Suppose you saw a picture of a quilt pattern on the internet. You said hey, I like that, I think I'll do one just like it. You figure out the measurements, yourself, and then proceed to make a copy of what you saw. The picture you are using for a pattern says Copyrighted on the website. Are you breaking the law or even crossing the line of ethics? You do not plan to enter it into any shows and claim it is your own design. You just like the look of it and want to make one for yourself. You will not sell it for profit. I recently made a quilt from what I generated on a website as a "Mondrian Inspired" Quilt. To my knowledge, Mondrian did not do any quilts. He worked in the paint medium. But that aside, What about the quilt picture of a pattern that was for sale, online, and you just take off from there. What is the best guess as to the ethics of that situation? I think that it is ok, if you are not going to enter it into competition or sell the product of your labors. What say all of you. It will be interesting to hear the responses. Why do I get myself into these quandaries?
Well, I sure hope it doesn't send me to you-know-where to do such a thing. I have done this for year. I see things I don't need a pattern for, and just proceed to make one for myself or someone else. Haven't been struck by lightening yet. The ethics of it? I imagine that my way is probably not like theirs. The only sale lost was mine. I don't know. I just never thought what I was doing was wrong. Gee whiz, John. Okay, I know! Let me put this shoe on the other foot. I have a pattern out there for sale. People are looking at the picture and making one without buying my pattern. hmm.... Well, if this were going on, hopefully I wouldn't know about it. Then it wouldn't bother me! Or, if my close friends wanted to make one that looked like mine, that wouldn't bother me either. Okay, I have no idea if I've covered the ethics or not. But I think I've justified my own actions to my conscience. LOL
To me, the first question that needs to be answered is if you are going to sell/show (for ribbons) the quilt. If the answer to that is no, then I proceed to my next course of thought.
If I am "copying" or adapting a picture, pattern, or other medium to a quilt that I am giving as a gift or keeping for myself, then I personally don't have a problem with it. I can never entirely copy a quilt from a picture on the web or elsewhere, so to me, the picture is an inspiration that I am going to adapt and change to my idea and thought of how I would like to make it. In fact, just yesterday at a quilt store I was looking at a Barbara LaValle print, famous here in Alaska first and then elsewhere, and the owner and I got to talking about a card that I had seen years ago that I was adapting to a quilt. She commented that she had done the same thing several times, but not for sale. We talked a lot about inspiration and our vision.
Ethics? Well, trying to make an exact as possible copy without buying the pattern gets me to thinking to myself. Just me but my guilt would either make me buy the pattern or not make the "copy", or change it enough to be inspired.
I think that your Modrian inspried quilt is fine. I've toyed with the idea before as well. What about the Degas painting of the dancers that was made into a quilt? That seems to have passed muster.
Just my thoughts.
Steven Alaska
Suppose you saw a picture of a quilt pattern on the internet. You said hey, I like that, I think I'll do one just like it. You figure out the measurements, yourself, and then proceed to make a copy of what you saw. The picture you are using for a pattern says Copyrighted on the website. Are you breaking the law or even crossing the line of ethics? You do not plan to enter it into any shows and claim it is your own design. You just like the look of it and want to make one for yourself. You will not sell it for profit. I recently made a quilt from what I generated on a website as a "Mondrian Inspired" Quilt. To my knowledge, Mondrian did not do any quilts. He worked in the paint medium. But that aside, What about the quilt picture of a pattern that was for sale, online, and you just take off from there. What is the best guess as to the ethics of that situation? I think that it is ok, if you are not going to enter it into competition or sell the product of your labors. What say all of you. It will be interesting to hear the responses. Why do I get myself into these quandaries?
Part of the difference for me is in the uniqueness of the pattern. For example, if I see a pattern for a quilt done in a very traditional style, using a very traditional block, I don't think I'm infringing on a copyright by making a similar quilt. In my opinion, the value of the copyright on such a pattern is for the instructions for making the quilt; I don't see how such a design could be copyrighted. On the other hand, if the design of the quilt is very unique, copying the design could be considered a copyright infringement. But if you are making it only for your own use, it's unlikely you would be prosecuted.
Julia > Suppose you saw a picture of a quilt pattern on the internet. You said
I posed this question, not out of fear of prosecution, but just from the "moral or ethical" standpoint. I realize that most work that you would do is not going to be an "exact" duplicate of the original also. I tend to look at it from the perspective that most art is derivative. Meaning it is not created within a vacuum. It is a distillation of all of the artistic experiences that the author has had and has colored his/her perspective toward the design of something. Within that assumption, is the license, to use it for your own purpose. I like to think of the folk singer who was asked about his stealing a song from somebody. He said, "ya, I stole it from him, but that guy steals songs from everybody".
