Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!
|
Various Craft Sites |
|
Last Updated September 1, 2008
You will note that there are a lot of pundits who will tell you what you can and cannot do with
patterns,
licensed fabrics,
embroidered images,
pictures of products, and descriptions,
but none can point you to specific court cases or federal law that supports their
claims. We can and we do. What we find particularly galling are the people who make claims such as "designers can put restrictions
on use if they want" and "I think if it is actually printed on the fabric, you should respect the copyright wishes of the designer"
without considering the legal ramifications. Once the item is sold why should someone be able to control what you do with it?
The First Sale Doctrine says they can't.
But, there are some logical restrictions. You cannot misrepresent the item when you resell it. We started these web pages in 2001 and we have
yet to have anyone provide us with court cases or federal law backing their false claims. And this web site gets more than 100,000 page views a year.
It has been our experience that there are a number of crafting web sites, as well as sewing and crafting publications,
that don't really have a clue as to what constitutes copyright infringment and trademark infringement. Far too many of
these sites and publications keep sending the wrong message about what a copyright holder can and cannot do. One reason for including
many of these web sites is the mis-impression the "restrictions" create as well as the potentail problem that there people
actually believe they have the right to restrict the use of their "patterns", "fabric", and other "ideas" in tangible form,
and do create problems for legitimate end-users.
A copyright protects original creative works. The copyright does not extend beyond the work protected. For example,
a copyright of a new quilting pattern only protects the actual pattern; the copyright does not extend to items made from the pattern.
Licensed fabric is usually copyrighted. However, there are two major misconceptions concerning licensed fabric:
This page isn't about disagreeing with someone's opinions. The people listed here are flat wrong and they are contributing
to the manufacturer (and in some cases the designer) misinformation concerning copyright restrictions.
The following web sites and publications are listed here because they give out faulty information. They are listed in somewhat alphbetical order.
|
| http://www.applelaine.com/, seems to sell patterns and yarn. Apple Laine appears to be owned and operated by Mark Jackson, cindyco@SPRINT.CA, 279 Eadie Road Russell, Ontario, K4R 1E5, Canada (613 445-5439). It appears that their patterns come with the following false and misleading restriction, "This pattern may be used to make items for your own personal use, for gifts or charitable donations. This pattern may not be used to make items for sale or to sell other brands of yarn." |
|
http://bundlesoflove.org/, is an all volunteer non-profit organization, incorporated in the state
of Minnesota to help infants and their families. While we applaud their efforts, it is our concern that their "restrictions", like
the others listed on this page, help create the impression that they have the "right" to impose these "restrictions".
|
| http://www.craftconn.com/, sells fabric on-line. This web site belongs to Craft Connection, 10221 S Hwy 73, PO Box 762, Conifer, CO 80433. It appears to be admisitered by a Linda Jones, webmaster@CRAFTCONN.COM (303-816-0356 ). |
|
Our problem with their site is false and misleading statements like these:
| |
|
|
|
| http://www.elizabethstewartclark.com/, a web site with something called The Sewing Academy, makes the statement, "You may use these patterns to make items for friends and family, but they are not intended to make items for sale." They are selling and giving away patterns and attempting to restrict their use. Hmmmm. The original thought is fine but there is no legal basis for the restrictions. |
| The Esty News makes the "claim" in its Mission that it is the "Unofficial news for Etsy's buyers and sellers" and that "UEN's editors are NOT employed by Etsy or affiliated with Etsy; we just care about the community". However, we believe that in order to use the "Etsy" name they have either official permission or implied permission, and therefore Etsy has some responsibility. Also, a certain "Sarah" appears to have ties to Etsy from comments on the site. |
|
|
Seems "Sarah" posted innaccurate statements on "site terms" and "copyright-branding" concerning copyrights and the format appears to give these statements
credibility, thereby ushering Esty and Etsy News into the Hall of Shame. Her claim, "the First Sale Doctrine does not typically apply to a product created
out of the licensed character. Therefore, it is unlikely that the First Sale Doctrine will protect a product created out of a licensed character" is refuted by
Precious Moments vs La Infantil, 971 F. Supp. 66 (D.P.R. 1997),
where the federal court denied an injunction to stop La Infantil from using licensed Precious Moments fabric to make and sell bedding.
