The Designer's Cut

Karen - you certainly are hitting on the crux of the issue. Ethics and fairness - we don't think of needlework as a cut-throat type of business and avocation. Yet for full-time designers, it is their livelihood. For otheres, maybe a way to make a little maney with their talents and avocation. For the consumer - like most hobbies - it costs something in real currency, besides time & effort. I wonder if sometimes people just think all the designers are making tons of money, etc.

I agree with you and don't think this is being too sensitive. Charts are priced with a certain assumption. The increases in pricing over the last couple of years certainly reflects the problems of reselling, bootleg copies, etc.

And it only seems reasonable to allow people to make a working copy. My eyesight is fine, but with most charts I'd rather enlarge them a bit, and end up folding, twisting, marking the photocopy - when I'm done no one could use it - and it's in the trash. Lately, my friend with the LNS and I have started to put pockets on the back of a framed piece - to hold the chart. That being if we're not stitching it again, and even so - it's easy to find. Many designers put the notice on the bottom authorizing the purchaser to make a "working copy" for personal use, etc.

That is exactly the case. When you purchase a chart, the artist is giving you license to copy their design. I expect someone could ask a copyright specialty attorney (and there aren't tons of those people) to draft an appropriate statement - about the purchaser being given license to stitch the design as charted, modifications in use of color, threads being acceptable, multiple use by the original purchaser being allowed. There are some designers who have a notice that says the design may not be used for commercial purposes (i.e. Sold for money) . If someone wants you to stitch for them - then I guess the way that is done is the end-owner buys the chart, materials and then pays the stitcher - as opposed to someone stitching a chart then putting the finished product up for sale. Of course, you can always ask the designer for permission.

When you buy a book there is no license to use it, read it, etc. Hence part of the difference between reselling a book, and re-selling a chart that has been stitched - the stitcher has no right to transfer the license - that is granted by the original designer/owner of the copyright.

With books of patterns - I'd think they fall under the publishing laws - and would allow multiple readings, i.e. Users. But again - you can't photocopy the book for other use/distribution.

Reality - no one is going to check out what's hanging in somebody's home. The real problems are photocopied charts being sold all over. But, when a group of friends all decide to share the same chart - they are hurting the designer, the market, which ends up with all of us paying the increased price. Justify it however.

happy stitchin' ellice

Could be, I'm just sick of seeing the words "mean spirited" in every response Dianne makes to any of my posts. This thread did not start off with the intention to be meanspirited. I was genuinely befuddled by the idea that a designer deserved another bite of the pie as the chart passed thru the market.

Stitchy Kitty (I'm sorry I can't recall your actual name at the moment) made several good points, and I got to see a different, and entirely rational, perspective.

My response to Dianne was knee jerk, and I should know better. I'm not apologizing, as I don't think I said anything that wasn't true, but I should probably have ignored her barb.

Caryn

There was a quote on my freelance writing list a few months ago, from an author who had written a popular book (read in many schools, but that's thousands of kids reading the same 100 copies year after year), to the effect that "everyone thinks I have servants, but fact is, I'm wandering around the grocery like everyone else, trying to decide what to fix for dinner."

Unfortunately, most people think that if you have your own business, you're rich. This was a topic of great hilarity at our monthly brunch meetings with a client who also owned his own business. We wives didn't get to go out to eat unless it was tax-deductible, so the guys would talk business and share leads and we'd enjoy that one meal a month that we didn't have to cook ourselves.

I had a day job to pay the bills (and did the paperwork for the family business at night), she worked full-time in the family business because they couldn't afford employees; neither of us had a cleaning lady; yet people assumed that "your husband owns a business, you must go on fabulous vacations." Yeah, right. She was trying to think when she'd last gone on a "vacation" that wasn't a business convention.

Ha! That hit close to home. I tell people, "If it isn't tax deductible or edible, it doesn't get bought."

I should probably extend that to, "There is no vacation where it's not tax deductible." DH is getting used to this.

Maybe.

I hope.

Someday.

Pre-1923 is generally safe (public domain) in the US. There are other rules for items published after that time and lots of exceptions thereon. The rules are different for every country. For example, Canada is less restrictive and Mexico much more restrictive. The thing to watch for with charts based on old samplers is the date of publication NOT the date the original sampler was stitched. A chart based on an old design is an interpretation of said design and has its own copyright.

Details about US copyright are available from Project Gutenberg

works with this stuff every day and they have a really good grasp of the law and explain it about as well as possible to the lay reader.

I'm going to posit a very grey area. What do you all make of it?

