Free patterns on the Web

There were some very unpleasant personal attacks that alleged a copyright infringment; I don't see why anyone would post that sort of thing to a newsgroup, since there are other ways of resolving private disputes. One of the sites that you mentioned, knittingand.com, seems to be claiming ownership of patterns that are over a hundred years old! At this rate we'll all have to be pay royalties to someone or other every time we use a knit stitch.

I don't think the issue is using the stitch. The issue is someone collecting free patterns on the web, claiming she owns them, and SELLING them. Even SELLING a collection of the so called original patterns in a book. Big difference.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Yes, you're right, there is a difference there. The real problem is the way it was addressed -- not as a question of ownership, one that could be resolved through negotiation or at last resort by the courts, but by posting inappropriately to the newsgroup. Especially when someone doesn't distinguish clearly between something she probably can copyright and something she probably can't, there's a lot of room for misunderstanding. Person A may have independently invented a traditional stitch pattern, for instance. She thinks she can copyright it, but she really can't, even though she didn't know about the prior art. I've certainly invented things that I later found in dictionaries of stitches, but that didn't give me any special rights. Isn't that true of most people?

It seems like the way it was addressed didn't become a problem until it was discovered who was (allegedly) committing the fraud. Until a name was mentioned, people were upset that such a thing could happen. Now you're saying the fact that it was brought to our attention is the issue? I say fraud among us is the bigger issue.

I would think if someone was going to copyright something, and paste the copyright symbol all over the place, it is up to them to find out whether it can, in fact, be copyrighted.

As far as stitches go, I don't see how any stitch could be copyrighted. There's no way to come up with something that has never been done before.

Who has to pay royalties for free patterns?

On 19 Aug 2005 18:11:18 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@excite.com spewed forth :

No, she's saying the way in which it was presented is the problem, not the fact that it was brought up in the first place. And I have to say I agree.

The subject first hit a different list of a different tone, and the tone of the post there was decidedly nasty. The fact that the very first person to post a follow up to Sarah's original post is someone whose last previous post on this list was made more than a year ago screams collusion to commit mayhem, don't you think? And how about the implications of that post, eh?

Are we to think it was purely by accident that someone who has never (at least not using that nome de plume) posted on this group managed to asked where Noreen's pattern pages had gone? Can we all say "Ringer"?

By all means, if you suspect someone of hijacking your work, have it out with them - but do it privately. Don't enlist henchmen (or henchwomen, as the case may be) to do your dirty work, and don't drag your or anyone else's dirty laundry into a public forum where it has no business being aired until and unless the issue is resolved between the involved parties.

When the mud starts flying everybody gets dirty. Since this trainwreck started I've lost any respect I may have had for more than a few people, and in at least one case there wasn't much respect to begin with.

Reply to the list as I do not publish an email address to USENET. This practice has cut my spam by more than 95%. Of course, I did have to abandon a perfectly good email account...

SNIP One of the sites that you mentioned, knittingand.com, seems

No, Sarah does not claim to "own" the patterns. She is claiming as hers the graphs and written instructions that she made. As the copyright notice says: "If you would like to place any of these patterns on your website please either link to my pages (if you would like to) or obtain copies of the original patterns from the source and rework the designs yourself."

Noreen should have gone to the source, deciphered the ancient instructions, made a graph, knitted a swatch. If someone was silly enough to then purchase said instructions. Well, buyer beware. Noreen was not silly. I notice that she kept the robots away from her pattern page, and you never saw a full photo of anything on her blog.

What happened to her Kal/Cal? Surely someone made something and put a photo up. Please share!

If someone can establish that she owns something she can charge for it. If someone pretends that she owns something, people who are unsuspicious or easily intimidated will pay up. Works in the public domain we all own, and it's really important that no one claim them for her own private benefit, whether it's in cash or in something else.

It's commmon practice to keep robots away from a subordinate page; that makes sure that people see the advertisements on the main page. As for the rest of this, it's impossible to tell, and not worth destroying a reputation in the first place. There are better ways to resolve problems.