Her next statement, "When you buy a copyrighted good, for example licensed beads or stickers that have a character on them, you are only buying the physical object and not any of these exclusive rights" is refuted by the Supreme Court: |
|
"The whole point of the first sale doctrine is that once the copyright owner places a copyrighted item in the stream of commerce by
selling it, he has exhausted his exclusive statutory right to control its distribution." Justice Stevens, delivering an opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court in the case QUALITY KING DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. L'ANZA RESEARCH INT'L, INC. (96-1470), 98 F.3d 1109, reversed. |
| Her next statement, "When you take a licensed character and create a product, for example a necklace or a bag, you are transforming the good, and most likely creating a Derivative Work" is refuted by: |
| In order for a work to qualify as a derivative work it must be independently copyrightable. Weissmann v. Freeman, 868 F.2d 1313, 1320-21 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 883 (1989). |
| Perhaps Sarah could explain how taking a piece of fabric and making a bag from it qualifies the bag to be copyrightable? It isn't and never could be. A derivative requires the "transformation" of the copyrighted image into something new. The simple act of cutting and shaping fabric with a licensed image on it does not transform the copyrighted image. |
| Her last statement, "For example, if I make and sell a quilt from licensed fabric, a consumer may assume that the quilt is an officially licensed product" ignores the requirement under trademark law, the Lanham Act specifically, that the seller must do something to deceive the public into believing that the quilt was manufactured by the trademark owner. This is why we suggest crafters use the Tabberone Disclaimer. |
|
|
www.funfabrics.com looks like it is owned and operated by James Braet, jb@truelegends.com
True Legends Inc. 6202 SE 145 th Ave. Portland, Oregon 97236 (503-760-2677). True Legends makes the follwing statement,
" All Licensed Fabric is for personal use only, Please do not ask to buy from us if your intention is to make a product for profit." Interesting statment considering the fact that as of July 7, 2007, they had what appears to an infringing header that looked like a filmstrip containing the images of Elvis, Marylin Monroe, Betty Boop, I Love Lucy, The Wizard Of Oz, and others. We are willing to bet you didn't get a license to make/or display that filmstrip. You must belong to the Do As I Say, Not As I Do crowd. Either way, your "restriction" is false and misleading and not legally binding upon ANY purchaser. |
|
| UPDATE June 14, 2008 - They have replaced their infringing banner with the above logo. We wonder why? Was it pointed out to them they were infringing? Yet they still have the false and misleading statement on their web site. When are they going to chage that? Hmmmm? |
|
|
| www.jandofabrics.com sells a variety of fabrics on-line. JandO Fabrics appears to belong to Stanley Safady (jandofabrics@comcast.net) (856-663-2121), 9401 U.S. Hwy Route 130, Pennsauken, NJ 08110. Some jerk from their office posted this false and misleading statement on a blog: |
|
"We sell NFL Fabrics on our website www.jandofabrics.com so I have the breakdown on what you can do with the NFL Team fabrics.
You can make anything you want with the fabric for you personal use but you cannot making anything to resell.
If you want to Make licensed NFL Products you need to call the NFL License department and then obtain a permit to make the
fabric and then make the products. The NFL fabric that is sold in stores is not for making products to resell. In order to
make items with NFL Fabrics you need to have your own fabric manufactured and licensed by the NFL. If you have any questions
please email us jandofabrics@comcast.net"
WRONG. In order to make your own "licensed products" you need a license. Having purchased "licensed fabric", the license being held by the fabric manufacturer, you may make and sell items. However, we always suggest you use a Tabberone Disclaimer and word the description so there is no possible confusion as to the item being licensed as opposed to having been made from licensed fabric. You are not making a licensed product; you are making products from licensed fabric. We have been in federal court with Disney, M&M/Mars, Major League Baseball, Sanrio (Hello Kitty), United Media (Peanuts), and others, over the use of license fabric, and every one of them settled with us rather than fight the issue. | |
|
|
http://www.LazyGirlDesigns.com/ has the usual FAQ page. They falsely answer the age old question:
Can I sell items made from Lazy Girl patterns? The copyright policy of Lazy Girl isn't enforceable or legal. Copyright "rights" are defined by federal statute and the copyright owner cannot expand those rights to suit them or their desires. Lazy Girl appears to be owned and operated by Joan Hawley, 437 Maplebrooke Drive East Westerville, OH 43082, patterns@lazygirldesigns.com And, it appears she can't take criticism. Click Here for more details. Added September 3, 2008 |
