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.

SewBizGirl joined Etsy May 5, 2007 and is located somewhere in Mississippi. SewBizGirl is a "Professional seamstress and designer, making bags as a sideline" and giving bad information internationally, such as on www.knittingparadise.com, in the UK. Just to prove one does not have to post on Esty to be an Esty Misinformation Maven:

First, what is disturbing is the lack of factual information. It is "a friend" so this is coming second hand. Second, there are no actual names. Third, there is only a threat and no one is being told particulars of this threat, only second-hand information. Fourth, even in the UK, copyright law does not cover the item made from a pattern sold to the public.

Jul 30, 11 09:31:56 Actually, colors have nothing at all to do with it. The line you quoted from the copyright notice, "It is sold on the condition that it is only used for non-commercial purposes" means they don't want you selling either the pattern or any items made from the pattern, regardless of color. The author of the pattern does not want anyone selling what is made from it-- personal use only means you can make it for yourself or for gifts. No selling.

Point 1 - SewBizGirl is full of shit. The seller of the pattern, whether in the UK or not, loses control of the pattern once it is sold. regardless, copyright law does not cover the item made from the pattern. It never has. What the author wants is not relevant once the pattern has been sold. But SewBizGirl is a designer. Something she does not state in her post. So she lies by omission in her posting because she does not tell anyone where she sits before she tells people where she stands. She is in Mississippi but she knows all there is about all there is to know. Like we said, SewBizGirl is full of shee-it, as they say down South.

Jul 30, 11 17:32:39 Yes, please let us know how this turns out for her. It's a hard lesson... It's going to cost her money, any way she goes. I'm wondering if it was an Alice Starmore design. She has sued people before, and won. But she's not the only one..

Point 1 - Alice Starmore is a Scottish whack job who does great knitting work but has a few loose screws. Her mental state is not at issue here. Point 2 - A search of federal lawsuits shows that there is not a single federal lawsuit that has gone to trial, that we have been able to locate, over the use or sale of something made from a pattern, except the comment by the US Supreme Court in 1879 where the Court stated it did not believe that the copyright on a dress pattern applied to a dress made from that pattern. (The Court declined to comment on the validity of copyrights on dress patterns at that time as the issue was not properly before the court).

Jul 31, 11 08:34:25 ZenHooker wrote: Please cite this alleged court case as I cannot find any such court case in the US. Here's a rundown on the inapplicability of copyright law to patterns for knitting, crochet, sewing, etc. http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CopyrightLaw/Patterns.shtml "Useful items, such as clothing, cannot be copyrighted." Neither can recipes. The only thing copyrighted in a recipe is the presentation - the written instructions, accompanying photos, etc. That's because it's a "useful item" and no recipe is truly "unique" (just as no sewing, crochet, or knitting pattern is truly unique, ALL are based on existing stitches (ingredients) that stretch back to the dawn of time). That's not to say there aren't fruit loops out there intent on trying to convince you otherwise. But there is no legal precedent on THIS side of the pond. Perhaps things are different in the UK, but not here in the US.

That tabberone article is merely opinion, not a legal ruling, and is talking about sewing patterns, not knit or crochet patterns. Sewing patterns are TEMPLATES, (shapes). Knitting patterns are WORDS (written 'copy'). Go ahead and keep spreading this misinformation about copyright, and defying copyright law, and people will pay for their ignorance by having to defend their illegal behavior in lawsuits.

Point 1 - That "article" is not just "opinion" but fact. It stands unchallenged by lawyers, law firms, court rulings, pattern companies, pattern designers, and whack jobs like SewBizGirl who cannot point to any court rulings that refute what is said. That "article quotes court ruling and the Registrar of the Copyright as well as copyright lawyers. All SewBizGirl does is run her mouth.. Point 2 - Even IF a knitting pattern qualified for copyright registration, and that is a big IF, the copyright does not extend to items made from the pattern. What part of this is so difficult for pattern designers to comprehend? A copyright registration only covers the material copyrighted. Nothing else. The instructions for making something only covers the set of instructions. If you were to buy a book at Home Depot on how to build a shed in your back yard, would you expect to have to get permission from Home Depot to build that shed? Of course not! Why doesn't the same logic apply to a sweater? That book on shed building certainly is copyrighted. Point 3 - It is interesting that while we are attacked by the Etsy Misinformation Mavens, we have yet to come under fire from any of the large, or small, pattern companies, or designers, or their many, many lawyers, or others, for the many, many pages of so-called pages of "misinformation" we have posted for so many years. Nor have we been legally attacked by any of the many we have accused of being trademark trolls and extortionists.

Jul 31, 11 15:16:48 No, it goes beyond that. Distribution rights are not granted unless specified on the copyright notice. So you can't distribute the pattern even for free. Then whatever conditions are listed on the copyright must be observed. Sometimes it just says "All Rights Reserved" which generally means the pattern is for personal use only, and no commercial usage. You can always try and contact the publisher and ask about usage if you are unclear. It is not hard to find contact info for publishers and yes, they do respond to their email.

Point 1 - Copyright notice is defined by federal law as the copyright symbol ( © ) or the word "Copyright", the year, and the name of the copyright owner. Nothing else. See copyright law, 17 U.S.C. § 401 Notice of copyright. Anything else is not part of a copyright "notice" and is not legally binding upon the purchaser. Point 2 - To relinquish any exclusive rights granted under federal law, distribution is one of those rights, the copyright owner must do so in writing and signed. See copyright law, 17 U.S.C. § 204. A so-called "notice" is not allowed under federal law. Her statement shows her ignorance. Point 3 - "All Rights Reserved" has no bearing on "personal use only" as the copyright owner cannot limit usage once the pattern has been sold unless there is a written contract to that effect (see the US Supreme Court ruling to that effect 1908). Point 4 - "All Rights Reserved" ditto concerning "commercial usage".

Jul 31, 11 15:23:31 There is a "fair use" clause in the law that allows for library books. You are allowed to copy not more than 10% of a library book and remain within the law.

Point 1 - Copyright law states that "fair use" is "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research". See 17 U.S.C. § 107 Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use. The word "library" does not appear once in this section. There is NOTHING in copyright law that allows one to copy any percentage of a library book and evade the copyright statutes. She repeats this garbage on page 16. What is in that water in Mississippi?

Aug 2, 11 21:42:41 Hi Barbara, all "copy" is copyrighted. It is, whether you see the notice or not. Copyright is good for 50 years, or longer if it is purchased or renewed after that time. After that it is said to be "in the public domain". If you are making an item from a very old pattern, it is not likely that you will be challenged legally, even if the pattern is not quite 50 years old..

Point 1 - Having copyright is not the same as being registered with the copyright office. One cannot initiate a federal lawsuit without first obtaining a copyright registration. That means any infringement that occurred before obtaining the registration does not allow you to get statutory damages or legal fees. Not good. Point 2 - after 1977, copyrights are good for 70 years after the death of the author, or in the case of corporate copyrights, 95 years from creation or 120 years from first publication, which ever comes first. For publications before 1923, they are in public domain. Publications before 1968 published without a copyright statement are public domain. Published after 1923 but not renewed are in public domain.