SNIP One of the sites that you mentioned, knittingand.com, seems

No, Sarah does not claim to "own" the patterns. She is claiming as hers the graphs and written instructions that she made. As the copyright notice says: "If you would like to place any of these patterns on your website please either link to my pages (if you would like to) or obtain copies of the original patterns from the source and rework the designs yourself."

Noreen should have gone to the source, deciphered the ancient instructions, made a graph, knitted a swatch. If someone was silly enough to then purchase said instructions. Well, buyer beware. Noreen was not silly. I notice that she kept the robots away from her pattern page, and you never saw a full photo of anything on her blog.

What happened to her Kal/Cal? Surely someone made something and put a photo up. Please share!

Now it's impossible to tell who wrote what! We could start another argument over that, I suppose, but let's stick to our knitting instead.

How do you resolve something with someone who won't speak to you? Noreen isn't answering the copyright owner's email, and after a comment asking her about it was posted on her blog, she deleted the comment, disabled further comments, and posted her "family emergency" message. What would you have the copyright owner do, call her on the phone?

It's very possible people on this group were buying her patterns, maybe even buying her book. For that reason, I think it was appropriate for them to bring it to the group since Noreen ignored all of their attempts to contact her personally first. And yes, I can see it that the first post asking for her pattern was likely a setup, but I thought it all seemed pretty civil, considering.

People are sometimes not what you think they are. Just because someone discovers that sooner than you, that doesn't mean that person is evil for bringing it up.

I don't claim ownership of the patterns. I claimed ownership of the photographs, my charts and the format of the text used to write out the patterns as they appear on my websiote.

Noreen violated my copyright by appropriating my photographs.

Please find other ways of resolving disputes; this is not an appropriate topic for Usenet.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:20:44 -0700, "Kathryn Tewson" spewed forth :

Why are you involved at all, since you're not party to any alleged injury? Let your friend who believes her pattern was filched pursue the matter.

Nevermind that I'm astonished you could think a private phone call between two individuals would be a less-productive approach than the concerted efforts that have been made on this group and others to destroy a woman's reputation.

As I said, mud sticks to the slingers as well as the slingees.

A couple of days ago I said I'm washing my hands of it until and unless I can see the so-called proof with my own eyeballs. I'm just giving up altogether on any form of group electronic exchange - s*it like this is just too tiresome and I'm done with it.

Enjoy your petty lives, y'all, as obviously you have nothing better to do than stare at your computers all day looking for people you can lay low. Oh, that reminds me - I need to pull down all of my websites on the off chance I *have* put up a pattern somewhere that I came up with independently but that somebody might want to claim for their own.

Gawd.

Reply to the list as I do not publish an email address to USENET. This practice has cut my spam by more than 95%. Of course, I did have to abandon a perfectly good email account...

She has her inlaws in town. What, do people not help their friends out where you're from?

I have no intention of destroying anything. I've never met Noreen, I have no idea if she's a lovely person, charming hostess, great cook, or what. Her reputation doesn't concern me.

As long as you don't take someone else's pictures or wording and slap your own copyright all over them, you'll be fine. Independently derived works are incredibly common in this field, and are no problem at all.

Wooly, don't leave because of a few people who's ideas and ways of handling things you disagree with. I'm not wild about it all either, but I feel that Noreen will return when she can... and when she does, she will have a few things to say to her accusers. I feel bad that this has taken place when she's obviously having family problems and can't be here to defend herself... and I wish Noreen and her family well in whatever is happening with them at the moment.

I took the advice of my son and a few friends on here and *ignored* the main thorn in my side (okay she didn't hurt me, but thoroughly pissed me off where I reached the point that I was answering her... and as Shelagh said I was feeding the Troll by letting her get to me), and I honestly have felt much more at peace since doing so. Don't leave the newsgroup because of these people... just try *ignoring* them and see if that helps any.

Peace! Gemini