Well you know what? IMO you can tell a thief by their behavior, and anyone who responds to a query about copyright infringement with a figurative "back off, bitch" and threats of a lawsuit is marking themselves as a thief by their behavior. An honest person deals with the claim in an honest way.
If changing the color and the direction of the beads makes that an original design, then she has one. But for me, personally, it throws into suspicion every single one of her "designs". And if you pardon me, I have a grey-and-mauve mouse named Mitchell I need to go put the finishing touches on...
Yeah, that's the thing. The myths that abound in this country regarding copyright are bizarre. And the fact that so much information, that can help educate people, even those who think they know, is freely available on the Internet, in bookstores, at the library, through your local small business association, even by calling a copyright attorneys office with a few direct questions.
Changing colors and/or stitches does not make something a new item. Nor does it make it unique.
Of course there is a massive amount of gray area when we are talking about jewelry and/or beading. In otherwords, good luck placing a copyright on a tin cup necklace, for instance. However, if you have used 1000's of small beads to create a definate pattern, someone cannot come along and change those beads around by any percentage and then call the new rendition theirs. It is illegal. It is also very unethical.
So, we can all choose our cause of choice, law or ethics. Written judgements or how we would like it if someone did the same to us. Something a judge hands down, or something you need to live with each day of your life.
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 13:23:01 -0400, DreamBeadr wrote (in message ):
The gotcha is going to be convincing a group of people who have never beaded anything that it's a direct copy. I know how to weave beads, and I did a count (as well as I could) - even the count in the pattern is the same. The slight difference in the size/shape of the piece is because the copier used seed beads instead of Delicas. (The shape of the two kinds of beads is slightly different)
But if it ever went to a jury, they'd probably be swayed by the difference in the stitch, colors (pee-yew), and dimensions. Any decent lawyer would make darned sure that anyone who even knew what a bead might be would be stricken from the jury. Does it suck? You bet. But unless you can convince the copier to stop before it becomes a court battle, there probably isn't a lot to do to remedy the situation.
One thing - I'll never purchase anything from that seller as long as I live. I vote with my dollars, and my dollars aren't going to go to someone who doesn't support the beading community as a whole.
I'm of two opinions about this. Partly because of a bead I saw last night. It looked very much like some of Margaret Zinser's beads. Except this one is in a softer color that I've never seen in Zinser's palette. So does that mean the bead I saw was a copy?
In the same way, I would never buy the Beady Boop pattern/kit because the look is too formal. The change of stitch and colors makes it look so different to me, I'd have to process my thought about the product all over again. Of course that doesn't mean it's not a copy. And the fact that it's being sold makes it different too.
vj found this in rec.crafts.beads, from "Su/Cutworks" :
]It's a business cost, and part of the whole expense of doing business.
i understand that. really. but when it comes to something like a book, not only do you have to copyright the text of the book, you also have to copyright every design individually.
i drove Kathy NV and Cheryl crazy with questions about all this stuff a few weeks ago. and Tink. in the end, our best solution was to try to stay 'ahead of the curve' instead of worrying about it. because no matter how i try to copyright/trademark anything, once it's in print or on the internet, protecting it means needing very deep pockets and working to support the lawyer and putting his kids through college.
Actually - she isn't - I have e-mailed her and know someone who is a close friend of Dragon - she says that the things are not copies - just happen to be very similar.
This ended up being a lynch mob on another forum..... Very disappointed that it has come here.
If Dragon had contacted us saying that Boop copied her - the flood would be at Boop in the same direction it is going toward Dragon.
They are similar but are not even the same stitch. Getting 2 pieces in two different stitches isn't not easy when you are the designer and are trying to give the customer 2 stitch choices.
There are many similar roses out there - resembling a ribbon spiraling rose.
As it stands now - I am more likely to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.
We need to stop having the lynch mob mentality toward other beaders.
Pamy Pamela Welborn Beading Design Creation and Instruction Buy My Kits -
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:12:23 -0400, Pamela Welborn wrote (in message ):
Is it possible that she designed her piece after seeing the first and not really consicously remaking it? I know that even Helen Keller was accused of copying another's poem - it turned out she had heard it as a child and didn't realize it wasn't her own work.
Depends on when each one was made. IIRC, the first piece was made nearly five years before the second.
I'd feel a lot better if I heard the other party in the situation (I never checked at all to see who it is - I looked at the page with the two designs and that's it). Personally, I don't care if people copy my beadwork, but it does kill me when people steal my writing. I have no idea why it's so different in my mind.
Lynch mob? No. Unhappiness that one person would profit from another's ingenuity, and the acknowledgement that no court/jury would ever do anything about it? yes. Design copyrights are hellish and expensive to protect.
And I am not friends with either party. This has nothing to do with any allegiance, or sides. It has to do with what I, and 95% of the other viewers see, and how we feel about it. What little contact I have had with Charley has either been thru forum messages that are directed to others, or my single post to her, asking her if she would mind if I posted this information.
