The Designer's Cut

Actually, it was a "few" very vocal, insensitive, and some downright mean comments that were said to Marilyn, for whom many thought was a legitimate member of RCTN and contributed to the group as a whole. Her threads were easy to ignore if you didn't care for the conversations.

We have lost a number of excellent designers and fiber artists for the same mean-spirited reasons.

Dianne

*snipping the snippage*

This would definitely be illegal - if the charts are included. If just selling kits of materials labelled as "kits that can be used for XXX" then it would be legal.

Umm - FWIW - what you originally wrote was confusing - inserted here:

So, just curious - why didn't you just answer her post without the snipe - if you find Caryn to be so argumentative? At least you didn't accuse her of fisticuffs - here at RCTN we're just stuck with the virtual kind....

Ellice - who is not particularly interested in fighting either way

Just a quickie note on this topic. One of our friends is a partner in a "prestigious" patent, trademark, copyright firm. Though he is a patent guy, he knows a fair amount (or according to him, enough to get into trouble) about copyrights. Last night we were talking about this - in the "don't start the clock" mode. In brief - he said that:

1 - Copyright law is much more complicated than patents or trademark (easiest) because of things that have just been done (as in when an easement for property is granted because the use has never been contested - my paraphrase), and there are differences in the copyright laws from state-to-state vs the federal basic copyright (whatever info you find on the copyright office web site from the US gov).

2 - the only places where copyright is a "big" thing are California because of Music, movies, tv, and New York - same & mostly for publishing. Tennessee - with Nashville - to a much lesser extent.

3 - the issue we were talking about - specifically - visual art, the use of a chart (i.e. The chart to make a piece of art that was designed by someone, published under stated copyright, with permission to make 1 working photocopy, used to produce the piece of art) would be interpreted as for the single purchaser to use the chart. But that re-selling the chart - after it had been used for its express purpose (to be stitched by the purchaser) would be a violation of the individual designer's copyright protection.

Of course, he also told me that his partner who is one of the world's experts on copyright would be happy to talk about it with me - if I was serious or needed real counsel - but it would be expensive. I can guarantee you I'm not forking out at least $500 for a 20 min chat....

However, my friend was pretty firm in his feelings that resale of the used charts is a violation. The reality is that it's not a big enough industry for someone to go to the expense of bringing action. I'd guess that if one of the trade associations really wanted to follow-up, then the thing to do would be to get a cease & desist type order published to Ebay - which would perhaps stop them from carrying "resales of used charts" .

It's just one of those things - if you want to support designers to stay in business, and try to keep prices down, then you buy their designs from an authorized source. If you just want to keep your budget down - then you do whatever is cheapest for you. If you don't find anything ethically wrong with buying used charts, and can rationalize it - that's your personal decision. Using the generic "you" here - not accusing anyone.

Well - off to buy some red silk for the garden...

Ellice - who is happy the sun is out now

ellice wrote: > However, my friend was pretty firm in his feelings that resale of the used

Hmmmmm . . . Libraries sell used books to raise funds. Same with sheet music. If I have software, it is perfectly legal for me to sell it (or give it away) as long as I don't retain a copy (I've been through this more than once with the original copyright holder).

I find this quite confusing and I'm not sure what you quoted is the bottom line. I think it's far trickier than that. I will not disagree that selling a photocopy is out and out fraud. There's a lot of that going on.

In some less than clear cases, all a lawyer has to do is waggle a finger and the average person can't fight back because of the costs involved. Been there, too.

Dianne

Well, the copyright attorney I actually paid a retainer to doesn't see the second-hand usage an issue.

Dianne Lewandowski wrote:

I suspect it's more like regular folks are too intimidated to try to fight back or assume it will cost more than it would.

That may also be true. However, most attorneys I know charge more than an average person can readily afford. An opposing attorney with (seemingly) endless funds can cause the average individual to expend considerable funds. Went through this about 8 years ago on a different matter entirely.

Also went through it recently with a threatening attorney whom I know couldn't have won. But I don't have the funds to fight back, nor the emotional strength to go through years of litigation. Being your own attorney is time consuming and fraught with dangers.

I just wish people would realize what the law is and understand why it

*is* the law. I have no sympathy for those who feel "entitled" for whatever reason.

Dianne

But in that case it should be legal to resell a chart that one hasn't stitched (I have PLENTY of those.) I have no idea how ebay could tell if you stitched it or not.

Alison

As a designer this has been a very interesting thread. It is an issue I debate with my other half all the time; What is a fair balance between us and our customers?

