The Designer's Cut

I've seen that, too, and am equally confused by it. I've seen some right vitriolic rants about second-hand selling and trading as being some type of copyright violation.

I finally decided it was something of an ego blow to see your stuff on eBay going for little or going for nothing at all, and that that was probably what was motivating all that.

If you remember, Garth Brooks got his knickers in a twist in the late

90s over used CD stores and hollered that he wasn't getting his cut.

Very possibly a naive question, but has anyone ever looked into royalty like that you have to pay when you rerun a TV show or watch a movie?

Lucille

>

The thing is, to work the chart, you have to "kit it up" yourself -- so what does it matter if the LNS does it for you?

I didn't see that part of Caryn's post (yeah, I have the attention span of a gnat).

I've seen the screaming and hollering about that, also, but I did decide that when I open my brick'n'mortar, I'll meet my customers' demands. If the customer would like to buy pre-kitted charts, fine--I'll kit them. If not, I won't.

The logic behind the unwillingness to let the shop kit up charts is one thing I've never really been able to trace back to an originating rationale.

Well, it can be construed as copyright violation if, IF, the chart has been used and stitched by the original purchaser. Unless the chart is old enough to be out of copyright protection.

I don't know. Perhaps with some. But, if you have a charted design, that clearly says it is for the express purpose of someone stitching the design, not redistributing it or photcopying it for more than a working copy - you get into the details of copyright issues. The twist in that is essentially when you buy a chart you are licensed to stitch that as many times as you like - but not to use if for commercial purposes - sell, recopy it into a rug (for commercial use) or a quilt (remember the MLI lawsuit). Which seems to imply that it's okay to resell once you've used the chart. But, that isn't how strict copyright is interpreted.

Well, CDs are a different story - as they are designed for a long life of multiple use, and when you tire of it...

It's a tough thing. Personally, I just don't trade charts if I've stitched them. I might consider donating to a charity - but that's about it.

ellice

I guess I don't see it as any different than a used book. If you read a book, it's done. You can read it again and you've not violated any copyright. If you give it away, you've not violated any copyright. If you sell it, you've not violated any copyright.

However, if you make a copy(ies) (not likely) and then sell the original, THAT would be a copyright violation.

Whether you have stitched the chart or not, re-selling the original chart is not a copyright violation.

And...what quilt?

I actually hadn't really noted that part of Caryn's original post. That is insane - unless the designer is selling pre-packed kits and is very specific about their stuff - e.g. If MLI insisted on using her special floss colors instead of a substitute. Not casting aspersions here - just an example.

Most of the designers I know aren't crazy about kitting and do it for convenience. In the shop - we kit for NP frequently - doing the kit gives the customer a slight discount on the thread/yarn and is convenient. And often makes it easier for us to get a slight impulse sale. Never had a designer say we couldn't kit. But, it takes all kinds and some people just have issues.

It's really common for the NP shops to kit up a painted canvas - frequently someone will buy a canvas and leave it for us to kit up - just suggesting if they want wool or perle cotton, or whatever special thing they might want in the mix. It can take a while to do that.

Well - off to go on a little errand to get my missing waterlilies. ellice

Herein lies all the copyright discussion with the designers and their lawyers. Did you ever get a copy of the copyright booklet that TNNA sent all the members? I guess that one could say that by stitching the chart you have in effect made a copy and are now selling that ability by re-selling the chart. You've made the art - and are now selling the basis for someone else to do so. What if it were a paint by number kit of an original design (as opposed to something long out of copyright) - and you made the painting

- but photocopied the canvas and then sold it? You've now given someone else the ability to make a new original, but you have yours. Or, hey - why not trace a handpainted canvas - you stitch one, and pass on the tracing to your pal for half price.

Visual art vs written words, etc - there are differences in how the copyright protection works.

There's an interpretation issue having to do with single use vs multiple use/users. We have a couple of friends that are patnet & trademark attorneys - I think I'll ask them. They'll say - as do most lawyers - well, it could be true, or it could not be true.

Some years back, a woman took an MLI angel design, and made a large art quilt out of it. The quilt was entered in IIRC one of the AQS, or maybe the Houston Expo - Tia Mary may remember this as well - and won an award. Award with cash money prize. And was then reprinted in Quilters Newsletter Magazing. I remember this as I had not been quilting long at the time, and that's my favorite quilting mag, and I remember seeing the photo, with some blurb. I'm sure that there was attribution as in this was based upon an XS chart. MLI did not however give permission for this use of her design, and a lawsuit ensued. To the best of my knowledge, MLI won the suit. I hesitate to give any other details - but am pretty sure about the basics. I have had this particular case spoken about in some other designer forums, etc. Most recently, Paula Nadelstern brought an action against the Hyatt or Hilton (forget which one) in Houston - that is attached to the convention center - hosting the large quilt expo. The hotel had a carpet made allegedly based upon one of her kaleidoscope quilt designs (everyone that I know who's seen it seems to agree) without getting rights to the design, or paying any royalty/commission. So, that suit is being followed pretty closely, and is mentioned in some of the quilting guild and other news.

