I know that we have gone round and round on this legal and ethical issue, and that new information recently came out pertaining to selling items made from licensed fabric.

Can someone update me with the most recent information?

I have some extra shrek fabric and would like to make a few sets of jammies to sell, but only if it's on the up and up.

TIA!
Tara

Personally...I would say go for it! I really don't think these big corporations are going to come after you for selling a couple sets of pjs on the AW market board, lol! I also don't think anybody really knows unless it went to court.

Originally posted by kadidia
Personally...I would say go for it! I really don't think these big corporations are going to come after you for selling a couple sets of pjs on the AW market board, lol! I also don't think anybody really knows unless it went to court.
:ditto:

I don't sew, but I think there would be a problem if you were selling it as an official item.. if you market it as a WAHM item, I can't see there being a problem as anyone can go buy fabric, kwim? As far as I am concerned, if they're selling the fabric, they're *expecting* things to get made out of it :)

I agree with all of the above posters. I think the reason these things have not gone to court is because the companies have a pretty good idea that they would loose. Afterall they have deep pockets and we all know WAHM's do not. ;)

I think it is still a sticky situation. I personally know someone that was selling stuff made with PennState fabric (at a PennState craft show) whose stuff was taken because it violated Trademark or whatever it is. But, as the others have said, it is highly unlikely that Disney would ever know. You could also write an email to Disney, and say you have a bit of this fabric leftover, wanna make jammies to sell to a friend, and see what they say. More than likely they will say, yes, it is fine, but please don't sell commercially.

my understanding of it all (I'm certainly no expert) is that it is only a problem when it could appear that your item made from their fabric is an "official" item.

For example, making pants from Disney fabric and selling them would be ok but standing outside Disney On Ice wouldn't be ok because you would be in direct competition with official Disney stuff and it would appear that your stuff was endorsed by Disney bc you were selling there.

I wouldn't do it unless I knew it was legal. I thought that people had talked about this issue over the summer (I missed the details) and that it had been found to be legal - does anyone remember that discussion? Or am I confusing this with the issue of items made from commercial sewing patterns?

Tara

we discussed this at MD and my dh and Amber made some good points about creating something from something else and it being a whole new item so it wouldn't violate laws... I think the consesus was that there isn't actual law that says you can not take a licensed or copywrite item and create a new, original item as long as you are clear that you are not representing the original creator. Amber likened it to takeing the pages out of her book and creating a mural with it. I'm using her copywrited material but creating a new product.
So I think as long as you are not creating a "likeness" of shrek or falsely representing Disney you are within the limits of the law.

Try googling tabberone or searching it here. I remember reading a fairly recent post (can't find it now) but they've gone to court with several manufacturers and have never lost (they continue to make stuff and sell it).

Here's the tabberone (?) link. I didn't follow all the details of the discussion that was had this summer, but hopefully this will be helpful:

( I also haven't read the tabberone site, but I did bookmark it for future reading, but I HTHs )

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

As far as I can remember, Tabberone hasn't gone to court-everything has been settled out of court.

i think the original thread is in the faq forum. it is all opinion though, no actual fact.

I thought the problem was when you do take something that is meant to be one thing and make it into another... that that is called a "Derivative"? Tabberone were argueing that as fabric is sold with the intention of turning it into something else, the something else doesn't count as a derivative work....?

As I recall, the argument is:

1. They got their money from you when you bought the fabric.

2. Once you own the fabric, it's yours to do as you please.

3. As long as you aren't reproducing a trademarked item with it, you can make what ever you want.

But, it all seems to be a grey area, so I guess use your conscience as your guide. Does it feel ok for you to do? If so, then do it. If you don't feel good, then don't. Make them as gifts for the holiday season instead of selling them.

A derivative is defined in federal law as something that is original enough to acquire a copyright on it's own.

All these people settled after we filed the federal lawsuit because they knew they couldn't win. You know if Disney wanted to fight me they could have.

Except for MGA Entertainment who has vowed to take me to the Supreme Court over the use of a licensed applique. Now they've released something like 10-12 different fabrics.

Originally posted by mommy2maya
As far as I can remember, Tabberone hasn't gone to court-everything has been settled out of court.

Good point...they haven't gone to trial as I recall--it has all been settled out of court. ;oops: I mis-spoke (mis-typed? LOL).

I would sell the fabric and let it cure in someone elses stash- or I would use it for a trade situation.

