Princess Diana Sweater Patternsn

Murielle I am not sure it is legal to share such patterns ,,, mirjam

I don't know. I've never checked. I'm not selling them, I'm only passing on copies of pages from the original magazine (which I no longer have).

I expect there would be a cease and desist request first, and if it came, I would certainly stop.

Thanks, though, for pointing that out to me. Murielle

It's generally agreed that's a copyright violation, though. But if you did it a bit more quietly than in a newsgroup.....

Generally, copyright law makes no differentiation between commercial products given away and those sold, as in either case the intellectual property owner is deprived of a possible sale if the person had purchased the item rather than gotten a pirated copy.

And it is illegal whether you get a cease and desist request or not, if that matters to you, but given what you said, maybe it doesn't matter.

Hi Mirjam,

Thanks for the heads up. I will no longer send the patterns out to anyone. I apologize to you if I seemed a liittle snippy, but I've honestly had no idea it was illegal.

Thanks again for the caution.

You know, I keep forgetting that the people on newsgroups are not my friends. That is just seriously silly of me. It never occurred to me that I was doing more than sharing something with friends. But you've taught me a very important lesson.

Thank you, Murielle

. Murielle i had no intention of upsetting you , just save you from something that could become uneasy. I always feel free to share MY OWN MADE patterns , but never other`s

No harm done ,,, mirjam

In this Case Murielle we all behaved like friends , we saw a `possible accident `, and warned you not to fall into it :>:>:>:>

Cheer up ,,,, mirjam

Honestly, a lot of people don't, which is why some of us try to (hopefully politely) inform others.

A lot of cross-stich designers have stopped selling designs because people pirate their patterns so much that they don't make anything.

Here are some links you can read:

spent four years fighting a web site owner (who espoused a philosophy of my profession that I wholeheartedly did not agree with) from copying what I wrote on public forums and putting it on her web site in a way that made it appear that I was "on her side" as far as the philosophy that I did not agree with, so it's not always about the money, although reportedly she was making a lot of money from her web site at the time. She had no right to do what she did, and I eventually got her to stop. This is why I feel so strongly about copyright law. In my case it wasn't about money; it was an ideological thing.

A true friend is one who will tell you the truth when you need to hear it even if you don't want to.

I have made many friends on newsgroups and my life has been greatly enriched by them. I have learned a lot, and I have heard a lot of things that I really didn't want to hear at the time (thank you, Joanne, among others on other newsgroups!) among other people) that didn't "click" until later and I was glad that someone told me something that I needed to hear even though at the time I was not ready to hear it.

That's not what I meant, I think everyone's been friendly in pointing out something you didn't realize. I only meant that putting this offer out in public isn't a good idea.

sue

In this Case Murielle we all behaved like friends , we saw a `possible accident `, and warned you not to fall into it :>:>:>:>

Cheer up ,,,, mirjam

I appreciate it, I really do. Yesterday I was in a lot of pain and it was late at night when I first read the posts.

I got up this morning intending to look up the magazine on the interent and email them explaining what I'd done, and apologizing. However, I've discovered that the magazine is listed as defunct in Wikipedia. I'm not sure what that means in this case. But better safe than sorry, right?

Thanks for your patience, Murielle

IIRC, the copyright is still valid for 30-some-odd years from the original date, and it can be renewed for another 30-some-odd if the original copyright holder does it.

Ah well. I think if I wasn't dealing with some health issues I wouldn't have overeacted. (Not my usual response.) At least I sincerely hope I wouldn't have over reacted. However, my mind was completely blown by the notion that knitting patterns would have the same copyright restrictions as everything else. I don't know why it never occurred to me, especially since whenever I've had the means to share the pattern I have done so since the mid-ninties. We're not talkning a one-of situation here. To say I was shocked is a complete understatment. I was utterly gobsmacked. I mean, I should know better. I've edited newsletters for years and I can't tell you how many battles I've had when someone wanted to "just copy the story from the net and reprint it in our little publication. And now, to realize that I've been doing virtually the same thing with the "Di" patterns for almost two decades. Doh! Double Doh! (Hard head-desk!)

Anyway, thanks to everyone for helping me sort it out, and I do apologize for being so grouchy, it was completely uncalled for.

Sincerely, Murielle

(I do hope this makes some sense as it's way past my bedtime. ;-))

I have been following this thread with great interest. If the patterns to which you are referring include a red sweater with a Koala on the front, it was designed by Jenny Kee. It is my understanding that when a designer submits a pattern for publication, the copyright of said pattern is transferred to the publisher. If said design was printed by permission, the designer then retains the copyright of the design. To complicate the matter farther, Jenny Kee is an artist whose paintings have been used as a source for fabrics as well as knitwear. If the graphic used in a design is licensed from the artist, then the copyright to that graphic remains the property of the artist.

If the collection of designs under discussion was published in a now defunct publication, unless the legal agreement with the designer specified that the copyright for the design reverted to them in these circumstances, there is no legal owner of said patterns. This would depend on if the magazine in question was published by a company whose sole publication was this magazine? If the publisher is a company who is still publishing other materials then the copyright would be the property of the parent company, except under the circumstances which I have mentioned.

Generally copyright infringement is pursued when the owner can prove there is monetary loss resulting in the distribution of the property.

Interested in the subject because a friend had her patterns published without permission,

DA

Or the copyright may have reverted to the designer when the magazine folded.

sue

Oh there are some pattern designers who will sue people who distribute their knitting patterns elsewhere, even for free. There are huge threads on copyrights on some of the web based forums too.

sue

That doesn't mean that the original copyright still doesn't last for

30-something years, right?

Basic rule of protecting anything, don't upload it. Fair use rules vary from country to country as do copyright laws. DA