|
Needlework Retailer, web site http://needleworkretailer.com/, is located at
117 Alexander Avenue PO Box 2438, Ames, Iowa 50010. They were added to these pages for publishing a god-awful article.
Click Here to read about it.
More of the self-serving tripe spread by those with their agenda of protecting their business by spreading falsehoods and feeding on misconceptions.
Added September 1, 2008 |
|
|
"The below pictures of a recent example of copyright infringement of a New Conceptions Pattern. Proper notification has been issued, as usual and
required by law, to the person involved. Several times a year I have to deal with situations involving copyright infringement and in most cases, it's an honest
mistake due to ignorance of copyright laws and all that they imply. Only once have I had to take legal action, thank heavens."
What rot! This was taken from the web page at http://www.newconceptions.com/copyright.htm. New Conceptions appears to be run by
someone named Kimberly "Kimi" Thomas, located at Box 2564, Oakland CA 94614 or at P.O. Box 2155, Alameda, CA 94501 if you want to believe her
web site. We wouldn't considering her flipant comments about copyright infringement. Kimberly "Kimi" Thomas is another self-appointed
whack-job who thinks she can control what can be made from her patterns. As for her claim of having taken legal
action, shown us the court case Kimberly "Kimi" Thomas. We think you are a liar.
Added July 4, 2008.
|
| Oliver + S has what they call the The Oliver + S Boutique Sewer Program whereby, individuals can "make and sell unique, handcrafted garments from our copyright patterns." They have developed what we would call a unique approach to controlling their "copyrights" but it still is outside the protections provided by the copyright laws and therefore what they are doing is copyright abuse. |
|
"Purchasing a license on the website grants a boutique sewer the right to sell one garment made from an Oliver + S pattern. With each license
purchased, Oliver + S will provide a tag to be sewn into the finished garment.
These attractively designed tags state that the garment was individually crafted by a boutique sewer from an official Oliver + S pattern and that the
garment is being sold with permission of the design's copyright holder."
What makes this worse, almost criminal in our opinion, is some whack job named Todd Gibson at Oliver + S is actually trolling internet
sales sites looking for end products made from Oliver + S patterns and checking to see if the seller has purchased the "required license"
and then sending them a treatening email if they have not. Where do these people get their interpretations on copyright law? From inside a fortune cookie?
There is absolutely NOTHING in the copyright laws that empowers the manufacturer of a pattern to control its use or the subsequent sale of the end product.
Welcome to Tabberone's Trademark and Copyright Abusers' Hall of Shame to Oliver + S.
Added June 26, 2008.
|
|
http://www.paragonpatterns.com/ proudly states, "Our patterns may not be used for manufacturing".
On their company policy page, they state, "These patterns are for personal use only, and may not be used for commercial purposes
in any way, shape, or form without the express written permission of ADS-Paragon Patterns" and
"If you wish to sell the items made with our patterns, or use them for business purposes, you MUST sign a licensing agreement with
ADS-Paragon Patterns." What self-rightous crap. There is no legal basis for these statements.
|
We almost gave Paragon Patterns their very own Hall of Shame page because of their stupidity. But we didn't, and then we changed our minds.
