Ship of Fools: Copyright and crafts

Thread: Copyright and crafts Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020451

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

I am a needleworker, specifically I cross stitch other people's designs for friends and family. I don't design myself, but I do take elements from different people's designs and incorporate them into a new whole. So for example I might take a small Santa design from one source and combine it with letters from another source to create a unique Christmas decoration.

When I mentioned my needlework earlier in the Downunder thread in All Saints, I realised that if I did this with written work I would be plagiarising it. So what's the difference?

Designers publish books full of small motifs that can be used this way. One I have states that it is illegal to copy the designs in any way, which is stupid because it is not meant to be used solely as picture book as it has guidelines as to technique, material to be used etc.

I am not a knitter nor do I sew clothes, but I suppose knitting or dress-making patterns can be adapted in the same way (a collar added, a flounce subtracted.

So, am I actually breaking copyright in what I'm doing? I am not claiming the designs as my own.

Huia

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It sounds like you need an IP lawyer to answer that.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Deferring to lawyers means we don't discuss anything. I don't think we need to defer. The ship is full of educated and learned people. We just don't give legal advice.

If you're not selling or advertising what you're sewing, the question of legality won't arise. If you mass produce and flog online, perhaps someone will notice, though I'd expect the request would be for a fee (I'd ask you for a fee per item if you have volume). In Canada there is this decision which makes for interesting reading.

[ 26. January 2018, 20:28: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

There are varieties of Creative Commons licences which often accompany online work. I'd expect books of patterns to say explicitly whether copying them for commercial/non-commercial uses is okay.

But there have been several instances where a hobby or small business crafter has had their design lifted wholesale by a much larger manufacturer. It often then depends on how deep the little maker's pockets are as to whether they can lawyer up or not.

It also cuts the other way, though: what is your cute Hufflepuff embroidered badge, is someone else's paid-for licence from Warner Bros. Fair-use considerations don't tend to apply in these cases.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It sounds like you need an IP lawyer to answer that.

Yes and no, yes if I was looking for a definitive answer because I had Disney hammering on my door waving legal bits of paper at me (just an example - I've never stitched a depiction of a Disney character), but what I'm trying to do is gather other people's experience, knowledge and opinions on copyright, especially as it might pertain to crafts.

Doc Tor, most of the pattern books I have come across just have the standard disclaimer that you find in any novel. One exception being a knitting book by the late Jean Greenhow where she had a note giving knitters the right to knit multiple copies of her little dolls and allowing sales that were fundraising for charity.

It seems to me that most publishers are being lazy in not having a relevant note in their books.

I have only once bought a new design on-line, but I think that the issue is dealt with more clearly there, with notes about creative commons and such.

I'm wondering too if other crafters have different experiences.

Huia

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Perhaps a key question here is "are you seeking to make a profit from using the designs of others?"

If I strap on a guitar and sing Beatles songs to my family at a private party, I wouldn't expect to have to pay copywrite fees to do so. If I played regularly down the pub, I would.

Whilst Disney (to use the example) might want to protect their image rights, I doubt that they would come after you if you knitted a pullover with Mickey Mouse on for a grandchild. If you started selling such pullovers at a market stall, on the other hand, you might have reason to be concerned.

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

I do a lot of knitting. I do buy some patterns but there is a vast free range available online. I knit for family and for charities, I have mentioned the cancer wards at Westmead kids hospital.

Many patterns add a rider at the foot that knitting for family and charities is fine, but the pattern is not to be used for profit.

In years of knitting, I have never sold any and I do not see this changing. I have seen discussions about just changing a bit of directions and most seem to think that changing needle size and calling it a new pattern is not on.

There was one woman in Sydney some years ago who copied patterns, changed a tiny bit and called it something new. However, she got herself into trouble by claiming medical qualifications of one sort or another and spent time in gaol several times for this fraud. Also found herself a non-existent fiancé etc. She has now dropped off the scene.

What I am very careful about is sharing patterns I bought. If it is available on net, I will give a link and the person concerned can make up their own mind. I have been asked for photocopies and I do not do that at all and once someone told me the book was old, I could tear page out for her. NOT ON at all.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Huia, one of the problems is that copyright law will differ from country to country, even in the English-speaking world where I imagine the Ship is most commonly boarded. I'd imagine that there'd be no complaint were you to knit a jumper with a Disney motif for your niece. But this is not legal advice.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I'd have thought the difference - morally if not legally - between needlework and writing is that the whole point of a pattern book is to copy stuff out of it, whereas if you are reading, say, Harry Potter, there is no expectation that that you are going to pick out the most evocative passages and copy-and-paste them into your own magical epic.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

Ricardus, that's why I was surprised to see the same copyright notice that I'd see in a novel - I ignored it because it didn't make sense, and I can't see the most fierce defender of rights trying to bring a case unless there was a blatant flouting, such as mass photocopying and selling of patterns for profit. The way it was worded -that charts couldn't be reproduced in any way- could be read to imply that they couldn't even be stitched, (because a stitched design copies the printed pattern) - which is totally ridiculous.

