had lots of beautiful designs without strangling copyright issues. I don't think Brother has designs on their machines that have such restrictions now.

My understanding is that the words and directions are copyrighted but you may sell things made using a pattern as long as you aren't mass producing. How would these designers make any money if we didn't buy their patterns. When I rang the copyright office here in Australia I was told if I had paid for the pattern I had also paid for limited license as well. As others have said if the don't want us using them don't sell them in the public domain.

Are you in the USA? If so, you're well meaning, I'm sure. You are wrong. Period. Even if you put the words " for personal use only" on your package, you have no legal basis to claim this 'rule' as part of your copyright. Read the "First Use Doctrine" which specifies what the copyright holder can and cannot do with a sewing pattern. You can NOT make any of the claims you wrote in your post. The Federal Trade Commission enforces the First Use Doctrine to protect consumers from unscrupulous copyright holders.

jaciqltznok, you're confused about the issue here. You are well meaning and I know you're trying to help clear the confusion. I hope I can help! The ladies are having a conversation about copyrights. But when you join in to disagree with the ladies about 'oranges', you disagree, telling the ladies they can't do such and such with "apples". Let me see if I can simplify it... The ladies mention you can't put a rule on your pattern that says "you may squeeze this orange into only a yellow glass". You join in to disagree, saying "yes you can cut a apple on a cutting board." I hope this helps you see that the discussion about patents and trademarks (by the way, these are also entirely different things, you can't possibly compare either one of them to what you are allowed with a copyright) doesn't belong in a discussion about copyright issues. They are completely different. I hope this helps! I see you getting very frustrated and I'm hoping to help, not offend!

With patents, a patent holder would NEVER create directions for someone else to make something resembling their item. The patent protects and controls that only, for example, IBM can make such and such item. IBM would NEVER create instructions to teach someone else how to create their item.

With trademarks... these have NOTHING to do with paper directions of any kind. A trademark is a piece of artwork or logo or possibly a name. For example, the pantone color number for the brown UPS trucks is a trademark of UPS. No other company or person can use that exact color number for anything.

In other words... no sane designer would ever patent a doll or quilt pattern. And no sane designer would 'trademark a pattern to create a quilt or a doll. If they did, it would be impossible to sell to another person.

Again, I hope this helps.

Agree..,so sad....

No, that poster is in Canada. Canadian copyright law is much more protective of the copyright holder, based on the principle that whomever creates a work controls how that work is used. Canadian copyright law gives the copyright owner the right to set a fee and conditions for every use of the work.

However, if a work created in one country is used in another country, then the laws of that country (the country of the user) apply. Therefore, no reason at all for US quilters to worry about where a pattern originated...US copyright law will apply for all of them.

This arguing and worrying the issue takes all the fun out of buying a pattern, getting fabric to make it, producing it, and giving it to a happy recipient. As I said ONLY THE LAWYERS COME OUT AHEAD ON THIS​! I'm not reading anymore copyright blogs. They make me too angry. What happened to the days when our great grams shared patterns made out of cardboard or from a newspaper pattern. Good grief.

Canadian Copyright law protects creative endeavours by ensuring that the creator has the sole right to authorize their publication, performance or reproduction (section 3(1)).

Which is the same as the US. I'm not finding what you are talking about. Do you have the statute number? A copyright owner in the US can set a fee and condition - it's called a contract. Generally restrictions upon use have to be stated and agreed to before a purchase.

christine- Are you saying all quilters/designers are crazy!!!!!!!!!Oh course we are!!!!!!! (I speak for myself!)

I agree that this is the way it should be but some people only care about money

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.

But Disney characters are protected by trademarks, not copyright.

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

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

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!!!

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

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

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/

Could you please cite the exact statute you are quoting?

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.

Iam not confussed. A copyright applies to the method in which the pattern is put together: ie-=10 min. quilt blocks. there is nothing new under the sun.====geometricly a block is a block and and triangle is a triangle. all has been copyrighted hundreds of years ago. so only the new fabric with the certain design can be copy righted. You people out there can fight and sue each other all you want but and that is a big but-----all kinds of extending type circumstances exist for a geometric design. See the Greeks in the 700's for designs. You print and sell a design it is yours you paid for it like buying a car or a piece of furniture, like the lady said Is my stove copyrighted????? can't sell it cause the lady across the street is selling her----------don't think so!..... Just check the method of putting the blks together as far as copyright goes. And that is mostlikely why I cannot find the fabric I like----they only make 1 copyright bolt and sell it and thats that.????

after all of this copyright garbage I have decided I do not need any of their patterns books or magazines I have a big supply from the 1980's when the book writers and pattern makers were proud of their work and very pleased to see someone who liked them enough to buy the fabric to make them in those days I really respected those people but in this day and age and the greed I have lost my respect for them and if you really want to see some good patterns and magazine articles just check out some of those older ones this new stuff with their greed and selfishness cannot hold a candle to the quilters past

