Reverse Engineering?

Legally, I think that would depend on how unique the design was. If it is nothing more than a traditional block, the designer would have a hard time proving copyright infringement. If it is truly a unique design, the designer could have a case against you, especially if you reproduced it in similar fabrics. Then again, I'm not an intellectual property attorney, so take my opinion for what it is -- my opinion.

Julia in MN

----------- This message has been scanned for viruses by Norton Anti-Virus

-----------

SewVeryCreative wrote:

I wasn't asking in the sense of selling or representing the pattern as your own ... I meant more along the lines of you see a pattern online, or at your LQS (or even a quilt already made) and you like it and figure that you could make it yourself ... for your own use or to make as a gift for someone else.

Intellectual-property-wise, it *would* in a sense be copyright infringement, but typically only prosecutable if you tried to profit from it.

If you used it for a personal project (and didn't try to profit from it by selling it or representing it as your own) the designer would have a hard time proving that you didn't buy the pattern yourself and more than likely wouldn't bother with it.

I'm not an intellectual property atty in any sense of the word, but I deal with copyrights on a daily basis for my work.

I 'borrow' ideas from quilts I see in catalogs, magazines, books, etc. But I seldom follow the example very closely. I might get an idea of color combinations from one, a unique setting from another and another stimulates me to try something new with an old favorite block- like distorting a pinwheel block in some way. I seldom use/buy patterns for quilts because I want something different... or I take their idea and 'run with it' and 'make it better' (that's in my opinion it's better) type of stuff.

Maybe I should stop talking. Somebody might decide to check up on me! VBG

Leslie, Missy & The Furbabies in MO.

Taking someone else's design as inspiration and running with it in a whole different direction is *not* copyright infringement. (That assumes some distinctive changes to the design, of course, not just "she made hers in blue and yellow and I used pink and white"....)

I'm not sure I've ever managed to actually follow a pattern as written precisely. Some stuff (star quilts) I don't believe I changed enough to be callable "different design", some I'm not sure anyone would recognize as "gee, you started out looking at X pattern, didn't you?"

I've done the same thing with tile floors, for all that.....

--pig

It depends on the pattern.... IF it is a traditional block, in an "ordinary" setting then you should be okay. However, copyright does cover "derivative works", which means if it an original design and you make it and someone says "that looks like so-and-so's pattern" then you are violating copyright. This is a very complex subject that lots of people don't want to discuss at all. But, remember.. designers do not make a lot of money on any one pattern. And if they can't sell the patterns they probably won't keep coming up with new ones.

Pati, > I was just looking at my latest Keepsake Quilting and Connecting Threads

Well, I tend to keep cut outs of the catalog pics that really float my boat. So far, I have not actually RE'd anything, but I could in a heartbeat. In fact, it's sometimes fun to me to see if I can figure out (or maybe even improve upon!) the piecing methods. To be fair, if something is unusual or complicated, I would spring for the pattern, but if it is simply a new take on an older design, then I would probably save the picture and consider just redrafting it. So far, it's all been done in my head, not the sewing machine. I would never consider displaying it in a show or selling it though. It would be more for my personal satisfaction. A serious pet peeve of mine with when there is a book with just a single pattern that I love, maybe even the cover quilt, and the rest of the book is fluff and schlock. I would probably buy the single pattern if it were available, but the whole book is a serious waste. In that case RE really seems attractive.

Now, when it comes to my teaching my applique classes, I'm a bit of a bear about honoring copyright. I give the students my lecture about supporting the artists and tell them that I will not support pattern "sharing" and to not even ask me to make them copies for distribution. They need to bring original patterns and/or magazines when available, but I would not hunt them down and demand to see their original. I figure it's kind of like speed limits and stop signs - you know what the rules are and it's up to the students to decide to follow them or not. What was that saying - Character is what you do when you think no one is watching.

Good discussion question though.

