http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y03/m08/i05/s02

I heard about that on the news. GO LITTLE GUY!!

how cool is that?

V. cool. Thanks for posting.

I really am not trying to start a debate but I have some things I need clarified.
I sew for my family and therefore I own a bunch of patterns and all of them say for home use only. Yet I see wahm's using the same patterns I have and putting the items they make with those patterns up for sale in their stores. I know how I feel about it but wondering what your thoughts are.
Also the licensed character fabrics that some wahms use are again for home, personal use only and are not for making things and reselling for profit yet I see wahms making items with character fabrics and selling them.
Yet someone asks about getting some burned cd's and gets flamed. So why the double standard?

I wouldn't necessarily assume a wahm that sells an outfit that looks like one for which you own a pattern actually used that pattern. It is possible she was inspired by that or a similar picture from a pattern book and drew a very similar pattern on her own. Once you have a feel for drafting patterns it's not that hard to get close to the inspiration.

I have always drawn all my patterns from scratch but some of my items do resemble (some very closely) the picture from a book that inspired me. If you were to pick it apart you'd see my construction method is different and the size is completely different but just by looks it could be assumed I used the book's pattern when I didn't.

I also have on my site a picture of a doll with a pair of Pooh pants. Someone could assume by looking at that picture that I sold doll clothes made from licensed fabric. I didn't. I added them in for free for a special customer. It's the only picture I have of that doll so I put it up.

The way something looks might not be the way it is so I'd be careful with assuming.

You are right though...selling items made from licensed fabric or using commercial patterns to make items for resale is illegal.

I know that some have said they used this pattern but modified the length or what have you. So how much does one have to change to make it their own. One wahm made an outfit(jacket and pants) that I have the same pattern for and it looks exactly the same. I see no changes from the pattern to the outift she posted a pic of. She does this a lot it seems to me.
There is a few people who blatantly sell character stuff for money on the board so I don't think I'm assuming there;)

The way something looks might not be the way it is so I'd be careful with assuming.
So should we ask the wahm outright if they are using a pattern or not? Should we ask if they make the patchwork themselves or used prepatched? Would this offend?

Originally posted by luv4sophie
I really am not trying to start a debate but I have some things I need clarified.
I sew for my family and therefore I own a bunch of patterns and all of them say for home use only. Yet I see wahm's using the same patterns I have and putting the items they make with those patterns up for sale in their stores. I know how I feel about it but wondering what your thoughts are.
Also the licensed character fabrics that some wahms use are again for home, personal use only and are not for making things and reselling for profit yet I see wahms making items with character fabrics and selling them.
Yet someone asks about getting some burned cd's and gets flamed. So why the double standard?

I don't know if there is a double standard. I just don't think this particular topic has made it to the board yet.

It comes down to how the mama wants to run her shop.

I choose to draft my own patterns and not use licensed character fabrics unless they are a gift.

HTH

Oh I'm not saying it's not ever the case. Sometimes it is done blatantly. I've seen it many times. You're right...it's not always an assumption. Gosh, I recently saw someone (not an amitymama) selling a lot of dolls on ebay and she had in every decription that she used Magic Cabin's pattern to make them. In that case I would guess she doesn't have a clue that she's doing something illegal since she's advertising it.

I have no idea if tweaking a pattern to make it your own is legal. Doesn't sound ethical to me. But legal and ethical aren't always the same thing.

Personally, I wouldn't be offended if someone asked me anything about how I make anything. A customer is entitled to know what they're paying for, right?

As for your example of pre-patched vs. hand-patched patchwork. I would expect to pay more for hand pieced as there is a lot more time involved. I don't think there's anything illegal or unethical about pre-patched fabric. I've even seen some that are very well made and using it may make a cute patchy item more affordable. I would totally ask if you're wondering. I"m sure most would be happy to answer.

Originally posted by luv4sophie
So should we ask the wahm outright if they are using a pattern or not? Should we ask if they make the patchwork themselves or used prepatched? Would this offend?

I don't think that anyone would be offended if you asked them if they were using pre-patched fabric or if they patched it themselves. That's not really a big deal, it's just fabric and it's not liscensed. It's really no different than asking fabric content. Asking them if they're using a pattern...I don't think they would be offended, if I was a wahm, i wouldn't be, but I'm hard to offend. ;)

I think it is fine to ask questions about a product. I often ask for more information so I can make an informed decision.

I also think a lot of wahms don't realize what they are doing is illegal. Not that this makes it okay, it actually totally bugs me since I go to the trouble of drafting everything from scratch.

And it isn't just wahms, I see lots of mamas on the sewing forum making things from patterns and selling them here on the market board, that is also illegal.

In my experience, patchwork fabric is usally stated HANDMADE PATCHWORK or MAMA MADE PATCHWORK if it is made by the mama herself. Does it really make a difference. Most places let you know how they are stitched anyway. For example, serged and topstitched for durability, is something I often see. Or, fragile patchwork, should be washed gently. I ahve even seen, Patchwork serged only, please be gentle.

As for the patterns, if you start with a purchased pattern, no matter how much you alter it, you cannot use it. You must start from scratch without tracing the pattern. I often lay my pieces nearby to get a good approximation for shoulder width or neck opening, but that is about it.

I think it would be much more appropriate to PM the WAHM in question and ask her if she drafts her own patterns rather than air it all out in public. A simple email to whomever you wish to purchase from will usually yield all teh answers you need!

there is a lot of great information about copyright and "just how much you have to change something" going on among artists on various yahoo groups right now. you can search the groups to find some that deal specifically with copyright, and although i only did copyright issues a couple of times when i was a lawyer in private practices, so i'm hardly an expert, the issues seem to be basically the same. bottom line is that you can't sell licensed character items, even if it's your interpretation of the character. nor can you use store bought patterns that specifically indicate they cannot be put to commercial use. as for the minor modification issue, it starts to resemble the question of whether it's ok to cheat just a little bit on your taxes. personally, i think life is a lot easier when you just play by the rules.

It bugs me to no end when I see people selling things with trademarked fabrics!!! It really is not fair to the companies who have paid for the right to be able to make things with trademarked images.

I also make my own patterns, once you have a basic sloper, like Allison said, it is not too tough, especially childrens items.

Also, question for you, Allison. If I were to use a new pattern, and it turns out the item doesn't fit my child, is that ok to sell as new, or not? I know how hard it gets when you get into grey areas.

But, yes it bugs me, especially the fabric usage. A good rule of thumb is if you recognize the image, it is trademarked & a no-go.

Originally posted by mommy2maya


Also, question for you, Allison. If I were to use a new pattern, and it turns out the item doesn't fit my child, is that ok to sell as new, or not? I know how hard it gets when you get into grey areas.


Well, I am no copyright attorney. I think that one is up to personal interpetation. I don't think pattern companies would be coming after you for that one. Personally, I would sell it. I think it is when people are making things with the *intent* to sell.

use of licensed character fabrics is not always illegal-- you can read about the company that fought for the use of them and won here:
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/trademarks.html

this is a copy of the complaint they filed :
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/trademarks.html

I haven't read all the details, but they apparently won the right to use the fabric--- so if you are interested in using character fabric, you may want to read their discussions.
heather

so all the items on the market board currently i.e cat in the hat, a pooh blanket, pillow cases w/ charactor fabric, etc... are all being sold illegally?

Originally posted by harvestgirl
so all the items on the market board currently i.e cat in the hat, a pooh blanket, pillow cases w/ charactor fabric, etc... are all being sold illegally?

yup

Originally posted by herc
use of licensed character fabrics is not always illegal-- you can read about the company that fought for the use of them and won here:
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/trademarks.html

this is a copy of the complaint they filed :
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/trademarks.html

I haven't read all the details, but they apparently won the right to use the fabric--- so if you are interested in using character fabric, you may want to read their discussions.
heather

I don't really think that this is setting precedent that we can use the fabric to sell things. Really, I don't.

In regards to clothing and patterns, there's only so many ways to make a pair of pants, and only so many ways to make a shirt, jacket, jumper, dress, etc....
Even if someone makes their own pattern, isn't a pants pattern going to look pretty identical to a store-bought pants pattern?

The point is that it is going to look the same anyway, the point is that by using the pattern to make items for sale is illegal.

And in regards to the character prints, I don't understand too much.
If someone wants an outfit made of a licensed material, but can't sew, why can't they pay for the service/labor for someone else who knows how to sew, to make it?

I don't know the LEGAL part of this, but in my opinion, wahms are not making a profit off of the charachter print, tehy are making it off of their labor. So, if wahm a makes an item with a dinosuar non licensed fabric and selling it for $10 and then makes another item with pooh fabric and sells it for $10, she isn't making money off of the fabric. Now if she sold the pooh item for $12 instead, she could probably also argue that she had to pay$2 more for the pooh fabric and disney already made its share of her money when she purchased pooh fabric for more than a comprable quailty non pooh fabric. LOL Just my take on things. That is just what makes sense to me but it cetainly doesn't mean it is what is written on the books legally. Excuse my terrible typing today, I am standing up...

Originally posted by herc
use of licensed character fabrics is not always illegal-- you can read about the company that fought for the use of them and won here:
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/trademarks.html

this is a copy of the complaint they filed :
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/trademarks.html

I haven't read all the details, but they apparently won the right to use the fabric--- so if you are interested in using character fabric, you may want to read their discussions.
heather

The complaint that you posted a link to is about them using the term "shabby chic" in their auctions. Not about them using fabric. That case hasn't been settled.

I did read through the disney case, it wasn't settled in court. Disney is allowing them to sell on ebay. That isn't really "winning", just getting the right. That is hardly a case precedent, which is why disney settled out of court.

If a WAHM wants to sell an item made from a purchased pattern, they can do that if they also charge their customer for the price of the pattern. Then it is the customer who is really paying for the pattern as well as the finished item.

Tara

Originally posted by bananamama
And in regards to the character prints, I don't understand too much.
If someone wants an outfit made of a licensed material, but can't sew, why can't they pay for the service/labor for someone else who knows how to sew, to make it?

You actually can, as long as you purchase the fabric and pattern it is okay to pay someone else to make it.

When you go to someone's site and buy pants made from a licensed print, that is when it is not okay. They bought the fabric and used it for something other than "home use". I don't think resale value (as brejean was saying) has anything to do with trademark, it is about "derivative".

I don't really think it matters what we think is right or wrong, it is the law.

Allison

Originally posted by tara
If a WAHM wants to sell an item made from a purchased pattern, they can do that if they also charge their customer for the price of the pattern. Then it is the customer who is really paying for the pattern as well as the finished item.

Tara

This is true, as long as they only use it that one time and send the pattern to the person also.

I think it would be much more appropriate to PM the WAHM in question and ask her if she drafts her own patterns rather than air it all out in public.

