The story of somebody who took a XSt pattern and made a quilted bedspread from it and `lost` in court ,,,, seems a bit strange if infact she only made it for her personal use ..... Many people use bought patterns in one craft and convert it [ for own use] into embroidered stuff . but here comes another interesting question , people who quilt use CLOTH pieces with Images on them , and by embroidering or quilt stitiching around those printed figures either enhance them or convert and change parts of them ... there is a whole INDUSTRY that sells cloth specially printed for that matter , i wonder how copyright laws regard this ? Maybe it is like using separate words ? By the way My daughter a musician , heard HERSELF playing on a cellular phone , it seems that there are companies out there who sell Ringtones, and one can`t sue them and they won`t pay. mirjam
She entered it in a show/competition. Copyright holders own the right to publicly display a design. "Publicly display" is defined in the (US) law as:
"To perform or display a work ?publicly? means ?
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times."
egads .. you get billed for email? About being gullible, it has happened to all of us. There is a lot of myth out there about copyright ... most of what ppl write about copyright are things they have heard someone else talk about ... not a lot of fact. It's kind of like the bible ;) you can pull one statement out and pretty much make it mean anything you want to ... but putting that statement into it's context, it can have a completely different meaning.
Anyone who wants to go straight to the source can read the US Copyright Law at:
formatting link
are some elements of the law that have to be defined andare more or less pinned down by case law, but the language ofthe law is pretty clear. E.g., it's clear that you don't haveany right to create or publicly display a derivative work, butdrawing the line between a derivative work and an original workis a judgment call (though it's a pretty good bet that if youcan identify the original work from looking at the derivative,you've crossed the line). When you get right down to it, youpretty much have almost no rights (outside of limited use foreducational purposes) to any copyrighted design, save thosegranted to you by the copyright holder. Best wishes, Ericka
In the quilt example: My contention is that the person who made the quilt did not make a derivative work. A derivative work would be manufacturing copies of the instructions of how she did it. The copyrighted material is the pattern, not the physical work produced from it, thus, a derivative work would be written instructions for how to make the quilt which would, necessarily, involve the use of the original pattern.
I've googled the scenario, including the name of the designer, and have come up with nothing. I don't have access to a LexisNexis search, but I should have found a trace and I don't. I'd be interested in reading the final court-ordered decision.
I don't think that argument would hold up at all. A derivative work is specifically defined as:
"A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work.'"
I don't think that there's any doubt that the quilt was a derivative work. It's not even a close call.
Working for an attorney, let me tell you that yes, you get billed for email these days. Often, an email contains a more thoughtful answer than a phone conversation (you have time to look up the answer). It is, essentially, a form of written communication. If you got a letter from your attorney with the answer, you would expect to pay, and email is another way of doing it. AAMOF, many of our clients now prefer an email answer over a phone one as it provides just that - something that they can print out and refer to later.
My boss didn't charge for email at first, then realized he was spending two or more hours a day answering it. It has become the medium of choice for many busy people.
We've been doing some business with an attorney lately and yes, you become very, very careful with conversation! We also get billed for email, and use it because, as stated earlier, it is more effective than phone. You learn fast in both mediums that "How are you?" "Nice, weather, eh?", or "Have a good weekend?" the proper response is, "Yes!" PERIOD!
Exactly - the design was the original work of a specific person. Then put into another medium, and displayed, receiving an award and $$ for it. I remember quite clearly seeing pictures of the quilt in a magazine with the feature on the show - I'm pretty sure it was Houston, but it could've been that I saw it at a different AQS show. I hadn't been quilting that long, and this stuck in my mind as I recognized the MLI design on the quilt. What I recall of the follow-up was that I think a settlement ended up being reached, and the quilt was not shown in any other of those big shows. I remember reading something about it but would be hard-pressed to put my hand on the actual magazine right now. Which is why I wrote that I thought an out-of-court settlement was reached versus a decision handed down by a judge. I do however, clearly remember seeing the quilt, with the MLI design on it, and noting this to my Daunt who quilts.
If you wish to believe it's urban myth - fine. I don't really care, and have no reason to lie. Heck, I've been in a class with a XS designer/teacher that does a lot of classes, who told us that she'd sue anyone that used her joining stitch in any design they ever did. And has sued some people. The fact that she can't "patent" her stitch (her words) hasn't stopped her from threatening when she teaches.
I don't understand how anyone can not see that taking the art designed by someone other than yourself, and presenting it in a format that you have not been given permission to do, and especially getting $$ for such, is infringing upon their copyright.
Artists' value their original designs. Even those that publish them for recreation as a XS. They have the right to say how their original work can be displayed. Pretty straightforward.
I'm sorry, Ellice, I didn't see that conversation. I thought I had been the originator of the quilt discussion.
Well, I don't see it. The pattern is meant to be reproduced. That's why it was produced originally--to be reproduced. My reading of "derivative work" is not the same as Ericka's, but my contention is that the pattern's PURPOSE and its LIMITATIONS are mutually exclusive. IMO, you can't put a pattern out there whose purpose it is to reproduce it and be surprised when someone does something unexpected with it. The quilt blocks formed the same image, no? If so, it was reproduced. The image that the original designer is selling was reproduced.
(Aside: I have received cash awards at the fair for doing patterns the way the pattern was intended, so I'm not sure how that's a factor. And I've stitched pieces as commissions from non-stitchers who liked the patterns. Am I in violation of copyright for that?)
Obviously not straightforward, since we're having the discussion.
Yes, they have the right to say how their original work can be displayed, but why must it always be AFTER the fact when someone does something unexpected with it?
I broke out an MLI pattern to see what it ACTUALLY says, which is to say this:
"The Teacher" by Marilyn Leavitt-Imblum c 1992 Told in a Garden All Rights Reserved. May not be reprinted.
And then, in a little box in the midst of the chart (amongst a bunch of blank blocks), it says, "It is illegal to send or to receive copies of this design. Please support your designer."
I don't have any current patterns of hers to compare it to, but there is nothing there that limits its use other than to limit reprinting the chart. The only contract that you, the buyer, enter with her, the copyright holder, is that you won't reprint it.
As I said before, I hadn't seen the conversation you referenced, Ellice, so if I had, I'd not have been so redundant. But the information of the out-of-court settlement versus a jury verdict is SIGNIFICANT in its implications and does not, by any means, indicate that the copyright holder is, in fact, correct.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but just to be clear: the definition I posed was the actual text from US Copyright Law. I wasn't sure whether it was that definition you were disagreeing with or something else I wrote.
The copyright owner has the exclusive rights to make copies, make derivatives, and publicly display the design. Whoever purchases the pattern has only the rights granted by the copyright owner in those areas. Different designers can make different choices about what rights they want to grant when selling a chart. There is nothing inherent in a chart that allows or disallows anything in particular.
Nope.
What do you mean by this? If you mean why aren't designers explicit about exactly what they're allowing, I agree with you. Things would be easier on everyone if copyright owners were explicit about what rights they were granting.
Well, not quite. There's that statement that says it's copyright and that *all rights are reserved*.
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.