The comments here are not intended to be a negative reflection of the person or the products made and/or sold by the person but rather their terrible habit of posting misinformation.

FabricDestashSale joined Etsy February 29, 2008 and is located somewhere in or near Ridgefield, Connecticut. FabricDestashSale specializes in "excess inventory of fabrics, embellishments, crafting supplies, and shipping supplies" and giving bad information on the Esty boards.

"Basically all fabric is copyrighted. The creator of the design (or the company they sold it to) holds the copyright. Most fabric manufacturers don't limit the commercial use of their fabrics. The ones who do (like Disney, NFL, MLB, NCAA, Sanrio, etc) generally print on the selvedge something to the effect of "Not for Commercial Use." The copyright holder has the right to demand royalties for commercial use of their product. You can make things from Disney, NFL (or other restricted) fabrics - you just have to apply for the permissions and pay for the licensing fees. The characters/names are also Trademarked, so those companies also have the right to restrict the commercial use of their trademarks, and not allow others to sell goods by capitalizing on the names they have spent millions to develop into marketable entities. Just because a company is big and you're little, doesn't mean you have the right to take what they spent huge bucks on developing. To pretend that basing your product line and selling strategy on popular licensed characters/images is not an attempt to make money off someone else's labors is deeply disingenuous." Posted at 10:23 am, September 22 2009 EST "tabberone: The fact that you disagree with me so vehemently makes me feel more confident in my own ethical position. Thank you. You can do whatever you want to, and spend your life fighting desperately for the right to profit from other people's ideas, work, and investments. I will create my own work, and happily sink or swim based on it." Posted at 11:57 am, September 22 2009 EST (page 5)

Point 1 - Fabrics are not copyrighted: fabric designs are copyrighted. Many fabric designs are not copyrighted because the either lack originality, are basic designs or the pattern is in public domain. Designer fabrics like Michael Miller, Alexander Henry, Ro Gregg and the like, usually are copyrighted because they are original. Fabric designs marketed by Disney, the NFL, Sanrio, etc., really are not copyrighted because they already own the rights to the trademarked images on the fabrics. Copyrights on the trademarked fabrics are redundant but they do exist. Point 2 - 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. 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 and there are no provisions in the law that allow for otherwise. Point 3 - Restrictions printed on the selvedge are not binding upon the purchaser. These so-called "licenses" are not enforceable. Many courts have stated that printing restrictions on product does not make the purchaser, or seller, liable. Nor do product notices create an "implied equitable servitude upon the chattel," such restraints on alienation being disfavored at common law. See Clairol, Inc. v. Cody's Cosmetics, Inc., 353 Mass. 385, 393 (1967) (finding labels stating "For Professional Use" to have no legal significance); See, e.g., Tripoli Co. v. Wella Corp., 425 F.2d 932, 941 (3d Cir. 1970) (enforcement of legend on products "marked 'for professional use only' not to be sold retail" would be "a serious restriction on freedom of trade and competition"); see also Matrix Essentials v. Quality King Distribs., 522 F. Supp. 2d 470, 478-79, (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (finding that the trademark first sale doctrine barred enforcement of "professional use only" restriction); see also Matrix Essentials v. Cosmetic Gallery, 870 F. Supp. 1237, 1241 (D.N.J. 1994) (refusing to enforce a legend stating "For professional use. Not for retail sale."); and see Polymer Tech. Corp. v. Mimran, 841 F. Supp. 523, 529-30 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (no valid claim for unauthorized distribution despite plaintiff's "expression of intent so to restrict sales by labeling its products 'For Professional Use Only.'"). Point 4 - Seeking "permissions and pay for the licensing fees" only involves making the product from scratch. If one wanted to manufacture Disney fabric, permission and licensing would be required. Not needed to use and resell their actual product. This misconception is another urban myth being spread by people like you. Point 5 - Actually you confuse the rights associated with copyrights with the rights associated with trademarks. It is permissible to use a trademark as long as you do not confuse the public as to the source or origin of the goods. See Scarves By Vera, Inc. v. American Handbags, Inc, 188 F. Supp. 255 - US: Dist. Court, SD New York 1960 ("When the mark is used in a way that does not deceive the public we see no such sanctity in the word as to prevent its being used to tell the truth.") Point 6 - "Taking" makes it sound like theft. How does someone "take" the work of others when they have sold you the work in the first place? They have been compensated for the work they voluntarily sold. You make it sound like their work was taken from them forcibly. Point 7 - People make money off of the product lines of others all the time. Dunkin Donuts and Krispy Kreme both make donuts. Who was first? Should one close down because the other was there first? How about bake sales? They use Betty Crocker mixes to make and sell sweets like cup cakes, brownies and cookies. Should they be flogged as well? If we buy a dozen rings from a store going out of business and then resell those same rings for ten times the prices on the internet, what have we done that is illegal? This self-righteous crap you Mavens spew is disgusting to say the least. Point 8 - Ah, we are back to "ethics", the final refuge of the frustrated artist. Her position is not founded in fact or law but whatever passes for "ethics" on any given day. The rest of the post is just a whine, "I don't like you".

Do Not touch that dial. Here is more about FabricDestashSale!

http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.php?thread_id=6286881&page=3

"I think it's important to note here that these settlements had to do with fabric sold to be used (cut/sewn/etc.) Tabberone's cases are specific to fabric and shouldn't be used by people trying to make a case for using other materials that are licensed (for example, cutting up a Mickey Mouse card to put on a pendant, or using a poster from a sports team to make something else). In both of these examples, derivative works result (illegal) because you are changing the nature of the item sold to you as Item X and making it into Item Z (with the intention of selling it). Cutting and sewing fabric doesn't change it into something it's not, it is the actual intention of the maker. This is why Tabberone's suits settled. But other situations are NOT the same." Posted at 9:13 am, September 22 2009 EST

Point 9 - Wrong, again. As long as the copy is consumed in the process there is no violation. See LEE v A.R.T. Company, 125 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1997) ("An alteration that includes (or consumes) a complete copy of the original lacks economic significance.") In CM Paula v Logan, 355 F.Supp. 189 (ND TX 1973) Logan was removing the images of the artist from the original cards and putting the images on ceramic tiles. "The Court notes at the outset that without copying there can be no infringement of copyright." And, "For example, should defendant desire to make one hundred ceramic plaques using the identical Paula print, defendant would be required to purchase one hundred separate Paula prints. The Court finds that the process here in question does not constitute copying." The court found for Logan. Point 10 - FabricDestashSale was not present at the settlement talks and has no idea why the cases settled. This is an arrogant and misguided presumption on her part. The Disney lawyer candidly admitted that Disney did not want to be a "test case" on that issue. Neither did the others. Why? Because it was a loser. The suits were settled because the companies did not want to litigate the issue. And we are talking billion dollar companies like M&M/Mars/ Disney, Major League Baseball Properties, Sanrio (Hello Kitty) and United Media (Peanuts). Their litigations costs are a small percentage of their gross revenues. It was not the money, it was the fear of losing.