Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations     www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!

Tabberone Logo
The latest Hartsel weather.

  "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke

http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.php?thread_id=6279457&page=1
As of September 12, 2009. This forum was terminated by the Etsy Administrator early September 12, 2009
We have captured all of the comments on the first 5 pages but selected only relevant ones after that. This forum was 23 pages long and posters quickly got out of hand. We are not sure but we believe the more offending posts, those that the Esty Administrator appears to have used as justification for closing the thread, were deleted when the thread was closed. The Etsy Forums have a cadre of self-appointed and self-righteous sellers who are experts on everything and know little about the law. We call them the Mis-Information Mavens. This cadre was very vocal on this thread and got annoyed because the OP (Original Poster) didn't take them at their word and genuflect in eternal gratitude.
The original forum postings are in black and our comments are in blue. There are about 153 postings captured here. Avatars have been omitted. You will note that the cadre of self-appointed and self-righteous Etsy sellers, the Mis-Information Mavens, proclaim what one cannot do but they cannot cite court cases as we do. In fact, this cadre of self-appointed and self-righteous Etsy sellers dismiss our citations as not being relevant without providing any of their own. They are stuck on stupid.


Bought the fabric, sewed it, now I can't use it?

hairtiesgalorenmore says:
I was told by an attorney that once I purchased my fabric, as long as I wasn't making a living (yeah right) or making millions (yeah right) off of the use of the fabric that it was fine to do with it what I want. Now some CEO is trying to tell me different??
Posted at 10:00 pm, September 10 2009 EST

underoakstudios says:
Hu?
Posted at 10:01 pm, September 10 2009 EST

mamafamilias says:
I think that your problem will require a little more explanation.
Posted at 10:02 pm, September 10 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai says:
no, you cannot do whatever you want with licensed fabric, unless it says you can.
most of those kinds of things are personal use only, which means just that.
Posted at 10:03 pm, September 10 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai is referencing statements printed on the selvage of fabric. No where in federal or state law is there anything that says statements limiting the use of a product that are printed on the product, or the packaging, is binding upon the purchaser.

Tissage says:
I think it depends on the fabric. Lots of fabric is only intended to be made into items for personal use, so you can't sell ANY items you make from it even if you barely make any money on the sale. That's not true of all fabric though, just some.
Posted at 10:03 pm, September 10 2009 EST

There is nothing that supports her statement.

allisajacobs says:
need more info....
Posted at 10:03 pm, September 10 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai says:
and i have no clue who "some ceo" is, but yes, the owner of the intellectual property can certainly stipulate as a point of sale that you cannot resell it.
Posted at 10:03 pm, September 10 2009

This statement would be correct if when the fabric was sold, the purchaser were required to sign a statement concerning the use of the fabric. AprilMarieMai is stuck on stupid.

EdieCastle says:
I have been told if the fabric is stamped "licensed" on the selvage, then it is not lawful to use it for anything other than personal use.
Posted at 10:05 pm, September 10 2009 EST

The selvage of fabrics are not stamped with the word "Licensed". Some do contain so-called claims such as "for personal use only" but these statements are not legally binding or enforceable. .

hairtiesgalorenmore says:
Why then did an attorney advise me differently?
Posted at 10:05 pm, September 10 2009 EST

Tissage says:
I see that you have a neck cooler made of out of Cleveland Indians fabric as one of your featured items. Sports team fabrics are pretty much always only intended for personal use.

I don't know who the attorney you talked to was, but he/she sounds pretty misinformed.
Posted at 10:06 pm, September 10 2009 EST

  ======================== page 2 ========================

 

AprilMarieMai says:
hairtiesgalorenmore said:
Why then did an attorney advise me differently?
__________
you should be asking the attorney that. we have no clue at all.
Posted at 10:06 pm, September 10 2009 EST

The first factual statement by AprilMarieMai. She is clueless.

hairtiesgalorenmore says:
It is MINE to do with what I choose once I purchase it.
Posted at 10:06 pm, September 10 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai says:
no, it's not.

do you not care about intellectual property laws, or have you not learned what they are?
Posted at 10:07 pm, September 10 2009 EST

She chastises someone for a lack of knowledge which she also lacks?.

hairtiesgalorenmore says:
yes, and I have other sports fabrics too.
Posted at 10:07 pm, September 10 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai says:
if you don't know about them i strongly suggest looking into them. it's very important not only as everyday people, but also as sellers here.
Posted at 10:07 pm, September 10 2009 EST

christiecottage says:
I think that when you buy it, you should be able to sell whatever you made with it. Of course, this is MY PERSONAL OPINION. If you were selling it as say "Spiderman" or "Batman", but say if it's one of those cute owie bags like I bought off you, it was an owie bag and then just some cute print fabric.
Posted at 10:08 pm, September 10 2009 EST

Tissage says:
Was this that attorney's area of expertise? Were they implying that no one would go after you for selling items made of licensed fabric unless you turned it into a big business? That's not correct. They may be more likely to go after you if you're a big business, but you'd be breaking the law if you sold even one item made from fabric with this type of licensing.
Posted at 10:08 pm, September 10 2009 EST

Tissage is so wrong. There is no law stopping one from selling items made from licensed fabrics. You will notice that none of these Mis-Information Mavens cites any court cases or relevant statute.

underoakstudios says:
Would you feel comfortable with someone doing whatever they want with your logo?

What if you were the creator of Blue's Clues and someone made a mint off of Blue's Clue's Dildo Cosies?

You might love it. Or you might not...
Posted at 10:09 pm, September 10 2009 EST

underoakstudios is using a silly comparison. Using someone's logo commercially without permission is trademark infringement except for the fair use exemption. This answer is an attempt to divert the discussion and is off topic. Stuck on Stupid.

Tissage says:
christiecottage says:
I think that when you buy it, you should be able to sell whatever you made with it. Of course, this is MY PERSONAL OPINION.
-----------------------
Maybe you should be able to, but legally you can't. We need to follow the law as it is, not how we want it to be.
Posted at 10:09 pm, September 10 2009 EST

Tissage again emotionalizing. There is nothing that supports her statement.

hairtiesgalorenmore says:
I will be contacting my attorney again in the morning. I am not selling to Wal Mart or Sears, I mean come on, I am only trying to make a few bucks just like everyone else. I am not mass producing anything for resale, actually I am not mass producing period.
Posted at 10:09 pm, September 10 2009 EST

  ======================== page 3 ========================

 

AprilMarieMai says:
christiecottage said: I think that when you buy it, you should be able to sell whatever you made with it. Of course, this is MY PERSONAL OPINION. If you were selling it as say "Spiderman" or "Batman", but say if it's one of those cute owie bags like I bought off you, it was an owie bag and then just some cute print fabric.
__________
i understand that is some people's opinion.

but, it's not the law.

frankly, i own intellectual property, and i strongly support laws that protect it. i'm working on some fabric designs, which i will be selling and giving people permission to make and sell things from them. but it is the right of the copyright holder to say that a fabric is for personal use only.
Posted at 10:09 pm, September 10 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai admits her bias. She spouts this garbage about the law because she wants it to be the way she claims it is. It is not the law except in her beady little mind.

