Location: baking a happiness cake with the ingredients I already have...
Posts: 3,444
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.
Quote:
§ 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:
Quote:
§ 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?
__________________
Theresa, Mama to AJ, Ethan, Greg + Rusty Little Turtle Knits
(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??
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.
__________________
Sharon
Mommy to Sarah (8/14/98), Michael (10/18/00), and John (9/30/03) and Peter 7/17/06
Wife to Byron since 1992!
Super Spy John, Michael, Sarah, and Super Peter with napkin cape
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.
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.
__________________
Michelle
Wife to one Mama to four.
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.
__________________
Blessings,
Amy
Mama to 3 growing boys and my doggies, Haley and Josie
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.
__________________
Mary,
momma to Tyler 5-14-03 And Maya 1-19-2001
And Ciara 1-14-06
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.
.
Linear Mode
