| ||||||
| ||||||
|
Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won |
| ||||||||||
|
|
Amy Butler Art of the Midwest Hall Of Shame Member |
|
Last Updated - December 10, 2009
|
Update - March 24, 2009 As of this date, a search of the on-line copyright records for the U.S. Copyright office shows five (that's correct - 5) copyrights on file for Amy Butler.; all from 2003 and 2004 and all for book collections of patterns. Not one copyright for a pattern. Why do you suppose that is? Yet, Amy Butler claims all of her patterns are copyrighted which gives the impression they are registered and they are not. A copyright that has not neen registered with the US Copyright Office cannot be enforced in court. As of this date, a search of the on-line copyright records for the U.S. Copyright office shows seven (that's correct -7) copyrights on file for Art of the Midwest; one is for postcard reproductions, a "chore" book, a book by David Butler, and four for doll patterns. Click here for the new and slightly improved Amy Butler FAQ page, with our comments of course. |
|
Update - July 2, 2007 On July 2, 2007, we received an email telling us Amy Butler had modified her copyright position. We checked, and in fact she has for the use of her fabric, but not concerning the use of her patterns. Amy, your copyright on your patterns only covers the physical pattern purchased, not the end product. The copyright protection applies ONLY to the pattern. You, as the copyright owner, have only those rights assigned under copyright law. Your expanded copyright statement does not bestow rights upon your product just because you say so. The Tabberone Trademark & Copyright Abusers' Hall Of Shame is where Amy Butler belongs. |
|
Amy Butler appears to make patterns and fabric along with a copious amount of manure. Her web pages are loaded with misinformation about
her precious patterns and her not-so-precious fabrics.
Their website, www.amybutlerdesign.com, gives their address as : Amy Butler, Art of the Midwest Studio, 218 Mount Parnassus,
Granville OH 43023 USA
Amy Butler has an inflated opinion of herself and a very wrong opinion about her rights under the law. Unlike what she claims, buying her product
does not include a license to use. There is no provision in state or federal law that grants a seller a
right to license except for those specifically cited and they are the manufacturers of computer software and motion pictures. Amy Butler's
claim she is allowing the sale only on her terms is not enforceable and misleading and typical corporate lawyer weasel-wording.
Amy Butler is also mistaken, we believe purposely, as to what a copyright covers. Her copyright only covers the pattern (or fabric) she is selling;
not what is made from it. The end product is a useful item made from fabric and therefore
uncopyrightable under US Copyright Law. Making a fabric product from her pattern and
then selling it is perfectly permissible and not protected by her copyright as Amy Butler purposely represents. Amy Butler
also cannot bind someone into jurisdiction in Ohio as she believes. Amy, federal law sets the standards for jurisdiction, not you. Your pompous
"copyright statement" is an example of blowhard gone amuck.
Copying the pattern itself and selling the copy, or giving the copy away, is illegal and covered by any copyright.
By the way, Amy, a copyright statement is defined in copyright law. Making unlawful claims and setting illegal limitation is an example of
copyright misuse by Amy Butler. Her "copyright statement" below does not conform to the
federal statute which states specifically what is
contained in a copyright statement. From the Amy Butler website under f.a.q.:
Wordy and very inaccurate. There is no federal or state law that allows Amy Butler, or anyone else, to attach
conditions on the use or distribution to the lawful sale of a product released into the general stream of commerce. Earth to Amy! Once you
offer it for sale you relinquish future control over how your product is used or re-sold.
Also from the Amy Butler website:
Again, wrong. It is not illegal. They are not pirated or illegal if the maker did not mislead the buyer into believing the products
were licensed products. Stating the bag was made using an Amy Butler pattern is perfectly legal and fair use under trademark law.
International trademark law is cited to confuse and mislead. In "essence" Amy Butler, you and your
bottom-feeding corporate lawyers are lying to the American public as well as the rest of the world.
More from her website:
When people take Amy's patterns and make them into finished goods, in essence, Amy is being cut out of her own recurring sales.
She is the designer, the bag sells because of the design (and often her name) and yet, she makes nothing from it aside from the
sale of one pattern (a profit, after considering the cost of manufacture, design, writing, distribution, marketing, advertising,
of about 52¢). Not to mention, the equity of Amy's high-quality brand can be jeopardized when folks make fast products and use
her name. Or, if the bags are made poorly, people might think it's because of the patterns, and not the third party seamstress.
It's complicated. We've actually received calls from people unhappy with online purchases of "Amy Bags" although we have nothing
to do with this illegal practice.
|
| Amy, would you like some cheese with that whine? If you don't want people making items from your patterns for sale then stop selling the patterns. What did you expect? People are going to use patterns that are popular to make saleable items. It's good business sense. They are not using your name: you are selling your name. There's a difference. Donating proceeds is admirable but hardly a decent defense to lying about what is protected by copyrights. The whole tone of your statement is basically a plea for people to be nice and do what you want because you know you have no legal authority to force compliance. Small business? Google returns 3,240,000 hits for the phrase "Amy Butler". Plead poverty sweetheart but don't insult us by claiming to be a "small business". |
|
Amy Butler is not being cut out of recurring sales. A lot of people don't sew. They buy from people who do. Amy got her income from the sale
of the pattern or the fabric. The false statement about the "third party seamstress" is smoke and mirrors. Only an idiot buys a poorly
made bag and then blames a third party. People like Amy Butler like to exaggerate in order to pad their indignation.
Someone who is making products and passing them off as Amy Butler products is indeed infringing. It happens, even to the really
big companies. But using Amy Butler fabrics to make a product for sale, or using an Amy Butler pattern to make same, is not
infringing just because Amy Butler says so. The seller has to mislead the buyer as to the origin of the product before it becomes infringement.
Amy, you're in the Tabberone Hall Of Shame because you have a bad-itude.
As of march 24, 2009, we have noticed Amy Butler's reworded copyright statement: |
|
Rebuttals
In an effort to provide a balanced view, we make the following offer to anyone who feels they have been wrongly accused on this web site. If you, or your company, have been referenced on these pages, and you would like the chance to post a rebuttal, we will post your rebuttal (provided it is in good taste) so others can read it. The rebuttal must be submitted in a format that can easily be converted into HTML. We reserve the right to alter the rebuttal to make it more readable. However, we will not alter the content (unless there is offensive material to be removed). We also reserve the right to comment on any rebuttal received. Emails protesting the content of this web site may be treated as rebuttals by us at our discretion. |
|
General Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions
Corporate Lawyers |
|
Definitions |
|
Federal Court Cases Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations |
|
Federal Statutes Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22 |
|
VeRO (Verified Right's Owner Program) VeRO Commandments | VeRO-Verified Rights Owners Program | Counter Notice Letter Counter Notice (pre-2003) | Counter Notice present | On-Line Survey from 2004 | Articles about VeRO | What To Do If You Are Veroed |
| Original material by Karen Dudnikov & Michael Meadors is © 1999-2017 |