NoriaJewelry says:
Perhaps you interpret "make a living" as "your sole source of income"? To make a living means basically to make money off of it. So, if your attorney said it was fine to use that fabric so long as you don't make money off of it, well there you go. Or, the attorney simply underestimated the owner of the fabric print...
Posted at 10:10 pm, September 10 2009 EST

NoriaJewelry has the same bias as AprilMarieMai. She spouts this garbage about the law because she wants it to be the way she claims it is.

christiecottage says:
Does the fabric have a restriction printed on the selvage?
Posted at 10:10 pm, September 10 2009 EST

Tissage says:
underoakstudios says:
Would you feel comfortable with someone doing whatever they want with your logo?

What if you were the creator of Blue's Clues and someone made a mint off of Blue's Clue's Dildo Cosies?

You might love it. Or you might not...
----------------
Tee hee

Posted at 10:10 pm, September 10 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai says:
hairtiesgalorenmore said:
I will be contacting my attorney again in the morning. I am not selling to Wal Mart or Sears, I mean come on, I am only trying to make a few bucks just like everyone else. I am not mass producing anything for resale, actually I am not mass producing period.
__________
it's not about mass producing.

eh, i give up. :)

i suggest looking into copyright laws, and other intellectual property laws.

keep in mind that those places can legally come after you if you do continue to sell those types of items.
Posted at 10:11 pm, September 10 2009 EST

ChristinaPerdue says:
hairtiesgalorenmore said:
Why then did an attorney advise me differently?
__________
Because for some reason a lot of people seem to think that as long as you aren't making millions infringing on someone's copyright then it's ok.

It's not. It's illegal.
Posted at 10:11 pm, September 10 2009 EST

While infringement is illegal, the topic on this forum was not infringing, that is, the use of licensed fabrics. But, like the other Etsy Mavens, ChristinaPerdue has her bias because she is a professional photographer who has to deal with infringement.

scentbythesea says:
The lawyer may have had one interpretation of the law, the CEO another, and the judge you come up against in a copyright infringement case may have still another. It's hard to know even after much study what is permitted and what is not.

I always make it a point to err on the side of caution in these things. I have no desire to be like Tabberone and spend my every waking moment defending lawsuits over my right to sell a tote made out of Micky Mouse fabric.
Posted at 10:12 pm, September 10 2009 EST

The first attack on Tabberone! scentbythesea exaggerates the issue. We actually have spent little time on the lawsuits and she would know that if she actually had taken the time to read about it. Considering how many we easily won, what was so hard about it?

AprilMarieMai says:
if someone is trying to make a few bucks, why not do so without stealing from others? i don't understand this. there are tons of things that you can make that don't involve using someone else's intellectual property.
Posted at 10:13 pm, September 10 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai now resorts to calling the legitimate use of licensed fabric "stealing". It is not. This is a typical tactic used by the mavens. She will make more stupid statements.

christiecottage says:
AprilMarieMai says:
.......
frankly, i own intellectual property, and i strongly support laws that protect it. i'm working on some fabric designs, which i will be selling and giving people permission to make and sell things from them. but it is the right of the copyright holder to say that a fabric is for personal use only.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Will have a restriction on the selvage. I think I remember a discussion about this a year or more ago involving Winnie the Pooh/Disney fabric.

I need to look at fabric next time I am at Walmart and see if it has anything about the uses of fabric.
Posted at 10:14 pm, September 10 2009 EST

peaseblossomstudio says:
Your attorney is an ass. If the property right holder says you cannot use the fabric, you cannot. You can try taking them to court, but you will probably lose. It doesn't matter if you're not making millions off it, and it doesn't matter what anyone else's opinion is. You cannot make money off someone else's artwork without their permission.

And why would you want to make money off someone else's logo anyway? They can buy that crap at Walmart.
Posted at 10:16 pm, September 10 2009 EST

peaseblossomstudio is an ass. The issue is the lawful purchase of licensed fabric to use to make and sell items. What law gives the "property rights owner" that authority cited? And the issue of making money off of someone else's work without their permission is addressed in these two court cases. It is perfectly legal and perfectly ethical.

  ======================== page 4 ========================

 

hairtiesgalorenmore says:
I am not stealing anything. I am using fabric that I PURCHASED. As for using my logo ( I could only hope for such things) I see it as free advertising for them as well. Maybe not for your dildo cozies, but for things that make CHILDREN happy and feel better faster. Or make adults a little more comfortable while showing off their favorite team etc...
Posted at 10:16 pm, September 10 2009 EST

peaseblossomstudio says:
I always make it a point to err on the side of caution in these things. I have no desire to be like Tabberone and spend my every waking moment defending lawsuits over my right to sell a tote made out of Micky Mouse fabric.
_______
Hahahaha! Awesome post!
Posted at 10:19 pm, September 10 2009 EST

StudioDax says:
It's the same reason that when you buy music (either a CD, or a download), you are not allowed to take a 10 second cut of the music, mix it into your own music, and sell it...

Even though you "own" the music you bought, you don't own the rights to copy or reproduce, or otherwise make money off it. There are thousands of vendors that pay royalties to use the designs that they license, and by using the fabric in products that you are reselling, you are avoiding paying royalty fees.

The correct legal thing to do would be to not sell them. However, it is probable that if you were to sell them at small venues (like bazaars and street fairs), that you would not get chastised. But online is a real no-no... it is too libelous.
Posted at 10:19 pm, September 10 2009 EST

ChristinaPerdue says:
Yes, you are stealing. The fabric you buy is meant for personal use. If you want to license that fabric and make money from it then you have to ask permission from the copyright holder and pay a higher fee.

I highly doubt a nationally recognized brand needs your advertising.

http://copyright.gov/
Posted at 10:19 pm, September 10 2009 EST

ChristinaPerdue is resorting now to the name-calling exercise. By labeling it "stealing", she shifts the attention from the discussion and to a personal attack. Her cutsie addition of the link to the Copyright Office web site proves nothing. Unlike Tabberone, she is telling you to go look it up yourself. You will spend all day on that web site and not find anything supporting what she just claimed.

AprilMarieMai says:
it's not just physical fabric that you're using, though, you're using their intellectual property printed on it. if they said that's not okay, then it's not.

it's not free advertising. it cuts into their market share, and it can put them in compromising positions when used in ways they wouldn't want it to be used.
Posted at 10:20 pm, September 10 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai says:
ChristinaPerdue said:
Yes, you are stealing. The fabric you buy is meant for personal use. If you want to license that fabric and make money from it then you have to ask permission from the copyright holder and pay a higher fee.

I highly doubt a nationally recognized brand needs your advertising.

http://copyright.gov/
__________
thanks, i like how you said it!
Posted at 10:20 pm, September 10 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai says:
there are customers who run away from any place that is obviously stealing intellectual property. so if one is going to do that, that would be one factor to keep in mind.
Posted at 10:21 pm, September 10 2009 EST

christiecottage says:
AprilMarieMai says:

..... it's not free advertising. it cuts into their market share, and it can put them in compromising positions when used in ways they wouldn't want it to be used.