Well, that's the thing. I don't need to have anyone tell me it is or it isn't. I can see it for myself. When I saw the first post, I didn't just assume Charley was correct, I went and looked at the two items. My decision to make this information known to other beaders was and is based on how I personally feel about people within my community ripping each other off.
I don't see the lynch mob you are referring to Pamy. If a group of adults cannot pass on information and speak about it in a rational mature manner, then we have much bigger problems than people ripping each other off.
I cannot speak for others, but I would have done the same thing with Dragon as I did with Charley. I would have looked at the patterns in question and investigated the dates on when they were published, and then made up my own mind on how I felt about it. I am assuming most others are doing this as well.
They don't need to be. Legally or ethically. It is not the stitch in question. Nor is it the colors used. It is the pattern. And, the original pattern was not derived from a picture, or the carpet (as Dragon illuded to). The pattern came about from drawing freehand in a computer bead graph generator.
I have seen tons of rose patterns. Bunches of them with a big rose in the middle and little rose buds along the sides. Some with leaves, some without. Some with additional design elements, some with none. I have seen a lot of rose patterns that are very similar to this one in question. I don't just see similarities here. I see an exact copy. The center rose is shaped exactly the same. The leaves placed around it are in the exact same position. The little rose buds are the exact same. The little leaves around them are in the exact same position. The scrolls are located in the exact same position. The spacing between the roses, leaves and scrolls are the same. This isn't one of those patterns that two or more of us dreamt up.
I took Charley's pattern and imported it into my bead design program. I then switched the stitch from Peyote to Square. Then I changed the beads from Delica to Seeds. I ended up with a pattern that is almost an exact duplicate of Dragons. If I were to spend about an hour, I could adjust a few of the scrolls that got distorted and my pattern would be an exact copy.
So, if we remove the names from this issue, I imagine you too would be willing to defend the rights of the person who is being taken advantage of. That's what I did.
Were that happening, I would agree. Instead, I say we need to start having respect towards other beaders. I don't care who they are.
Yeah, I think that's the clincher. I have had several instances now, where people have infringed on things of mine. Most times? I just don't care. I should, but sometimes it's just too much work, and I can't always spare that time. But, if someone thinks to come along and make money off something I have created, then it really gets my goat.
The woman who copied my butterfly pattern emailed me in 1999 asking if she could use it to teach classes with. I told her only if the classes were free. The pattern is available for free, with instructions on how to do it, for free. If I am willing to give that away for free, why should I allow her to profit from that? Go make your own pattern if you want to make money from it.
She decided she didn't need to listen to me. She took the pattern anyway, and taught using that exact pattern for almost 8 months. When I found out, I tried to converse with her about it. She didn't reply. So I had a legal letter drawn up. She replied saying she would stop.
2 weeks later she taught another class, this time she had taken the pattern and changed the stitch as well as some of the colors. I guess she thought that would be okay. I imagine because that stupid myth of changing something by a percentage still abounds.
I contacted her again. She ignored me. My attorney contacted her again, she ignored that letter. So I sued her. I sued her for every dime she made teaching those classes, plus some. And it was easy for me to get the records, because guess who she was teaching?? A retirement home!! The wench! Profiting from a stolen item off the elderly.
I was not able to sue her for my attorney fees, but the judgement was enough that I covered those costs as well as donating the rest back to that same retirement home. They put that money into a fund to pay for "reputable" teachers.
She no longer teaches beading. I guess she just isn't able to come up with her own stuff, or intelligent enough to figure out how to go about procuring patterns legally to teach with.
Uh, to my eye they are the SAME PATTERN, just a different stitch. I believe it extremely unlikely that two people came up with the same pattern independtly of one another.
And this right here tells us that people *can* sue and win for infringement, even if the colors and stitch have changed. Personally, the fact that this person said she was inspired by the first person's pattern clinches it for me. She copied.
When it comes to comparing lampwork copying and bead pattern copying, we have apples and oranges. Patterns are more identifiable. You can count stitches and mathematically conclude that this is a copy. WIth lampwork it's different. There's not much math involved, and each person's handiwork is completely different, even when a bead is copied exactly. It's much much harder to come to a complete conclusion about copying when it comes to lampwork and other media that is more freehand (PMC, polymer clay, etc.) When it comes to seed beading, there are quantifiable issues that can be proven. Does this even make sense? LOL
What Kandice said. My most "recognizable as Kalera" beads are still just a combination of a few colors and techniques... and frankly, though I'd be somewhat huffed if someone started making lots of sets just like my "wave" beads, I can't claim that assortment of techniques as mine. I put them togther a certain way, but I couldn't and wouldn't sue anyone over it. That's like suing someone over a word.
With patterns, it's more like a short story. The exact order of the words matters, and you would have to change it a LOT to make it unrecognizable as the original.
InspirePoint website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.