I am sure this issue has been thoroughly discussed before, but I am wondering about the legality of lending magazines to friends to stitch from, or for them to photocopy patterns from. For many years I had been searching for a pattern and when a coworker was looking for an idea for a gift, I suggested the very pattern that I was searching for. I did manage to finally find a copy on ebay and when she found out that I had it, she just expected that I would bring it for her and allow her to photocopy it. I don't want to be hard to get along with, but I rather resented that she would just expect this. Any suggestions? Helen
Helen Bartel to send a message remove .spam from the email address
Shred the working copy when I am finished with it? By the time I am finished with it, nobody could ever read it again anyway!!! You should see how bad I mark these things up when I working on them!
I am no lawyer, but my take on copyright in these sort of circumstances is roughly as follows. If no-one makes any money out of the deal, then there is no copyright infringement. I am sure this is not the law but I somehow doubt whether anyone would be taken to court under these sorts of circumstances. HTH.
"I am no lawyer, but my take on copyright in these sort of circumstances is roughly 'as follows. If no-one makes any money out of the deal, then there is no copyright infringement."
Actually, this is incorrect. Copyright infringement has occurred if someone makes or distributes copies of a copyrighted work and they are not the copyright holder or have not received permission from the copyright holder to do so - *regardless* of whether or not any money has been made in the process.
Many people believe the misconception that it's only considered copyright infringement if a profit has been made. But copyright protection is not about who made money from what, it's about who has the legal right to make and distribute copies of a copyrighted work. Period. If someone is making and distributing copies of a designer's chart or a chart from a copyrighted magazine, even if they are giving the copies away for free and not making a dime from it, it is still copyright infringement and they can be sued by the copyright holder.
I know that in this instance (of one person giving a friend a copy of a chart from a magazine) that the likelihood of anyone being sued is nil since it is such a small occurrence, but I did want to point out that it is still copyright infringement.
One (really simplified) way of looking at it is "am I increasing the number of copies of this work in circulation?" If you are not the copyright holder, or someone licensed by that holder, you cannot do that without permission. So, you stitch a chart, and sell it, trade it or give it away. Someone else will use it, but the number of charts in existence remains the same. If you make photocopies of a chart for six friends, even if you don't charge money, you have increased the number of copies of that chart in existence, and you don't have that right. A working copy does not put another copy into circulation as long as it remains just that--something you work from, mark up, write on, and ultimately toss. Dawne
Even that doesn`t really seem right, does it (morally right, I mean - not incorrect). Using a chart - then passing it on still denies the designer a sale - and there`s no limit to the number of times this can happen, particularly if the next one down the line always makes a "working copy" to keep the original in good condition!
I suppose the only snswer is to have "self destruct" charts! ;-))
Ok, a related question: Recently someone was asking about a chart they had purchased on ebay. The original, an out-of-copyright chart, was not for sale. However, copies were being sold. Does ownership of an out-of-copyright item confer copyright to the holder (owner) of the existing original? What about the copies being sold? Are they out-of-copyright (and thus copyable) as well?
If something is out from under copyright - or was never copyrighted - it can be copied.
The problem is figuring out if something is covered by copyright.
Anything published in the US before Dec 31 1922 is out from copyright and is in the public domain
Anything published between Jan 1 1923 and Dec 31 1978 - may or may not be copyrighted - depending on if it was registerd, and if the copyright was renewed.
Anything created (even if not published) after 1978 has a copyright term of life of the creator plus 70 years. There is no need to register a work for it to be copyrighted.
Ownership of something that is in the public domain (out from copyright) does not give the owner of the original the copyright.
This was Jim's take: "I am no lawyer, but my take on copyright in these sort of circumstances is roughly 'as follows. If no-one makes any money out of the deal, then there is no copyright infringement."
My quick-and-dirty understanding is that if the designer/publisher/copyright holder has not lost a sale, then it is not copyright infringement. But if I copy a pattern from a magazine and give it to a friend - the magazine has potentially sold 1 fewer copy. Dawne's explanation is admirably clear.
Heaven help us if they have "self-destruct" charts!!! I have had a number of wips that have taken 10 years or more and are still not finished. And what about all of us who collect charts knowing that we will not have enough time in this life to ever stitch them. Beverly B
Thank you. And I humbly credit any ability to clarify things like this to the training I received in order to become a lawyer (I haven't practiced in some years). As a group, lawyers do have some good things to offer the world. Dawne
"My quick-and-dirty understanding is that if the designer/publisher/copyright holder has not lost a sale, then it is not copyright infringement."
It is important to remember that there does not have to be a loss of a sale or a profit made by the infringer in order for copyright infringement to occur. The simple *act* of making and distributing copies of a copyrighted work when you are not the copyright holder or have not been given permission by the copyright holder, is what makes it an infringement.
One example: OOP designs. Let's say a designer retires from designing, closes down her business, and takes all her designs off the market. The designer is still the copyright owner of her designs. So if someone else starts making and distributing copies of her now OOP designs, even if they are giving the copies away for free, it is still copyright infringement. The designer is not losing sales in this case because the designs are no longer being sold, but the infringer is still violating copyright because they do not have the legal right to make and distribute copies of those designs.
Another example: Complimentary (freebie) designs. If the copyright statement printed on a complimentary chart states that the chart can only be copied and distributed for free by *shop owners*, than a stitcher who make copies and gives them away to others is violating the designer's copyright. There is no profit being made and no loss of sales for the designer, but that stitcher is still committing copyright infringement.
I sure do appreciate everyone's input here. I will try to contact Alida Industries and ask for permission to photocopy this chart. It is Tom Browning's Easy Putt stocking. Helen
Brenda Lewis wrote:
Helen Bartel to send a message remove .spam from the email address
The short 'n' tall or fat 'n' skinny of copy right law is that you may not put into circulation mores copies than the designer planned for. i.e. if the designer decided to put 10,000 printed charts (images) into circulation and did so and you bought issue (image) number 10,000 you can copy it as many times as you want to for your PERSONAL use, copy enough to wall paper your stitching room if you want - but you CAN NOT legally copy the chart (image) that you bought, keep one and sell or give away the other because what ever you sell or give away is (image) issue number 10,001.
It is also noteworthy that once a design is stitched then the chart OR the stitched project becomes image number 10,001. Technically you can not sell or give away the chart and keep the stitched design OR sell or give away the stitched design and keep the chart because you would be putting into circulation more images than the designer planned for.
Notice that I use the word image - that is what the designer is selling. This also means that you CAN NOT use a photo or any other copy of the designer's image that you bought for advertising purposes without the consent of the designer because that would be image number 10,001.
As a matter of interest a lawyer will use more than 10,000 words to explain the same concept of the copy right law. LOL
Fred
formatting link
't backstitch to emailjust stitchit. If you are on thin ice you might as well dance!
W.I.P. - "Fiddler on the Roof", "Oriental Maiden".
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.