>>> Excellant point there!
Posted at 10:21 pm, September 10 2009 EST

ChristinaPerdue says:
Thanks, April! :)
Posted at 10:21 pm, September 10 2009 EST

  ======================== page 5 ========================

 

AprilMarieMai says:
christie, now i'm trying to think of funny compromising examples...
Posted at 10:23 pm, September 10 2009 EST

mamafamilias says:
You pruchased the fabric not the license to resell it. If you want the right to resell it, in any fashion, for profit, you will need to pay fore the license.

And, just as a fyi, sports teams are the worst about halting use of their logos in an unaurthorized fashion. They don't need or want advertsing, they want to make money off of licensing their images. They can even chase you down for using their colors.
Posted at 10:23 pm, September 10 2009 EST

hairtiesgalorenmore says:
maybe dildo cozies?
Posted at 10:23 pm, September 10 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai says:
the problem is they started with the dildo cover. it's hard to go further than there.

but, i will!

bondage harnesses
Posted at 10:23 pm, September 10 2009 EST

peaseblossomstudio says:
it's not free advertising. it cuts into their market share, and it can put them in compromising positions when used in ways they wouldn't want it to be used.
________
Yes, because they don't want their name on a shoddy or inappropriate product--not saying there is anything wrong with your work, but if they let you do whatever you want, then they have to let everybody.
Posted at 10:24 pm, September 10 2009 EST

underoakstudios says:
You could give it away and they wouldn't mind:)
Posted at 10:24 pm, September 10 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai says:
yep, cozies is a word that can be used with anything.

except i don't think bondage gear usually needs cozies.
Posted at 10:25 pm, September 10 2009 EST

hairtiesgalorenmore says:
underoakstudios says:
You could give it away and they wouldn't mind:)

Yeah, CUZ IT'S MINE
Posted at 10:26 pm, September 10 2009 EST

underoakstudios says:
Blue's Clue's bondage gear does need cozies.
Posted at 10:26 pm, September 10 2009 EST

pinuppixie says:
AprilMarieMai says:
yep, cozies is a word that can be used with anything.

except i don't think bondage gear usually needs cozies.
.......................................................
Unless you need somewhere to put your drink ?
Posted at 10:27 pm, September 10 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai says:
pinuppixie said:
AprilMarieMai says:
yep, cozies is a word that can be used with anything.

except i don't think bondage gear usually needs cozies.
.......................................................
Unless you need somewhere to put your drink ?
__________
do you have a new line of items you're working on?

i think bondage gear with cupholders will be the next craze on etsy.

of course, once the merkin one dies down.

but you can get started now and be ahead of the curve!
Posted at 10:28 pm, September 10 2009 EST

  ======================== page 6 ========================

  ================> edited from here on <=================

 

ChristinaPerdue says:
Not only does it put them in a compromising position in terms of quality of work and what products they are being associated with, but it can effect their existing contract.

Say I license one of my photographs out to a company to put on pocket mirrors. We decide it will be an exclusive license and I will not allow anyone else to print that photograph on a pocket mirror.

Then someone buys a print of that photograph, scans it, and starts putting it on pocket mirrors to sell.

Well the company I licensed the photo to sees that someone else is making pocket mirrors with my image. They then break their contract with me and I'm forced to repay the money they paid me for an exclusive license.

The person who stole my work has cost me money and probably a good sum.
Posted at 10:30 pm, September 10 2009 EST

ChristinaPerdue is resorting to an example that supports her point but is off topic. The OP wasn't copying the fabric; she was purchasing the fabric. If someone was purchasing pictures from ChristinaPerdue and using the lawfully acquired photographs to make things, that is not copying. And it is not illegal.

OriginalsbyLaurenToo says:
liscenced fabric is usually marked in the selvage intended for personal use only.

I worked for Hershey Foods for 18 years and they have people who's only job it is is to find people infringing on their images. I am sure all corporations do the same thing.

Good luck figuring it all out.
Posted at 10:33 pm, September 10 2009 EST

ChristinaPerdue says:
It doesn't matter if it's a big corporation. It's their property and they get to decide how it's used. Just like independent artists.

Make sure your lawyer specializes in copyright (getting advice from a divorce lawyer or injury lawyer will do you no good) and is prepared to fight a large company.

Personally, I like to see the larger companies protect their intellectual property because it trickles down and helps small independent artists like myself. :)
Posted at 10:35 pm, September 10 2009 EST

  ======================== page 7 ========================

 

Tissage says:
hairtiesgalorenmore says:
Sorry I even brought it up. Just forget it, I will talk to my lawyer about it. I also don't feel I have cost any big corporation a "good sum of money" as I am just a small time crafter
----------------
For the last time, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU ONLY SELL A FEW. You are still breaking the law and they can still come after you.

Frankly, all this MINE MINE MINE stuff is reminding me a little of Golum from Lord of the Rings.

Why get yourself in trouble when you can easily use a different fabric?

Please do consult a lawyer, but make sure it's an intellectual property lawyer, or someone else who deals with this stuff.
Posted at 10:39 pm, September 10 2009 EST

DesignedByLucinda says:
Big Corp or small crafter, it is still intellectual theft.

To put it another way, whether a student copies one sentence for a paper or 6 paragraphs, it is still plagiarism. It wouldn't matter how big the offense or if the student was in high school or an Ivy league college... The act itself broke the line, not the size of the amount used or the big-ness of the user....

Copyright infringement is still copyright infringement.
Posted at 10:42 pm, September 10 2009 EST

DesignedByLucinda doesn't waste time getting to the name calling. But her bias is that she designs jewelry so she perceives people are stealing from her so she has an absolutist attitude toward the copying issue. But the issue of using licensed fabrics to make and then to sell items is not copyright infringement.

bluecuddly says:
I'm so glad to see this addressed. This goes all the way back to making sure you do the proper due diligence before starting a business. And if you are selling, 1 item or 100's, you are a business whether you think you are a hobbiest or not.

Although in this case, I would be more likely to place blame on the attorney that was consulted. It sounds like the OP did some due diligence.
Posted at 10:51 pm, September 10 2009 EST

weesandy says:
hairtiesgalorenmore says:
I am not stealing anything. I am using fabric that I PURCHASED.
-------------------
I think the problem here is that you've desperately misunderstood what the normal contract is when you buy something. You don't necessarily OWN all aspects of that item, including the right to sell items derived from it or made from it. In fact, you only have that right if it's directly given to you.

Whenever you buy something with a logo or a copyrighted image, it's pretty much a given that you are not legally permitted to turn around and make money off of it.

Saying "I OWN it! It's MINE!" is just a very childish perspective on purchasing. All purchases are contracts in one form or another, and as such, certain laws apply. You own the fabric, but they definitely did NOT sell you the resale rights, or the rights to earn money off of their fabric. If they had done so, you'd have the contract to prove it.

You can not legally sell any items made from or derived from someone else's copyrighted image or logo, without their express, written permission. It is what it is, and honestly, there's no point in stomping your foot and repeating, "Mine, mine, mine!" about it.
Posted at 10:53 pm, September 10 2009 EST

weesandy went from zero to stupid real quick. She has no clue about contract law or property law. Federal law gives you the absolute right to resell any item you have lawfully purchased. When you purchase something, you do own all aspects of that physical item, including the right to resell it if you wish. Derivatives are very misunderstood on these forums. A derivative must be made from something that is copyrighted. A piece of wood has no copyright therefore the birdhouse made from the wood is not a derivative. The motion picture "Gone With The Wind" is a derivative of the book "Gone With The Wind". These are extreme examples of a derivative.

weesandy claim that you "are not legally permitted to turn around and make money off of it" has no basis. People buy items all the time to resell at a profit. The question is whether altering the item conflicts with the rights of someone else. This forum is about using licensed fabrics. The federal courts have already directly addressed this issue in Precious Moments v La Infantil, 971 F. Supp. 66 (D.P.R. 1997), saying that using copyright fabrics to make and sell items is not copyright infringement.