I don't have a supply of anything as I just began sewing again a few years ago & was only strictly making parrot quilts. I learned the basics when I was around 10 years old by going to work with my Father, who worked for singer just about all his life until they started shutting their stores down but I am learning a lot from this board! (Note to self...pick up my Singer 301 at Mom's house!) I have never even considered looking online or in fabric stores for quilt patterns as there is just sooo much to see on here with the many people who do share their tips, hints, patterns & such.
10 years later, I learned how to make a trip around the world quilt from my x hubby's grandmother. 30 more years later, I resumed again, making the parrot quilts for fundraisers for a real nasty parrot disease that had killed many of my birds. It was therapy.
I have had many, many people write me & ask me if they could have a copy of the patterns & if there was any way I could copy them I gladly would but once I have drawn the bird & cut it out, I am left with as many as 10-12 little scraps of paper per bird! All of their pieces (well, most) are marked with color, but many are not. Once I am done with 1 bird pattern, I pin the pieces together with no identifying markings as to breed. The box I keep them in is just a jumble of paper with pins in it. Some are even very hard for me to remember how to put them back together once I cut them out again for another if there were many colors. It's easier for me to offer to tell them how I came up with the patterns, or if it is an official non-profit organization, I'll make one for them. I'm also doing some quilts for kids quilts, another thing I would have never known about had I not found this board. I guess sometimes it's best not to look any further than your own back yard, which is kinda what this board feels like with the many talented, helpful hands on here :D

What I do is change the pattern up a little bit. Then I can do what I want too. Sorry but I pay 10$ to 15$ a pattern I should be able to do what I want. So yes I am BAD!!!!!!!!!

Just for giggles, (for those of you thinking "no one can be THAT messy!") a picture of my "pattern box" The one to the right has not been cut yet is a black headed caique that will be cut into 9 pieces plus 3 more pieces for the eye & feet.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]328077[/ATTACH]

This is splitting hairs. Brenda most certainly did loose. She could NOT keep the woman from selling the finished quilt, the product of the pattern purchased. The ONLY thing she could do was prevent use of the Name of the quilt.

So, her copyright did not prevent anyone from selling a quilt made from the pattern that was purchased because she cannnot control the outcome of the finished product of a purchased pattern. She could only say "you can't call it what I called it".
That is not winning the case when she wanted to control the finished product of a purchased pattern.

Whether you like taberone or not, her site gives the cases and results of those cases that the copyright.gov tolk about but does not explain very well.

Most of the these cases do not go to court because too many souls out there will not stand up for their rights. The designers get a lawyer to send a letter to intimidate the seller and threaten with suits and $$$ so the rightfully selling party backs off and allow the designer to continue believing that they can control everything they've thought of since sliced bread. The designers must have a Patent to do this, not a copyright. And, there is no copyright on intelligence, and creativity. That is pure gibberish, and enflated ego.

If more quilters would realize that copyright ande patent are not the same things, and stand firm on their right to make a quilt according to a pattern, and sell it, or give it away, the designers' power would wane.

another case related to stencils. The legal requirement for using a copyrighted stencil on a customers quilts required the stencil be purchased by or for the owner of the quilt. then it was his or her stencil that could be used on his or her quilt. Rather than do the right thing and build in the cost of the stencil and give it back to the quiltmaker.......qulters moaned and groaned about it and said it was not right........
If you take the pattern of my Avatar and make a quilt and display it for the world...it technically and legally is my design and not yours. Who should get the credit or at least the mention of credit.

Good question. As an example, how was Candlequilter able to copy the block from a quilt displayed on here, create the block in EQ7, call it the Candlequilter Star, then get it copyrighted? I am sure I am missing something here and I apologize for not reading every post on the Board to figure this copyright stuff out. Thanks for everyone giving us the heads-up on it.

Some sites have lots of designs that are free. You have to read everything and I just opt for the old/non-copyrighted ones. In any case, I don't sell mine so have little to worry about right now.

Also, if you alter a quilt and they can identify the source, then you can be in trouble. You really have to alter it a lot.
From another quilter here:
"If your pattern came from somebody else's pattern you saw it is still theirs--is the way I understand it. The IDEA came from 'their hard work....' ..."

Also, you do not have to get a copyright # on an item/idea whatever if you don't want to. The question is ONLY if you want to argue it and you have to prove you did it first.
And if you do register it with the patent office, you have the jump on someone but still have to prove it in order to sue or get compensation.

I think it is nuts. There is very little NEW under the sun anyway. Not that I think anyone and everyone should take and not give credit where credit is due. It's just that if you publish a book of patterns, then let people name their source and then, IMHO, sell it and claim with materials and work they did and their interpretation of the pattern.

Right now a friend of mine is having trouble with folks who download her images (photography) and share and do not link back to her so she gets credit and eventually payment for any image used. She has a couple images on Getty images and someone there sued Getty for a photo within a photo that was copyrighted...

I had a look at Bonnie Hunter's website and found she has a very sensible copyright statement. As I was reading other messages about copyright, I was surprised to see that some demand you cannot sell the product you produce with their free pattern. That is insane. There is one lady I know who has a daily mailing list and she sends quite a few cute pictures, music, and links to encourage everyone; however, she has a nasty copyright statement that says you better not forward anything from her message without including her name! She did not invent those things, she merely collects them from the www. The links belong to someone else, so how could she have a copyright at all?

Anyway, off my soap box now and want to send you a very friendly copyright statement from Bonnie:
*Note* You may print the patterns from this website for your own use! Feel free to share them with your friends. I encourage you to use the patterns to teach a class, make quilts to sell, to donate to charity and exhibit in your guild quilt shows! However, just because the patterns here are free for your use, does not mean you can use them with the intent to sell the patterns themselves. Please respect copyright policy and keep the pieceful spirit of quilting alive and well!