more copyright ponders

Thank you for verifying that story , i was sure i read about here on this ng ,,,,, mirjam

I don't doubt that the quilt was made, my doubt is that it went to court. In the OP you said they lost in court, now it's an out of court settlement. Not the same thing. I don't think your lying, a lot of ppl believe myths and pass on that information, it has happend to everyone. They believe the information they are passing on is true. Anyway ... it really doesn't matter one way or the other ... a lot of ppl make threats to sue, most of the time the threats never happen. Which is prob. a good thing ... our court systems are backed up enough already.

Heck, I've been in a class with a XS designer/teacher

Then again, there are people who think they have a copyright on something and they don't. I know one designer that claims a copyright to a Nordic snowflake (in knitting) I guess she has been alive for 1,000's of years .... that design has been around for a while.

I'm not at all for taking someone's work and making claim to it. I write patterns, I have sold my patterns ... but I also know that in selling the patterns I don't get to break into someones home and remove the pattern after it is used once so they have to buy the pattern from me again if they are planning on making a 2nd. Although I could double my profits and lay claim to my mitten pattern to be used only once ... so either they can make it for a one armed man ... or have to buy another pattern. :0 oh, and btw, I have had my work stolen, so I do know what that is like as well. Someone asked me to knit something for them, I did. She then had a knitting book published and there was my work, w/ her name. But that is another issue.

Are there court records?

A quick search of Google Groups will bring up MLI's own posts on the subject of the quilt that was made from her cross stitch design. I see messages from RCTN and RCTQ mostly dated July of 1997.

Donna in Virginia

I would imagine, but most aren't accessible online-- at least without a subscription to a legal database.

Best wishes, Ericka

Depends on what she means--if she means that she owns the rights to that image, then probably not. If she means that she owns the rights to a specific *pattern* (i.e., a set of instructions, with particular wording, etc.), then that can be copyrighted.

Best wishes, Ericka

And, likely the person was a professional quiltmaker. But, the award was in the thousands of dollars, not a few hundred.

Personally & professionally, I think the issue in this particular case caught attention as it was publicised, and perhaps the idea of translating her ideas to quilt patterns is something that MLI - or any designer - had in reserve for themselves. I don't know. But, I did have a friend from the same town, who knew MLI as more than a passing acquaintance or fan, without going into details, and I recall us discussing the whole thing some years back.

The best example I can give - Laurel Birch. She has her designs licensed all over the place - as fabric, as patterns to stitch, as earrings, etc. If you bought a chart for a design on XS, and then decided to go ahead and translate it to a quilt pattern - and then display it - without her permission, what do you think would happen? After all - she has a huge machine pumping her designs into various formats - the quilt kit is easily something she could be planning to release next month. Hence, the violation. All those companies, heck, the fabric bolts in the selvage, state the copyright.

Eventually when we unpack enough, I'll find the magazine with the picture.

ellice

If a settlement is sealed then I think all you can find is that there was a date. I thought that I'd said originally that it was settled - not the details - guess I should've been explicit. My memory last week when I started thinking about this was that they went to court (which in my vernacular could mean that papers were served by lawyers of intent to sue, or whatever) and that it was all settled - meaning either in or out of court. More I thought about it, I believe they settled out of court. I'm quite positive about reading in a reputable magazine about this, and in a trade association blurb.

ellice

Which jogs for me, because I started quilting in 97, and hence my magazines go back to then - maybe some earlier. Though I was thinking somewhere between fall 97 & 98 was when it was written up.

ellice

I tried searching for it, but my google archive searches only went back to 2000.

Same here.

Hello all,

As an amateur writer, in addition to my stitching, I've looked into copyright laws for my own protection and also to try to clarify what the limits are if I use a portion of another's work. Naturally, if I incorporate a few lines of Longfellow's poetry in my book, I would cite that source. But if I use a phrase that another writer has used as well, such as "shivering water" (P.D. James) or "soughing of the pines" (Gabaldon) and don't mention that source, surely I am not in violation. As the saying goes, (no idea of the source) Geat minds think alike. We all might inadvertently come up with the same phrase in a sentence, the same elements of design in a stitched work.

Obviously one violation of copyright laws means the violator makes a PROFIT by reselling the original design - the pattern, not the embodiment of it, or the stitched work. That is not the case here. None of us would ever do that. What about sharing a pattern with a friend? I hadn't thought that to be wrong, but maybe it is.

Now, I have some specific, more public situations for all of you. These are very likely to affect all of us. If I have somehow missed the answers in the above posts, I apologize.

First, if I stitch a pattern, either precisely or slightly modified which I often do, and then display it at say, the county fair, am I in violation?

Second, if I take that same stitched work and post just its picture out on some site like RCTNP (Yahoo) or Webshots am I in violation?