Purchases are contracts that convey goods from one party to another. Any restrictions upon the use or subsequent future disposal of the goods must be agreed to by both parties before the transaction is complete, generally in writing. Fabric purchased at Wal-Mart or any other fabric outlet does not come with lawfully enforceable restrictions upon the use of the fabric, you yo-yo.

HouseofJAM says:
I feel bad for the OP's lawyer, frankly, I can totally see a lawyer stated something with carviars, but that carviar was sort of ignored by the OP. I was in the consulting business and I see that a lot, people come back to me and accuse me of telling them the wrong thing, but in reality I told them the right thing, people just choose to hear what they want to hear, sigh...
Posted at 11:05 pm, September 10 2009 EST

  ======================== page 8 ========================

 

missprettypretty says:
Your attorney is wrong. There is someone in Wisconsin who has been doing craft fairs for years who is currently in huge trouble with both the NFL and Disney for using their fabrics. Big. Trouble. People who sell items made from their fabrics seem to always think it will never happen to them, but this woman proves that wrong.
Posted at 11:08 pm, September 10 2009 EST

missprettypretty is spreading a lie. Notice how these reports of Disney and others stomping on crafters never seem to appear in the newspapers? You always hear about them from sources like missprettypretty. Tabberone has on her web site reports of two cases where crafters were assaulted by owners of licensed fabrics. Major League Baseball had a woman arrested in Denver in 2007 for selling t-shirts that were "unauthorized" by MLB. She sued MLB, and the Colorado Rockies and the City of Denver for false arrest. All three made financial settlements to get her to drop the lawsuit. Representatives from Oklahoma University and the University of Oklahoma went to a large Oklahoma City craft fair and confiscated crafted items with the colors and/or the logos of crafters. The district attorneys office had a problem because the representatives had no right to do that and were borderline being arrested until a settlement was reached with the cratfers.

alohakuuhome says:
i am still clueless as to what it actually takes to legally sell a bag or cozy I made from a pretty fabric I bought at WalMart or FabricMart? Does anyone have a simple way of explaining it?!
Posted at 11:09 pm, September 10 2009 EST

hopskipshop says:
Frankly, all this MINE MINE MINE stuff is reminding me a little of Golum from Lord of the Rings.
---
My preeecioouus.. NFL printed fabric..

Anyway this thread should be highlighted as a horrible way to start a conversation. SOMEONE DID SOMETHING THEN SOMEONE ELSE SAID SOMETHING OH NO I AM SO ANGRY!!!! When you have a question like this, talk in SPECIFICS, who you talked to, what you're selling, etc. How do you expect people to answer your question if you can't even be bothered to use more than 15 words to describe your problem?

Talk to your neighbor/brother in law/dude who sits next to you on the bus and ask him if you can use that licensed material for resale and then do whatever you want. Then come back in four months and ask how to handle the cease and desist from the copyright holder.
Posted at 11:11 pm, September 10 2009 EST

BellflowerTextiles says:
Aloha, check the selvedge (the edge of the fabric). Some fabrics have a restriction on them saying "for home use only" or something about no commercial usage.

Or, in a pinch, if it has licensed or trademarked characters on it - Dora, Sponge Bob, Curious George - or the name of an entity like a sports team -- it can't be used to make things that sell 99.9999% of the time.

Otherwise, you're usually fine.
Posted at 11:11 pm, September 10 2009 EST

  ======================== page 9 ========================

 

foxaz says:
But OP- you can absolutely USE the material you bought and sewed - for your OWN PERSONAL USE.

So go right ahead and sew with it- for your family and friends... not to sell.

Cheers.
Posted at 11:19 pm, September 10 2009 EST

stitch99 says:
I work at a Joann's and I know on the tag on the bolt it has in bold LICENSED - I think they have a restriction printed on as well. But it's just like with a movie - you may buy a copy of it but you can't show it in public or copy it.
Posted at 11:26 pm, September 10 2009 EST

SuzsCountryPrims says:
Wow, I'm surprised someone came out and actually admitted they used licensed fabric for something! I don't think the OP grasped the idea of copyright or licensing. BUT.... man, the copyright abuse on this sight. Can you say Hello Kitty? Good Night Mickey? Go, Red Sox?
Posted at 11:27 pm, September 10 2009 EST

ChristinaPerdue says:
alohakuuhome said:
i am still clueless as to what it actually takes to legally sell a bag or cozy I made from a pretty fabric I bought at WalMart or FabricMart? Does anyone have a simple way of explaining it?!
__________
You have to contact the person who holds the right to the design on the fabric.

Like if you want to use fabric of Beauty and the Beast then you contact Disney and ask permission. They will tell you "yes" or "no" and then tell you what their terms/price is for allowing you to do that.

If you want to use fabric of Hello Kitty then you contact San Rio and ask them permission.

If you want to use fabric with the logo of a college football team then you contact the college and ask.

Does that help?
Posted at 11:49 pm, September 10 2009 EST

miascloset says:
I was told by Disney that I cannot use an image of Mickey or Minnie Mouse in my shop to sell.
I really didn't want to as I have my own designs, but was just curious.
Posted at 11:30 am, September 11 2009 EST

artisanwoodcrafting says:
sounds like you may have talked to a lawyer who doesnt specialize in IP law
Posted at 11:32 am, September 11 2009 EST - Report this post

artisanwoodcrafting says:
hairtiesgalorenmore
hairtiesgalorenmore says:
It is MINE to do with what I choose once I purchase it.

except make money off of their trademarked images thats on the fabric
Posted at 11:33 am, September 11 2009 EST

  ======================== page 10 ========================

 

LizardQueenJewelry says:
Tissage says:
hairtiesgalorenmore says:
Sorry I even brought it up. Just forget it, I will talk to my lawyer about it. I also don't feel I have cost any big corporation a "good sum of money" as I am just a small time crafter
----------------
For the last time, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU ONLY SELL A FEW. You are still breaking the law and they can still come after you.

Frankly, all this MINE MINE MINE stuff is reminding me a little of Golum from Lord of the Rings.

Why get yourself in trouble when you can easily use a different fabric?