A stitcher dies tomorrow. His/her debts exceed the assets of the estate so all assets must be sold (i.e. cannot be given away to charity). There are many UFOs in various stages of work, charts known to be new, charts known to be used, opened but unstarted kits, charts no one in the family recognizes, etc. There are NO photocopied charts except for marked-up working copies in the UFOs. Which of these items can be placed on the estate auction without violating copyright?

I understand - I wasn't intending the public pillory. I do notice that catch phrase a lot... And of course, since we know each other in the non-cyber world, I'm comfortable saying that you're not mean-spirted. At least not any more than the rest of us in the occasionally sarcastic, trying to be witty, crew around here.

I understand your befuddlement. The whole situation is kind of a quandary. What befuddles me is people saying "until you can find a way to prove I've used a 2nd hand, photocopied chart, etc - then I'm going to keep on" - and then complain about the cost of needlework.

Ya' gotta do what ya' gotta do! How's the head?

ellice

That's what executors get their cut for...You'd like to think that a form letter ends up sent to the designers of those "used" and permission granted. I'd say you sell the new, sell the unstitched kits., and can sell the UFOs with the charts.

Stuff that's been stitched - well, letter for permission to sell. But, there also may be some legal interpretation that allows liquidation of the estate - implying transferance of the license so that the completed items can be sold. Good question, Brenda.

ellice

Good grief! This could end up being so legalist as to cause some people not to buy anything to begin with! Does this mean that my family can no longer buy a kit or chart to give to me as a Christmas or birthday gift, because they purchased the license and cannot transfer it to me? Or now I can't pull out a simple chart out of my stash to use to teach my daughter to stitch? What if I stitch a chart once and later the finished product gets ruined? Can I stitch it again using the chart I originally purchased or do I need to write for permission? I completely understand and agree with the *no xerox copies other than a working copy* (and I have refused friends in the past who wanted copies of a chart I had), but having to have a lawyer send letters to every designer from whom I own a chart after I die so my kids can liquify my estate is crossing the line, IMO. The lawyer will charge more to do that than the stash will be worth! Besides, I know if I were to die as soon as I hit the *send* key on this, my executor would have no clue about copyright and selling of stash, and I wonder if your average small-town lawyer would think about it either.

Carolyn

ellice wrote:

I was thinking that very same thing.

This is where the sticky wicket is. We're starting to view everything with a copyright as a LICENSE (which term is applied to software, and those of us who deal with software and licensing on a daily basis are being trained to think this way).

A copyright is not a license. A license indicates that the actual product is still the property of the manufacturer. A copyright indicates that the content of a product is the property of the brain who thunk it up. The actual product that it's printed on is the property of the person who bought it.

Some designers think of their work as LICENSED, when in fact it is not.

I think this was a very good point, and that the distinction needs to be made because some designers apparently want to move in the direction of LICENSING as opposed to COPYRIGHT.

Irp. Lemme clarify. Some designers think of their CHARTS as licensed to the first buyer, which it is not.

When I buy artwork to chart, I only buy a LICENSE to that artwork and the artist retains the copyright. The consumer of my CHART buys the product, for which I hold the COPYRIGHT, but the consumer owns the product, not a license to use it.

I personally think that we should probably clean out the house before we start renovating it; i.e., we need to focus our attention more on the people who copy and sell pirated charts on a large-scale basis before we move on to pick nits about a second-hand market, kitting, and color conversions and all sorts of nonsense.

I agree (also your second post). We need to worry about sellers who are photocopying and either giving away or selling. *This* is what is causing designers to lose, and some of the public doesn't seem to "get it." They feel entitled.

Dianne - holder of several copyrights

I don't know if I told this story here. If so, I apologize. I know I told it somewhere.

A friend who has a very up-and-coming, thriving hand-dyed fabric company was approached by someone who wanted her to custom dye a piece of fabric.

My friend gave her the cost and the woman was upset. When my friend mentioned the P word as part of an explanation for the price, the woman went from upset to outraged. How DARE she make a PROFIT!

The "P" word is the dirty word in this society, apparently. The few who get it don't mind it but the rest feel entitled because...why? I honestly haven't a clue. Or do those people just not understand that every piece they take without paying DOES matter to the rest of society in terms of increased costs across the board? Do they not understand it's really no different from shoplifting?

I rather more respect the people overseas who do it and say, "Yeah, I'm doing it--so what? Catch me," than the people here in the States who try to backpeddle and justify it with, "Well, they make so much money one won't hurt them" or "I don't have any money and they do, so it's okay" or "You don't have any right to make money off me."