I'm not comfortable with opinions that boil down to 1) 'they'll never know' or 2) they are a big company and we are small so we can do stuff they can't. These are not examples of respecting laws that I want to model to my children. I'd rather sell the fabric and not make the profit than mess with it

Sarah

I actually feel the other way. I think if Disney thought it was a clear cut case (or even one they had a reasonable chance of winning) they would have jumped on making Tabberone an example.

Just to clarify my comment on the companies deep pockets had nothing to do with them being big so sit won't hurt them if I use their fabric for profit. It was meant to point out that if they really thought they were right they have the money to pursue the matter in court and win without worry for the cost. WAHM or craft show venders so not have that kind of money and are a week oppenent in that case. TO me it appears that the big compaines aren't taking it to court because they have a pretty good idea that they would lose. THey are counting on people reading the "for home use only" on the selvage and taking it at face value. If they lost a court battle it would be come case law that you can use the fabric licenced or not however you wish.

My understanding is that there are not any legislated laws for the use of licensed fabric to make items for profit. If a case was to go to court adn the WAHM to win then it would become case law that the fabric is ok to be used for profit. If the corperations won it would become case law that it was not ok. it says a lot to me that corporations that have huge groups of lawyers at their beck and call and nearly endless funds to pay them with (at least compared witht he average WAHM or small business) Chose not to purse that matter in court with a final judgement that would establis the legal staus in black and white.

IOW for me it is not a case of stealing from the rich (disney et all) to feed the poor (my family). Nor is it a case of thinking that they (Disney et all) will never know. Neither of those are additudea that I hold or wish to teach to my children.

Originally posted by Scarlet
I actually feel the other way. I think if Disney thought it was a clear cut case (or even one they had a reasonable chance of winning) they would have jumped on making Tabberone an example.

Bethan said what I was trying to say in a much more consice and clear manner. lol:thumbsup:

Well, as long as everyone else is putting in their opinion, I'll add mine.

I wouldn't do it. Doesn't matter to me if it is legal or not. It says on the selvage for home use only. When I buy it wholesale, it says on the site "not for manufacturing", so I feel when I buy it I am agreeing not to produce things for sale from it. If I didn't agree with that, I shouldn't have bought it.

Not saying you shouldn't have bought it. I know you bought it for personal use. Just saying I wouldn't buy with that intent.

You know it has always made sense to me why the big companies that put out the character fabrics don't go after craft shows and wahms and such. Now bear in mind this is my speculation............

All the characters are for kids primarily from shows and movies that are geared for kids. If the 'possible misuse' of their fabrics wasn't cutting in on their profit significantly than in weighing the pro's and cons I'm sure they would much rather not have the bad publicity that would come from sueing the pants off some work at home mom. The media would have a hay-day with some big business that squishes some kid's mom- and moms accross america would likely have a very bad taste in their mouths about Disney or Pixar or whomever did it.

Just another thought as to why they haven't felt the neccessity yet to take this battle all the way thru. The pro's need to really outweigh the cons before it is worth the potential backlash.

Sarah

And, agreeing with Allison, it is printed on the selvage. Yes it may not be law but to me its like someone stating their intentions or wishes. I really don't like that everything must be so 'laws' and 'rules' oriented. I don't want to have to produce papers and case evidence and piles of money to get someone to respect my wishes- if I state my wishes I would hope someone else would respect them.

I know I'm chatty this morning, please excuse me- I'm also quite sick. I know we live in a world of manipulations and imperfections. All I can do is state my ideal and make the best choices I can. I hardly feel like this is a world shaking event, so don't mistake my chattiness for that, just had some spare time and felt like sharing my thoughts on the principles.


I think you are all wonderful mamas and I'm not keeping a list of whom said what or anything ;)

Sarah

Sarah I see your point but I really don't think such a suit would generate huge amounts of publicity outside of the crafting/sewing world yk? Even when the huge stink was made over Disney offering insurance to the partners of their gay and lesbian employees only a small segment of our society chose to boycott them and it has had very little effect on them.

And Allison I agree with you and that is also why I do not buy licensed fabric to make items to sell.

I'm have no interest in a debate I just think this is an interesting matter and like most things in life I try not to worry about what others do ( not tha anyone here is). they have to live with the consequenses if there are any not I. I do like to see what others think about it. Very interesting but not something for me to get too excited about yk? lol

I understand both your points, but I agree with Michelle. Even if the media did do a big stink I feel the vast majority of parents will continue to buy what they and their children consider cute and desirable.

After all, people are still buying Pooh bear stuff in droves despite the big WTP disney stink.

