Possible pattern

On 12 Jul 2007 18:21:41 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (F.James Cripwell) wrote: X-No-Archive Yes

IMO, if Jim were saying he's doing this for himself, I'm not sure anybody would have a problem with it. But since he's offering to also do this for someone else... Well, that can get problematic.

On the other hand, I've referenced Jim's most excellent stitch count article on my site for people who are interested in the more technical details of how much fiber they used and I did not get his permission, so... Jim, may I have your permission to reference that?

I think so; Robert Bateman is well known artist and there is no more reason to take his pictures, than any others. He's a very nice person who probably would, if asked, allow Jim to make a personal copy but I think he would perhaps blench at a random copying of his work, albeit in another form.

So long as Jim is using it for his own home, I think it falls within fair use. It's only if he *distributes* that I see an issue with it.

And ? Isn't he offering to make patterns for anyone who asks ?

We have been over this several times before. If I am making no money out of the deal, where is the copyright violation? If people are worried about this, dont take up the offer.

It is not the presence (or absence) of monetary gain that determines if copyright has been violated. Copyright is exactly what it says it is: the right to make copies of a protected work. It doesn't matter if you're giving them out for free or not; you do not have the right to distribute copies to anyone unless given permission by the copyright holder.

Rachel

The silly part is that Robert Bateman quite likely would be agreeable. Obviously he would not agree to making prints, because he does those himself. A needlework project ? That is not something he is going to do himself and he probably would okay it.

It's very easy these days to ask permission for anything -

~ there's a contact link right there.

Let us look at this in detail. There is a picture on the web; I download it, turn it into a pattern and stitch it for myself. Where is the copyright violation? I find a picture which looks like it might make a nice pattern. I bring it to someone else's attention. This person downloads it, crops it, but does not have pattern making software. They send it to me, I turn it into a pattern, and send it back. Where is the copyright violation? There is a picture on the web. I download it, print it up as a picture and hang it on my wall. Where is the copyright violation? There is a picture on the web, I down load it onto my computer and look at it; then I save it. Where is the copyright violation?

This is the part that's problematic. In this scenario, the picture has then changed in status from a one-time personal use to a distributed product. What you charge for the product (or don't charge, as the case may be) is not a determining factor.

I actually retained a copyright attorney to guide me in making decisions such as this with regard to what I can take off the web and use (e.g., NASA photos, like the one Cheryl is stitching for me now) and what I have to pay licensing rights for.

I personally find no fault in your offer to provide someone else with something beautiful; it's just that a war is being waged on intellectual theft across all media and some of us are particularly sensitive to what is and isn't fair use.

Allura

------ WIP: The Dreamer, Clean Dog Cross Stitch News:

's Ramblings:

Thank you! I was attempting to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing. :)

IANAL, but technically, they're ALL violations.

"Fair use" only lets you reproduce the item for very specific purposes, such as for review or criticism, scholarly or technical work, illustration or clarification of the author's observations (quoting text, usually, in defense of your statement), parody, summary in a news report, reproduction by a library of a portion to replace part of a damaged copy, reproduction by teacher or student of a part to illustrate a lesson, for legislative or judicial proceedings or reports, incidental reproduction during a newscast bc the work was present during an event being reported. These uses come straight from the US Copyright Office:

.As you can see, none of the examples are close to entertainment,hobby, or decorative purposes. While in a legal suit, the financialrewards & losses would be considered for a judgement, reproduction forall of your purposes would, technically, be a violation. Whether anycopyright holder would care? *shrug* Also, keep in mind that US legal system includes a certain responsibility upon the creator to defend violations when they find out about it. I know of an author, for example, who lost copyright on her settings, because she allowed too much fan material (I have no references for that, so it may be urban legend; author was Marion Zimmer Bradey, and the setting was her Darkover novels).

Think of downloading images from the web like downloading a book or a music file from someone other than the copyright holder. Even if you have the book bound yourself, it's not really fair use. Nor would copying the song to your ipod be fair. Art is no different. You can, of course, often purchase the same items and have many more options about what you can do with the work.

For more info on US copyright:

------ WIP: The Dreamer, Clean Dog Cross Stitch News:

's Ramblings:

There is such thing as a clean dog???? C

(snip)>

I find this very interesting. A few weeks ago, I did exactly the same as I have just done with a picture of a ladybug taken from BBC World News web site. No one mentioned any copyright infringement, but because it was Robert Bateman all hell broke loose this time. Further, I live in Canada, and I dont give a tinker's dam what US law says; it does not apply to me. Quote me from Canadian law. Finally, I have a hide like a rhinoceros, and no amount of insults etc. make any difference to me. If I find some nice pictures in the future, I will do exactly as I did this time. If you and anyone else wants to make a "federal" case out of it, go ahead. A fat lot of good it will do. Generally speaking, if there is a post on this sort of newsgroup that you dont like, the best thing is to ignore it.

First, I didn't read your earlier thread, because I'm not particularly interested in ladybugs, but the same laws apply, no matter the source of the image. Photos are usually credited to the photographer, even of natural items/critters. Second, I don't even know who Robert Bateman is, and in fact, the image wouldn't load in my browser, so that really didn't cross my mind. Finally, I apologize, I forgot that you were from Canada. I really don't know Canadian law, as I'm from the US. I suppose the other factor is the nationality of the creator. International copyright treaties come into play when you mix up countries, which makes things all the more complicated. I believe that both the US and Canada are signatories to the Berne Convention, however, which regulates international copyright, and is very simliar to American copyright law.

I'm not insulting, I'm declaring fact. I don't create much, and yet I think it's worth protecting other's creations. YMMV.

Allura

------ WIP: The Dreamer, Clean Dog Cross Stitch News:

's Ramblings:

Heh. It's a chart from Brittercup Designs, and is actually titled "Keep it Clean!":

.Specifically, I've been working on the "clean dog," after finishing upthe dirty dog. The two sewn back to back & lightly stuffed will makeone of those clean/dirty indicators for my sister's dishwasher. I'mdebating whether I want to attempt the finishing myself (I'm not a fanof hand sewing) or pay the finisher at my LNS to do it. I'll need toread the instructions again to decide how clear they are. Oh! This isalso my first project on linen. I've used evenweaves before, but notactual linen. Allura

------ WIP: The Dreamer, Clean Dog Cross Stitch News:

's Ramblings:

Clean dog? An oxymoron if ever I heard one!