I always wonder about the Yellow Brick Road type of pattern; just identical sized squares made up of a variety of smaller squares and oblongs. There doesn't seem to be a unique way of putting them together as far as I can see. As far as I am concerned a quick way to make a quilt is to piece squares and oblongs into a bigger block and I am quite capable of calculating their sizes.
Often I think it is the colour combination that catches the eye, and looking through the photos I have saved, they are almost all in 'my' colours.
Sally at the Seaside~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~uk
formatting link
Julia > Part of the difference for me is in the uniqueness of the pattern. For
Part of DD's dissertation for her PhD in Music included the 're-use' of classical music in popular music. When she listens to pop or a film on tv she'll often comment on the origin of a few bars. Sometimes I think she listens to the music and analyses it more than watching the film!
Also, going to another Topic, she has been known to walk out of a store when a piece of music she didn't like came on, just as I was about to buy her a new dress. Saved me a fortune!
Technically speaking, it depends on how much of the quilt pattern (or any other art form) is completely original and how much would be considered intuitive.
If I create a pattern that's basically just an Irish chain and Churn Dash, I can SAY it's copyrighted, but is it really? Nope. There's no way to say that another person wouldn't come up with the same combo.
But if I draw a flower and say it's copyrighted, more than likely, it's covered. Unless it's SO simple that another person without training, "talent," etc, could easily duplicate.
But usually, it's the combination of elements that's copyrightable - but only if it can be PROVEN to be original. A Churn Dash and Irish Chain quilt wouldn't fit that criteria. But, a flower, and a hummingbird in specific proportions, positions, etc, more than likely would.
However, morally, yes, you stole someone else's work ... but again, are you sure that you wouldn't have eventually thought of that combination to begin with?? Or found a free pattern online that did? Assuming, of course, that you're talking pieced rather than applique/drawn. You'd have to judge on your own merits of creativity, originality, etc.
Did all that make sense? Though I deal in copyrights all the time, obeyin' them, respectin' them, and protectin' them ain't the same as 'splainin' em!! :)
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:24:40 -0800 (PST), John wrote:
Well there is copying a pattern, and copying a pattern isn't there?
If you wanted a set of cherry Queen Anne dining chairs and just made them yourself you wouldn't fret about it yes? If later you wanted to sell those chairs, likewise no problem. Now say you completely lose your mind and throw on hand needlepointed seat covers with the smiling face of George W Bush on them. Can you be sued for plopping your bum onto that grin in your own home? Do you need to get a signed model release from him before you could sell the chairs? Could some photographer pop out of the woodwork and sue you for copyright infringement? How about a nightly news agency? How about anybody with a picture of a Queen Anne chair on their website? Nope. Nobody could come at you on any front, unless somebody decided that a frivolous suit would work for them. Derivitive media is protected. Images of public fugures may be utilized by artists everywhere, so long as they are not a direct copy of another artists work in the same medium (inkjetting photo - bad, painting image with photo for reference - OK). You may copy another artist's style within the same medium as long as you are not directly copying their work (Titian, Kingdom Come, a thousand other artists and musicians in history) The only copyright you may obtain for a work utilizing another work that falls into the public domain is specificly related to the uses you make of it (Hence Bob Dylan could sue for somebody using the lyrics to "A Hard Rain Gonna Fall", but he would not be able to sue for somebody using the music whch he flat out stole from the traditional ballad "Lord Randall") In the case of quilts, if you had used bubble jet set to create your quilts by copying images of Mondrian's paintings you would be answerable to the Mondrian-Holtzman Trust, should you ever try to sell it or profit from it in any way whatsoever. Or if they could prove that your having it damaged their ability to profit from the works used. But you didn't do that. You created something of intentionally similar style in a completely different medium. No worse that Titian and Gorgione, better some might say as your work is in a completely different medium and you were not Mondrian's pupil at any point. (G)
So far as other quilt patterns, are they actually original and are you actually copying them is the question. Sure somebody can put together a kit to make a lonestar quilt and copyright the kit. By no means does that mean they own the copyright on the lonestar pattern! In fact it does not even give them a copyright on a lonestar done with those particular colors. It gives them a copyright on a kit, and probably the specific instructions it contains. If it is a kit that "is put together exclusively with Hoobydoo Fabrics in their exciting new Puce Over the Moon design line" then that copyright is even more specific. But only for the kit. You could run right out and buy all the colors in the new Hoobydoo line, make the same quilt, sell it, and never be violating the copyright.(1) You aren't selling the kit you see. Public domain is public domain and cannot be copyrighted except in conjunction with special contents, or specific alterations. Bob Dylan owns the copyright to A Hard Rain, but he does not own the copyright to Lord Randall. Oxford Press owns the copyright to a translation of The Odyssey, but not to The Odyssey itself etc.