Please do consult a lawyer, but make sure it's an intellectual property lawyer, or someone else who deals with this stuff.
~~~
Very well said Tissage!

The OP seems to have trouble understanding that what she bought is fabric. Fabric that is printed with licensed material that is owned by someone else. Once she makes something and tries to sell it, the appeal of her items, and what she is marketing, is the fabric that she has used, which is precisely what is copyrighted.

Make what ever you want to sell, just don't use the intellectual property (logos, copyrighted images and phrases, etc.) that is owned and licensed by another.
Posted at 11:52 am, September 11 2009 EST

DesignsbyShellie says:
I'm sorry - There are too many pages for me to go through. If this has already been mentioned, forgive me!

You need to talk with Tabberone.

She has sued Disney with success when they continued to contact eBay as "verified rights owners" to make eBay take down auctions of items she had made using Disney fabrics.

She sued... and she won!

Here is a link: http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/DisneyLawsuit/DisneyLawsuit.shtml
Posted at 11:53 am, September 11 2009 EST

DesignsbyShellie says:
Actually, this is a more direct link: http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/HallOfShame/HallOfShame.shtml
Posted at 11:54 am, September 11 2009 EST

auntcindysattic says:
DesignsbyShellie said:

She has sued Disney with success when they continued to contact eBay as "verified rights owners" to make eBay take down auctions of items she had made using Disney fabrics.

She sued... and she won!
__________
Yeah, but do you want to go through all of that for yourself? Is it worth it to sell a few dozen neck coolies?
Posted at 11:57 am, September 11 2009 EST

artisanwoodcrafting says:
DesignsbyShellie DesignsbyShellie says:
I'm sorry - There are too many pages for me to go through. If this has already been mentioned, forgive me!

You need to talk with Tabberone.

She has sued Disney with success when they continued to contact eBay as "verified rights owners" to make eBay take down auctions of items she had made using Disney fabrics.

She sued... and she won!

Here is a link:

not really, she was sued and it was settled, and we have no idea what was in the settlement. and who wants to go to court for a couple of products?
Posted at 12:04 pm, September 11 2009 EST

LaurieRyan says:
it really isn't about money its about selling trademarked items on the internet a way big nono
Posted at 12:04 pm, September 11 2009 EST

  ======================== page 11 ========================

 

GoTo says:
hairtiesgalorenmore says:
underoakstudios says:
You could give it away and they wouldn't mind:)

Yeah, CUZ IT'S MINE

~~~No, not because it is yours. Because you're not trying to make a profit off it if you give it away.

Please find a lawyer who has experience in intellectual property, and read up on the law yourself from the official source:

http://www.copyright.gov
Posted at 1:05 pm, September 11 2009 EST

weesandy says:
DesignsbyShellie said:
I'm sorry - There are too many pages for me to go through. If this has already been mentioned, forgive me!

You need to talk with Tabberone.

She has sued Disney with success when they continued to contact eBay as "verified rights owners" to make eBay take down auctions of items she had made using Disney fabrics.

She sued... and she won!

Here is a link:

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/DisneyLawsuit/DisneyLawsuit.shtml
__________
Oh please don't trust your good name, not to mention your money, to what Tabberone says! Her perspective is limited and biased, and she obviously hasn't properly understood what happened.

Here, see what quirke had to say in another thread: http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.php?thread_id=6279626&page=17#post-42283559
Posted at 4:01 pm, September 11 2009 EST

weesandy includes a link to a statement by quirke with which she agrees but the statement is totally false as are most pronouncements made by quirke.

HeathensHearth says:
hairtiesgalorenmore said:
Why then did an attorney advise me differently?
__________
Um... i'm sure someone else may have already pointed this out... but by selling products made from that fabric you are *attempting* to make a living off it, thus, not allowed.

Why do so many people think copyright violation is not a bad thing?
Posted at 9:09 pm, September 11 2009 EST

  ======================== page 12 ========================

 

ArtisanSoapSpa says:
using copyrighted ANYTHING = STEALING.....plain and simple. Much success and many wishes of great ideas to everyone. ;)
Posted at 9:19 pm, September 11 2009 EST

grandmasbest says:
hairtiesgalorenmore said:
It is MINE to do with what I choose once I purchase it.
__________
Your right... It's YOURS.

I'm going to go buy out your shop and resell it. After all, it would then be MINE and I could do what I choose.
Posted at 9:22 pm, September 11 2009 EST

grandmasbest is an idiot. The OP comes to this forum seeking information and gets snide and off-topic comments.

CoquetteBath says:
trademark infringement is like pregnancy.

You cannot be a 'little bit pregnant' and you cannot 'kinda' be trademark infringing. Either you are, or you are not (both cases).

Reasonable people figure that the big companies are going to be 'gotten' first, but any time a trademark is infringed, there is a loss of ownership of the material. Eventually, it reverts to the public domain. And when you've lots and lots of money invested in the product (ie the image/likeness) then that is YOUR biz that is being eroded.

I really do not care if it is just 5 purses. Or a single hat, or a billion items. It is the very same thing.

So stop taking other people's intellectual property and making a buck off it.

Seriously. Stop. It is stealing. It is not yours.

When the sell that fabric, it is with the intent that you are making something for yourself. It is the license that is granted the manufacturer of the fabric. A limited license. You simply won't be arrested for wearing anything made from the fabric. But you do not have the right to make a buck out of it.

Want to make it? Contact the intellectual property rights holder and negotiate a fair residual payment.

Ethics is ethics. You can't make it anything but what it is.
Posted at 10:05 pm, September 11 2009 EST

CoquetteBath is so stupid and so off base it defies logic. Her rant is full of false statements. CoquetteBath assumes the OP is infringing and chastises her for what she has not done. Using licensed fabric is not stealing; it is perfectly legal. The fabric manufacturer cannot legally limit how the fabric is used without a written and signed agreement. Ethics? If it is not illegal it is not unethical.

p1xie says:
Fabric is no different than movies or music cds if we could all of us would record what WE BOUGHT and sell it.

I really don't understand the confusion or the fuss. I am making my fiance rain gear and he wants to promote it at work. He asked for his team logo and I told him if he is going to promote it so I get sales I couldn't because I don't think the Ducks would appreciate me selling jackets that they sell. Especially when he's working on the arena down there!

I don't think there is any laws to using colors so use the team colors. I could be wrong...
Posted at 10:22 pm, September 11 2009 EST

You are wrong and on several points. Music and CDs are covered differently under copyright law. There are no laws about "team" colors. If there were we all would be wearing some sort of team colors.

  ======================== page 13 ========================

 

popondo says:
*Head desk(sigh)

Cease & Desist letters often accomplish just what they intend: scare small timers into believing that the companies & their big bad scary lawyers have alot more pull than they actually do. THAT is why the attorney that OP originally spoke with gave her the counsel that they did--it is actually well known in certain areas of copyright law that a C&D often does the trick preventing the client from having to go through a legal battle which the client would likely lose. Case in point: Disney....think of the myriad products being sold by the general public with Disney characters etc. Disney has filed suit in the past and lost.

The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. That means that a copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "first sale rule" or "exhaustion rule.

See people don't know what they're talking about in general with this kind of issue----if fabric marked as copywritten/licensed/and what have you made the possibility of legally profiting commercially impossible, fabric stores would not exist or only those who have specifically entered into a contractural agreement would be allowed to sell the licensed fabric...many suppliers on Etsy as well as many mom & pop quilting stores would find themselves shut down. The over riding thing that seems to be at the root of the matter seems to be the general confusion surrounding what copyrights are versus trademarks vs. patents. I've noticed that in many of these forum posts, people make reference to a variety of companies who've dealt with the issue of intellectual property law but in different areas which affected their outcome legally.

