I have this crazy vision in my head of these mags hiring people to scurry all over the country/world in search of quilts that have been made using their designs!
:shock: :twisted:
Just give credit to the designer of the design on the label and let them do their worst.

There are so many things that are similar in nature to this debate:

- recipes. If I follow a recipe out of a book, does that mean I can't sell (or enter in the fair) the product of that recipe?

- art instruction books. If I buy a book, and follow the instructions in it on how to draw a picture, does that mean I can't sell or display publicly the product of that work?

- soap. There's tons of recipes out there for making handmade soap. Does that mean I can't follow someone else's instructions on how to make soap, and then sell the product?

- web design/programming. I speak from this personally. If I follow the instructions in a book on how to do something programming related, does that mean I can't distribute/sell the end product if it includes that code?

It all seems so ridiculous. People/companies sell instructions for items, so that other people can MAKE the product in question. They have copyright over the instructions themselves (meaning I can't copy the instructions and distribute them or sell them), but they should have NO control over the end product, in my opinion.

These quilting magazines that are declaring ownership/control over the quilts that are made from their designs are claiming more control than is given to them from copyright, if you ask me. Just because they say it is so, doesn't make it so.

buying used quilt books from websites, garage sales and this forum - if they contain original quilt projects, is this not a violation? well - queen of violators here then, 'cause i have bought a lot of second hand books etc. call all quilt police...!

Why don't we all just quit buying mags and patterns.

Well, I can answer that for myself at least. I don't see any reason to. They broaden my horizons, I learn tons even if I don't make the quilts inside, and I enjoy them! The things that seem to be annoying so many people on this board don't annoy me at all. I feel like this has become one giant game of telephone - with a lot of assumptions being made that just aren't true. Several people have very clearly and succinctly summarized copyright law for us, and yet the misinformation persists. I, for one, am not going to blame McCall's quilting, Quilter's Home, Fons and Porter, or any designer, for a copyright law that was written by a bunch of politicians in Washington, D.C., and I'm happy to credit and even ask permission of a designer to show his or her quilt if I thought enough of his or her design to make a copy of it.

This is quite true. It is not allowed to copy something as is or in part.
However, nobody can keep you from using a common language (common design elements) to express the same work (work of art) in your unique way.

You cannot copy a painting by Paul Klee brush stroke by graphic element. People do have a rightful commercial interest in a particular unique painting but NOT in a style of painting.

However, YOU CAN paint in the same style using the same style elements in your way.

A quilt is a work of art. The artists use common generally known elements. These elements are NOT copyrighted like language cannot be copyrighted (copying somebody's assay is a totally different matter. Claiming copyrights on the elements in a work of art and claiming infringement because somebody used commonly known and commonly available (not new or unique) elements is not as easy as some designers would like the public to believe.)

I think if you design a pattern and then publish it worldwide, then it is for the world to use as they see fit. Just my opinion.

I stopped buying quilt patterns or magazines. This way, anything I do is MINE! I gave credit on the label of my 'Happy Hearts' quilt, to the person I bought the precut from, the lady who LQ ed it, and myself. Unlike others...quiltzilas...I don't have the ego it takes, to not share credit.

The copyright laws will not let you get away with making just a change to the design. And no, you can't do it and call it your own from the picture. These people deserve to be paid for their creativity. All you have to do is have each person print they mystery or block instead of copying it for everyone. I thought quilters were honest people who played by the rules. Magazines wouldn't have the statement if they weren't being broken by many people.

They deserve to be paid for their creativity, they don't deserve a royalty everytime I sell a quilt!

Thanks for all the information.

I think that if we are all worried and confused and wondering the sales of quilt books and magazines will go down... and patterns too. I am sure that is not what they are looking for as I am sure they like to have our money. I purchased a pattern recently, which I rarely do anymore, and then a few days later found a similar one in a magazine on my shelf. It is probably on the internet too! How confusing! Face it, I could happily quilt for the rest of my days on the free stuff from the internet and old books I have collected over many years.

I very rarely buy patterns, magazines or books anymore because there are so many free ideas on the net. I have probably 10 years worth of work ahead of me that I could just sit locked in my room and have all I need! I get so much inspiration from this board and I typically do my own thing anyway. I don't worry about copywrites because I follow the rules in regards to pattern purchases and not sharing them with others. I second the idea of being more creative, and finding inspirations from free "stuff" on the net that can't come back and bite you later. Plus, if you think it up on your own, it's all yours. Another bonus!

Let's all get creative and start designing our own cool quilts!

You are so right. it seems to me they are stealing from the past and making us pay for it
:( :( :(

Haven't read all the post yet but I did read the article. I think it was a load of crap. Just 2 pages over from article there was a quilt pattern by some gal claiming it was her orginal & was a pattern that had been many times over. Not hers. Maybe the fabric selection was hers but the pattern has been around for years. When I read the article I thought lady you don't know what you are talking about. She needed to read the copyright laws because she was totally not quoting them right.

Dakota is really limited on their stuff if it is licensed, personnel use only. I think you can sell the other stuff. Anita Goodesigns will allow you 50 & you have to have permission for more. Are you saying that people are selling used designs & the buyer is getting in trouble for buying used stuff?

In 1908 the Supreme Court ruled that a copyright owner cannot place use restrictions upon their product by simply printing on it limitations absent a written contract. In 1879 the Supreme Court ruled that a copyright on a dress pattern did not extend to the end product (The Supreme Court did not rule on the validity of the copyright for the dress pattern as that issue was not before the Court).