If you up and made a copy of Pati's Hoffman Challange quilt,
formatting link
tried to sell it, you would be violating copyright eight ways toSunday. Though based on traditional blocks, it is unique in entirelytoo many ways to claim it is anything but her design. Change thecolor, still hers. Draft it by hand, machine piece it, maketemplates, change the size, paper piece it, still hers. No mistakingit, do what you want as regards color and constuction method and it isstill her unique design. So yeah working her Challenge quilt upwithout permission or compensation would be stealing. I haven't been posting much lately because I have swollen glands leaking here and there around my head which makes sitting in one position for too long really uncomfortable (fluids are, um, fluid). I think I just made up for my reletive quiet.....
NightMist
(1) If "Hoobydoo"="Disney" then frivolous lawsuits may entail
John, you are getting into a very complex issue with this. One that frequently crops up in the Quilt Designer's list. And the short answer is "It depends." It depends on a lot of different things. If the quilt is a "traditional" block, then that in and of itself cannot be copyrighted. However, if it is an original block then you are violating copyright if you reproduce it, in any form without recompense to the designer. Will anyone come after you? Probably not. most designers are not that wealthy, nor do they have the time/energy to pursue something they will probably never find out about.
Copyright, by the way, applies to "derivative works", so if it is something that is very distinctive and someone who knows the work of the designer could look at it and say, "that looks like so-and-so's type of design" then it is derivative.
There are lots of grey areas here. Lots of them.
Pati, > Suppose you saw a picture of a quilt pattern on the internet. You said
Sally, today I was lost in Mozart while I was cleaning the kitchen and realized that I was reminded of a gang of skinny mice wearing gloves or a chorus line of daisies dancing through. The really old black and white cartoons did a lot of borrowing. I don't know if Mozart would be offended or pleased but I like to think it would make him smile. Polly
"Sally Swindells" Part of DD's dissertation for her PhD in Music included the 're-use' of
Mozart would have loved it - would probably have written the music for the mice and daisies. He did write the 'pop' music of the times didn't he, as well as the Requium.
Now say you completely lose your mind and throw on hand needlepointed seat covers with the smiling
Now there is a particularly terrifying thought. Although the image of me sitting on the needlepoint visage of George W. Bush is somehow perversely interesting.
There's a quilt block site that is often referenced on this group. The owner of the site has loads of blocks with directions, pieced, applique and everything in between, and some of them she has designated as "original" blocks with further restrictions on use. The first time I perused the site, I found that one of her "original" pieced blocks looked familiar. I opened up my Electric Quilt and found that I had designed the same block, exactly the same, except for the size. Hers was a 12" block and mine was
8". Yet, she was claiming rights of originality. Since then, I have not looked at her site, nor will I. I don't plan to make a business out of selling patterns, but I do sell a few quilts now and then. I have as much right to that design as she does, should I ever decide to put it in a quilt.
What also brought this whole thing to mind is a conversation I got into with one of the women who owns one of the quilt stores here. She is very strong in the copyright department and takes a very dim view of any infringement or any whiff of same. I posed the question to her and used the analogy of the "Happy Face" logo that is seen everywhere. What about the person who drew the happy face with a frown? And further what about the person who drew the happy face with a frown and a bullet hole in the forehead? She finally had to walk away from the discussion, as she couldn't handle the topic in a calm manner. You can see where this hole thing is going. I don't pretend to know enough about the legal intricacies of all of this, but it is indeed a slippery slope as to what is and is not infringement. I guess I am not worried as to my personal case in point, but it does seem to be rather convoluted, from a laymans perspective.
You have nothing to worry about ... I've been to the site in question and quite frankly, with the exception of VERY few, none of her designs would be copyrightable. They're too intuitive ... merely adding lines to a traditional quilt block isn't copyrightable. And usin' traditional elements in an applique block (common renditions of leaves, flowers, etc) isn't copyrightable, either.
And if you want to know the truth, I've found many of her "original designs" in EQ6's database and in one of my books on historic patterns ... so I'm not sure how "original" they are. She may think that they are, but she's mistaken. :)
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.