For my needlework I stick to much the same rules as Lothlorien does with knitting patterns. I do give away charts or pattern books I no longer want, but I do that with other books too, otherwise I would have vanished long ago, buried under a mountain of books - what a way to go. [Biased]

I sometimes photocopy charts for my own use, because it's easier to follow them when the print is bigger, especially if the chart has two symbols in a square that's only one tenth of an inch long and wide [Eek!]

Huia

Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :

Surely if it has the same copyright notice as other books it will be the written content that is copyright - so no photocopying except for own use etc. But what you create from your perusal of the work is your own. I expect that if I had the same book and tried the same pattern mine would look vastly different from yours - because mine would be a mess!

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

Huia, I think what I was implying was that I do not want to deprive a designer of a fee by giving someone a pattern they should be paying for.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Huia, one of the problems is that copyright law will differ from country to country, even in the English-speaking world where I imagine the Ship is most commonly boarded. ... But this is not legal advice.

That may not be legal advice but it's very good advice.

For one thing, I think UK and Australian copyright law are fairly similar, though I think the copyright periods in Australia are shorter. In Canada, I have a feeling they are shorter still. But US copyright law is really weird and seems to bear no resemblance to anybody else's at all.

For another, the copyright law of some countries gives protection to things that other countries don't recognise any copyright in at all. England and Wales, for example, don't recognise copyright in a bright idea. Either something has got to be patented as a patent, or has to be something specific like a written text. It's possible bearing in mind a row which I once found myself professionally on the fringes of, that Australian law might recognise copyright in concepts in ways that we don't - in which case, it won't be enforceable here.

One which has been debated recently is that we don't accept the notion that an architect's copyright in his or her plans extends to to giving him or her rights over whether people can take photographs of the building that is subsequently built. Some countries do.

I'm also claiming Gee D's cover 'this is not legal advice'.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
Huia, I think what I was implying was that I do not want to deprive a designer of a fee by giving someone a pattern they should be paying for.

Would that apply to authors, would you deny them income by passing on books to a used book store or charity shop? Wouldn't their income be more if everyone bought books new?

[ 27. January 2018, 09:42: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

There is an article considering copyright of photos of Eiffel Tower at night. It is instructive that not only is it important that the copyright exists but the intention of the artist in creating the copyright. The point of lighting the Eiffel Tower was partly to attract photography so though the lighting is copyright the intention of the producer was that it would be photo-d.

Thus I suspect that the intention of people creating those patterns is that people will use them and make them. So if you use and make, you will not be infringing their copyright. If you published a book with an identical pattern you would be.

Think of recipe books. If you make a recipe that is fine, if you copy the recipe into another recipe book and sell it then that is breaking copyright.

Jengie

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

This was orginally an edit to the post above but all the change were to the third paragraph that should read

quote:

Think of recipe books. If you make a recipe that is fine, even if you make buns and sell them at a baking stall to raise money for a local charity, but if you copy the recipe into another recipe book and sell it then that is breaking copyright.

Jengie

[ 27. January 2018, 10:44: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There are varieties of Creative Commons licences which often accompany online work. I'd expect books of patterns to say explicitly whether copying them for commercial/non-commercial uses is okay.

But there have been several instances where a hobby or small business crafter has had their design lifted wholesale by a much larger manufacturer. It often then depends on how deep the little maker's pockets are as to whether they can lawyer up or not.

This could happen to us. We design and make wooden tea light holders and lead hangers. We do all shapes of dog and cat. We sell about two a day, more near Christmas. See my ‘Room’ blog.

It won’t happen ‘tho, I don’t think, as they are made from solid oak which doesn’t lend itself to mass production - the cost of tooling up would be enormous and the market for them is very niche imo

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
There is an article considering copyright of photos of Eiffel Tower at night. It is instructive that not only is it important that the copyright exists but the intention of the artist in creating the copyright. The point of lighting the Eiffel Tower was partly to attract photography so though the lighting is copyright the intention of the producer was that it would be photo-d. ...

Interesting, though there is an extra issue to take into account. Again subject to the earlier cover - this is not legal advice - when it comes to recognising foreign copyrights, a lot of jurisdictions won't allow a person to enforce a foreign copyright in their courts unless it would be enforceable if first published in their own jurisdiction. After all, it's hardly fair on their own artists to allow foreigners to make claims their own artists can't.