Not one of your major pattern companies holds a registered copyright on an individual pattern for clothing. Not one of the major pattern companies posts use restrictions for their patterns on their numerous web sites (McCall’s has 13 web sites). Not one of the major pattern companies has filed a federal lawsuit that has gone to trial over the use of clothing patterns or over what is made from them. What does that tell you about the so-called right of the designer to limit your use of the pattern once it has been sold to you?

Drum roll please. Thank you, Thank you.

I agree completely!

This is Not true.
Once published, it belongs to the designer for 75 years, or 90 years, or whatever someone mentioned is the rule.

Publication does not equal free nor copyright free.

Of course, this applies only to the Pattern, not the products (actual quilt) of making the pattern.

So right. That's what is copyrighted.
We have to separate in our minds the quilt from the instructions for the quilt.
Like El Burns' printed shortcut methods, and Marti Michelle's printed shortcut methods, and Karen McTavish's written methods for feathering -- These are copyrighted.
Not the quilts we make from them.

.

Indeed.
And not to mention they aren't making any friends with all their anal restrictions.

A person's work is their own by assumption. They do not even have to make the statement.
On the other hand, PROVING it in a court would mean having the legal registration paperwork to back up the claim.
So Yes it's true the website's contents are copyrighted, but in a contest over it, proof might be costly and hard to do.
.

I belong to 1 site that is forever cautioning about using her patterns for other than personal use and there is even a site that tells how to report seeing her patterns used for the purpose of selling the item. Another site that I buy patterns from has my name at the top of the page as a reminder that it was sold to me and that "copying and distributing" is prohibited and it is for personal use only. I don't like that, but I do like their patterns because I can download them immediately!

Lordy lordy, ain't it the truth.
Me too.

I think that is terrible for any business to do!!!! Asking for tattletales!!!

Here's another "Texas Girl" who agrees with you too!!! :D :D

Ugg!!

I am not going to suscribe to any of the magazines. They all seem to repeat and repeat the same patterns. They only lace the pieces different. When you pay for the suscription you also buy the rights, I thought. I agree- these patterns have been around for hundreds of years.

There is one way that yes you can proove it by going to a notery and have your documents stamped before you put the pattern out. It dates it and it is the proof of ownership that it is your design and it becomes a matter of law. Once stamped it can't be changed for any reason.

Okay, what about this: Someone brings you a quilt pattern and contracts to pay to make it for them, is this a violation of the copyright? If so, it would mean no one could make a quilt for someone else for payment for their time. Kind of a scary thought.

I wouldn't think so. Afterall, the quilt is being made from a righteously purchased pattern.
The person who bought the pattern will own the quilt.
The person making the quilt will not own the quilt nor the pattern.

This is not so when you only buy the license to use a product (software is another example of the same thing). When you buy MS's Office software then you don't own the software. You have bought only the license to use it.
And yes, does MS ever restrict usage....

Just don't buy any patterns sold with such restrictions. There are a gazillion ways to put commonly used quilting elements together your way (the only right way).

The emphasis is on "commonly used" and "commonly available".

You can't have (and won't get) copyrights on commonly available patterns. Period. For a design to be protected it must be NEW AND UNIQUE.

The 'day and night pattern' on the quilters cache site for example is neither new nor unique. Don't worry about using it the way you see fit.

Why would anybody pay good money for patterns (or the license to use a pattern for personal use only) that your own head can produce for you by the dozens in an hour?

The problem with using software as an example is the fact that neither Microsoft nor any other company makes you ask permission to send off a letter that you wrote with their office program. You can even write the next Great American Novel and send it off to be published and Microsoft doesn't care a whit about it. All they want to know is, did you buy the program legally and did you make a copy of the program to pass around.

In fact, that's all that EQ cares about also - buy the program legally and don't pass it out (which you can't do anyway because of the way the programming is written)

Exactly. I don't question that notion.

It is the designers who use the same model for their copyright restrictions regardless the fact that the use of the license reproduces their product. They should realize that such a restriction renders their product (the pattern) almost useless.

There are in fact many programs similar to MS Office using the same programming language. You just can't copy the MS Office program and sell it or use more than one copy of it at a time.

I should have said that very clearly:
The notion that a "designer" claims copyrights on Greatgrannie's designs is ridiculous.
It won't stand up in court either.

Okay -- to keep this going. I have the June 2010 issue of Quilter's World in front of me. Page 4 says "This publication may not be reproduced in part or in whole without written permission from the publisher".......I take this to mean you can't reproduce the MAGAZINE....nothing about the quilts. But I'm going to write their customer service and CLARIFY that we can produce and SELL quilts from their patterns....while NOT selling the patterns.

I challenge you all, if you have magazines that say otherwise, WRITE the publisher and ask them to clarify.....If they respond that we can't sell the quilts, inform them we will NOT be buying their magazines and that you're on a forum with 1000s of quilters and will be passing the info on.....does this sound good?

Excellent.

That will work.

We don't need their magazines. This site is so much more fun. I get all the inspiration I need from this site alone.

BTW, some excellent designers publish their patterns for use without any restrictions. I try to buy their fabric as often as possible. Our money is the ticket. That's how we establish some honesty and clarity in this great craft.

We need to compile a list of these folks as well as writing to the magazines.

Support those who support us, I say.
.