If the answer is yes to both, then must I hide my work on my living room walls, allowing no one but friends and family to view such work?

Or, Fourth, if I state the source of the pattern and mention any modifications I personally made, then am I ok?

Fifth, if I stitch a pattern, modified or not, then sell it to a local decorator for her resale purposes, neither mentioning the designer nor representing myself as designer, am I in violation?

While the following points in the excerpted article below apply to written work, the law does consider all creative works, as we have been discussing. Incidentally, I have the entire article with all the details and will be happy to email to anyone. I sure won't post it!

In the article A Writer's Guide to Fair Use in Copyright written for Writer's Digest by Howard Zaharoff, a lawyer in Waltham, Mass.(see

The law also states that in determining whether a use is fair, at least four factors must be considered.

It seems to me, in summary, that a great portion of the decision making in these lawsuits is deductive. It would boil down to this: Did the end user intend to make a profit or present the original work as his or her own?

Deb :-)

Essentially the parallel with stitching would be that you cannot copyright, or patent a stitch. But you can the actual stitch diagram and explanation - as Ericka has nicely explained.

Strictly speaking, it is. The pattern, unless stated "free" by the designer is for the single consumer/single use. If you stitch the pattern, and then pass it on you are violating that intent. If you don't stitch it, then you're free to resell it, or pass it on. In a round robin, where a design is being done by several, to stay within the copyright protection of the designer, no one is stitching more than a section, only 1 entire piece is being done.

No, assuming you are displaying it as a commercial source piece. That is why on many shows the categories included pieces stitched from a commercial pattern, including those with modifications.

Again, as long as you're not making a profit on the posting, selling it to a magazine, or claiming it to be o your own original work. The Webshots thing, while viewed on the web, is essentially considered to be a personal use, not commercial use situation. What you cannot do is show it in a commercial setting - without permission from the designer.

Moot since the answers aren't yes.

Absolutely.

Absolutely in violation. You have now crossed the line into commercial use. At the minimum, you would have to mention the designer, and also have their permission to sell the work. What you can do, however, is the decorator can purchase a pattern, and pay you to stitch it for her. Then when she resells it - she's in violation. The legal, and often done way, the client that wants a piece, buys the chart or source, and pays for the materials, and then pays someone for their stitching services. You can get paid for stitching - as do sample stitchers. This is the sticky area. But, in shops with NP, often a customer will want say a bench cover (piano seats commonly)

- but they don't stitch. The shop will arrange for a canvas, chosen by the end-user, and threads, etc - to be sent to a "ghost stitcher" who charges by the stitch or inch. The shop earns there $ on the sale, the stitcher gets paid for their labor, the designer gets paid from the shop when they sold the canvas or chart, and the end user gets their decoration.

True. And books, written work has differences in the way copyright attaches as compared to visual art. WRT copyright and XS charts, as someone has stated - the copyright owner has the right to specify what distribtuion, use they will allow of their intellectual, creative property. With most needlework designers, you cannot sell the product for commercial use. But, things that fall into the personal display and limited public display - such as a Needlework show or county fair, are fine.

If you want to stitch and resell, then you either need to start doing your own designs, or get yourself hooked up as a ghost stitcher.

Ellice

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:18:29 -0000, thistletoes wrote: X-No-Archive Yes

Going one further - all these ideas maybe fair and sensible, but I suggest they must be very difficult to enforce. I think most laws were developed to counteract blatant plagiarism but even that has flown to the birds with the advent of the net. Think students.

Realistically - I feel one can go ahead and stitch what one wants and unless you are seen to be making money from it, selling patterns, worked items, it is unlikely a lawyer is coming to your door. It might not be legal, but it still is not likely.

I don't approve of that, but realistically, I think that is how it is. Going right back to the source of this round of copyright thoughts, Jim knows better and it is very foolish because a quick email to Robert Bateman would probably have blessed his efforts. If Bateman wanted to make cross stitch patterns of his work, he would have been doing it by now.

So what about all those models that we stitch and are for sale? Are they in violation and, therefore, the many shop owners who sell them?

On 7/25/07 9:31 AM, "lewmew" wrote:

Depends on the designer's arrangements with the shop. Most models which are stitched are the situation where either the designer or a shop is paying someone for their labor to stitch a model to be shown in order to publicize that particular design. So, the stitcher is getting paid for their labor. Designers generally pretty explicitly tell the shops that it is permissible to stitch and display a model in the shop.