It isnt just one wahm I see doing this. I don't have *one* person I'm targeting here. I just see it often enough to wonder. Do I have to pm someone if it isn't all fluff? Is that the rule?

Sorry it took me a bit to come back and reply. I fell asleep. I think I'm coming down with something. Anyhow, I am learning and that was the point of my OP. I don't have more to add yet because I am sitting back and learning.;) I just want to add this bit. The point of this post isn't to single anyone out or be snarky. I don't know all the copyright laws and how to get around them like sending along the pattern etc. I just thought that maybe people honestly don't know like maybe some people don't know that it isn't ok to burn a cd and give a copy away.
Meghan

edited out sig pic..

I am *so* glad I make my own patterns up for everything so I don't have to wonder if someone is questioning my things!!!

I'd say if you have a problem with what someone is doing, contact them directly with fact rather than putting something semi vague out here on the boards. I thought that was just being polite. :shrug:



(I did use a few patterns recently to make myself a formal dress, but didn't sell it. My mom and I have begun making and selling plus sized clothing (up to 15X), however, we do not use any patterns, but we did get the actual measurements from looking around at various stores. Does that mean we did something illegal as well? :( )

I knew about the pattern thing and haven't ever sold anything made from a pattern. I'm confused on the Liscensed fabric thing. Does the fabric need to say on the selvage "for home use only"? I know I've seen fabric like that, like the Harry Potter's for example. I've bought some Munki Munki fabric from Reprodept that said in the desciption "This fabric can be purchased for personal sewing projects only. This print cannot be used for items made for resale." http://store.yahoo.com/reprodepot/icecreambars.html
I'll use that to make things for my family and not even sell or trade it when it's outgrown. I want to follow the rules.

So, I was totally unaware that other character fabric is illegal to use for resell. If that's true, why doesn't it say that on the selvage, on the bolt, or on the web description? There were hundreds of Ebay auctions of clothes made with the Cat in The Hat fabric (as well as Nemo, Hello Kitty, Bob the Builder, various Disney, etc.) If it is indeed illegal the powers that be aren't doing very much to get the word out or to prosecute the sewing criminals :eek:.

Originally posted by clickinchic
I'd say if you have a problem with what someone is doing, contact them directly with fact rather than putting something semi vague out here on the boards. I thought that was just being polite. :shrug:



(I did use a few patterns recently to make myself a formal dress, but didn't sell it. My mom and I have begun making and selling plus sized clothing (up to 15X), however, we do not use any patterns, but we did get the actual measurements from looking around at various stores. Does that mean we did something illegal as well? :( )

I think she just claried that she didn't have a problem with someone in particular, she was just asking a general question. I think this thread is probably pretty educational for lots of people and don't see why it shouldn't stand.

Nope, copying things from stores is totally legal. Isn't that a hoot? You can't use patterns but you can make knock offs.

Now, if something you copy is copyrighted, trademarked or has trade dress, you can get in trouble. Those things are pretty specific and just taking size from something wouldn't fall into any of those categories.

Allison

It seems to me that Meghan already addressed the fact that she wasn't talking about any one person in particular, so the suggestion to PM or whatever is a silly one. She's got a legetimate question, and honestly there are a LOT of mamas and wahms that spam here that use character prints and/or use commercial patterns. What, is she suppossed to PM each and every one of them? C'mon now!

We've had the fabric discussion enough times on this board that I would think everyone would know by now that it's illegal to use character prints for resale (and if they've somehow managed to not see all the discussions here, then the big words printed along the selvedge that say "For home use only" are probably a big clue as well, LOL ;) ) I can recall a specific discussion on a thread about a craft fair less than a few weeks ago, so it's been recent, too.

I think the bottom line is, whether or not wahms claim ignorance of the law previously (on both the prints and the pattern thing), if they have read this or previous threads, then they now are educated. But will we see the illegal use of patterns and prints stop? Nope, I doubt it. So what does that say about their ethics?

Originally posted by Kori
I knew about the pattern thing and haven't ever sold anything made from a pattern. I'm confused on the Liscensed fabric thing. Does the fabric need to say on the selvage "for home use only"? I know I've seen fabric like that, like the Harry Potter's for example. I've bought some Munki Munki fabric from Reprodept that said in the desciption "This fabric can be purchased for personal sewing projects only. This print cannot be used for items made for resale." http://store.yahoo.com/reprodepot/icecreambars.html
I'll use that to make things for my family and not even sell or trade it when it's outgrown. I want to follow the rules.

So, I was totally unaware that other character fabric is illegal to use for resell. If that's true, why doesn't it say that on the selvage, on the bolt, or on the web description? There were hundreds of Ebay auction of clothes made with the Cat in The Hat fabric (as well as Nemo, Hello Kitty, Bob the Builder, various Disney, etc.) If it is indeed illegal the powers that be aren't doing very much to get the word out or to prosecute the sewing criminals :eek:.

Okay, last post from me! Yes, if it says "home use only" on the selvage, it is copyrighted and can't be used for resale.

When I buy fabric wholesale, they DO say "Licensed-Can not be sold for manufacturing." (that was cut and pasted directly from a wholesalers site). When they sell them retail, I don't know why the chose not to say that. They are most likely assuming you are buying retail for retail (home) use, not to resell.

Trademarked fabrics usually say licensed on the selvage and some say "for home use only" or "not for resale".

Oh, and that quote I pasted above was from cat in the hat fabric, so it definitely falls into the home use only category.

Allison

also, I don't think it is rude to publicly discuss this, even about specific people. I mean really, especially people who have previously been nicely told that what they are doing is illegal. If they continue to do it, well, I don't think there is any reason not to call them out in public. I don't think there is really any reason to pussy-foot around.

Originally posted by arasmama
I think she just claried that she didn't have a problem with someone in particular, she was just asking a general question. I think this thread is probably pretty educational for lots of people and don't see why it shouldn't stand.

Nope, copying things from stores is totally legal. Isn't that a hoot? You can't use patterns but you can make knock offs.

Now, if something you copy is copyrighted, trademarked or has trade dress, you can get in trouble. Those things are pretty specific and just taking size from something wouldn't fall into any of those categories.

Allison

You're right. She posted as I was writing my post up, but she clarified the PM thing and being more than one person she was wondering about as I was typing. I wouldn't have asked otherwise. :o)

Now, I "hear" a little sarcasm here, but I do not know if it is directed at me (middle paragraph). I am not copying ANYONE'S patterns. I AM checking various sites for measurements on specific sizes to be sure we size things well for the appropriate sizes. But all clothing designs are coming from my head.

Originally posted by clickinchic

Now, I "hear" a little sarcasm here, but I do not know if it is directed at me (middle paragraph). I am not copying ANYONE'S patterns. I AM checking various sites for measurements on specific sizes to be sure we size things well for the appropriate sizes. But all clothing designs are coming from my head.

I'm not sure why you are hearing sarcasm?? When I said, "Isn't that a hoot" I was directing that at the copyright/trademark, etc laws. We can't make things and sell them out of disney fabric, but we can buy a gap shirt, copy it and make a million more and sell them. Seems silly to me.

I AM checking various sites for measurements on specific sizes to be sure we size things well for the appropriate sizes.
By that do you mean that what say McCalls calls a 10 and Simplicity calls a 10 may have different hip and bust measurements and you want to see what the consensus is on sizing? Because today I was looking at patterns for myself and those pattern makers want to make me 2 sizes bigger than what I wear in RTW. I didn't get any patterns rofl.
I agree why pussy foot around? I can read and I'm sure everyone who posts here can read. It says home use only ok? You can't go and make it profitable for ya. You are not above the law. LOL
(You is those who do this. They know who they are.)

Okay, I get it now. Sorry, I've never heard that phrase used in any way except sarcastic! ROFL (Seriously, though!)

Originally posted by luv4sophie
By that do you mean that what say McCalls calls a 10 and Simplicity calls a 10 may have different hip and bust measurements and you want to see what the consensus is on sizing? Because today I was looking at patterns for myself and those pattern makers want to make me 2 sizes bigger than what I wear in RTW. I didn't get any patterns rofl.

Actually, we have looked at various specialty plus sized shops and then we take the average inches around from all of the sites (we've probably each looked at 10 or so sites?) Thing is, we would like to get in to make bigger sizes even than that, but were unable to find enough sources for measurements to feel comfortable doing so. We will do custom orders, though where the buyer can tell us what they want and their measurements then go a # of inches larger so it will fit well without being tight.

I've gone off on a tangent. :) It's just another thing I am doing to make $ until my photography career takes off.

Originally posted by arasmama
Okay, last post from me! Yes, if it says "home use only" on the selvage, it is copyrighted and can't be used for resale.

When I buy fabric wholesale, they DO say "Licensed-Can not be sold for manufacturing." (that was cut and pasted directly from a wholesalers site). When they sell them retail, I don't know why the chose not to say that. They are most likely assuming you are buying retail for retail (home) use, not to resell.

Trademarked fabrics usually say licensed on the selvage and some say "for home use only" or "not for resale".

Oh, and that quote I pasted above was from cat in the hat fabric, so it definitely falls into the home use only category.

Allison

Good to know :). I think the one CITH dress that I sold on ebay was the only thing I've made and sold using character fabric. I bought that fabric in an ebay auction (then later a little more at Walmart) and didn't realize it was for home use only. Should I assume that ALL character fabric is illegal for resale sewing even if it's mentioned nowhere? I wonder why they don't do anything about all the ebay sellers? Is it not a very serious or punishable law?

Thanks for starting the thread Meghan and all the info Allison and others :).

Pretty much, if it is recognizable, it is no good for sewing for profit.

I doubt whether the OP really has a question or clarification. It seems to be more of a statement to the WAHMs who are "illegally" selling items made from patterns or using character fabric. I can think of 3 Mamas at least who this is directed at (one in particular), and if you ask me - people are going to continue buying from them. Why ? Because they obviously do quality work and who gives a @#$% about whether they "illegally" used a pattern for it or are using licensed fabric.
Frankly there's nothing great about designing your own patterns if you're doing it by copying a style you see in a magazine or on TV or wherever - its not an original idea - its just copying some other designer's hard work..........


Monica

And, hey, who gives a ##### who beats their kids, steals from others, ummm, does any number of illegal things. Illegal is illegal. You may not agree with it, but it is still illegal~ Would these same mamas go steal from someones home? It really is comparable.

Originally posted by mnemonics
Frankly there's nothing great about designing your own patterns if you're doing it by copying a style you see in a magazine or on TV or wherever - its not an original idea - its just copying some other designer's hard work..........
Monica

True, however, the majority of people I know (including myself) do not copy designs to sell. If I get any ideas from anything (such as Hanna Andersson), it is for my daughter. I rarely ever sell anything that I make here and when I sold on eBay, everything that I made was completely my design, not copied from any other designers designs.