A copyright is ONLY over intellectual property, one could best avoid issues by not advertising your product as though you are a licensee as a copyright does cover the owner from dealing with people misrepresenting themselves as affiliated with the actual work or as though they are acting on the behalf of the copyright owner. The truth of the matter is that once you have purchased a piece of fabric that has been lawfully produced, you may do as you please with it PROVIDED that you do not copy the fabric or the fabric design itself.

HOWEVER--a trademark is different. People always want to bring up Coca-Cola or sports team fabrics. A trademark prevents an actual image or logo from being used. That type of fabric is a general no-no. Most team logos and coporate insignia are covered by a trademark(TM) hence their general success in filing suit against individuals who make products using their logos. On those, its best that you listen to the C&D because while you still might win...there is a greater chance they will win depending on your usage since the primary element of a trademark is the right of the trademark owner to control the way that their particular logo is perceived by the public. You might be infringing upon that.

A patent is an entirely different thing altogether and actually protects a process which means that it doesn't matter what you call it, how you market it, unless you can prove in a court of law that your process & product outcome are vastly different from the patented product, you haven't a chance in hell of defending yourself--this is what the taggies people had going for them. They had an iron tight patent(I've seen it--its goooood) that did not allow any leg room for making an item anyway close to resembling their product without infringing on their patent.

All in all, keep in mind that once a C&D has been sent, there can be a legal battle following. You have to be willing to go through with that, otherwise it can often be easier to just cease & desist. However keep in mind that this is often what the lawyers that deal in this area of law count on and what allows them to throw out the letters to begin with(often whether or not they have a legitimate case)---they scare you, you stop and they can send some type of proof to their client that they are doing their job & thus charge more money. They often go after the small fry for just this reason--easy win, no court battle, and they come off as the wonderful gatekeeper for their clients rights. --the smart answer is always to advise you to seek out an attorney BUT the attorney gave you the right answer and still you're spooked about the letter, so...
Posted at 10:30 pm, September 11 2009 EST

ThePursePatch says:
I read about a case in which a lady was using licensed and trademarked fabric. The way it turned out after a long legal battle was as follows:

Don't call your item a "Detroit Lions".....You can say a ..... made with Detroit Lions fabric. The first seems to indicate that the Detroit Lions sponsored the item. The latter states that it is made from their fabric. Also you should have a disclaimer statement stating that the item is not sanctioned by Detroit Lions.

Detroit Lions used just as an example.
Posted at 10:37 pm, September 11 2009 EST

LDCraftSupplies says:
sounds like that attorney was not fully informed.

if it's stamped "licensed", then that's exactly what it is!
Posted at 10:45 pm, September 11 2009 EST

hairtiesgalorenmore says:
Licensed fabric means the fabric is licensed by the rights owner to be manufactured and sold. It does not mean the fabric is licensed at the time it is sold. A license on the use of the fabric requires the person buying it to agree, usually in writing, to conditions on the use of the fabric before paying for the fabric.
When someone releases fabric into the stream of commerce they effectively have relinquished control over the uses of that fabric.
While the pattern on the fabric may be copyrighted, the actual fabric itself is not. The pattern may include images of registered trademarks, such as the logo of the New York Yankees or a John Deere logo, etc. Licensed fabric means fabric that has been licensed by the rights owner to be manufactured and sold. It does not mean the fabric is being sold with a license. Disney licenses Springs Industries to manufacture, distribute and sell fabric that contain images of the Disney characters. That is where the term "licensed fabric" originates. For something to be sold with a license there has to be agreement between the seller and the buyer concerning the terms of the sale. Even though the selvage may make a statement that the fabric is for "non-commercial home use only", that "restriction" is not enforceable primarily because the purchaser does not have agree to the terms before purchase.
Copyright law applies to the use of licensed fabric in the application of the first sale doctrine. Bear in mind, the term "licensed fabric" legally only refers to the fact the manufacturer of the fabric has a license to use the images on the fabric. It does not mean the fabric is "licensed" to the purchaser. "Licensed" products require an agreement between the owner of the product and the potential purchaser. Fabric is not "licensed"; fabric is sold.
Posted at 10:58 pm, September 11 2009 EST

Paperika says:
Popondo, that info is wrong. I have been told PERSONALLY by manufacturers that you cannot use licensed products to make things to sell.
This goes for fabric, rubber/clear stamps, paper, ribbon, embellishments; all of it!
Posted at 11:02 pm, September 11 2009 EST - Report this post

Paperika is stuck on stupid. Of course the manufacturers are going to tell you that. They want to control the use of their product. Popondo was talking about the law, not the desires of the manufacturers.

hairtiesgalorenmore says:
Sorry, but Popondo is correct.
Posted at 11:04 pm, September 11 2009 EST

  ======================== page 14 ========================

 

popondo says:
Paperika---and the lawyers for those manufacturers will tell you to cease & desist, lol.

The proof is in the pudding. People who can, sue...people who can sue AND have a legitimate case, win...how many wins are there on this subject regarding fabric? Exactly.
Posted at 11:09 pm, September 11 2009 EST

p1xie says:
hairtiesgalorenmore:

You have me so intrigued with this post. This site may help you clear things up if you haven't been on it already:
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CopyrightLaw/LicensedFabric.shtml

A blurb from the article:
If you do not agree to the "license" before purchasing, they will sell the fabric to you anyway. In fact, no one even asks you if you agree to the license.
They just sell you the fabric. Any fabric sold without a signed mutual agreement prior to the sale is not licensed
Posted at 11:12 pm, September 11 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai says:
p1xie said:
hairtiesgalorenmore:

Youhave me so intrigued with this post. This site may help you clear things up if you haven't been on it already:
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CopyrightLaw/LicensedFabric.shtml

A blurb from the article:
If you do not agree to the "license" before purchasing, they will sell the fabric to you anyway. In fact, no one even asks you if you agree to the license. They just sell you the fabric. Any fabric sold without a signed mutual agreement prior to the sale is not licensed
__________
i wouldn't trust info garnered from that site.
Posted at 11:14 pm, September 11 2009 EST

hairtiesgalorenmore says:
Well, that site was better informed than these forums.
Posted at 11:15 pm, September 11 2009 EST

Paperika says:
Popondo, just so I am clear--you quoted all that from the Tabberone site, right? If so, then I believe that's hogwash.

When I first started selling my work, I called and emailed tons of manufacturers and EVERY single one that is LICENSED to make items with Disney, Peanuts, Hello kitty, sport teams and all those told ME that I CANNOT use those items in my projects for resale. I was also told by Hobby Lobby that their House Mouse Designs and the Born to Shop series are also licensed and I cannot USE those. Sorry, but I tend to believe someone who is a manufacturer than some woman who claims to know the legal ramifications.
Posted at 11:17 pm, September 11 2009 EST

Again, Paperika is stuck on stupid, and it appears, willingly. Of course the manufacturers are going to tell you that. They want to control the use of their product. Popondo was talking about the law, not the desires of the manufacturers, and was not quoting the Tabberone web site.

popondo says:
I also believe that those who have a copyright to protect generally want it to do more than it does.
Posted at 11:17 pm, September 11 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai says:
why are things being quoted from random sites, rather than from the government sites themselves?

if there is actual proof of this than i'd like to see it. i'm just not going to believe anything i hear on this, there is a ton of misinformation out there.
Posted at 11:21 pm, September 11 2009 EST

p1xie says:
I'm thinking more of law than the site itself. The manufacture and the store have the written agreement. Stores can easily add to their receipts saying by buying this licensed fabric you agree to blah blah.