Lorraine in WA

According to Picasso, good artists copy each other; great artists steal from each other. I think by stealing he meant taking bits from all over and combining them in a new way. Of course, if yours looks exactly like the photo, you can't pass it off as your own! Roberta in D

"SewVeryCreative" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:27813$47990aeb$18d6c25a$ snipped-for-privacy@KNOLOGY.NET...

It is a complex issue. I have said that before. It is a very difficult to decipher "thing". However, you cannot copyright an idea, just the physical result of the idea. And, as I have said, most designers are not going to prosecute a single individual who is not out to make a profit from a design.

If you look, you will see lots of patterns/books and magazine articles which feature the same block. That block cannot be copyrighted, but the directions for making it can be and are with each pattern, etc.

Original applique designs are copyrighted when they are drawn or made up. Original block designs are also copyrighted when drawn/made up. But there is also such a thing as "simultaneous discovery" which is when

2 or more people discover/design the same thing at about the same time. Copyright does also have an "end date". Now copyright extends a certain length of time beyond the life of the designer/writer. But anything that was done before a certain date (which I don't remember off the top of my head) may be out of copyright, unless the copyright was renewed.

Pati, > hi Pati,

I just spoke to my intellectual property friend and he had surprising news (at least to me) ... derivative works are no longer as protected as they once were. It only takes a few "moderately" substantial changes to make the work "original."

If a pattern has, say, two bluebirds with flowers in a basket, as long as the shapes for the applique aren't *exactly* as they are in the original pattern, and you omit or change the birds, it's considered an "original work." Whether or not the original designer would attempt to sue is another thing entirely.

Did. Not. Know. This. I wonder how they came to that conclusion? I wonder where the artists were when they decided that???

You know I was just thinking about this on the drive back from a kimono show! This morning I had one of those 'stunningly brilliant' ideas. I will work on it and see how it goes. But, given the 'butterfly on a leaf' circumstance, suppose someone else had the same brilliant idea this morning? I never can get to grips with that >g< Fortunately, once I start working on my SB ideas, they often fizzle out

- so I never get too worried; but one day, you never know! ... ... . In message , Pati C. writes (snipped a bit)

And Mozart stole and copied from himself!! A lot - just listen >g< . In message , Roberta Zollner writes

There's a so-called "designer" on-line who's offering "original" quilts for sale. One of her quilts was done from the first Bible Block series I posted...right down to duplicating the layout of the blocks, and including Road to Damascus,which is an original [to me] design. To be fair, her description of the "old fashioned Bible Block quilt" stated that the blocks came from "a group of church ladies." [Hmmm...I'm a "church lady" I suppose, but while I'm a bit plump, I'm hardly a group!] When I wrote to say she needed to give credit where credit was due, especially if she is going to sell the quilt, she claimed that, since she picked her own fabrics [butt ugly they were too!], the pattern was hers and so I could*** off. Wasn't worth pursuing, although I certainly had a legal claim.

Funny thing...a couple of years later, she must have lost her printouts from my site, because she ordered a copy of my book from me. Wonder if she thought I'd forgotten? I debated before I sold it to her, but then figured, "What the heck?" If this poor soul is trying to make a living selling lavendar, gold, peach and green Bible Block quilts, who am I to say no?

I DO object when I find the introductions to the Bible Block patterns lifted in their entirety and posted elsewhere on the web, and I DO object when my graphics are "borrowed" without permission: I spend long hours researching and writing the messages and instructions, and think giving credit where it's due is essential. If I'm giving you the use of the patterns for free, it seems that's the least you can do in return. That's why I am so careful to include "source" information when I post pictures, and why I appreciate it when other people do the same.

Down at the coffee house breathing a big sigh of relief because now they were not going to get sued by a thousand and one museums, galleries, and charitable organizations.

While a decision like that has it's drawbacks, it was inveitable. There is just too much stuff and way too many people who were just watching and waiting for an opportunity to go to court.

NightMist