I know, I know, she doth protest too much, but I feel like since this wasn't directed to one person in particular, everyone that does design is going to either stick up for themselves or sit back and there will be doubts if they are one of the people doing this.

Just my 2¢

Originally posted by luv4sophie
So should we ask the wahm outright if they are using a pattern or not? Should we ask if they make the patchwork themselves or used prepatched? Would this offend?

I too, know how I feel about it. :)

I guess my question to you would be, why do you want to know? Is it just curiosity? Do you want to call her on it? What is the motivation? Do you want to buy it, but only if it is hand made? Will the answer you find out lead you to some particular purpose?

I don't think the question in itself is offending. Heck, people ask me construction questions or fabric questions regarding my covers all the time.

I guess I'm just trying to find out what you are getting at. It is rhetorical, so you don't really have to answer. :)

I think this thread is totally valuable. The topic actually has come up before.

Illegal is Illegal. That is true.

Some things bother me about it. Other things not so much. However, that is probably because it really isn't in my line of work yk? I don't feel it so close to home. Again, that doesn't make it right. It just means I don't give it quite as much thought as other people do.

The whole argument of:

"There is only so many ways to put together a pair of pants, shirt, diaper cover, etc..." is true.

That doesn't mean that copying a pattern is suddenly ok. Copying a pattern because there isn't a different and original way to put them together is still copying.

I do hope that people have been helped by this information.

Originally posted by arasmama
The complaint that you posted a link to is about them using the term "shabby chic" in their auctions. Not about them using fabric. That case hasn't been settled.

I did read through the disney case, it wasn't settled in court. Disney is allowing them to sell on ebay. That isn't really "winning", just getting the right. That is hardly a case precedent, which is why disney settled out of court.

Actually Allison, if you will scroll down, the page contains all of the lawsuits they have been involved in, as well as some useful links on the law. :) There is a precious moments case there as well that was taken to court (not theirs, a case that went to court in 1997), and it seems from my quick scan of it that the person using the prints won the lawsuit.

I don't particularily like character prints, as a matter of fact, I have only ever bought one-- a teletubbies flannel to make liam a pr of pj pants and a pillowcase-- pj's i cna live with, lol . I haven't read all of the law,as a matter of fact I haven't read much other than what this site here points to as reference material. I am merely suggesting that those interested in using character prints might want to go here-- the peoplewho own the site have clearly done quite a bit of research on the law, and have gathered a useful collection of links.

It IS interesting to me that not one of the companies that they have dealt with has taken them to court and won on this-- that indicates to me that the law must be unclear on this usage, as they indicate. Again, because it has no real bearing on me or my livelihood, I haven't read the law in detail. I DO know that you can not replicate the image-- in other words paint, embroider, etc that image on anything-- that is definetly infringement. i think the issue becomes murkier when you are talking about liscences, purhased fabric.. at least thats what I have ascertained from the quick bit of reading i have done (in between installing countertops and a sink in my kitchen today, lol-- waiting on DH to get back from Lowes rigth now as a matter of fact, lol).

ok, gotta run and at least look busy when he gets back (although I can't really do anything but clean up until he gets back).

heather


heather

Oops, sorry, I didn't scroll. I just clicked on the first link on that page and started reading and then clicking around.

I think no one has been taken to court because no one wants to set a precedent. It is much easier to intimidate through cease and desist letter and then settle out of court when challenged.

Monica, I think it matters because it is illegal. Maybe you will still buy from people you see doing illegal things in the clothing industry. I, for one, won't. I've worked very hard to build up a *legal* clothing company and I won't support people that try to cut corners.

I'm not sure about your comment:
Frankly there's nothing great about designing your own patterns if you're doing it by copying a style you see in a magazine or on TV or wherever - its not an original idea - its just copying some other designer's hard work..........

Where did anyone say they were copying other people's designs? Cindy simply stated she was using sizing measurements. That is hardly copying designs. All my designs are original, from my head. Heck, t-shirts aren't exactly a new design, but I think that can hardly be called copying.

And, lastly, there are very few designs that are actually original ideas. Most are offshoots of some older fashion, reworked for today.

Allison

I doubt whether the OP really has a question or clarification. It seems to be more of a statement to the WAHMs who are "illegally" selling items made from patterns or using character fabric. I can think of 3 Mamas at least who this is directed at (one in particular), and if you ask me - people are going to continue buying from them. Why ? Because they obviously do quality work and who gives a @#$% about whether they "illegally" used a pattern for it or are using licensed fabric.


It bothers me terribly that you are putting illegally in quotes, as if it's subjective whether or not using liscensed character prints (or patterns) is in fact illegal. there's no disputing it, it is illegal to use liscenced prints, and it is illegal to use commercial patterns for resale use. Think what you may about the law, but it IS law. As for "who gives a @#$%", a lot of us care for the same reasons we care that Wal-Mart uses child labor in other countries, because we don't want our money going to support illegal and/or immoral activites.

Frankly there's nothing great about designing your own patterns if you're doing it by copying a style you see in a magazine or on TV or wherever - its not an original idea - its just copying some other designer's hard work..........
As for this-so you think that looking at a pattern in a mag and then figuring out how to do it on your own isn't okay, that it's "nothing great" because it's copying another designer's hard work. But then just using thier pattern striaght out isn't bad? I guess outright stealing their hard work is okay, but let's not copy it, that would be wrong.
:rolleyes:

I hope that no one person here feels attacked. This thread is so interesting, and valuable I agree.

I know a lot of people who sell things at craft shows that are licensed and I feel very uneasy about it all. I honestly don't know if they know what they are doing is illegal. That's no excuse. Is it my responsibility to do something about it? I just don't purchase or otherwise support them, but really, I wonder if I should be doing more. Nobody wants to be a snitch, but am I part of the problem if I'm not part of the solution?

I've stayed away from licensed fabrics not for legality reasons, but because I don't like anything "commercial" :) I have in the past and do currently use patterns, but not for anything I sell. Years ago when I was learning to make totes, I used simple patterns til I got the hang of it and made my own custom totes. That's what I sell now. And my yoga mat bags are my own design. As for clothing, I'm still learning, so I'm still sewing from patterns -- but I don't sell clothing.

I admit it does bother me when I see illegal use of products and misrepresentation (not talking about any one person here, I barely know you all :) ) I've gone through the process of trademarking and copyrighting certain items. It's a long and EXPENSIVE process. You can be sure I will follow suit if I see someone using my design or logo illegally. I've invested a lot of time, money and creative energy in my designs, and no one else should profit from that, IMHO.

Ana

I would think statements such as

Frankly there's nothing great about designing your own patterns if you're doing it by copying a style you see in a magazine or on TV or wherever

would be very offensive to someone who has spent countless hours turning an idea (perhaps inspired by a glimpse of something seen somewhere else) into a successful pattern that works for a range of sizes.

I haven't done much pattern drafting for people clothes at all but I can only guess by the hours and hours of work I've put into designing a basic wardrobe for dolls (whose fronts and backs are the same and they never complain if their clothes are uncomfortable) that designing is an extreme amount of work. To be consistently successful at it is indeed something great in my opinion.

is shouldnt EVERY fabric be investigated by a WAHM as to whether it is allowed to be used for commercial purposes. I mean I would think almost any printed design "could" be a copyrighted design that the maker doesnt want used for resale without permission. Like the link Kori posted to the fabric she mentioned - it was just a design of ice cream cones and popsicles and said right there on the site "not for resale - home use only" or whatever. I think many people assume only trademarked characters like Bob the Builder are in question but I bet even if you found a similar design like construction trucks or many of the quality quilt fabrics out there with pretty designs, they may not want you making things out of it to resell. Just wondering if anyone had concerns about it. I had honestly not thought about it before. I generally steer clear of "commercial" things as well but my son loves tractors and I bought some WAHM pants with John Deere fabric but I bet that one is a no-no too!

I would think statements such as



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frankly there's nothing great about designing your own patterns if you're doing it by copying a style you see in a magazine or on TV or wherever
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



would be very offensive to someone who has spent countless hours turning an idea (perhaps inspired by a glimpse of something seen somewhere else) into a successful pattern that works for a range of sizes.
You'r right Dannielle, it is offensive. Perhaps that's why I got a bit snippy in my reply, because I (as a desinger, albeit not a sewing designer but a knit designer, still a designer, LOL!) take using patterns for profit very seriously. It makes me angry taht I can spend hours (and hours and hours!) designing a pattern, getting the sizing, shaping and all the other details perfect, and then someone turns around and sells something from my pattern. Looking at a picture in a magazine does NOT tell you the size, shaping, measurements, or anything of value besides a geenral *look*- these must all come from the designer's head, and it's not easy.

I guess my question to you would be, why do you want to know? Is it just curiosity? Do you want to call her on it? What is the motivation? Do you want to buy it, but only if it is hand made? Will the answer you find out lead you to some particular purpose?

Really I am just curious as to why Meeshi got flamed and called a hypocrite for asking for a burned CD, yet no one says boo to wahms who use Dora or SpongeBob(examples) for resale. Why the double standard? The answer will lead me no where except to understand this matter a little better. I have no plans on turning this into the FDA and wahm pads thread pt.2 or anything. I won't blow the whistle or anything like that. I am not mean spirited. I wouldn't *bait* people into replying to prove em wrong or anything.

Theresa mentioned the craft fair thread. I'm going to search for it as I remember replying but not the details..

Oh and to the person who said
I doubt whether the OP really has a question or clarification. It seems to be more of a statement to the WAHMs who are "illegally" selling items made from patterns or using character fabric. I can think of 3 Mamas at least who this is directed at (one in particular), and if you ask me - people are going to continue buying from them. Why ? Because they obviously do quality work and who gives a @#$% about whether they "illegally" used a pattern for it or are using licensed fabric.
Look if I were going to make a statement I would go through and think of ALL the wahms who are misusing copyrighted items and call em out. I'm not doing that because this is about learning for me. Who in particular is this directed at oh wise psychic mama? Really I don't even think we have ever replied to the same thread before but now you know me and my intentions. PFFFT! I do give a @#$% about whether or not a person(ANY business) misuses a pattern or what have you. Why shouldn't I care? People get their panties in a bunch about WM and their child labor so should we NOT care because it makes the item cheaper? Should we always turn our heads if it benefits us? When is it okay to stand by and let these things continue?
I'm not here to call anyone out but maybe they honestly just didn't know. Maybe they will be educated. Maybe their solution will be going to JoAnns during the 99 cent pattern sales and buying extra patterns for what they make and sell and sending along that pattern to make it legal.
Really folks I'm just here to learn.
~Meghan

edited to add why Meeshi was flamed

John Deere is licensed, I just looked. I've actually made pants out it before, but it was bought and sent to me. Later she had me resell them for her though, I wonder how legal that was?