I know that I have the QNM with the picture, etc - but it's packed up. I want to say it's probably from about 1999? But no assurance on the date.

ellice

Very few designers care if a person buys a chart then later on sells it (whether or not it has been stitched). What the designers are unhappy about is the person who photocopies a chart and sells dozens of the photocopies on eBay.

Very few designers care if a needlework shop (brick and mortar or online) assembles the proper size fabric, full skeins of floss, and full packets of beads) to sell along with an original chart or to sell to someone who already owns an original chart. Shops call this kiting up a design, but it is not what upsets designers. Most designers are unhappy about so called kits that are sold with photocopied charts, wrong and/or poorly cut fabric, etc.

An individual may legally purchase a duplicate or even triplicate of a chart they already own. They are free to sell those on eBay if they wish. NO ONE is free to make multiple photocopies and sell them on eBay or anywhere else, implying the person purchasing is receiving an authorized kit.

And no, I am not a designer, just a person who hates to see anyone (even a designer) get taken advantage of because of people who are out to make a buck by any means, legal or not.

Rita Liesch

Mostly I prefer to put my own together, because I substitute so many colors. In fact, the last design I did, I didn't use one single recommended color. But I know lots of people choose to never, ever vary from the chart recommendations, and love to have things pre-kitted by the LNS.

Agreed. I like to kit things up myself just for the visceral satisfaction of it. Touching the fibers and fabrics, letting the colors soak into my eyeballs--most definitely a sensual experience.

And yes, I am a Taurus--why do you ask?

In news:jtmdnUV-7cO_YIbYnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@adelphia.com, Lucille purred:

Those are called residuals (includes video rentals/sales, Television broadcasts (they have to pay in order to broadcast, then recoup that via commercial airtime sales), and an performer (actor) or director/producer, etc. will only get those if A) it is written in their contract that they get them and B) the distributor is honest and pays them their allotment, usually done on a yearly basis.

Careful MLI might sue you for slander! rofl.....she has claimed on several occasions that she has never sued anyone! Sorry, could not resist.

And while this has vered off on copyright issues, my original post was about selling or reselling the original chart, not copies of it.

Caryn

I did say "ORIGINAL chart" in my post. I detest the folks who sell photocopies or trade scanned charts online.

"Most" huh? Just curious how many you've spoke to to come to that conclusion. I've never seen a photocopied chart kitted up in a shop except the occasional freebie chart that is ok to be photocopied and distributed to shops in the first place. Shops can't charge for the chart, but they can for the kitted materials.

Um....did you just say making money legally is a problem? I hope you don't mind if I keep my paycheck earned thru legal hard work.

Caryn

Okay, I'll tackle this subject from the viewpoint that we're talking about online sellers/shops who purchase new charts wholesale from distributors and then sell them at discounted prices (as opposed to Ebay sellers who are merely selling their gently used charts at second hand prices, which is perfectly acceptable and beyond the designer's legal right to control).

Perhaps those designers are upset because the online sellers who are selling their charts at discounted prices are undercutting the brick & mortar shops, who must sell their charts at or above retail in order to stay in business. No one - especially designers - wants to see more B&M shops close their doors, so designers are doing whatever they can to help support those shops and keep them in business. If their designs are being sold online for significantly less than retail, then the B&M shops can't compete and lose out on those sales.

So I don't think it's an issue of the designer losing out on a cut of those online sales (because they wouldn't be, if the seller is purchasing their designs from a distributor), but rather an issue of the negative effect those discount online sellers are having on the B&M shops.

And this is just a guess, but perhaps those designers also feel that it devalues their designs when online sellers regularly sell them at highly reduced prices. If the average retail price for one of their charts is say, $8 at a B&M shop, but stitchers constantly see it regularly priced on discount sites for only $5, then stitchers might conclude that that design is really only worth $5, and anything higher (i.e. the B&M shop's price) is 'ripping them off'.

I agree, and personally I do not feel that I deserve a cut from someone selling one of my charts secondhand because, as you stated, I already received my cut when the original owner purchased it. But I'd be lying if I didn't wish deep down that the purchaser would buy a brand new chart from a shop instead, so I'd get a cut from that sale, as well. ;-) But such is the way of the secondhand market, and I have no beef with it. In fact, I purchase used charts myself all the time (as well as brand new charts).

