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
__________________
Mommy to Elias (6/5/00), Hannah (9/23/01), and Barnabeas (4/21/05)
happy wife to Eddie
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.
__________________
Michelle
Wife to one Mama to four.
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
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.
__________________
Allison
mama to Ara, Simone, and Zarin
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.
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 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?
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
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.
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.
Linear Mode
