original design
 

When does a quilt become an original design or how many changes have to be made from a pattern to become an original design?

If it is recognized as a certain design from someone else it is not an original design. If you ( design) a quilt using someone else's pattern as a base you should acknowledge that, on the label and in Any/All on line postings/pictures state ( based on the pattern _------, by _--------) to avoid any questions/issues. To me its simply not an original if you use someone else's pattern. An original
Is made from scratch- with your own sketches ( computer design software if used) own ideas.... Your own design

I almost never make a quilt exactly as the pattern calls for. I would never call it an original design of mine because only a small part of it is new. Instead, I call them variations of xx xxxxx pattern by xxx xxxxxxx.

Unless it is some idea that has never been done before, now that is an original design. I tweak many quilt patterns to suit what I want to do but I never claim the final quilt an original pattern.

NO changes. Changes make it a variation or adaptation of something else... not original. An original design starts with an original thought. Something new.

I think an original design means that you've thought of/drafted/executed it entirely yourself, from scratch, without reference to any pattern. In other words, it came entirely out of your own head. A person might think they've come up with an original design, and later discover that it wasn't actually original (meaning, someone else had done something very similar before, unbeknownst to them).

Oh, dear! Here we go on this subject again! Not your fault, but here is the deal as I see it. There are four patches, 9 patches, 16 patches and 36 patches. There are half square triangles and 1/4 square triangles. There are rectangles, squares, hexagons and other polygons. There are circles, ovals, half circles and arcs. There are as many appliques as there are tangible and imaginary plants and animals. Probably there are other geometric and artistic elements that I have missed. There must be infinite ways to combine these elements. If you buy a pattern and it is copyrighted, which it probably will be, and if you follow it exactly, give credit to the pattern maker for the instructions if it is a geometic quilt. However, remember that the pattern maker did not invent squares, circles, rectangles, etc. If you are using someone's original applique pattern--you traced it and then sewed it down as I intend to do tomorrow--give credit for the art work and the instructions. For goodness sake, everyone, quit worrying over someone's trying to copyright a 4 inch square, e.g. froggyintexas

Not to get everyone in a tizzy but I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. There are infinite ways to incorporate all of these shapes/elements. My experience - tho limited - is that most of the blocks/elements that are 'original' are simply the designer's take on these various elements.

The pixelated heart I'm working on was from a google image of a pixelated heart. It wasn't a pattern-it looked like some kind of clip art. I used it just as a basis for figuring out how to place the squares.

Aside from that, it's mine. (or is it...)

My sentiments, exactly. (including Froggy's reply, in it's entirety.)

At my age I don't give original quilt design a second thought.

I agree also. It's like a base recipe with future varied adaptations.

There are kind of two ends to this question, in my observation. There is the maker who wants to use a pattern or design, but make changes enough so that they can call their work original. And there is the designer who wants to make a pattern and hold ownership of that pattern and what might be considered offshoots of that design. And then there are a whole lot of sub-categories of issues under those two categories.

I've seen cases where a designer/pattern maker is miffed that someone makes a design, makes a ton of changes and adaptations, and then still cites them in the end result. It is kind of the equivalent of the people on Epicurious who give a recipe 5 stars, but then in the review say that they changed almost every single thing about the recipe.

And then there are the designers who make up a pattern straight out of their own head, with no outside influences, and they go to market their design and are outraged when people inform them that what they have there is a traditional Irish chain.

The nature of quilting as a craft and as an art is that it has history, it's collaborative, and it's flexible and constantly changing even as it draws on traditions. I have the most respect and appreciation for quilters (at any level of skill or artistry) who recognize this and who give credit for influences and input when that's due, but who are also humble enough to admit that there really is nothing new under the sun, and even the most amazing innovations are drawing on the works of other quilters.

I almost never buy or use a pattern, but I love looking at library books and photos and websites and quilt bloggers. Obviously all of the quilts I look at funnel into my brain and influence what I make up on my own. I can't give credit specifically to the influence, because not one maker or designer is the inspiration to the best of my knowledge. But on the flip side, when people ask me how to do something or how I made a quilt, I'll share my own process freely. For me, that's the beauty of quilting -- free give and take. Admittedly, I do not approach quilting as a potential source of income-- and I know that colors the issue for many. Even so, I think there are good examples of quilters who are generous in sharing their expertise and patterns and still make it as professionals. An example would be Leah Day -- free information on her blog and videos, yet she was voted teacher of the year and has a business that apparently is financially successful.

I just put a quilt up on the pictures and I consider it an original design. However the applique Hawaiian flowers are directly from a book by Elizabeth Root and I give her credit. My quilt however looks nothing like hers. I have to admit I'm not too worried about the whole thing. I gave Root credit for the appliques and called it a day.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]516898[/ATTACH]

To : Froggy, NJ & Yooper, may I just ad my amen to what you all said so succinctly. or "A rose by anyother name..."
May not be appropriate, but came to mind. :shock:

Such a hard question to answer. It is not original if you copy in any way. But, we all recognize that not everyone ascribes to that philosophy. I never go to a quilt show that I do not see beautiful quilts that are said to be original that I know I have seen the elements used by others in their original quilts. Give credit where credit is due but be honest with yourself and others about it. I know I am not 'original' but I frequently use ideas that have obviously worked for others.

soooooooooooo true

Everything is a copy of something.. the way someone puts those things together may be simulare..and usually there is in a life of 60-100 years you even see people who look like someone else and are no relation..yet are original in some way.. I see lots of designs I have seen before that are called original that I have seen somewhere before (if you look hard enough) yet were not copied at the time of their construction. I agree with all the above..Great Minds run alike:)!
RST has it right!