The movies and cds I mentioned before have a disclaimer. Maybe fabric (I know some do)should to until I don't think people should be penalized or threatened with a lawsuit.
Posted at 11:22 pm, September 11 2009 EST

  ======================== page 15 ========================

 

quirke says:
Jesus.

*headdesk*

Some of you don't have a clue what a derivative work is.

The cases that Tabberone describes involves reselling fabric as-is, or selling it as non-derivative work.

THE FIRST SALE DOCTRINE DOES NOT COVER DERIVATIVE WORKS.

YOU CANNOT DO WHATEVER YOU LIKE WITH LICENSED PRODUCTS.

Why is that so flipping hard to grasp?
Posted at 11:23 pm, September 11 2009 EST

Ah, enter, quirke. The illustrious quirke reads whatever quirke wants into cases and law. The Precious Moments case stated that the bedding made from licensed fabric was not a derivative and therefore was not infringing. The subject in this forum was making fabric items from licensed fabric. How are not the two the same thing? Earth to quirke? Are you an intelligent life form?

p1xie says:
April they have links to goverment sites and cases to back up what they are saying.
Posted at 11:23 pm, September 11 2009 EST

popondo says:
In regards to Tabberone: No. I was taught to research for self. Only trust the actual written law. I take what is written on the web with a grain of salt unless it is the official web presence of a government body or organization.
Posted at 11:24 pm, September 11 2009 EST

quirke says:
From another thread:

pastperfect says:
I know from experience that this is not so - as we lost a considerable amount of money invested in fabric that we were sewing into baby quilts, when the pattern owner's lawyers paid us a call. Even after the fabric manufacturer had given us approval. It all came down to licensing.
Posted at 1:09 am, June 2 2009 EST
Posted at 11:24 pm, September 11 2009 EST

quirke says:
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 106Prev | Next § 106.

Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
...
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
Posted at 11:26 pm, September 11 2009 EST

quirke strikes again. But only to quote a part of copyright law without stating the relevance. Again: the Precious Moments case stated that the bedding made from licensed fabric was not a derivative and therefore was not infringing. Again: the subject in this forum was making fabric items from licensed fabric. Again: how are not the two the same thing?

quirke says:
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 101Prev | Next § 101. Definitions

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
Posted at 11:27 pm, September 11 2009 EST

quirke strikes again and again. Again only to quote a part of copyright law without stating the relevance.

hairtiesgalorenmore says:
Copyright Law, Title 17 Chapter 1 §113(c), specifically states:
In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports.
Posted at 11:27 pm, September 11 2009 EST

popondo says:
But quirke, did you take it to court? That from my understanding is the issue at hand. We know that the lawyers will come calling without a doubt.
Posted at 11:27 pm, September 11 2009 EST

quirke says:
I'm not Pastperfect.

pastperfect says:
Not according to the attorneys that we tried to argue this with. According to this very large and significant company and their law firm we could not make the quilt for someone who gave us the fabric, we could not make the quilts and give them for free to charities, and we had written permission to use the fabric from the manufacturer.

But we just had to live through this.

Enough said.
Posted at 1:23 am, June 2 2009 EST
Posted at 11:28 pm, September 11 2009 EST

p1xie says:
What are they afraid of?

1997, the federal court invoked the first sale doctrine in denying Precious Moments attempts to block the use of its licensed fabrics. Since then, M&M/Mars, Disney Enterprises, Major League Baseball, United Media (Peanuts fabric), Sanrio (Hello Kitty fabrics), among others, have been sued when these companies tried to block the eBay sales of items hand-crafted from their licensed fabrics. Every one of them settled rather than risk losing the issue in court.
Posted at 11:29 pm, September 11 2009 EST

  ======================== page 16 ========================

 

