Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won |
|
|
Etsy Misinformation Mavens
artisanwoodcrafting |
Last Updated February 25, 2010
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. |
artisanwoodcrafting joined Etsy October 31, 2007 and is located somewhere in or near Fredericksburg, Virginia. Nice area. artisanwoodcrafting specializes "in decorative scrollsaw artwork" and giving bad information on the Esty boards. |
http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.php?thread_id=6446081&page=1 |
"yes, all pattern copyrights are property of the creator. making an item from that pattern would be creating a derivative work of that pattern and falls under copyright protection. one needs permission to do it. even when you buy a book of patterns, you cannot make items to sell from them unless you have permission from the copyright holder" |
Point 1 - Once the pattern "creator" sells or gifts the pattern, the "rights" to that particular copy are vested in the new owner. The new owner may make as many
items they want from the pattern because the pattern no longer belongs to the "creator". Permission to make and then use, or sell, items is not required.
See 17 U.S.C. § 109 "Limitations on exclusive rights"
also known as the First Sale Doctrine.
Point 2 - Patterns are not generally copyrightable because they are utilitarian, or a useful item. The pattern is part of a process for making something. A process cannot be copyrighted. See the 1995 letter from the Register of Copyrights explaining why clothing patterns are not copyrightable. See also Kemp & Beatley v Hirsch, 34 F.2d 291 (E.D.N.Y. 1929) where designer was claiming copyright on a dress design. Point 3 - A "derivative" requires the original item to be "recast" or "transformed" in some manner into some original. Once you have finished making the item from the pattern, the pattern has not been altered in any manner. It is still as it was when purchased. The item is not a derivative. See Lee v. Deck the Walls, Inc, 925 F.Supp. 576 (N.D.Ill.1996), defining a "derivative". Point 4 - A "derivative" must in of itself be copyrightable. An example is the motion picture "Gone With The Wind" is a derivative of the book by the same title. A dress made from a pattern is not copyrightable and therefore is not a derivative. See LEE v A.R.T. Company, 125 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1997), see also Gracen v. The Bradford Exchange, 698 F.2d 300 (7th Cir. 1983), see also Ets-Hokin v Skyy Spirits, 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000), and see also Lee v. Deck the Walls, Inc, 925 F.Supp. 576 (N.D.Ill.1996). Point 5 - When you purchase a book, the patterns in that book belong to you. The copyright on the book, or magazine, belongs to the publisher and such copyright covers the contents of the book, or magazine, in general, not specifically. The publisher cannot claim copyright for material in which the publisher has no copyrightable interest, such as articles, advertising, patterns, etc., all of which were "created" by others. Point 6 - False. The copyright office does not regard a pattern to be "a graphic image". See the 1995 letter from the Register of Copyrights, calling patterns "two dimensional designs for useful articles" and that they are "outlines of the component parts used in the manufacture of products". The Register of Copyrights does not consider patterns to be "graphic images" so what possibly could be your reasoning to say otherwise? Point 7 - We have already covered derivatives. The logic of artisanwoodcrafting is so twisted it defies explanation. The sentence contradicts itself. |
Do Not touch that dial. Here is more about artisanwoodcrafting! |
http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.php?thread_id=6433602 |
"if you use a copyrighted image or a trademarked image in another item, that is a derivative work, and derivative works are protected under copyright/trademark laws" |
See Point 3 and Point 4 above.
Point 7 - The courts disagree with artisanwoodcrafting on this issue. In Precious Moments v La Infantil, 971 F. Supp. 66 (D.P.R. 1997), the court ruled cutting up and sewing copyrighted Precious Moments fabric into children's bedding for sale was not a derivative. See also Scarves By Vera, Inc. v. American Handbags, Inc, 188 F. Supp. 255 - US: Dist. Court, SD New York 1960, where the court allowed the defendant to make handbags out of copyrighted/trademarked towels.
|
Do Not touch that dial. Here is even more about artisanwoodcrafting! |
http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.php?thread_id=6007909&page=2 |
"once you cut up the fabric and use the image for another product you are making a derivative work of that trademarked image. and derivative works are protected under trademarks and copyrights" |
Point 8 - Derivatives are covered by copyright law. There is no mention of derivatives in trademark law. And we have already addressed the issue
of cutting up fabric to make and sell items (see Point 7 above).
Point 9 - artisanwoodcrafting does like stepping in it, doesn't she? That quote is not from the "first sale doctrine". That quote deals with trademarked goods being resold under the trademark owner's mark. The "materially different" refers to the goods being adulterated or the packaging being disfigured or altered and then trying to resell the original goods to the public. It has nothing to do with the goods being used as intended. We refer you to back to Scarves By Vera, Inc. v. American Handbags, Inc, 188 F. Supp. 255 - US: Dist. Court, SD New York 1960, where the court allowed the defendant to make handbags out of copyrighted/trademarked towels. |