Tangent: A secondary market is good for an economy and relatively good for a designer, so that's one reason I don't have any issue with that. There are secondary markets for EVERYTHING and secondary markets are what primarily drive an economy.

Some of this might be that it isn't being taught in our schools during civics or government. Or they were taught and have forgotten through the years. As a piano teacher, it is hard for many parents to understand that what I charge is tuition, and if you don't come to lessons, you must pay for my time.

Another angle might be that people in this country, many of whom have been squeezed mightily over the last decade especially, are angry at the enormity of CEO salaries. I think there's a general feeling that "business" is ripping us all off. All around us, pension funds are being thrown out or have been squandered fraudulently, health care costs are rising so fast, and it just doesn't seem that those we work for give a darn anymore. They're out to get you. I'm being overly general, but I do think it is a mindset that permeates our society.

Dianne

You're right, Dianne and Liz, in that making xerox copies and selling or giving them away is theft. But look at society in general nowadays. People are not as willing to differentiate between right and wrong as a whole, whether it be cross stitch charts or downloading illegal music or any number of things. People get *offended* when you point out what they are doing and why it is wrong, and like Liz's friend experienced, the honest ones are the one put on the spot to defend their right to make a living! It's called ethics, and even what we were taught as child as a basic idea (don't take something that doesn't belong to you or that you didn't pay for) seems to have flown out the window in the last 10-15 years or so. Perhaps it's an offshoot of the "me" generation and parents who wouldn't/couldn't/can't say NO; I'm just guessing here, but whatever the reason, it stinks, and copying of cross stitch charts is just a minor part of it.

A woman I know who will ask me for copies of my charts has a general life-view that she grew up poor, had a rough childhood, isn't much better off now and comes across as though she will take whatever she can get without having to pay for it. It really ticks me off when her son (my son's friend) comes over and asks to have stuff that is lying around. I obviously can't control what he does at other places, but he's learned not to do it here, and it's quite apparent where he gets the idea that he can just "have" things.

Carolyn

Dianne Lewandowski wrote:

Or the only thing that stuck with them was the Marxist theory that businessowners are out to enslave the world, and it's up to the working stiffs to wrest control away from us Capitalist Pigs who dare to make a profit.

I won't venture a guess as to the cause, but I will remark on the result. In the next block is a "continuation school" (for kids who've been kicked out of regular high school for one reason or another) combined with vocational school (job training).

One of the neighbors who worked from home had heard a number of complaints about things that were damaged or went missing from front yards or front porches while the other homeowners were at work. One morning, she knew she saw some potted plants just before the kids' had their morning break (when they are permitted to leave the building), and a few minutes later when she looked again, those potted plants were gone.

She finally started scheduling HER work breaks to coincide with the kids' school breaks, and quite pointedly sitting on her front steps with the cordless phone, making sure the kids knew she was watching them and was ready to call the police if they took or damaged anything within her line of sight.

It was eventually decided that we would write a letter to the principal, pointing out that all the job skills in the world wouldn't help these kids if they got out in the work world with the notion of "I like it, it's mine", "I need it, it's mine". You decide to help yourself to your co-worker's toolbox, you're going to get fired, no questions asked. Apparently, the principal was completely unaware that these kids had no ethics, and steps were quickly taken to remedy the situation.

A lot of those kids didn't grow up with our middle-class values. They are in that school because they grew up around people who, if they needed money, held up a store, or if they wanted a bike, they just took one, and passed along their, um, "morals" to the next generation, who learned by example that it's perfectly OK to take what you want/need.

Some of them are from ethnic groups where it's custom that "what's mine is yours", and they've never learned the concept of Private Property because in their tightly interrelated culture, there is no such thing. If this is their first time out of their small cultural enclave, it never crosses their mind to differentiate between taking from a stranger versus taking from a distant relative. (Again, this was not something that the principal was aware of until people from those ethnic groups enlightened him that this was fully acceptable in their native culture.)

That's interesting about the ethnic differences, but that's not the case in this boy's situation. The parents would never dream of outright stealing something, but the Mom and now the kids have no hesitation in asking for something (and asking and asking and asking). Of course the Mom is also of the "my child can do no wrong" variation, so it's often useless to bring it up to her. That's why I tell the child (nicely) that if there is something my son doesn't want, my son will offer it; the other boy isn't to ask.

Carolyn

Karen C - California wrote:

My husband came to the marriage equipped with a much milder version of this (yet still socially unacceptable) and we had some home training on that score (and a few others).

He was pretty much raised in a barn, but considering where he came from, he's turned into an exceptional person (and not because of me, either).