The only negative aspect I can think of with a shop kitting up a chart themselves (as in, kitting it up in advance and selling it as a pre-packaged 'kit'; not as in pulling materials and kitting it up in front of the customer) is if they substitute the materials the designer calls for with lesser-quality materials, or materials that don't really work with the design. Or if they fail to include enough materials to complete the design. If that were the case, then the stitcher buying the 'kit' might assume that the designer was the one who kitted it up poorly, thereby forming a negative opinion of the designer. That one incident could be enough to turn them off to that designer for good, so that they vow never to buy any of their designs again (and I have heard stitchers say this after buying an incomplete or poorly supplied kit).

Another concern the designer might have is if the shop kits up one of their designs and then refuses to sell the chart by itself, thereby 'forcing' stitchers to purchase the kitted up version even if they don't want or need the kitted supplies. If stitchers decide not to buy the 'kits', then the chart doesn't sell and the shop assumes it's a poor seller and doesn't buy any more. This results in a loss of future sales for the designer.

Michelle Stitchy Kitty

This is quite an interesting thread.

I have been going through my printed stash and weeding out the charts that in a ruthless moment, admitted that I will probably never do, and all the old XS magazines that I will never make anything out of. I thinking of EBaying them, but have never sold anything on EBay...only bought. First I am going to make a fairly detailed list and offer them to various e-mail groups I am on. This is the only newsgroup I am on, but I'd be happy to offer it here first. Some charts are new and some are old and some are used, though not by me. I tend to buy boxes from my library that are labeled "Needlework" and it is usually quite a mixture of stuff. Last year I had been set up at our local indoor flea market but that is out of my system, thank goodness.

At the shop I work at we don't actually "kit" things up, but we do bag up the beads, specialty threads, charms and such and paper clip them to a chart so the customer can buy them without us having to stop and hunt it all down or they can just buy the chart. We don't pull the flosses because most folks already have floss at home and we don't pull the fabric because most folks have a personal preference. And yes, there are quite a few folks who would never dream of not using EXACTLY what the pattern calls for. Because it is a tourist town, frequently a chart will be chosen and left for us to kit up for them while they wander around town. Then they come back in a few hours and pick it up. Personally, most of the time I use what the pattern calls for but sometimes I'll change a little something. The main thing I so different from what is called for is the fabric. I look at the chart and if it has more that 2 or

3 quarter stitches then I use evenweave and not Aida. If it has no quarter stitches, then I use Aida.

How old is old enough to be out of copyright protection?

What does MLI stand for?

What does TNNA stand for?

The single use issue came up on a sewing list I was on several years back. Some folks even said that if you wanted to make 2 dresses just a like you were supposed to buy a pattern for each dress! I thought that was taking it a little far. Also, some contended that it was illegal to use commonly bought patterns to make items to sell. It went on and on for a long time.

I do think that selling photo copies of charts is wrong. I understand that on-line stores selling charts cheap would make a designer a little nervous and LNSs very upset. So many LNS are closing and I'm sure the cheaper on-line shops are not helping the situation.

I know EBay has hurt the flea market. Folks buy and sell on line and don't go to the flea market anymore and if they do they expect much lower prices. That's why I want to start selling on EBay. Can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Of course, those who buy on-line also have to pay shipping and handling which may or may not be padded. When they buy from a LNS that little item is included in the price since the LNS has already paid it unless it IS to be mailed, then it might be charged extra.

I'll shut up for now ;)

Naomah

Last I knew it was the death of the holder plus 50 or 75 yrs...I remember it changing from one to the other, but can't remember which way the change went. Either way, you'd be hard pressed to find a Xst chart that has gone out of copyright, outside of historical samplers.

Marilyn Leavitt-Imblum, the designer that is Lavendar & Lace, Butternut Road and one more that slips my mind at the moment. She tends to go overboard when it comes to this topic. She used to post here, but found it happier to post only in her own yahoogroup where few ever disagree with her about anything.

Actually in the case of selling something based on commonly bought patterns, they are right, it is illegal to do so without permission of the copyright holder. Sometimes, getting permission is as simple as just taking the time to ask.

Please do! Ladybugs are a specialty for me!

Cheryl

Dear Caryn:

Now we all know how you love to argue, especially when you can misquote or half quote what someone else has to say so I will make one comment about what you have said then you won't hear any more from me on this subject as I don't care to feed your vanity.

Perhaps you should try reading my message a second time. I did not say shops were selling photocopied charts. I said some eBay sellers were selling so called kits made up using photocopied charts.

Also since I have stitched models for over a dozen different designers, I expect that I can honestly say I have spoken with a number of designers about this problem.

I did not say there was anything wrong with making money legally. What I said was that some people don't care how they make money - legally or illegally. Glad to hear that you make your money legally as I've always thought all you did was verbally fight with people who post on rctn.

Rita Liesch