jaciqltznok

PLEASE stop posting this site...it is NOT the Holy Bible of Copyright law. and YES, people are sueing/being sued over the use of fabric to make items for sale that have this "not for commercial use" printed on the selvages.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

We are always interested in this subject and search specifically for suits like this. Since you know of some can you please post them here so we can research further?

Please give specifics. The only place I have seen any turmoil on this issue is on message boards, forums and blogs. There is no factual information anywhere, just rumor, heresay, speculation, panic and hysteria.

I have spoken with fabric retailers, large and small, and they are not concerned. I suspect the Emily Cier case that Prism mentioned is based entirely on the right of public display granted to copyright owners (the exception of display in person by a legal copy owner does not fit if you publish a picture in a book) and has absolutely nothing at all to do with this 'not for commercial use' hoopla.

Show me proof that anyone has brought suit against anyone else for selling something made from fabric restricted by 'not for commercial use' on the selvage. We are NOT talking about licensed fabrics, trademarked designs, or anything other than simple, straight-forward quilting fabric restricted to 'personal use only' by the designer. So much rumor (how many threads are going on this subject now?), so little proof.

And FYI, olebat, one item sold one time constitutes 'commercial'. It is not a matter of quantity, legal organization, or intent.

Do you have some links to these situations so we can read about them and what's happening or what has happened specifically?

Respectfully, I must disagree with ghostrider.

Rules of commerce differ from state tostate, and intentionally. However reading through multiple reliabledefinitions, the consensus is that commercial sales are in quantity,or volume, orwork that is intended for the mass market, orproducedand distributed in large quantities for use by industry. One solditem is not a commercial venture.

Very good information. Thank you.

Was it donated for a reason other than the writing of the book, or making it into a printed pattern? It may have been donated for use in a charity type project. A simple note to the designer, asking permission and making sure to let her/him know that they will be given full credit in the book for the fabric.

Great information! Many thanks for the research. Makes perfect sense.

Then why was a quilter in our area told to stop selling, with threat of lawsuit, items made by her from the Elvis Presley fabric she had purchase? Sorry, but I am still in a quandry.

First off I think the issue with Emily is a cease and desist letter not a lawsuit.

I got a cease and desist years ago from Precious Moments telling me I had 48 hours to disable my listing with an item made from their fabric. When I sent them the information from the lawsuit they had lost in 1996 I never heard another world.

There is a lot of misinformation. I've been told by the clerks at Hancocks and JoAnns that I can't use licensed fabric to make items. I quote federal law, they tell me they have a memo from corporate.

As an many areas in life people need to be armed with the facts.

Who threatened the seller? Was it verbal, was it written, was it a cease and desist from a law firm? Not very many facts here.

Thank you so much, I was going to ignore it anyway HAHA

Thank you for looking into this and posting the information. :)

Thanks for the information.

Thank you for doing the research on this for us! Makes sense!

The big point, and thanks for pointing it out, is that a large percentage of the people posting to these threads are confusing two issues.

The "Emily Cier" case really doesn't have anything to do with "Not for Commercial Use" printed on the fabric selvedge.

The former is a designer trying to prevent a pattern designer from using images of her fabrics in a book. Why, we don't know. The manufacturer of the fabric apparently gave needed permission. Perhaps the fabric designer has had a falling-out with the manufacturer, it happens quite often in the business.

But that case really has NO bearing on the item of concern here, and I don't understand why people are getting worked up about it. What most of us really want to know is if we need to pay attention to the selvedge statements "Not for commercial use, etc" and whether we need to worry about being sued over making a couple of placemats or pot-holders or soft books or crib quilts and then selling them at our local craft fair, etc.

And the fact is -- No, you don't, unless you are buying the fabric wholesale and mass-manufacturing/mass-marketing the items. The notices on fabric are put there mainly to restrain large-scale manufacturers from using licensed fabrics to manufacture items, thereby co-opting the original licensor from their lawful use of their designs, and more specifically, to prevent the licensed manufacturer from selling the fabric into the manufacturing market.