As for buying something with that on forming an agreement. I don't feel that it is morally correct them misleading consumers into thinking that it is unlawful. The words are meaningless to me, I made no such agreement. Its kind of like when someone trains their dog to bite strangers and then their defense when their dog tears a hole in the mailman is that they put "beware of dog" on the gate. Just because you say something on the fabric does not constitute an agreement on my part... now I would feel differently if before purchasing fabric I said/wrote "I understand that I'm agreeing that I will not use this fabric for commercial gain" -- THEN I would be breaking my agreement, yk?

I guess I'm a stick in the mud, but unless I know it's legal, I won't do it. I had planned to make him a matching flannel top, but ended up finding the perfect ogre-green knit for the top, so I just made him the character flannel pants. Thus, I have leftover fabric. Since I have the perfect knit coordinate, I was going to make one or two more sets and sell them. Maybe I will still make them and trade them! Is that legal, you think? ;)

Tara

Well, if you have a matching knit I would be interested in buying enough of the fabrics to make a size 5 pair of jammies. :p

When I had my business I had determined through reading multiple websites and our own state laws that bartering was not covered by laws. Basically I could make just about anything if It was for a trade with someone. I totally respect your desire to understand the law so I suggest perhaps you look this up or maybe someone else can find some compelling links. I don't have time to re-research that but, on a side note, in a quick search I did find these interesting sites:

This site gives information about the current debate about using embroideries and how trademarks work into the debate

http://sewing.about.com/library/sewnews/library/aamach20.htm

Here's a summary on how laws apply to pattern use. I know different information was gathered from emailing the copyright office directly though

http://www.getcreativeshow.com/Craft_Sew_Business/Business_Seminars/copyrights.htm

Sarah

When I had my business I had determined through reading multiple websites and our own state laws that bartering was not covered by laws. Basically I could make just about anything if It was for a trade with someone.

I question the veracity of that statement. Bartered products are taxable, just like any other income. It only stands to reason, then, that if you cannot sell something legally, then you cannot barter for it legally, either.

Frankly, my opnion on the "for home use only" business is that these fabrics are intended for home seamstresses to use as they wish, but are not to be sold wholesale to manufacturers. I would not consider any single-person venture a manufacturer.

Manufacture: To make or process (a raw material) into a finished product, especially by means of a large-scale industrial operation.

In my opinion, that last part is very important. I imagine that once a fabric ends up at Hancock's or Jo-Ann's it is being resold to home sewers, whom the fabric manufactures know may very well sew into saleable items.

In my opinion, then, the stipulation "for home use only" hasn't to do with whether or not saleable items can be made from it, but rather to whom the fabric can originally be sold (Jo-ann for home sewers or some corporation for large scale clothing manurfacutre), and the scale of the creation of saleable items.

I missed reading this the first time.

There is nothing we've found or that any company has pointed out to us that says that disclaimer "for home use only" is backed up by any federal or state statute.

Major League Baseball whined a lot about having a disclaimer yet had nothing to back it up. No statutes, no court decisions.

I question the veracity of that statement. Bartered products are taxable, just like any other income. It only stands to reason, then, that if you cannot sell something legally, then you cannot barter for it legally, either.

Are you questioning my veracity or the veracity of the sites I was reading? I suppose it doesn't matter. I did research this, 2 (or3)yrs ago and that is the information that I read. Could I have read it wrong? perhaps. Do I encourage Tara to verify my comments for her own situation and state? absolutely.

End of story for me is, were I in the same situation as Tara I would choose to either sell the fabric as is or sew with it for a trade.

Sarah

Lydia and I just got back from JoAnn's. Lydia decided she needed some of the new Dora Christmas fabric and since I've been reading this thread, I thought I'd check the selvage. It doesn't say anything about the fabric not being intended for commercial use. Same thing with the SpongeBob fabric (manufactured for the same company).

Does that mean I can do what I want with Dora & SpongeBob fabrics?

;pot:

Really?? I thought the networks were all about ownership of characters. Who knows anymore! :p

Tara

ps: digging that potstirring icon!

For those of you who don't want to slog through all the stuff on my website.

Precious Moments has licensed fabric, with a disclaimer I might add. They took a company, not a home crafter, a company to court. This company was buying the fabric and having it sewn up into items for sale in their store. 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".

That has been the only case over the use of fabric that we've been able to find. Everyone else apparently has been smart enough to to pursue it.

In my opinion, then, the stipulation "for home use only" hasn't to do with whether or not saleable items can be made from it, but rather to whom the fabric can originally be sold (Jo-ann for home sewers or some corporation for large scale clothing manurfacutre), and the scale of the creation of saleable items.

ditto. English is not my mother tongue but if i read "for home use only", if I make something in my home and they I sell it, well I used it at home :)