As for shop owners selling the model - if they're not restitching it, and are just selling it for what they paid it's likely fine and in that area that designers permit. Plus you have that grey area of someone charging for "the framing" or "finishing" . But, if the shop continues to produce and sell stitched items from a single chart, for sure they are violating a designer's copyright, and eventually designers hear about these things. And, strictly speaking, the shops selling models without permission from the designer, are indeed violating the letter of the law. Shops like the Scarlet Letter which sell their stitched models I'd expect deal with it themselves. If they're selling the models for charts which they've done themselves, clearly they have that right. IF they're selling the models for someone else's chart then they likely get permission. But, my impression is that most of their reproduction samplers are charted by them, and it's the model that they use for photos, etc that they sell. However, I can't say for sure.

The trade associations have internal publications and discussions about things like this all the time at annual large meetings, and local smaller ones - plus via electronic groups.

The shop owner where I'm currently working is also a XS designer. There is a lot of stuff in the shop, and a fair amount of models, as well as finished pieces that customers will lend us to display for some time. We pay one person to stitch some models. She returns the chart, and leftover materials to us, and we then display the finished item. The stitcher is paid for her labor. Quite legal. The same way "ghost stitchers" is legal - they are paid for their stitching. Not making a profit on displaying a finished piece and selling it. I think the fine line becomes displaying a piece to show the great stitching, which will then have someone hire a stitcher specifically for that, so it's clear the payment is for the labor of completing a piece, as opposed to displaying a piece and just selling it as a decorative item which would imply commercial sales of the item. Framers that do a lot of needlework, and some shops, often have someone that will also stitch on commission. In the shop (also a framer) that I was at before, we did some finishing of stitching for people, or commission pieces. Another friend, whose husband owns a framing shop, and is a great stitcher also does a lot of commission work. Someone will hire her to either finish a design they just can't do themselves, or to stitch it entirely. It's not cheap. But, rignt now, for example, she's doing a hefty NP kneeler for a church, and a huge, huge, XS piece for someone that started it, but just couldn't get too far. This person is getting paid for her labor - that's all she's selling - not a the design.

To some extent common sense has to rule, but for many people common sense is overcome by what they perceive as a way to save money.

ellice

Not for a general phrase like that, but an author's copyright extends to characters that an author of a fiction work as created (although the law seems to allow obviously-amateur fan fiction as a fair use).

In the same vein, translated to fiber arts, one cannot copyright a knit stitch or a purl stitch or whatever, because they have been around for centuries.

If you go back and read, the issue of the violator making a profit or not is *NOT* mentioned at all in copyright -- only that the intellectual property is being used without permission of its creator.

If I have a paper Simplicity pattern for a plain old dress and hand the envelope to a friend for her to use, she returns it when she is done, and she did not retain a copy to keep permanently, that is not a violation of copyright law.

If I have a book of knitting patterns and loan it to a friend, hand her the physical book, she returns it when she is done, and she did not retain a copy of anything to keep permanently, that is not a violation of copyright law.

However, if my friend takes that Simplicity pattern, traces it all off, photocopies the full instructions, returns the envelope to me, and keeps the pattern and instructions for her own future use, that is a violation of copyright law whether I have made a profit from it or not. Same for the people who scan copyrighted commercial cross-stitch/knitting/etc. patterns and make them available to others over the internet.

Ask the copyright owner.

Just the picture of the finished work on your own personal web site is okay.

No, that is your own personal work.

That in itself does nothing copyright-wise.

Probably. Ask the copyright owner what they prefer.

Probably not a good idea to email it. Check the copyright statement in the work you are looking at and see if it allows it. If not, ask the copyright owner for permission to post to Usenet or to email to individual people.

This does not mean that you can make 30 copies of a pattern for a class you are teaching, which is a mistaken impression. It means that you may write a research paper for class, or a book review, and include modest quotes to give examples from the work, and that falls within fair use.

If the original work it was "lifted" from can be recognized, then it is a derivative work.

The effect on the market means that if tons of free copies of a commercial item are available that were created by people not authorized by the intellectual property owner to do so, it reduces the value of the intellectual property and affects its value and therefore the market. It does *not* mean that you are going to give the item to someone who would not have paid for it anyway, whether that might theoretically inspire them to purchase something else created by the same person or not.

Profit has *N*O*T*H*I*N*G* to do with it. I waged a four-year battle with someone and the issue was not profit; it was that I did not want writings recognizable as mine being used on a web site that espoused a point of view about my profession that I vehemently disagreed with, and I was within my rights to do so.

If you are creating a work for hire that the store will subsequently own, that is not a problem. As far as the store selling the finished work, again, that depends on the creator of the intellectual property, but considering that once it has been displayed for a while it becomes used and not an original work, there is probably a loophole there somewhere.

Some designers do request that you use your photo-editing program to put a copyright notice on the picture. It seems that some people are taking photos off websites and running them through charting software, so I run my copyright statement through some integral part of the picture -- they'll have to clip off an angel's wing, or truncate a flower, which will be obvious (and ugly).