I don't know if there is a way for people to know for sure unless they buy strictly wholesale or it says on the selvage. I know some say on the selvage, I'm not sure that all do.

Lots of non character prints are licensed. This one, for instance

Lots of non character prints are licensed. This one, for instance
I just got some quilt quality dragonfly fabric that is copyrighted is that the same legal wise as licensed?

Now, here is something I was just wondering about, a lot of us buy PRR, and while most of us just use it to make clothing for our children, I am now wondering if is it also protected?

I think all designs are copyrighted. That means you can't take that picture and use it elsewhere, like digitize it into an embroidry design, etc. You can make clothing out of it.

I've often wondered the same thing, Mary. I have no clue though. I think it is most likely okay to use them. They don't state they are licensed and they don't restrict who they sell them to. They are copyrighted, but that is different.

copyrighted and liscened in fabric are two different things. Copyrighted means that you can't copy the image and use it on other fabric or any other medium (for instance, you can't take the dinos from PRR and use them on notecards, etc) Liscenced means that you can't use the fab for resale items. At least, that's my understanding of it all.

ok here i am coming in on the tale end if this..

if PRINTS are even any fabric(plain whatever-no prints) that is licensed that you buy anywhere(wal-mart, hancock's etc.) and WAHM's make diapers with them and resale them for profit.. that means a BUNCH of WAHM'S wouldn't have or lose a lot of business.. CORRECT?

wow i never thought of all this..but i sure do like my WAHM made diaper's. so if that's the case then that would mean i would have to buy diaper's from a company instead of a WAHM right?

just REALLY asking.. cause i NEVER knew this..

thanks and blessings

wow i never thought of all this..but i sure do like my WAHM made diaper's. so if that's the case then that would mean i would have to buy diaper's from a company instead of a WAHM right?
Well I don't think all prints are licensed mainly character and some designs. You can always buy plain diapers from wahms. Not all fabrics are licensed from what I've learned today.

Originally posted by luv4sophie
Should we ask if they make the patchwork themselves or used prepatched? Would this offend?

most of the WAHMs usually list on their websites (as i do) if its prepatched, stamped patch or custom patchwork. i can't see how it would offend any WAHM to ask, if it's not labelled. IMO

Originally posted by littleturtleknit
Liscenced means that you can't use the fab for resale items.

Now I get it. I didn't realize that before. I feel stupid :o, but like I said it was only the one dress I made and sold. I still am :confused: about all the auctions on ebay every day for clothes made out of licensed fabric. I even see people use the fabric for part of a pair of overalls and then copy and create an applique of the fabric print for the bib of the overalls. This is ebay, totally public and regulated and no one is cracking down on it. I'd think if the companies are worried about it, that would be the first place they looked, before craft fairs and wahm sites.

Here's an example of what I mean (not picking on this seller, there are tons) ~ http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3443640737&category=15635

So, I'm looking at my CITH fabric selvage it reads "# 6139 US Short: Based on Dr. Seuss characters TM & Dr. Seuss Enterprises 2003 Springs Industries In. Not intended for use in children's sleepwear." There are also little C's in circles (the copyright sign). So it's obviously copyrighted but so are all printed fabrics. Is the number "6139" referring to the liscense? I just want to know exactly what to look for. I wish they would just make it clear by printing "home use only" on the selvage.

Thanks for all the useful info :).

wondering if it's the "TM" I have plain old floral fabric with the copywright sign on the selvage.

Originally posted by Dannielle
wondering if it's the "TM" I have plain old floral fabric with the copywright sign on the selvage.

That might be it. What does "TM" mean? I can't find that on any of my other fabrics, including my PRR. I did find my Buzz Lightyear fabric also made by Springs Industries it says "This product is intended for non-commercial home use only" but there is no "TM" on the selvage.

oops, meant to edit not quote!

They do shut down auctions when they see them Kori. I don't know how much they police it though. Ebay doesn't police it, just when a Vero tells them to.

The TM is the trademarked. The C is just copyrighted.

Did some more thinking about PRR. I think they don't care about it's use once their season of it has come and gone. I use to buy healthtex knits from eeschenck and they never said they were not for use in manufacturing, like they say on other things. Why would a clothing company go to the trouble and expensive of trademarking fabric that they plan to just use in production? The bits of PRR we buy is just what they have leftover after all their orders are filled. They don't print it with the plan of reselling it.

Can you tell I have kids with the flu and I've spent the most of today sitting here with a sleeping two year old? Actually, I have a 2 and 5 year old on my lap right now.

Originally posted by Stacinator
The whole argument of:

"There is only so many ways to put together a pair of pants, shirt, diaper cover, etc..." is true.

That doesn't mean that copying a pattern is suddenly ok. Copying a pattern because there isn't a different and original way to put them together is still copying.

I made that quote, so I thought I would reply. I wasn't implying that it would be okay to copy a pattern. I was just wondering if people go around complaining about clothes that look like they've been copied from patterns, when the patterns themselves look like every other item of clothing on the market. I was just saying, that if I look at a pair of pants, of course they look like other pants, and pants patterns. My kid's home-ade pants look like every pair of pants I see in the stores. There's not a lot of ways to make a pair of pants. I guess I was more concerned about people trying to claim others are copying things like pants when you really couldn't tell. Or could you tell? I'm not much of a sewer, so I wouldn't know.

I would think that the WAHM has the responsiblity to connact the company and verify if the fabric can be used commercially.

Like Theresa has given license to a limited comercial use of her patterns and I'm sure if you contacted her she would be willing to work out something if you wanted to do larger quantities.

I think that many manufactures are this way. And therefore you don't have to worry about the legalities and the ethics involved.

Also remeber that you always have the option of purchasing your own fabric and paying a WAHM to sew it for you.

Someone asked PRR about it once on the Momufactured Yahoo list ..... I belive the reply was that they dont mind you using it for resale but to not use their name.. meaning dont say PAINTING RED RHINO WAHM DIAPER.... but you can say WAHM DIAPER MADE FROM UPSCALE CHILDRENS FABRIC.. or something like that :)

I haven't read all the posts so if I'm repeating, I'm sorry.

We've been shut down by Warner Brothers, M&M/Mars, Disney, MAjor League Baseball Properties, Robert Yates Racing and United Media all for the use of their licensed fabric.

We fought M&M/Mars, Disney and MLB in court. They all backed down. Why, because they don't have a case. We are currently in court with United Media for shutting down fabric auctions. And in their rush to shut me down they also shut down an auction where I was just selling yardage.

There is nothing in federal or state statutes that the disclaimer on the selvage of the fabric is bidning upon the purchaser.

The use of the fabric is covered under the First Sale Doctrine and Fair Use.

As long as the seller does nothing to imply a relationship or sponsorship from the people who license the fabric there is nothing wrong.

Once we backed down Disney and MLB they stopped (from what I've heard) shutting down other people for using their fabric.

As far as the pattern issue goes, I buy it, I can make whatever I want from it and sell that item. I just can't copy the pattern and sell copies of that pattern. The pattern was designed to be used and for objects to be made from it.

Hate to tell you, but you are misinformed with regards to this pattern issue. When you purchase a pattern, you purchase the right to make items from that pattern, yes. You do NOT purchase the right to sell items from it or otherwise derive a profit from it. Those rights reside soley with the creator of the work-it's called intellectual property, and if you (the pattern buyer) use that work to profit, it IS stealing. And it IS illegal.

As far as the pattern issue goes, I buy it, I can make whatever I want from it and sell that item. I just can't copy the pattern and sell copies of that pattern. The pattern was designed to be used and for objects to be made from it.

OT: That is the cutest fabric Allison!

Ok, I am confused on this:

"As far as the pattern issue goes, I buy it, I can make whatever I want from it and sell that item. I just can't copy the pattern and sell copies of that pattern. The pattern was designed to be used and for objects to be made from it"

When I buy patterns for personal sewing, I always see "sold for individual home use and not for commerical or manufacturing purposes" on the package.

I made my own jumper/skirt patterns for my site, because even though I am sewing in my HOME, it is still a business.


Hope

Oh and the patchwork question.
NO!
Not an offensive question.

Pre made patchy fabric has been around since the 19th century, it comes and goes throughout the years.
Just another fabric.

Hope

Theresa is correct on the pattern issue. I agree with the fabric issue. I bought the fabric, and I a m not selling it as "officially licensed Disney paraphenalia" so I just son't see the problem. Although my Dh is an Intellectual Property Attorney, so I wouldn't sell items from a registered fabric, i.e. Diney, just because I would ave to listen to my sweet husband ramble on and on.

Ano, no, buying a pattern does NOT give you free license to do with it what you will. You have obviously been sadly misinformed on that front. I suggest you start a fight with butterick or simplicity and see where that goes!

Can you please cite me a case concerning the use of patterns?

There is a lot of 'urban legend' talk out there. I've heard of people who 'know' someone who had their disney embroidery machine taken away for selling items they embroidered. I've yet to hear from the person themselves or see a copy of the court order.

In the Precious Moments case the judge specifically ruled that using a pattern on fabric was not a copyright issue. That would imply that the use of patterns is ok.

It is not reasonable for someone to say if you make two items you have to buy two patterns.

That is correct. You can make as many items from a single pattern as you wish. I have used my Kwik Sew for Toddlers to make DOZENS of garments. But they are for HOME USE. My children wear them. I might even hand them down to a friend.

HOWEVER, I would not SELL these items. That is not a home use. That is a commercial use. I will see if I can get my husband to send a link to specific case law and pertinent rulings. Although this would have been easier yesterday. he gets free WestLaw on Wednesdays.

"In the Precious Moments case the judge specifically ruled that using a pattern on fabric was not a copyright issue. That would imply that the use of patterns is ok."

I am wondering if you are talking here about patterned fabric or a pattern which you would use to make a garment or item for use?

The reason I'm wondering is because people can say whatever they want on the fabric or pattern envelope. Whether it is backed up by federal law is another story.

Anyway, McCalls, Simplicity and Butterick are busy in a lawsuit. They are being sued by monsterpatterns.com. That suit is also on my website.

Could you link to your site. I would be VERY interested in reading that!
Thanks!

Here is the main page to my trademark section.

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/trademarks.html

We haven't gotten up the suit against United Media yet, that is coming.

I haven't read through the entire thread, but I was curious about something...

Can someone point me to the law that states that it is illegal to use licensed fabric. Just because it says "For home use only" doesn't mean it's illegal. Honestly, I'd like to see the written law.

