This issue has been around a long time -- MLB and NFL fabrics have similar restrictions, as do others. It's one reason why a number of art quilters have gone to strictly hand-dyed and hand-painted fabrics, because there can be no question about copyright. (Well, that and it's FUN! *grin*)
While it's certainly their right to enforce the copyright, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot a bit. I try never to purchase fabrics with such restrictions because, while I don't sell many quilts, I do sell them once in a while. I don't want to worry about what's in my stash, so I keep the problem fabrics out all together. Which means the company has lost a sale, and has had little, if any, corresponding gain.
I agree. I've never sold a quilt, but you never know what's going to happen in the future. Besides, what if I dropped dead tomorrow and DH and the DDs decided to sell some? It's just safer not to use fabrics with this restriction.
I agree with you Kathy. I also will not buy fabric with a copyright design or character. I will certainly avoid Fabricdepot. Yes, hand dying is so much fun. I wish I had room in my life for another hobby!
So where does that leave the independent craft show vendors who are making AND selling crafty items using MLB and NFL fabric.......neck warmers, bandannas, baskets, etc.? I see that all the time!
This comes up every so often. Check out the info at
formatting link
This is a company that makes and sells "stuff" using licensed print fabric. There is something called the "doctrine of first sale" or such. Essentially, once a company sells something it is licensed to sell, it (and the parent, licensing, company) have no right to curtail what is done with it. Once you have bought the fabric, it is yours to do with as you please. As long as you don't make copies of the fabric, that is. You can sell the fabric, use it in anything you want or burn it. The company that sold it to you can't tell you what you can and can't do with it.
They may try, but simply standing up to them and insisting on your rights is all that it takes.
Now, using a pattern is different. In that case the copyright covers "derivative works" which includes items made from the pattern. Most of the time pattern designers don't really care, as long as credit is given. (Yes, even patterns from Simplicity, McCall's and such have copyright notices and some even say that they are for personal use only.) Derivative works are anything that would remind someone of the designer's work. Long and complicated and I would rather not get into this can of worms.
But fabric..... that is licensed, or trademarked and as long as you don't try to sell something and say it is "authorized" or "authentic" or imply that the parent company has anything to do with what you are making/selling (except for providing the print of the fabric) you should be fine. And, frankly, none of these companies is going to try to track down "small business" things. The ones that have been involved are much more public and mostly are selling a lot of stuff on e-bay or other major venue.
Pati, > My brother just sent me a news article about a company called
I can see two possibilities. One is that they've written and received (probably for a fee) permission to do so. The other is that they are breaking the law. :)
I'm not certain the offending firm is fabricdepot.com. I've ordered from there before, read their whole website, and never seen anything about copyright. I would hate to see a decent online business (they have a "real life" store as well) suffer because of a similar name or some other mix-up in names.
Just a word of caution: This company does get brought up every now and then in copyright discussions. I've had copyright attorneys on other lists express some skepticism about the legal basis of their claims. I'm not saying they're wrong, but I'm also advising that people not automatically assume they are right -- from what I can see, the cases they cite have been settled out of court, so it's hard to tell much of anything.
What I find interesting is how many companies *have* gone after them. Even if I were sure I was right about being able to use a fabric legally, I don't have the resources or inclination to put up a fight. I'll stick with my policy of "ask the company for permission if I'm not sure, or just not use it." :)
That's very weird. I *thought* a copyrighted item meant that you couldn't claim the fabric design as your own. This would be like telling me that after I bought a book I read and no longer wanted to keep, I couldn't stick it in a garage sale and sell it to someone else. Sounds a little fishy to me.
3rd possibility - the manufacturers are trying to press a claim they cannot legally enforce.
The issue is an interesting one. Cloth is sold as an 'ingredient' so to speak, its purpose is to be used to create a product. Restricting the sale of items created using legally purchased materials is ludicrous - think of a lighting supplier or lumber mill attempting to legislate the sale of a house containing their 'copyright' product. What about a copyright on the skins of specially breeded cows?
