Copyrighting

If it is a book describing techniques, then there is no issue at all. The techniques themselves are not copyrighted (just the authors' exact means of expressing them). When you employ those techniques to create your own designs, then *you* are the designer and there aren't any copyright issues. If you took their exact description of how to do it (or near enough as made no difference) and posted it on the web for everyone else, *then* you would be violating copyright. If you used your own words to describe the process, that would not be a violation.

Best wishes, Ericka

If the copyright holder only grants permission to create one work from the pattern, then that's all the permission you have. The copyright owner controls the terms, because only the copyright owner has permission to make copies or derivatives. If the copyright holder grants permission for multiple copies from a single chart/ pattern, then you are granted the right to do that. The law doesn't say what you can do with it. The law only says what rights the copyright holder has (and some limitations on those rights).

Not necessarily. When you stitch a chart, you are creating another instance of a design that is copyrighted. The copyright owner therefore has rights concerning even your stitched instance of that design. What you're allowed to do is therefore dependent on what the agreement is between you and the copyright owner. If the copyright owner says you can make multiple instances of his or her design (or sell them, or whatever), then that's what you can do. If the copyright owner says you can only make one instance, then that's all you can do. The big old gray area is what can you do if things aren't clearly spelled out. For sure you're safe if you only make one instance from the pattern. If you weren't going to do that, then why would you buy/sell a pattern? Beyond that, it's all a matter of interpretation and precedent, and you could lose if called on it.

Not quite. This is true in some cases. For instance, as I described to Mirjam, if you buy a book that describes a technique, then only the exact description of the technique is copyrighted, not the technique itself. You can use the technique as often as you like and you can use your own words to describe it to others, or even sell your own descriptions of how to do it. But a cross stitch chart isn't just a technique. It is a representation of a *design*, and it's the design that is copyrighted. You have no rights to that design other than those granted to you by the copyright holder.

Best wishes, Ericka

But it's *NOT* ok. That's exactly what happened with the MLI case mentioned earlier in this thread. The copyright holder owns the rights to that *design*.

This would certainly be a more egregious violation, but you don't have to get to that level to have a problem.

Best wishes, Ericka

THank you Ericka ,,, i hoped you would say something in this manner , Because we can never learn enough about this matters . thank you mirjam

The EGA magazine current issue has an article about this in it. A few years ago, TNNA, the trade association for designers (needlework, knitting & associated retailers) had a lengthy article in their publication, and then sent copies asking members to distribute accordingly.

Ellice

LOL - this is pretty much what the situation was with the person that did a quilt of an MLI XS pattern. And lost - after showing the quilt at a large show.

The designer of the XS pattern may themselves choose to do a quilt pattern. Personally, I was interested in doing some canvas pieces of the quilt designs done by a very well known quilter that is here in the DC area. I know this person, have done some classes at her studio. But, before I could decide to take her quilt pattern and turn it into a painted canvas, or even a tote bag - I would need her permission. The pattern would then say based on a licensed design by XXX.

Obviously, the linen and stitching police aren't going to come to your house and arrest you for sleeping under a quilt made with a XS pattern. But, that exactly defines a derivative work which you have made with womeone else's design, and not their intent. Of course, you could ask the designer up front if it's okay to change the XS piece into a quilt pattern. They may say great, they may say what a good idea, and we can publish it and I'll take a cut, they may say, no - my company is doing that already.

Absolutely. The thing is, you are obviously violating their copyright when you publish. When you just do it yourself, well, you're still working against their intent and creating a derivative work, but likely the designer wouldn't care if you just told them. The problem becomes when all your friends see your quilt, think what a great idea, and then start following suit...and a juggernaut of quilts created from XS patterns floods down the craft market, and someone starts selling them, and well......

ellice

It all depends on how the creator licenses their work.

In that case, the law applies to the book itself. You cannot make copies of the book and pass it around to your friends. You can loan it to them, and they can use it, but they cannot make copies of it either.

You can show the work by showing the finished product.

And it seems that the general tendency of "pattern piggies," as some of them call themselves, is just to hoard and never buy. So in that context, what you are describing means that while there might be thousands or even ten thousands of pirated copies out there that the designer might have been paid their pittance per copy on if the people were to buy it but they don't because they can pirate it for free, there are a few honest people who might buy copies. In that sense, what they have lost is far more than what they gained.

The Yahoogroups illegal pirating groups have THOUSANDS of people on the lists. If you truly believe the people proliferating this are really going to go out and buy a pattern when they are doing this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you -- that is, if someone hasn't already photocopied the title to and put your name in so you already have a certificate stating that you own it LOL.

That would be similar to your taking your original pattern and giving it away. This is perfectly legal.

When you take a licensed design and create a garment, work of art, or whatever, from it, the creator of the design is entitled to a license fee for each item you create if they wish one. And the license fee of each designer product is built into the cost of the product.

There used to be a brand of jeans with some distinctive stitching on the pocket, and they went to court to prevent someone else from putting the same stitching on the pocket and selling them, albeit with a different label. They won their case.

Yes, but the things you buy in the store are authorized reproductions.

Yes, but you cannot sell them without paying the designer any license fee that they require.

Individual words in a dictionary are not copyrighted. It's the intellectual property of collecting and assembling them in order that the copyright applies to.

No, the terminology is correct. When you purchase a pattern, you do not own the pattern. You cannot take it to a reproduction graphics store and make 100 copies of the pattern and sell them yourself.

This is not true if you are only purchasing a license. If you purchase the work outright, then it is a work for hire, you own the work, and you can decide how it is distributed.

But if someone went into business creating bunches of copies of each design from their mag and selling them, that would be a blatant violation of copyright.

One of the British magazines has a little blurb that you are only allowed to make and sell multiple copies if all the funds go to charity.

That is their prerogative to allow that, but just because one person allows it, it doesn't mean that everybody else automatically will.

It's like -- just because Costco gives out samples of some of their food products and are generous with the samples, that doesn't mean that you can open up any box you want and sample it because they give out other samples. It doesn't even matter that you might be doing it to see if you want to purchase the product on a regular basis, which, of course, would result in more sales. It's their choice to pick what foods they want to give out samples of, not yours.

Understood. Point being, they spell out SPECIFICALLY what is allowable so there's no claim of not knowing you can't make a bunch to sell for your own enrichment

What mystifies me is all the people who spend large sums of money - sometimes running into hundreds of dollars - on fabrics, yarns, threads, notions etc., and then insist on having a free pattern to use them. Surely, all the money spent on materials should justify a few more on a pattern? Also, if the manufacturer and the retailer must be paid for tangible things, why should not the designer be paid for a pattern? To me, using a pirated copyright pattern is no better than using shoplifted materials.

Olwyn Mary in New Orleans.

Precisely. Marc of Silver Lining was doing a guest appearance at LNS and I was keeping him company. I bought a bunch of charts first thing, but during the day another kept nagging at me until I succumbed to Marc's charms. Kitted it up while I was there, so I know the exact total price for that one project because I'd already bought everything else. The chart was only 1/4 of the total cost. Then add the cost of framing (even if I DIY, that size frame ain't cheap), and the percentage for the chart becomes even lower.