Please PM this to me since I don't know if I'll make it back to this thread today. Ironically I need to do some sewing. hehe (Don't worry, it's all for home use whether it's licensed or not - need to finish kids' Christmas presents. hehe). ;)

Edited to add: I just read the few posts ahead of mine. Interesting! Add to my request the law that states you can't sell items that are made from a store-bought pattern. Like I said, just because they put "home use only" on it, doesn't mean selling items made with it is illegal.

Originally posted by tabberone
Here is the main page to my trademark section.

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/trademarks.html

We haven't gotten up the suit against United Media yet, that is coming.

thank you for the link! i can't wait to read up on everything, i also would like to see what the law says about using patterns.

and welcome!

Just wondering if anyone has found out anything about the pattern use issue?

i was alos wonderng what about patterns that dont say anything about "for home use only", is it them implied that yu can't use it? i draft many of my own patterns but i have quite a few from the 40's and 50's and even recent ones that say nothing on them

Can you trade items made from commercial patterns and with licensed fabric? Just curious...

IMHO you can trade or sell items made with licensed fabric. I've backed down a number of big corporations over this very issue, Disney and Major League Baseball Properties just to name two.

I still believe you can use the patterns to make items and sell them.

I made 38 disney aprons as party favors. Who would sue me? The apron pattern is pretty basic. I don't even remember if it was butterick, simplicity or mccalls.

Pattern companies, fabric companies can say whatever they want to.

It's what federal law dictates.

As I've said before, there is nothing in federal or state statutes that says the disclaimer on the fabric is binding upon the purchaser or means anything.

Both Disney and Major League Baseball licensed fabric has a disclaimer, didn't protect either of them in the lawsuit I filed. They both hurt themselves picking up the phone to settle with us.

While shopping for material recently, I saw some cute Snoopy fabric that did not say on it "home use only." Does that mean that it is ok to use for retail, if it is indeed illegal to use fabrics that say "home use only" for retail sale?

It is not illegal to use licensed fabric.

Having said that there is nothing stopping the license holders from going after you. There are still some out there that believe their size makes them right.

I've crossed horns with Warner Brothers, M&M/Mars, Disney, Major League Baseball Properties, Robert Yates Racing and United Media.

United Media shut down 6 ebay auctions. 4 for products made from the old fabric, 1 for a product with new fabric with a disclaimer and 1 where I was just selling yardage.

Their response to my lawsuit it due the end of January. I can't imagine what they have that is better than what Disney or MLB could find.

The Precious Moments case on my website says it all. Precious Moments sued a company for using their fabric and selling items made from it. Precious Moments lost.

"The First Circuit Court specifically rejected the copyright claim where La Infantil was being accused with unauthorized use of copyrighted fabric, saying that "bedding items manufactured with lawfully acquired, authentic fabric with copyrighted design were not infringing derivative works." "

"The Court also said "The copyright owner's right to distribute the work is limited by the "First Sale" doctrine, which permits the owner of a legally acquired lawfully made copy of a work to sell that particular copy without the consent of the copyright holder". "

But....did anyone ever find any more information on this? Have any other manufacturers file lawsuits like Precious Moments did? Or is that one precedent enough that no one else is?

There are others who have been involved in litigation over fabric and it's use. Precious Moments lost in 1997. M&M/Mars, Disney, Major League Baseball, and United Media have all been in Federal Court aginst Tabberone. Mar settled in Novemeber 2002, Disney settled in February 2003, and Baseball settled in August 2003. All settled in favor of Tabberone. The Disney settlement is posted on Tabberone's web site a: www.Tabberone.com/Trademarks/trademarks.htrml. United Media (Peanuts fabric) is still in litigation. They were sued by Tabberone November 18, 2003. Others have backed down when confronted with the arguments. Those that we know of are Suzie's Zoo, the NFL, Robert Yates Racing, and Warner Brothers. As the information gets out there and more people know their rights and continue to confront the companies instead of hiding from them, more companies will back down.
This is not new trademark and copyright law. It's been around for years. Lawyers and companies are taking advantage of the DMCA correctly expecting that poeple won't fight back.

As far as I know there is no other court cases that would set precedence- so even if the companies settle out of court with one person, it does not set precendence for anyone else.

However, it is an admission that they were wrong. Disney made 34 billion dollars last year. Their legal budget is beans compared to that. Not fighting the issue in court was a decision made because they "didn't want to be the test case in this matter" not because of the cost. That was a direct quote from their lawyer. How much it would cost to fight wasn't as important to them as much as the fact they would lose was.

Mars was represented at the time by the #3 ranked intelletual property law firm in the east. We backed them down on our own. Decide for yourself how good their case was. It was 396 pages and 4 lbs but they still gave up. They had nothing. They thought we would cave when faced with their lawsuit, they weren't prepared for someone to fight back.

The info is posted on my website to let people know that if you stand up to the schoolyard bully, the bully will back down.

We didn't back down Suzy's Zoo and the NFL, someone using our arguments did.

But the point is there is no LEGAL precedence, which if you go to court is all that would matter.

Case histories do not make law, they reinforce the existing law in the opinion of the court. Precious Moments is a precedent. However, it is not law. Is is an interpretation of existing law and that's what the courts read and consider when making decisions.

There are other case histories that support the use of licensed fabrics while not directly addressing the specific issue and they are listed in the law suits. Batlin, from the SDNY, established in 1967 the definition of a derivative. New Kids on the Block, 9th Cir Ct Appeals 1992, firmly established the definition of "Fair Use", Car-Freshner, 1995, reaffirmed New Kids, Feist Publications (Supreme Court), Quality King (Supreme Court), Bourne vs Woods, etc, etc, etc,. The list of precedents is very long that support the arguments about the use of the fabrics. There is no list of case histories that don't support the use of the fabric.

Bank robbery is against the law. That doesn't stop people from robbing banks. Interferring with the use of licensed fabrics is against the law as well as being contrary to the interpretations of the courts. That doesn't stop the companies from misusing the DMCA just because it isn't legal. They intimidate folks into doing things their way through the threat of costly litigation.

Also, there is NOTHING in state or federal law about a disclaimer of use on a produuct being valid or enforceable. Nada, zip, zilch, nothing. A company cannot control your use of a product after it has been sold to you (see Quality King, 1998, unamimous Supreme Court decision).

So the disclaimer on Disney fabric - for "non commerical home use only", means nothing.

Originally posted by MamaJosie
is shouldnt EVERY fabric be investigated by a WAHM as to whether it is allowed to be used for commercial purposes.

I think you are absolutely right here! I bought some organic fabric from one of Angelina's co-ops, and the manufacturer asked that it not be used for clothing that will be sold. However, it was ok for us to use it for diapers.

My rule of thumb is to draft my own patterns for clothing and other items that I will sell and to not use licensed prints at all. Even Malden Mills asks that we not use their name unless they give us permission. The least we can do is to abide by the rules set forth by the manufacturer.

And I do think the OP is asking a legit question, and this is an interesting and educational thread. WAHM's should be striving for a higher standard in business!

There is no higher standard then federal court.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on First Sale and Fair Use.

Once the manufacturer puts the fabric out there under federal law they can't dictate what people do with it.

People buy my stuff. I don't and can't dictate what they can do with the item after they purchase. Some of them resell it. That is their right under federal law.

I am an M&M/Mars licensee. My M&M fabric items have a tag. Someone can buy the item and resell it. Under federal law they have that right.

If you feel that there is no laws against using the fabric the way you want, why do you even bother with a license from M & M??

They were the first people to come after us. We didn't realize how strong our case was. I had already lost 10 month worth of sales. They offered me a royalty free licensing agreement, I thought it would help sales so I accepted it in return for them dropping the law suit. They must have thought the lawsuit would cause me to fold. They filed it but weren't prepared to actually have to defend it in court.

If I had known then what I know now I would have told them no and continued to fight.

I did learn from them. When we went after Disney and Major League Baseball both of them offered me royalty free licensing agreements and I turned them down.

Although it is royalty free there are still restrictions they can place. I wanted to be able to sell with no restrictions.

From what I've seen on eBay, people are selling M&M, Disney, Major League Baseball fabric items and are being left alone. Same with Suzy's Zoo, NFL, Robert Yates Racing fabric items.

Under the DMCA they don't have to prove a case to the ISP, they just tell eBay to shut down the auctions.

I'm currently in federal court with Wiggles, Bratz and United Media.

United Media - Peanuts fabric has settled with us on our terms over the use of their licensed fabric.

Wiggles has also settled with us on our terms over the use of their appliques on items.

Still duking it out with MGA Entertainment over the use of Bratz appliques and Sanrio-Hello Kitty recently shut down an auction of mine and have been served with a federal lawsuit.

If you buy a pattern in a store, can you make something from that pattern and sell it?

Wendy:)

copyright infringement, says right on the package for home use only.

I guess I never noticed it. Luckily, I didn't have patterns for the things in my store.

I did find out that you can use patches on things you sell (like my Harley Davidson hats).

Wendy:)

I don't know why, but it doesn't say "for home use only" or anything at all like that on Simplicity patterns....or at least the ones I've got...... or have I just not noticed it........



Monica

I sent an e-mail to the US copyright office to find out for sure. We'll see if they answer me.

Wendy:)

I thought you could if you sold the pattern with it or soemthing like that.
Mindi

I just called the US Copyright office in Washington, DC (202-707-5959) and they said that if I buy a pattern, I cannot resell the PATTERN but I can sell the ITEM I MAKE FROM IT!!!



Wendy:)

hmmmmm
and i predict this will get lots of replies.
mindi

That just puts a chink in buying used patterns!!! WOOO HOO!! I can start selling things I sew!! I don't understand patterns but I love to get an idea of how things are made!!

Originally posted by PearlJamFreak
hmmmmm
and i predict this will get lots of replies.
mindi

Yeah. Wonder what Cuddlebuns/HB would think of that?

Originally posted by MyEmilyMarie
I just called the US Copyright office in Washington, DC (202-707-5959) and they said that if I buy a pattern, I cannot resell the PATTERN but I can sell the ITEM I MAKE FROM IT!!!



Wendy:)

WOWZERS! that is really good information to know. thank you for calling them and getting it right from the source, i would have never thought to just call them. lol

Umm, does this sound wrong to anyone else? *scratching head* Not anything directed against the OP (Wendy) but I was under a completely different impression...

Canadian laws are slightly different than US laws, but I was *certain* that in both countries, you could not use the pattern to make something for re-sale, unless you sold the pattern WITH the item.

I only sell original designs (ie- mine) but this kinda surprises me...