So, the licensor can require that the manufacturer puts the notice on the fabric, they can also dictate who to and for what purpose the fabric is sold by the manufacturer, restraining them from selling the fabric to manufacturers of merchandise. Thus, the manufacturer is forced to sell the fabric only into the retail market. Once it has been sold into the retail market, the licensor CANNOT in fact dictate to the end retail customer what purpose the fabric is put to by that retail customer.

This is well-established in legal decisions. Original licensors, if they've done their homework, already know they don't have a case, so it's highly unlikely they'll waste money coming after you, the home crafter.

There have been several cases of companies trying, and in every case, they've failed.

These threads are very interesting to me, even though at this point I am no where near able to sell any of my projects. Just to play devils advocate, there might be another reason for printing "no commercial use" on their fabrics. In this sue-happy society we live in, these manufacturers might be attempting to protect themselves from litigation. Hypothetically, imagine I buy Disney fabric and make a tote which I sell at a flee market. Someone gives this to their child who then injures themselves with the bag. May be the kid was allergic to something on the bag, or they pinched themselves with the zipper, or God-forbid, they strangled themselves with the strap. These days, people will look for someone to sue over something like this. Are they gonna sue a lady who sells stuff at flea markets, or Disney? They could look for a lawyer who will try to make some legal argument how Disney is responsible for an injury. That little line on the selvage might just be extra protection in case of litigation against that company.

If it's a cease and desist from a law firm you never ignore those. You reply with facts that support your position. In the case of fabric it's Precious Moments, First Sale Doctrine and Equitable Servitude. Amongst others but those are the basics.

Because 1. the fabric manufacturers and/or fabric designers or trying to limit free enterprise even if they are wrong.
and 2. even lawyers can be wrong. If you read the background of some of the examples on the www.tabberone.com website you'll see many instances of lawyers pushing for 'cease and desist orders' who are found to be wrong in a court of law, evidenced by the sited court cases.
Just two of the reasons this issue is so confusing for people.

I'm not that straight lined to follow fine print attached to fabric sold in a public store.

[QUOTE=olebat;4714309]Before everyone gets upset over the selvage statements, please inform yourself of the true meaning of the selvage or bolt end statements, such as, "licensed fabric," "personal use only," or "non-commercial home use only". Today, I spoke with the owner of a business, a LQS owner, and did some research. This site is boiled down into simple terms that we should all be able to understand. http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/...edFabric.shtml [SIZE=4] If, after reading this link, you still want to avoid the purchase of these fine fabrics, O.K. That will just leave more for those of us who understand that we are not breaking the law...

Thanks for the info. It was very confusing situation.

Thank you for the information.

Thank you! I had read the site listed before, but couldn't remember what it was.

thank you for researching this...

Thanks for the info! Really appreciate your post.

I have to argree with Pam, get legal advice from a lawyer if you are worried. In the website it also said to document, document and docuement so you can defend yourself if and when you are sued. Sounds to me like the companies don't agree with us that we can use the fabric since we bought it. I will continue to bouycott licensed fabric. Just my 2 cents worth.

Just to repeat, we're not lawyers and we sued Disney and MLB, Sanrio, United Media on our own.

A bit after we were through with all these companies (we had gone through everyone whose fabric we were using) the Stanford School of Law used us as a class project. They provided us with a sample suit and a motion for summary judgement which are on the site.

A seller I know who got shutdown by Laurel Burch used the Stanford law suit and backed down Laurel Burch.

Thanks for posting the information.

I read the article. I think it basically means you can use the fabric you purchase for whatever you like. You cannot reproduce the fabric and sell it as your own (for example taking a pictue of it and sending it to Spoonflower to have it made). Then selling it as your own fabric.

Thanks for the post. I appreciated getting the info to help clear up an important issue.