So claiming copyright in a photograph of the Eiffel Tower by night outside France is likely to depend not only on whether French law recognises such a claim, but also whether the place where you're making the claim would recognise such rights in a photograph if if it had been taken by night there, not in France.

The linked article may be correct as regards publishing the photo in New York. I've no idea what the position would be about publication, say, in New Zealand.

Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on :

In the field of paper crafting, rubber stamping and scrapbooking most producers of dies or stamps have angel policies which state exactly what is and isn't permitted use of their artwork.

Typical small producer angel policy

Typical corporate angel policy

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Just by-the-by, Disney are very hot on their IP. Rolls Royce and Faber & Faber too - they wouldn't permit excerpts of T S Eliot's work in a biography. None. Not a line.

[ 27. January 2018, 12:04: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
This was orginally an edit to the post above but all the change were to the third paragraph that should read

quote:

Think of recipe books. If you make a recipe that is fine, even if you make buns and sell them at a baking stall to raise money for a local charity, but if you copy the recipe into another recipe book and sell it then that is breaking copyright.
Jengie

My hunch is that that's what the copyright notice in the pattern book is intended to convey—you can't reproduce the patterns in such a way (book, online) that you're passing them off as patterns you designed, particularly if profit is involved.

Posted by gog (# 15615) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Designers publish books full of small motifs that can be used this way. One I have states that it is illegal to copy the designs in any way, which is stupid because it is not meant to be used solely as picture book as it has guidelines as to technique, material to be used etc.

Do they mean to copy the design from the page to another page, or do they mean to make the cross stitch based up the instructions given?

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

I have bought dressmaking patterns which stated that they were specifically for domestic, and not for commercial use. Though a dressmaker using one to make a dress for a client would not be in breach of copyright, imo, as they would be selling their skill rather than the design. In these cases both patterns and fabric tend to be bought and provided by the client for whom the dress is being made. I would have thought that that makes a crucial difference to the legal position.

Definitely not legal advice - just my opinion.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Dress patterns are also one-shot affairs. If you want to make that dress again, you need to buy another pattern.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Dress patterns are also one-shot affairs. If you want to make that dress again, you need to buy another pattern.

Not my mother. She managed to reuse them. Ask not how.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Dress patterns are also one-shot affairs. If you want to make that dress again, you need to buy another pattern.

Is this as things are supposed to be or in reality?

If in reality I can tell you quite categorically that my mother used to reuse patterns regularly when making clothes for us as children.

Its quite easy actually, pattern is only used for cutting and marking up the garment. You then remove pin, deal with the markup, fold carefully and then it can be used again.

Jengie

[ 27. January 2018, 17:04: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Yes, I've used patterns time and time again! The idea that they are 'one use' is a completely new one to me.

M.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

I've just gone to have a look at my patterns but they're not where I thought they were & I don't have time to look properly now.

M.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

You're obviously much better at saving your patterns. I'm obviously too heavy-handed to retrieve them intact once I've cut and pinned them.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

My mother made almost everything that she, my sister, and I wore. Many patterns were used over and over again, with some variations -- often for more than one of us.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

If you copy an entire copyrighted image you are in violation of the copyright unless it is a parody. Stupid is not a legal defense.

There is a Geneva Copyright Convention which has been adopted by most countries. How well it is enforced is another issue.

If you use a trademarked image and are intending to confuse the consuming public about the origin or quality of goods or services you are in violation of the mark.

If you are going to do either don't tell anyone about it.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Huia--

I did a quick search on "crafts copyright". Looks like some of the hits have the info you want.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

Thanks G.K, interesting stuff.

One of the linked articles was along the lines of not ripping off the designers, which relates to what Lothlorien was saying, and makes sense to me as a guideline. Also my boredom threshold ensures I rarely stitch more than one copy of a design, the only one I have done, I discussed with the designer as she lived locally. Nor do I sell my work because I am a slow stitcher and it wouldn't be worth my while, but most I given to friends - innocence caused by weaknesses - rather than ethical decisions [Hot and Hormonal]

But where does it leave the kind of sharing of others people's designs often shown on social media? I guess most designers don't have the money of Disney, nor the clout of Faber and Faber (mentioned earlier in the thread).

There have been 2 very public occasions when NZ businesses ran foul of international copyright. The owners of pub in the tiny settlement of Blackball named their establishment The Blackball Hilton but changed it to Formerly The Blackball Hilton when challenged, and a retail business owned by a family called Harrod was called to account for using that otherwise famous name. They did change the name, but once a year the whole town has a Market week where all the shops are called Harrods, and the town renames itself Harrodsville.

Kiwi humour isn't subtle. [Razz]

Huia

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0