Edited to add: I should clarify. I have had some items made from manufactured patterns in the past for orders or online, but I have always made of point of explaining that the pattern is being sold with the item. I know, because a few mamas here who were ordering were a little confused when I tried to explain the laws at time of purchase. They were like, keep the stinkin pattern I wouldn't know what to do with it! lol I just thought I was clear on the laws, but this is surprising to hear. I know there was a 40-page discussion on the market board about this a couple of months ago... ok, maybe not 40 pages :p Well, off to do more research. I just contacted the dept of justice/CIPO for an answer as well..

That sounds very bizarre to me...

Originally posted by Scarlet
That sounds very bizarre to me...

me too, um weird ?!?

Originally posted by TipToe Fairy
me too, um weird ?!?

Yep, me too. I'm wondering if the person she talked to knew what they were talking about.

Edited to add: Someone could test this theory. Buy a cuddlebuns pattern, start selling the dipes, after Susan takes you to court for copyright infridgement, let the rest of us know the outcome.

Originally posted by arasmama
Edited to add: Someone could test this theory. Buy a cuddlebuns pattern, start selling the dipes, after Susan takes you to court for copyright infridgement, let the rest of us know the outcome.

I'll pass thanks! :p

Forget it.

Originally posted by MyEmilyMarie
I just called the US Copyright office in Washington, DC (202-707-5959) and they said that if I buy a pattern, I cannot resell the PATTERN but I can sell the ITEM I MAKE FROM IT!!!





HUH?!?!?????
Can you get that in writing from them?


:o

why can't you sell a pattern when you can sell a copyrighted book?

Originally posted by warneral
why can't you sell a pattern when you can sell a copyrighted book?

You can sell a pattern, same as you can sell a book. You can't make a copy of a pattern (or book) and sell that. This is why the person's info sounds so wrong.

Originally posted by warneral
why can't you sell a pattern when you can sell a copyrighted book?

You can. I"m convinced the person didn't nkow what they were talking about. Of course you can sell the pattern. wHat you cannot do is copy the pattern, call it your own, and sell those. But can you resell a used pattern? of course you can.

First off, I'm not a copyright or patent lawyer, nor do I know any so if anybody else does I'd love to know what they have to say on the matter.
As far as I can tell the Copyright office knows what they're talking about. Copyright law protects creative works from being copied
What works are protected? (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp)
Under copyright law sewing patterns fall under the category of Visual Arts
visual arts (http://www.copyright.gov/register/va-examples.html)
The scope of the copyright states that
§113. Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works

(a)

Subject to the provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work in copies under section 106 includes the right to reproduce the work in or on any kind of article, whether useful or otherwise.

(b)

This title does not afford, to the owner of copyright in a work that portrays a useful article as such, any greater or lesser rights with respect to the making, distribution, or display of the useful article so portrayed than those afforded to such works under the law, whether title 17 or the common law or statutes of a State, in effect on December 31, 1977, as held applicable and construed by a court in an action brought under this title.

The full document can be found here:
Scope of exclusive rights in pictoral, graphic, and sculptural works (http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/113.html)

Clothing falls under the definition of a useful article.
useful article (http://www.copyright.gov/register/va-useful.html)

So what I interpret from all this mumbo jumbo is that you can't buy a Butterick pattern, take it to Kinkos, make a bunch of copies and sell them as Jenn's patterns. You can however buy a Butterick pattern, make a dress from it and then sell the dress. If Butterick wants to keep you from selling what you make with the pattern, they need what is called a design patent which "guard the unauthorized use of new, original, and ornamental designs for articles of manufacture. The look of an athletic shoe, a bicycle helmet, and the Star Wars characters are all protected by design patents." Quote found here: patent definitions (http://www.uspto.gov/go/kids/kidprimer.html). But considering the cost and the length of time it takes to get a patent it couldn't possibly be worth their while.

The copyright law I quoted above for sewing pattern use is a statutory law (laws that have been made by legislators and never tried in court). So if someone actually does want to buy a pattern and make a bunch of items from it for sale and see if they get sued and go to court about it I say go for it, you might go down in the History books (well certainly the law books) as instrumental in defining a case law for copyrighted sewing pattern use.

As far as the "This pattern is to be used for home sewing only" written on the packaging...you can write whatever you want on your packaging thanks to the 1st ammendment. (Until you are sued for false advertising that is).

So if anyone has actually read all this I just want to say that I don't have any business interest in this. I've never sold or tried to sell anything I've made. I just found the subject very interesting and wanted something educational to do while NAK. I hope I didn't offend anyone with anything I said. I'd love to hear any more facts that people discover on the matter.

Jenn

Originally posted by Someday
First off, I'm not a copyright or patent lawyer, nor do I know any so if anybody else does I'd love to know what they have to say on the matter.....


I'd love to hear any more facts that people discover on the matter.

Jenn
That was all very interesting. Thanks for sharing what you know.

:)

Serena <------- still pondering

Originally posted by arasmama
Yep, me too. I'm wondering if the person she talked to knew what they were talking about.

Edited to add: Someone could test this theory. Buy a cuddlebuns pattern, start selling the dipes, after Susan takes you to court for copyright infridgement, let the rest of us know the outcome.

Just an FYI...
Susan doesnt own CBs/BBY any more. She bought and runs KittyBids.

So what I interpret from all this mumbo jumbo is that you can't buy a Butterick pattern, take it to Kinkos, make a bunch of copies and sell them as Jenn's patterns. You can however buy a Butterick pattern, make a dress from it and then sell the dress.

This is exactly what I am saying. I'm not saying anything about reselling a pattern. I posted the number I called so that people who don't believe me can call for themselves. 202-707-5959. (I'm not offended if you don't believe me.) :)

There have been many debates about this before, but no one has ever gone straight to the horses mouth. I did ask him to send me an e-mail so that I will have it in writing.

Sorry if I'm stirring up trouble :)

Wendy:)

wow, very interesting. The copyright vs design patent part makes sense to me...

Originally posted by warneral
wow, very interesting. The copyright vs design patent part makes sense to me...

Me too. But the part about not being able to resell a pattern that you own--resell, not copy--still sounds wrongo.

Me too. But the part about not being able to resell a pattern that you own--resell, not copy--still sounds wrongo.

I didn't ask about that. I was only asking about making copies of patterns and reselling them (not that I want to) and making items and reselling them.


Wendy:)

Well, to be safe, you could always make a slight alteration in the patt so it's your own design. :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Copyright Information [mailto:copyinfo@loc.gov]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 2:53 PM
To: wendy@homes.com
Subject: Re: general copyright buying a pattern


Copyright in a pattern normally pertains to the pattern itself, not to the object that you construct from the pattern. If the pattern, however, includes original artwork that would be incorporated into the work you make, then you may need permission to use it commercially. An example of that would be a needlework pattern depicting original artwork. An example of the opposite would be a dress pattern: the dress you make from the pattern is not subject to copyright protection.

**********************************
Copyright Office
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave SE
Washington DC 20559
(202) 707-3000
www.copyright.gov

Hey thanks for sharing! That's pretty cool:D

Thats really interesting. I hadnt ever thought about copyright with this, gone more indepth with graphics arts and copyright awhile back, but hadnt thought of copyright affecting sewed items. Glad to know that you can sell items that are patterns, incase the urge should ever arise.

THat changes a lot of things, doesn't it?

Originally posted by anise
THat changes a lot of things, doesn't it?

Yeah, that!

This thread has been most informational. :)

Thanks For Sharing :)

I'd be interested (as Allison already brought up) what mommas who have made patterns for sale know about this? I know the LTK pattern says you cannot make the soakers to sell. Maybe we should ask Teresa... i'll pm her@

Originally posted by TurtleMa


This thread has been most informational. :)

it certainly has!

Well, first off, I have to say that I think the person you spoke with at the copyright office is misinformed.

Second, I wanted to point out that this quote posted here:
the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work in copies under section 106 includes the right to reproduce the work in or on any kind of article, whether useful or otherwise.

is talking about the copyright holder's exclusive rights. Which means, that the copyright hodler has the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted material, and that right INCLUDES the right to reproduce it. Any other reading of that just does not make sense, because if you read it to mean that the person who buys the patern has the exclusive rights, then it would be saying that they have the right to copy, which we all kow is absolutely not true.

I have talked with several lawer friends about this in the past, and each one has told me that in their reading of the copyright act they have concluded that it is the copyright holder who has the right to allow or deny permission to reproduce (wither photocopy or reproduce the item for profit), so if they explicitly state on the coyrighted item that it is to be used for home use only, than any other use is violating the copyright.

This is from teh Copyright Act:

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

With regard to a dress made from a pattern (or in my case, a soaker, LOL) the actual dress and soaker would be considered a derivate work, because it is not the pattern itself (that's the words on the paper) but it is derived fromthe pattern.

To be honest, if what that guy told you is true, I know many designers (myself included) who would probably stop designing and offering patterns for sale.

Originally posted by littleturtle

To be honest, if what that guy told you is true, I know many designers (myself included) who would probably stop designing and offering patterns for sale.

This is exactly what I was thinking. If this is true, then I can stop considering selling my patterns. What would the point be?

I find this all fascinating. To be honest, it has never made sense that copyright of a pattern would exclude individuals from making an item from that pattern for sale. It never made snese, but I accpeted it. But now I"m not so sure.

With regard to a dress made from a pattern (or in my case, a soaker, LOL) the actual dress and soaker would be considered a derivate work, because it is not the pattern itself (that's the words on the paper) but it is derived fromthe pattern.


I think that oculd very well be a valid argument, but I'm not sure that it holds water. My understanding of a derivative work is a work based on the original that is in itself copyrightable. A piece of clothing, as we all know it not copyrightable--for this reason, I'm not sure it applies. I'm fairly sure derivative works are supposed to cover things like sequals, spin-offs, etc. At least in the writing world that's what it refers to.

Veddy, veddy interesting.

Jumping in a little late but I had a thought.

If songwriters can prosecute others somgwriters for infringement when any part of their song is used in another without permission. If an author finds that another author has similar ideas in a work of literature, they can be sued. We all know that changing colors of PRR doesnt make it ur personally designed fabric, right? Its still PRR.

With all this in mind, how can it possibly be legal to use a copyrighted pattern but call it our own? Havent we directly used the work of another, yet taken the credit?

Food for thought, I suppose.

Originally posted by anise
THat changes a lot of things, doesn't it?

Well, yes it does! Interesting, very interesting!

Wow, thanks for the info.

wow...thanks for the fyi. I had pretty much decided to make some of my patterns available for sale...just needed to get the time to put it all together.

If I wasn't still making the items in question I'd still consider it but since I do I think I've changed my mind.

Hmmm, as I understand it, the copyright on derivative works would be a copyright on derivative patterns, not items made using those patterns. After all, copyright law pertains to media, not textiles. I think a patent is what would apply to a specific item, such as Taggies or Cuddlebuns.

