Possible pattern

Ooh - those are nice too - but the Britty's look a bit like my Belle. . .

Neat!

Cheryl

Jim - quite honestly - Canadian laws are very similar in this regard to American ones. (I deal with copyright in my job). The work is copyright to Bateman, and there are some artists who are very, very careful and particular about how their images are used/interpreted. It is not just the big companies who protect their copyrights.

The fact that you won't acknowledge the copyright violation, and are reacting so strongly makes me think that you do indeed understand that the comments about copyright are correct. While an artist is unlikely to go to the trouble of suing an individual who has copied a work for his/her own use, it still is a copyright violation whether you like it or not.

I've always thought J.E.H. MacDonald's Tangled Garden

would make a wonderful stitched piece, however,if I ever used it as a pattern, I certainly wouldn't be offering to do so for anyone else.Marg

Marg I always understood that when one is aware of copyright infringement the onus is on the person who holds that copyright to pursue any infringement, that not doing so indicates they have not much further interest in maintaining said copyright.

If such is the case, then it would be good to be careful. Didn't I vaguely read someone else here offering Disney knockoffs 'for free' got a bit of a surprise ?

She was distributing. That seems to be be key that the courts look at.

Precisely. There is little case law on this subject, and as long as there is no distribution, I cannot see how any copyright laws have been violated.