Thank you for researching this issue and finding answers. This is very informative and certainly puts to rest much of the concern about selling items made of licensed fabrics/copyrighted fabrics.

Thank you for sharing the link

The fabric was not reproduced; a picture of the fabric used in a quilt was printed. A use for the fabric was shown. If we carry this argument to its idiotic conclusion, if you buy yarn and knit a garment with that yarn, you could not sell it because the yarn is copyrighted.
Come on! most judges, most juries and most people have at least a little sense. froggyintexas

I agree, and, upon further digging, changed my opinion to a violation of the right to public display. My apologies for being wrong; no need to yell.

Yes, I agree.

It was sent by letter from a law firm and it was a cease and desist. Perhaps this has been clairified by law/lawsuits since then but either way, it is nice to know someone has a pulse on protecting our rights to be creative and cover the cost of or addiction to quilting and all that entails. Thanks for the information.

Thanks for the great information

Nice to know, however, I was wondering when I sold to a craft shop. They had a statement, you can sell
what you have made yourself at your home. It a small amount clause you can sale to a small shop, resale,etc.
The amount which I have forgotten. But it was for small personnel home town shops not selling to anyone
in business, or people reselling items. You could only put 5 items of one kind in there shop. I think the shop
said it was under small personnel home business craft. The shop is out of business now. Wish I had more information.

What we are talking about is the business of quilting. Before the sewing machine quilts were made by hand, once machines made sewing more economical, quilts became something easy to be had and made money for factory owners. We as quilters have been saying that no one wants to pay us our due for the work we do. Now quilters are saying the same thing about business who trademark or copyright their materials. The disney company didn't wake up one morning and over a weekend design material for us to use. It cost much time, many paychecks, and money. We are not being told we can't use the material. But if the only reason you work is selling, or you choose a material for a project is because you know it's a trademark item,that is sure to sell, then you should just get a liscene and then you can charge what you will.
Just last week a woman asked that I make a couple of quilts out the the disney collection, I said only if she brought the material herself, and I would only charge for the time and labor, and yes I would return all scraps back to her. That is making something for personal use.
I worked in a factory once and when they were finished a batched job for a large deparment store, the store took back all stencils and the ink that they used.
Let's give others the same credit we ask for ourselves.

oldbalt99 - really? Now did you get your purchaser to sign an agreement stating that when she got tired of the quilt she would destroy it rather then sell it at a yard sale? That is what would be required for personal use. There is something called equitable servitude in the law. Attaching a fair condition to use can only be done with the consent of both parties in writing. I've yet to see a fabric company make me sign something when I purchase fabric that says for personal use only. And that statement is not binding under federal law.

Federal law supports the use of trademarked/copyrighted items to create something else as long as

1. you don't try and market it as a licensed item and

2. you don't live in the 9th Circuit.

And Disney made their money when they sold a license to Springs to print the fabric. Springs made their money when they sold it to JoAnn Fabrics. And the fabric store made their money when they sold it to you. And you make your money when you sell it to your customer. No one is being cheated out of their fair share.

Having read everything, it sounds to me like we should all be presuring our quilting suppliers (LQS or Joann's or B. Franklin or whoever) to not buy fabric that sounds threatening. The producers can make it more clear (and put it more clearly on the selvage) and if it still sounds threatening, our shops should simply not buy it and expose their customers to such a potential problem. My dad was one of the lawyers who wouldn't take a case if he felt it was wrong... and often his cases involved the "little guy vs the big corp." There have been posted too many examples of little guys (us) being threatened. Maybe some of those little guys were quilters who share their skills and expertise, and they are a wonderful part of the quilting culture. I'm not going to buy any fabric that feels it has the right to limit what I do with it. I never sell anything, but I have put things up for raffle for charitible causes. I don't like the smell around this subject. I'm out! I'll check every selvage before I buy from now on, and only buy the threat-free frabrics@