Alison, do you mean you would change your mind about selling your patts because people would make and sell the clothing from them? Of course, they would not be able to use your name, though, so selling them as "Ara's Pants" would be right out.

I know that the clothing industry rips off each other's designs all the time. If the Limited wants to knock off a designer dress, they buy one, take it apart, make a patt and do all the sizing. If that were illegal, I'm sure there would have been major lawsuits by now.

I know that the clothing industry rips off each other's designs all the time. If the Limited wants to knock off a designer dress, they buy one, take it apart, make a patt and do all the sizing. If that were illegal, I'm sure there would have been major lawsuits by now.



But that is what's called reverse engineering and that's a whole different ball game than buying a pattern and using it to make something to sell. If you buy a dress, cut it apart and make up a template for it, you are still essentially making up your own pattern, because you don't know for sure how the original person put it together and such.

Good point!

Still, I think copyright does only pertain to media, but I'm certainly not an expert! :)

Originally posted by Candace
Good point!

Still, I think copyright does only pertain to media, but I'm certainly not an expert! :)

No, it pertains to patterns, says so right on the US gov copyright site.

When I say media I mean printed, taped or recorded works, so yes, the paper pattern itself - the pattern design is copyrighted, as in you can't copy someone's pattern and sell it as your own (plagarism), or make a copy to keep and sell teh original (bootlegging?) As far as I know, copyright law cannot extend beyond media - textiles made from a pattern, furniture made from a plan etc...

okay, just talked to another lawyer friend who told me to check out this part of the copyright law (found here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap13.html) regarding original designs. She seems to think that knitting and sewing patterns would afll under this category of protection. Once I read it, it makes total sense to me that this is where they would be covered.

§ 1301. Designs protected2

(a) Designs protected. —

(1) In general. — The designer or other owner of an original design of a useful article which makes the article attractive or distinctive in appearance to the purchasing or using public may secure the protection provided by this chapter upon complying with and subject to this chapter.

(2) Vessel hulls. — The design of a vessel hull, including a plug or mold, is subject to protection under this chapter, notwithstanding section 1302(4).

(b) Definitions. — For the purpose of this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:

(1) A design is “original” if it is the result of the designer's creative endeavor that provides a distinguishable variation over prior work pertaining to similar articles which is more than merely trivial and has not been copied from another source.

And this rom later in teh same section:
§ 1308. Exclusive rights

The owner of a design protected under this chapter has the exclusive right to —

(1) make, have made, or import, for sale or for use in trade, any useful article embodying that design; and

(2) sell or distribute for sale or for use in trade any useful article embodying that design.

So, it seems clear to me that sewing/knitting patterns would be the design, and the soaker/sewn garment would be the useful article that embodies that design.

Thoughts?

That's interesting!



(1) A design is “original” if it is the result of the designer's creative endeavor that provides a distinguishable variation over prior work pertaining to similar articles which is more than merely trivial and has not been copied from another source.

So a regular T shirt made from a Kwik Sew or Simplicity or whatever that is not significantly diff from any other Tshirt is prolly fine, but a specific trendy style peculiar to a specific pattern company prolly wouldn't be?? So in that case, the wasy I read it is that an HB is not ok to copy (unique design) but a generic dipe like Sew Baby or Simplicity is ok??

Not sure if this applies here, but...

I used to work for a man who manufactured cookie stamps and paper casting stamps. You use them to stamp a design onto a cookie or cast a paper medallion for crafting. He did all the artwork. The designs were all copyrighted. If a person wanted to sell cookies made using the stamps or a craft with a medallion made with his stamps (like a greeting card), you had to get a license agreement or you were violating his copyright. The cookies and paper must have been considered derivative of his original design.

Anyway, his copyright lawyer must have known what he was talking about as they did win a large copyright lawsuit against a big name crafting company.

Interesting Sharon.

Here is what I don't get. If you can buy a pattern and make and sell them, why would cuddlebuns or elizabeth lee or anyone else go to the trouble of issuing cottage licenses?

Does anyone else feel it is *morally* wrong to use other people's patterns to build your business? It just doesn't feel right to me - legal or not.

well, I'm obviously biased here a bit since I'm a designer, LOL, but I absolutely think it's morally wrong to build your biz on someone else's work.

Yes.. I do!

..but at the same time if the pattern is a big 3 & they could care less if you make the item & sell it, why not?

this is just my reasoning... sewing is only a hobby for me :)

can I answer a question with a question? (just to be a pitb! LOL!)

assuming it is morally wrong yet perfectly legal to sell an item made from a purchased pattern...

is it morally wrong to take apart an item and use it as a template?

is it morally wrong to looked at a pattern and create a similar pattern from memory only?

Morally speaking those gray areas make my brain hurt.

I have no problems with making/selling something from Big companies - most times I never make the garment exactly like the patterns says to anyways. I would never, ever use a WAHM pattern and sell a garment made from it for profit. It's just too personal...whereas a big company like Kwik Sew/Big 3, etc...well, I don't know their names, children's names, etc...kwim? Plus, I wouldn't want to hurt a mama financially. So I guess it must bother me some, but since the big patterns are so far removed from my everyday life, I don't feel it's a terrible thing.

Originally posted by kadidia
I have no problems with making/selling something from Big companies - most times I never make the garment exactly like the patterns says to anyways. I would never, ever use a WAHM pattern and sell a garment made from it for profit. It's just too personal...whereas a big company like Kwik Sew/Big 3, etc...well, I don't know their names, children's names, etc...kwim? Plus, I wouldn't want to hurt a mama financially. So I guess it must bother me some, but since the big patterns are so far removed from my everyday life, I don't feel it's a terrible thing.

This is kind of how I see it. I've never sold anything made from a pattern and I don't know if I will but now I will feel more comfortable using a part of a big 3 pattern. For example I've made a peasant dress out of a vintage pillow case and figured out the sizing and used the sleeves from a Butterick pattern. I don't think that's morally wrong.

I'd never copy a wahm's pattern but unfortunately there are some who would and I'm afraid this new information could possibly make that more common :(.

I would NOT sell things made from a WAHM patterns even if it were legal. It just isn't moral to me.

For example, Allison sold some of her peasant dress UFO's and I bought 2. Her pattern is not at all like any peasant top pattern I have used. It is much better IMO. I really liked how it went together so I traced the pattern peices. Now I have made some alterations to adjust the sizing and fit a tad more to my liking but it is still Allison's pattern. I couldn't live with myself if I made tops or dresses with even the altered patterns even if it is legal. I also have a peasant top and dress that Allison made. Legally I could have taken them apart and gotten the pattern that way , made up a bunch of tops and dresses and sold them all perfectly legal but it would be the same story morally as the UFO deal. Problem is lots of people won't feel this way.

There are so many hundreds of pages in the copywrite site, I don't see how anyone except a lawyer well versed in copywrite or someone directly from that office could interpret correctly the meaning of all of it. It can't just be up to personal interpretations Here is what I copied from there site, and my personal interpretation would be that patterns wouldn't be covered. But, that is just my opinion.

***WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED?
Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:

literary works;
musical works, including any accompanying words
dramatic works, including any accompanying music
pantomimes and choreographic works
pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
motion pictures and other audiovisual works
sound recordings
architectural works
These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."***


So where do patterns fit in here? I don't see anything wrong with selling clothes made from pattern companies, after all, they are not in the biz of producing clothes! How would it affect them? Those who sew, will continue to buy patterns and sew them, those who don't will purchase ready made or sewn by someone else, and they still wouldn't be in the market for purchasing patterns. So how does this affect the big companies if you sew and sell???

I don't see anything wrong with selling clothes made from pattern companies, after all, they are not in the biz of producing clothes! How would it affect them? Those who sew, will continue to buy patterns and sew them, those who don't will purchase ready made or sewn by someone else, and they still wouldn't be in the market for purchasing patterns. So how does this affect the big companies if you sew and sell???

That is exactly what I was thinking. I would never rip off a WAHM's pattern, but in a way the bigger pattern companies are very different. They are not going to make the clothes. Plus, most of the people that are going to buy something from me made from a pattern are going to do so because they don't know how to sew. So, they would not go buy the pattern themselves, kwim?

I made some pj's for a friend from a KS pattern and really didn't think twice about it. I can say that if I were going into business I would probably not do it, only because I would want my designs to be unique. But yeah, I will sew from patterns for friends and charge them without making them buy the pattern.

[i]


So where do patterns fit in here? I don't see anything wrong with selling clothes made from pattern companies, after all, they are not in the biz of producing clothes! How would it affect them? Those who sew, will continue to buy patterns and sew them, those who don't will purchase ready made or sewn by someone else, and they still wouldn't be in the market for purchasing patterns. So how does this affect the big companies if you sew and sell??? [/B]

Interseting POV. I had never thought about it like this before, but you know what? It makes total sense!

I don't know, I am of another sort I guess, I see it the same if you would rip off a big company as ripping off your next door neighbor. Just cause there isn't a face connected with it doesn't make it ok for me.

If, in fact, it is legal to produce a garment for sale from a legitimately acquired pattern, then no, I don't think it is unethical to use a WAHM pattern to produce clothing for sale. I know that's anunpopular opinion. But if someone legitimately acquires a pattern they still have to invest their time, labor, and materials to prouce the garment.

In my world, very little in the business world is done solely with your own talents, abilities, and materials. Assuming it were legal, to me it's the same thing as a WAHM using a PRR print to sew a dress for a pattern she designed. The design is hers--but the print is the result of someone else's work. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

Of course, ethics is one of my favorite subjects :) But yeah--I se it as completely ethical. THe only way it would be unethical to my mind would be if the person stole a pattern. But if he accquired it legally and ethicaly then he's good to go.

(2) sell or distribute for sale or for use in trade any useful article embodying that design.

So, does that mean we can't make a t-shirt from KS (or whatever) and use it in a trade, either?
This is all pretty confusing to me. lol I'm not a "read the directions" kinda gal, so pattern are a killer for me, anyway . . . but it is interesting. :)

Wanted to add:

I *do* think it unethical to use a pattern that was sold by a WAHM who was unaware that the pattern could legally be used to sell the item in question.

Originally posted by arasmama
Interesting Sharon.

Here is what I don't get. If you can buy a pattern and make and sell them, why would cuddlebuns or elizabeth lee or anyone else go to the trouble of issuing cottage licenses?

Does anyone else feel it is *morally* wrong to use other people's patterns to build your business? It just doesn't feel right to me - legal or not.

YES... I think its morally wrong...

btu I have had other mamas without cottage licenses trade me for diapers made from patterns.. so I guess I am a hypocrit...

its all such a messy issue...

and where do you draw the line.. somepeople think its ok to copy McCalls cause they are big bad corporations, but not Theresa cause she is a Mom...