GoTo says:
"Copyright Law, Title 17 Chapter 1 §113(c), specifically states:
In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports."

~~~Unless I'm readimg that wrong, that's about items that have been reproduced with permission--the copyright holder can't stop you from taking pictures of lawfully reproduced items in order to sell the items you have been given permission to make.
Posted at 11:31 pm, September 11 2009 EST

quirke says:
hairtiesgalorenmore says:
When someone releases fabric into the stream of commerce they effectively have relinquished control over the uses of that fabric.
-------------------
LOL - now you're just replacing words! First you say "he has exhausted his exclusive statutory right to control its distribution" and suddenly that becomes "use of the fabric". Distribution and use are two different things, especially in the eyes of the law.

Here's the actual law:

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 109Prev | Next § 109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.

Notice how it doesn't say that you are allowed to make the item into something else. It says "sell or dispose of". There is no exemption for derivative works.
Posted at 11:39 pm, September 11 2009 EST

Again, quirke is stuck on stupid. quirke cannot get past a derivative and cannot seem to comprehend that derivatives are not the issue.

AprilMarieMai says:
hairtiesgalorenmore said:
When someone releases fabric into the stream of commerce they effectively have relinquished control over the uses of that fabric.
__________
no.

you cannot make derivative works without permission.
Posted at 11:39 pm, September 11 2009 EST

  ======================== page 17 ========================

 

weesandy says:
hairtiesgalorenmore said:
"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."
__________
You clearly don't have a clue what that statement means, if you think it means that you can then USE that copyrighted item to create something new and sell it as without permission.

I'm pretty much convinced that those who continue to argue this, long after the links to the actual laws have been provided, are just shit-disturbing for giggles. Ha ha, you're super funny. Everybody loves a mindless, ill-informed argument.
Posted at 11:41 pm, September 11 2009 EST

weesandy joins quirke in being stuck on stupid.

AprilMarieMai says:
frankly, i just don't get it.

why be so into using other's intellectual property to make money? why not make your own?

that is what this thread began as.

the whole mine, mine, mine thing.
Posted at 11:42 pm, September 11 2009 EST

hairtiesgalorenmore says:
Believe what you want, it's obvious you will anyway. I however will not give in to this scare tactic and will go to court if I have to.
Talk about misinformation...
Posted at 11:42 pm, September 11 2009 EST

HannahsHands says:
well... if you are willing to go to court and spend all that money on lawyers fees and such for a couple of bucks then knock yourself out. Not something I would want to consume myself with.

Good luck.
Posted at 11:43 pm, September 11 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai says:
i just haven't come across anyone making these arguments who owns intellectual property.

it always seems to be a desire to make money off of others' intellectual property.

am i wrong in this case?
Posted at 11:44 pm, September 11 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai says:
and since when does settling mean that someone won or lost? that's the whole freaking point of settling, to not go to the cost and time of an actual verdict.

saying something was settled does not mean that the party being prosecuted won, or is in the right.
Posted at 11:45 pm, September 11 2009 EST

Actually, AprilMarieMai, settlements can tell you a lot. Disney, Major League Baseball, Sanrio (Hello Kitty), United Media (Peanuts) and Debbie Mumm all wanted to settle with Tabberone after Tabberone sued them over the use of their fabrics. The settlement agreements are on the web site. The last four paid Tabberone's expenses. And all of them agreed in writing to leave Tabberone alone concerning the use of their fabrics. Except for Debbie Mumm, they are all billion dollar companies who could easily afford the legal expenses to fight this issue and settle it once and for all. But they wanted to settle instead. What does that tell you?

quirke says:
Hahaha, I don't have to "believe" anything, it's right there written in the law in front of my eyeballs. You just want to ignore it.

But have fun in court! I'm sure it will be totally worth all the lawyer's fees!
Posted at 11:46 pm, September 11 2009 EST

Tissage says:
Oooh, wow, you still don't believe us. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for you contacting a lawyer and finding this all out for yourself. I'm just a little shocked that some people are so resistant to learning that they can't do whatever they want with the intellectual property of others.
Posted at 11:48 pm, September 11 2009 EST

  ======================== page 18 ========================

 

weesandy says:
hairtiesgalorenmore said:
When someone releases fabric into the stream of commerce they effectively have relinquished control over the uses of that fabric.
__________
Totally wrong. Not even close. Just because you WANT that to be so doesn't make it so in the real world.
Posted at 11:49 pm, September 11 2009 EST

weesandy, you are beyond stupid. That statement is accurately quoted from Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. Lanza Research 523 U.S. 135 (1998). It was part of the unanimous decision written by Justice Stevens. weesandy, you are totally wrong.

p1xie says:
The settlement means could be that it is cheaper to settle but in the case of these big companies it isn't the cost of the lawsuit but the cost of the lawsuit in the long run if they lost.
Posted at 11:49 pm, September 11 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai says:
i'm still wondering why someone feels the need to try to make money off of others' intellectual property.

in so many ways that is against the ideologies of the handmade community.
Posted at 11:49 pm, September 11 2009 EST

weesandy says:
hairtiesgalorenmore said:
Believe what you want, it's obvious you will anyway. I however will not give in to this scare tactic and will go to court if I have to.
Talk about misinformation...
__________
Ah, so now it's a huge conspiracy that dozens of Etsy shops have gotten into! Can you say "paranoid"?
Posted at 11:51 pm, September 11 2009 EST

GoTo says:
I can understand wanting to make things with your favorite team logos and colors, you just need to be licensed to sell those items to do it legally.
Posted at 11:51 pm, September 11 2009 EST

scrivenerferret says:
P1xie, I used to work for a t-shirt company that sold state-themed shirts in various colors. They happened to choose college colors for some of the shirts, and the NCAA (or whatever it is with the college teams) made them stop. I got about 7 free purple and gold Louisiana shirts which I then sold to my mom's coworkers to help pay for a ferret's surgery. Snicker, snicker.

And the full moon was last week.

This thread makes me so glad I work in solid colors.
Posted at 11:53 pm, September 11 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai says:
p1xie said:
The settlement means could be that it is cheaper to settle but in the case of these big companies it isn't the cost of the lawsuit but the cost of the lawsuit in the long run if they lost.
__________
but there are a ton of reasons to settle that have nothing to do with an expectation of losing.

they could settle because they didn't want the press to focus on their lawsuit, thus taking the attention away from their products and putting it toward the courtroom instead.

the thing is, the whole lawsuit was that someone infringed on their intellectual property. settling would mean that person would have to comply with the terms they have set out. so them settling would inherently not mean them saying it's not a problem, but rather them coming to an agreement with the infringing party on how they would be required to cease production, and potentially also compensate the company for the infringement.

get what i'm saying?
Posted at 11:53 pm, September 11 2009 EST

AprilMarieMai, Tabberone sued the fabric manufactures, not the other way around.

Tissage says:
Why do so many people think that if they aren't opening a giant factory they aren't really an official business and that laws shouldn't apply to them?
Posted at 11:54 pm, September 11 2009 EST

  ======================== page 19 ========================

 

p1xie says:
Thanks scrivenerferret that is good to know.

April I think if they ever lost and didn't settle that would mean that others maybe not us small timers on Etsy could mass produce using their fabric. That would hurt their own sales. Now that I'm typing I can see why they do fight it.

I do think they should quit wasting money on lawsuits and settlements and just put a disclaimer print on the fabric. Didn't Etsy just go through this with Hello Kitty a awhile ago?
Posted at 12:03 am, September 12 2009 EST

weesandy says:
The fabric says "licensed" which means that it can't be used for commercial products, whether sold or donated.
Posted at 12:05 am, September 12 2009 EST

  ======================== page 20 ========================

 

AprilMarieMai says:
i still don't see how settling a lawsuit is admitting defeat on a broad, open thing such as the concept of licensed fabric protection.

but i'm going to wander off, i'm wasting my time, everyone already has their mind made up.
Posted at 12:20 am, September 12 2009 EST

ArtisanSoapSpa says:
it is stealing plain and simple...robbing,stealing, knocking off, whichever way you want to put it to justify it, it is stealing and any backwoods country hillbilly hick would know that! geez, how hard is it to understand.

As I feel myself and many others posting in this forum are banging our heads against a solid wall of steel (or steal, pun intended), Me and my nice fresh cup of joe are moving on to other threads.
Posted at 12:21 am, September 12 2009 EST

ArtisanSoapSpa, you just do not get it.

  ======================== page 21 ========================

 

Tissage says:
I really don't understand why people post about stuff like this in the forums and they are determined to put their hands over their ears and ignore the information they get.

If you just want sympathy go talk to your friends, please don't post in the forums.
Posted at 12:28 am, September 12 2009 EST

Tissage has spoken. Tissage is all-knowing. Tissage has an attitude problem.

  ======================== page 22 ========================

 

hopskipshop says:
I hope she continues blogging through the process of getting sued. I'm sure her amazing new friends will support her financially through it all.
Posted at 1:34 am, September 12 2009 EST

DesignedByLucinda says:
Oh man, I WISH Etsy had some FREQUENT Storque articles about what crosses copyright....

The ignorance here is unbelievable.

NO, you can NOT take my ideas or pictures (whether they are on 3D necklaces or made into sheets, lampcovers, coasters, scrabble pendants etc) and expect *me* to be groovy with your rendition.

Renditions belong to ME, the idea person. Whether I am a one person company or Hello Kitty huge sized, it is MINE and you can't steal it...

Theft if theft.
Posted at 2:01 am, September 12 2009 EST

DesignedByLucinda your ignorance is unbelievable. What the OP was doing is perfectly legal except in the minds of you self-appointed designer divas who want the world to fit your particular desires.

lillipopsdesigns says:
Sewsweet... many fabric designers such as Amy Butler, Michael Miller, Alexander Henry have what is known as an angel policy. I've taken time to read each of the policies for the fabrics I use, and all have made it clear that you may use their fabrics in any way you wish, for profit. If you go to the fabric manufacturer's website, you'll be able to find the policies in question.
Posted at 2:30 am, September 12 2009 EST

  ======================== page 23 ========================

 

CosmicCreatures says:
Well, this thread and the blod was a good read over breakfast!
To me it's obvious you don't sell things using other peoples images without permission. I figured everyone would know that but I guess not.
Posted at 3:48 am, September 12 2009 EST

Etsy Admin RobWhite says:
Regardless of any circumstances in a given thread, we ask that you be respectful to other members of the Etsy community when posting in the public Forums, and not make them the object of ridicule.
Posted at 4:07 am, September 12 2009 EST

This thread has been closed.

iweb counter