Paragon Patterns has their very own Hall of Shame page.
| Susan Wigley is listed as a designer. She also writes very self-serving and what we would characterize as very mis-leading articles about patterns and their use. Her article was so full of self-serving mis-information we almost gagged when we read it. EVERY paragraph, except the last, contains bad, bad, bad information. One falsely and boldly states: "It is a direct violation of copyright laws to manufacture sewn products from a commercial pattern and claim it as your own design." Here, she is referring to selling an item made from a pattern purchased by the user. Susan, here's your challange: show us where in the copyright laws selling items made from a pattern is "a direct violation". How does a moron like you even walk around unsuprvised? Patterns are copyrighted, not the end product. But then, you don't really care because you work for a pattern company and its in the best interests of your company that people believe the mis-information you spread. Susan, that's called lying. You are pathetic and you are an idiot. Added April 5, 2008 | |
|
www.pccrafter.com has a lengthy copyright policy that is so full of shit they should be selling
manure to the Utah farmers. What pcCrafter doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand, is that the rights that a copyright holder
has are defined by federal law not some long, drawn-out, error-filled copyright policy. There are so many
lies and falsehood we won't go into them. We call them lies and falsehoods because this copyright policy appears to obviously been drawn up by someone
with a wish list, not with knowledge of the law.
Their "limits" are unenforceable and beyond the scope of a copyright. |
|
http://www.quilt.com/ offers the following incorrect information:
"It is also legal to make items for sale as long as you purchase a pattern each time so that they buyer (sic) is buying the pattern and paying you to sew it." |
|
The sentence structure makes this a little fuzzy but it appears they are telling people that they must purchase one pattern for every item they want to make. Again, false and misleading information. Not only can you make copies of the pattern for personal use, but you can make as many items from the pattern as you wish, whether for personal use or for sale. There is no legal basis for any claims to the contrary. | |
|
Rosie's Calico Cupboard Quilt Shop is located at 7151 El Cajon Blvd. Suite F , San Diego, CA 92115. Phone: 619-697-5758.
They were added to these pages for having on their web site the god-awful article by
Needle Retailer who is also on these pages.
More of the self-serving tripe spread by those with their agenda of protecting their business by spreading falsehoods and feeding on misconceptions.
Added September 1, 2008 |
|
http://sewforum.com/ tries to set some rules at their page "SewForum Members Sign-On Rules",
located at http://sewforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=82726, but they fall short. Very short. They don't appear to wish to debate copyrights
any more, declaring, "We will no longer debate the copyright issue. It is our rule. We are not lawyers here but we are allowed to
have rules." From their tone, they have had problems with bloggers in the past and appear to have lost control somewhere.
|
Towards the end of their rant, thinly disguised as "Sign-on Rules", they refer to "information from a Disny representative" as though this
information were the Ten Commandments and not to be challanged. Wrong. We have already been in court with Disney Enterprises over their
legal analysis of the use of their products and
they settled in our favor. Disney stills spouts the corporate line to keep the uninformed
masses in line with their thinking. The issue of lawfully purchased embroidery designs for sale is still in the early stages. Disney claims
about "illegal sites" is suspect at best. Anyway, SewForum's stand on these sites seems misplaced.
| SewForum ends with this statement: "Coloring Books have an Intended Use Copyright. Meaning you can color them and that is all. Therefore changing the format is a copyright violation." How does one change the "format" of a coloring book? This is one of the stupidest statements we have ever heard. What if your four year-old son colors a picture of Barney in blue instead of purple? Is that copyright infringement? It appears that, according to SewForum, it is! And, what if, after coloring the Barney character the wrong color, he tears it out of the coloring book and gives it to Grandma who poudly displays the page by hanging it from the refrigerator? Is he guilty of copyright infringement by removing it (changing the format) from the coloring book and is Grannie guilty of copyright infringement by displaying it on her fridge? It appears that, according to SewForum, they are! Absurd! Must Grannie fear the Coloring Book Police coming after her? It appears that, according to SewForum, she must! Why? Because, according the SewForum, coloring books have an "Intended Use Copyright". What the hell is that? There is no such thing in copyright law. Attention to all morons at SewForum! There is no such thing in copyright law as an "Intended Use Copyright"! It does not exist anywhere in federal law. What are you people smoking in the back room? You're either high on some controlled substance or you're too stupid to be allowed to reproduce. It's mis-information like this that perpetuates the myths that we are trying to dispel. Sew Forum, you are jerks. Added April 5, 2008
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