Its all the same to me, you know?

Well, this is fascinating stuff! :)

It does seem wrong to make stuff to sell off a WAHM patt if that is not her intention in selling the patt. And it does seem pretty clear to me that special designs cannot be ripped off (the guy's own artwork for cookie stamps, unique designs like Honeyboys etc. ESP if you want to use the name - that's where the licensing comes in I think) but I'm still curious about plain ol' T shirts and pants etc. where 1 is much like any other.

Originally posted by oceanna
So, does that mean we can't make a t-shirt from KS (or whatever) and use it in a trade, either?
This is all pretty confusing to me. lol I'm not a "read the directions" kinda gal, so pattern are a killer for me, anyway . . . but it is interesting. :)

When they use "trade" they don't mean swapping, they mean doing business (as in "practicing a trade").

And Danielle, to address my opinion on your questions - I have cut apart a garment to make my dh more of that item but I have never taken that pattern and used it in my biz.

Originally posted by arasmama
And Danielle, to address my opinion on your questions - I have cut apart a garment to make my dh more of that item but I have never taken that pattern and used it in my biz.

lol. didn't mean that to be actually directed at YOU, personally. Just some rhetorical musings.

I know I have things that bother me. I wish I had never seen the horse pattern in Feltcraft. No matter how long it's been since I've cracked that book every horse I draw comes out resembling it. And every horse pattern I've seen in any other book also resembles it.

I guess I'm trying to define the line where ethical becomes unethical.

I feel that my horse pattern is mine because I drew it when looking at nothing more than a blank piece of paper. If I had looked at a completed stuffed horse when I drew it would that be unethical? What about if I had a book with a similar pattern open but didn't trace it...just drew my own while looking at it?

And then there's my deer pattern. I never saw a toy deer in a book, store, website or anything. But when I went to draw my pattern I referred to a picture of Bambi from a Disney book to get a better idea of the general shape of a deer, shape of the ears, etc. My stuffed deer looks nothing like Bambi...was never meant to. I just wanted to make sure it looked more like a deer than a tall dog when I was done.

It's almost like Candace's basic pants/tshirt questionings... How orginal can we be when our brains our full of similar images? Nothing is created in a vaccum.

I guess I always worry that *I've* done something unethical...even though when I think about it I don't really think I have. Does that make any sense?

Wasn't meaning to pick on you or single you out, Allison. just having a philosophical, guilt ridden moment.

Oh no, I didn't think it was directed right at me, just answering anyway :)

When I design, it is often from something seen in the past. No the whole item, but a little piece of it. Like my batik jackets - mandarin collars aren't exactly a new thing, but I couldn't get that collar out of my head. Or peasant dresses, when I started doing those they weren't really popular like they are now, but I'd worn them in the 70s. I did make mine with a square neckline, but it is still a peasant dress.

I don't know if it is possible to design something straight from scrratch. When we design, it is all coming from inspiration, even if we don't recall what inspired us in the first place.

Not sure if that post made any sense. Ah well, back to my coffee.

I don't know, I am of another sort I guess, I see it the same if you would rip off a big company as ripping off your next door neighbor. Just cause there isn't a face connected with it doesn't make it ok for me.

But, at least for me, and I think for Pixies Mama too, we are not talking about "ripping them off because they are the big bad company." I am talking about the difference between Allision, who is considering selling her patterns, but ALSO still sells the clothing made from those patterns. Using her pattern to go into business could negatively affect her business.

McCalls, on the other hand, is not ALSO in the business of making clothes. So McCalls is not losing a potential sale if I sell a dress made from a pattern of theirs. They were not also trying to sell the dress. Make sense????

If I made something from a pattern of Allison's, and I friend wanted that item, I could tell her where she could purchase it. If I made something from a KS pattern and a friend wanted a similar item, she would probably NOT go buy the pattern, unless she sews as well, which is not likely among my IRL friends!

Several things about this subject really bother me.

First, I do *not* want anyone selling my pads after they have bought a pattern. My pattern is not FDA approved and I don't sell them (or even trade for them) any longer. This scares me that someone else could/would do that - especially if there is no law against it. I am *not* going to rely on someone else's conscience (whether or not they feel right about it).

And, do you remember that "400 page" long thread about this subject? There were some mamas getting particularly nasty on that thread and yet we still are not sure of what the actual law is.

So, how can someone be so darn sure they are right and post like that when none of us seem to be too positive about the law here? That really irks me! (I am not talking about this thread - but rather the other very long thread about this).

There were some mamas getting particularly nasty on that thread and yet we still are not sure of what the actual law is.

Okay, so I am confused, wasn't that post about the FDA and mama pads? Isn't this post about whether it's legal to buy a pattern, sew an item from it and then sell it? When you say we still aren't sure what the actual law is, are you referring to the mama pads & FDA or to the sewing patterns and selling??? Sorry to be confused, sick here and my head isn't thinking clearly, but I just want to understand what you are trying to say. Thanks :)

I thought the last long thread was about using licensed fabric.

Oh! Okay, that makes more sense, LOL! Thanks for cluing me in :)

Originally posted by Candace

Alison, do you mean you would change your mind about selling your patts because people would make and sell the clothing from them? Of course, they would not be able to use your name, though, so selling them as "Ara's Pants" would be right out.


It wouldn't make any more difference than Walmart 'stealing' robeez designs and the ooooodles of market board mamas that are flocking to buy them. We'd all like to think, as designers, that our name will stand even when our product is attacked and while true there are a loyal amount there will always be those that 'flock'

Sarah

OK, so question. If I want to sell something or things that I've sewn, does it have to be an original pattern that I've come up with myself? For example, if I've sewn a skirt off of a Mccall's pattern and someone wants to buy it, am I allowed to do that?

Or if I use an idea of someone else's and tork it a little to fit what I'm wanting out of it, is that bad?

I'm a little confused here. I've had people wanting to buy some of the bag's I've sewn here at home, but don't know if I can sell them because I learned how to do the bags at a sew along here.

And I've been experimenting with sewing children's clothes and had a couple friends want me to sew them stuff for their kids to purchase, but don't know if that's OK since I go off a certain pattern base (but add my own touches).

Does this make sense? HELP! Confusion abounds.

I don't think we know. I think at this point we're all scratching our butts and walking around in circles.

Well I don't know why you couldn't sell bags made from learning via a sew-along. Especially if you do your own dimensions.

But I'm pretty laxed on all this. My big company patterns don't say you can't sell it and those companies are in the business to make patterns, not articles of clothing or bags.

Anyways did you see the thread from a few days ago? There was a big discussion

We're all trying to figure this out right now. We've had some conflicting answers on the question of selling things from a pattern. But, I do know this:

If an actual design, and not the pattern is copyrighted, you can't copy and sell it.

If something is patented, you can't copy and sell it.

If something is patent pending, it isn't totally protected yet, but when it passes, you can be sued.

HTH

thanks for the input mama's. I appreciate it.

No, I didn't see the tread from a few days ago. I'll go search for it now.

Have a great weekend!

Yeah, we're all totally confused. The copyright laws are easy to interpret to match the individual's opinion.

I wonder if the group of us could get together and hire an attoroney to sort this mess out for us. Sort of like an attoroney co-op?

I thought someone's on the market boards dh was a copyright attorney, maybe we could coop one - think he takes trade? We could outfit the whole family.

Isn't it Hayes (Dixie Chick) Dh? I could be completly wrong but that was my first thought.

Originally posted by anise
I don't think we know. I think at this point we're all scratching our butts and walking around in circles.

LOL! I was laughing so hard! i finally calmed down enough to type. What a mental image to have, i'm sure I will be having giggle spurts throughout the next few days at inappropriate moments of course! Funny sh!t!

I've looked into this on more than one occasion (plus I am the owner of several copyrights) and this is what my understanding is:

If the pattern is copyrighted only, you can sew and sell. Never claim that it is your design, even if you tweek it a little bit. Also, you can never write and sell a pattern that is similar. To copyright a pattern, it needs to be an original design.

A copyright is not a patent, so if a pattern is only copyrighted, the holder of the copyright cannot tell you what you can do with the finished products made from it. (Although I've seen some try by writing on their pattern "You cannot sell a finished product made from this pattern." Actually, their copyright doesn't extend that far and they have no right to tell you what to do with the finished product. It always bothers me when designers try to scare the purchasers of their patterns. My answer to them would be: "If you don't want people to make this project, why did you write a pattern for it?") They only have control over the written word, illustrations, diagrams, etc. of the particular project described. They don't even own the general idea, that comes under patent protection. Nor can titles be copyrighted, that falls under trademark protection. That's why you see so many fakes that follow a successful product. A dollmaker who sells baby doll patterns can't tell other people to not make baby dolls, or even design other baby doll patterns! If they want complete control over the process, they need to apply and be granted a patent for that particular idea and specific construction procedure, then also be granted a trademark for the name of the product along with their copyright. Remember Cabbage Patch Kids? They were so successful because they covered all the bases.

For example, a copyright holder of a dress pattern has control of that particular dress, its design and the directions she/he wrote to make it. If someone significantly alters or makes enough changes to the pattern and creates something that is distinctively different, she/he could write another pattern, as long as their instructions do not plagiarize the original in any way. Although, a new product really needs to be obviously and distinctively different from the original in a variety of ways, not just because you've added trim here or changed the neckline.

So, look everywhere on the patterns you are using. If they only mention a copyright, don't worry about sewing and selling. Think about all those seamstresses out there sewing wedding gowns. They don't make the patterns they use. Usually, they visit the sewing store with their client and buy it. As long as you're not claiming the pattern or design to be your own, you're fine. All you're selling is your sewing services, which is perfectly legal.

If someone asks you, "Did you make the dress?" Make sure your answer is truthful and reply: I didn't design the pattern but, yes, I sewed the dress and added my own touches." -- or whatever. It's not required, but it would be nice and respectful of the copyright owner of the pattern if you are willing to share the pattern information to anyone who may ask. That's what I request on my copyrighted patterns and I hope people are truthful and accomodating in that way.

I may have given you more information that you asked for, but when it comes to these sticky issues, one needs to be very clear.

One disclaimer: I am NOT a lawyer, this is my interpretation and understanding of my rights as a copyright owner.

I hope this is helpful.

~ Kathryn

I talked w/ 2 attorneys about this so far.(Neither are Copyright Attorneys) One being my FIL and another a close friend. My friend found this interesting and is going to research it more.

So far this is there take.. Buying a clothing pattern would be similar to buying plans for a house. You can buy plans for a house and sell the house, but not the plans....

It's really looking like the info MyEmilyMarie got from the copyright office last week *is* correct.

It does make sense that only the pattern and directions are covered and not the item made from it.