Crafters are taking back their right to sell what they make - REGARDLESS of the materials used. There was an article a few years ago"David versus Goliath: eBay Sellers Take on Corporate America". It is still on the web at
formatting link
I'm not a lawyer, so I am in the dark regarding who is right/wrong or just how much trouble you will get into, but I am rooting for the little guys.
This discussion has come up several times, and as can be read and reviewed via Google-RCTQ, it takes a lawyer to figure this out...or not. We have a copyright LAWYER in the RCTQ family.
formatting link
The first note in this archived thread, by KathyA, brings up a very good point: when in doubt, ask! Ask permission. Do some research and find out what you can about "is this legal for me to make and sell?"
Copyright is not a bad thing, and it doesn't keep people from making and selling fabric items. There are too many ins & outs on this issue to make me consider NOT shopping at a good fabric company. I don't suppose Fabric Depot's copyright statement covers all the fabric lines it sells. Or maybe it does. If it becomes an issue for me, I'll ask.
Having said that, I'll step aside for now and let the panic run riot. Or amuck. The world has plenty of mucks. ;-D
I am sick to death of the whole copyright issue. Probably because I am not out to rip anyone off by making money from their ideas, it just amazes me the lengths people will go to to enforce what they perceive as their "rights" and how unscrupuless others are about exploiting the work of original designers.
In another group I watched a very heated discussion about copyright on embroidery designs, and how some designers now expect that all copies of their patterns will be destroyed after you make one piece. If you want to make second piece, buy another pattern! While I agree that some limit on the number of articles that can be made is appropriate (my doll patterns often specify not more than 5 or 10 per year, and whether or not they can be sold), to try to prohibit even a second execution of the work for personal use is ridiculous.
Neither do I condone the blatant exploitation of designs by immitators for commercial gain. I wish everyone could be made to step back and be a bit reasonable. Surely if you plan to use someone's design work for significant commercial profit or gain you should have permission. If that involves paying a fee, so be it.
But I am sick of large international corporations like Disney (and they are just one of many) threatening some small town quilter who hangs a quilt she made for her DGS in their local church show because she stitched Mickey Mouse on the quilt. I will NEVER buy another item that is copyrighted by the Disney Corporation as long as I live because I am so disgusted by their attitude to copyright enforcement. They may have legal right on their side - but then they say the law is an ass! To take legal action to make a quilter destroy a quilt because it was photographed in a local paper - well, really! And launching a legal case against a young child for using copyrighted characters on his fan web site . . . . Talk about overkill!!
Witness the case of the ugg boot. Aussies have been making and wearing these sheepskin boots for generations. And over here "ugg" is a generic term for sheepskin boots. But after Pam Anderson made them a "fashion statement" an American corporate giant copyrighted the name and threatened a family business in Australia with bankruptcy if they continued to trade in the "ugg" boots they had been making for decades. The case dragged on for years and cost millions. We are talking about a mom/pop/daughter small business here against a large corporation over there. In this case - David won against Goliath. But it almost killed the man, and ruined their small business for years.
OK - off my soapbox now. I obviously had too much sleep last night and I am feeling like taking on the world.
Actually, this issue has gone to court a couple of times. The deal is one cannot "manufacture" items from said fabric for resale...as in large quantities. One can generally make a few from said fabric and not be in violation.
Isn't this getting ridiculous? If I go to a fabric store and they cut me a piece of this company's fabric, are they going to give me a
*notice* that I can only use it for personal use? So silly - I hope they go out of business. I'd certainly not buy any of their stuff - who would? Pretty soon someone will be copyrighting the air we breathe. Growl
What I think is important to glean from Tabberone is what they don't say, and that is the reason that these companies were going after them is because Tabberone was using the name of the company in their advertisement, such as "Nascar pillows for sale". Can't do that. That implies endorsement by the company for the items Tabberone was selling, and Tabberone hadn't gotten the endorsement.
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.