Obviously I cannot condone people photocopying charts and then selling them as I would go out of business. Equally I have no issue with people selling completely unused kits or charts on ebay for whatever they can get for them. The area in between is where it is rather grey. Personally, I would not consider someone who bought a chart and made up the design several times for their own use (as a set of identical cushions say) to have acted unfairly, but passing a chart round several people (whether for money or just giving or swapping it) starts to seem a bit unfair to me. Am I too sensitive?

The sad thing is when the law gets in the way of people acting reasonably. I have always had a few older customers who have problems with their eyesight and I never used to have any worries about telling them to photocopy the charts if they wanted to enlarge them. These days I don't feel I can say that as saying it would seem to be giving cart blanche to anyone to copy my charts. Now I have to ask them to contact me to get a larger scale copy (I don't charge extra).

I think some of the issues about what the law says is confused because what we are really talking about is the stitcher purchasing a license to use the design and yet there is no clear license agreement. Maybe someone who knows how to write such an agreement could draft one we could all use so we all knew where we stand.

Cheers!

Karen

It is quite confusing. The difference, in my most simple understanding, has to do with visual art, and the actual end use. Books are intended to be read, over and over, I guess as what you get from the reading isn't a visible thing but rather what you retain mentally. Visual art - or producing visual art - which is what you do when you stitch a charted design

- you've been allowed to essentially copy/build/produce the designer's original design - that time. When you resell the directions -i.e. The chart

- you're now licensing someone else to produce that design - rather than the designer doing so. It's like burning CDs and distributing them,kind of.

As I said, my friend was clear that copyright law is very tangled, and very much a speciality. And specific to what it is being applied.

Most of us are laypeople - not copyright specialists, and I think don't want to behave illegally - so as I said - IMHO, you find what is ethically, and hopefully legally right- and do that. When the laws are murky - for me, I tend to draw my line of ethics where I'm comfortable, which may be a little tight, but that's me. Would I donate used charts to a charity - like a shelter, the senior center, etc - yes - but I also feel thase are places where the recipients wouldn't be buying charts, regardless. That's my line. Do I resell them after stitching - no. That's kind of like hey, I rented a chart so I could use it for a while and now I'm selling the lease. Just to me. And as much as the brick 'n 'mortar shops are having a hard time - with suppliers (like Kreinik) sellingon their own web-sites while forcing a shop to have large minimum orders for stock, and some designers selling directly

- making it silly for a shop to invest in inventory, and designers themselves having to work hard to make their salary -I'm just not comfortable reselling used charts.

Having suffered the effects of being plagiarized or republished without permission myself, that pissed me off. This discussion - well it's a friendly one - and I think curious as - well, you know the saying about opinions... We've all got one.

ellice

To the best of my knowledge, there's never been an issue with reselling un-stitched charts. I expect it's an on your honor kind of thing. Of course it's a how do you enforce thing. What keeps someone from photocopying sections of a book they resell? Same thing. The best Ebay could do is state a policy - then it's up to the sellers.

As Elizabeth said - her particular attorney had no issue with 2nd hand use. That's her position - I don't know where she is located. As my friend pointed out - copyright law is not consistent on a federal basis - different states, different laws, interpretations, etc.

And, as anyone with experience with attorneys knows - there are always 3 sides at least to any subject of legal opinion. It's who can get a judge to make an interpretation in their favor that is "right" ... As my brother told me years ago with the truth "weee-elll, sometimes it is, and sometimes it's a little different, and sometimes it's not....That's why engineers make bad attorneys, you're always looking for a precise answer."

ellice

'

Selective memory?

She came out here called everybody who wasn't buying her charts thieves, and other such insanity.

You yourself are a mean-spirited person, to those you don't like. I've seen it over and over in your dealings with myself and Victoria, among others. So, are you also to blame for MLI leaving to form her own group where the slightest disagreement with her gets you kicked out?

Caryn

Private forums are often not a democracy. They are moderated and the person(s) that owns/controls it has the right to do as they wish for whatever reason.

While suspending people's accounts might not always be the best way to handle things, anyone who joins a private group must surely know that it exists at the whim of the owner. Rather like the workplace in many states where there are no right to work laws. You are hired at the whim of the employer who can fire you for any cause or no cause.

Dianne

Interesting editting of my comment. Can't face the truth?

Caryn

Who is The Rodent?

Darla wrote:

Mickey Mouse! Dianne

Mickey Mouse, aka Disney

-- Jenn Ridley : snipped-for-privacy@chartermi.net WIP: Oriental Butterfly, Floral Sampler, Rose Trio, Carousel (TW) Most recently Finished: Insect Sampler, TicTacToe Sampler, Snow Stitching log:

Well, DUH! Some days my brain just doesn't work LOL!

Dianne Lewandowski wrote: