This whole ‘not for commercial use’ thing is not new. It goes back to 2006 when Amy Butler and Helen Ross (separately) put commercial use restrictions on their fabrics. Both designers were manufacturing finished products (pajamas, intimate wear, etc) from their fabrics and did not want competitors to benefit from their brand, their name. That, to me, makes sense, but I think they should have taken those particular fabrics off the market and just made them unavailable to everyone.
<O
</O
Butler had eBay take down ALL listings of items made with ANY of her fabrics and the uproar was HUGE. Butler’s company was so slammed by eBay sellers in the press that she changed her policies. She now requires licensing arrangements from her wholesale buyers, but retail purchases are not restricted at all. Ross has also changed her position I understand.
<O
</O
These restrictions are not a part of copyright law at all. Contract law, trademark and licensing law? Maybe. Enforceable? Probably not, in my opinion, unless you actually signed an agreement at the time of purchase. If they start printing ‘Licensed fabric - Not for Commercial Use’, that’s when I’ll think about not buying it for use in stuff to sell.
<O
</O
Some history:
http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2006/10/17/restricted_fabrics_cutting_against_the_grain_of_pe rsonal_property.html
<O
</O
http://whipup.net/2006/10/23/fabric-copyright-and-licenses-oh-my/
Last edited by ghostrider; 11-22-2011 at 08:33 AM.