Tabberone Logo

Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations     www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke



Etsy Misinformation Mavens
Hall Of Shame Member

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"

Posted at 11:37 am, February 23 2010 EST

no clothing cant be copyrighted. but, a pattern certainly can be. a pattern is a graphic image

Posted at 12:17 pm, February 23 2010 EST

yes, thats correct, the article of clothing does not have a copyright. but, that derivative work is protected under the copyright of the pattern. if you looked at the article of clothing, then copied it, you wouldnt violate any copyrights. but, if you use the pattern, you are violating the patterns copyright

Posted at 1:00 pm, February 23 2010 EST

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"

Posted at 12:31 pm, February 10 2010 EST

"you can resell it as is, but once you alter it, it becomes a derivative work"

Posted at 12:33 pm, February 10 2010 EST

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"

Posted at 11:19 am, November 22 2009 EST

from the "first sale doctrine"

"With reference to trade in tangible merchandise, such as the retailing of goods bearing a trademark, the "first sale" rule serves to immunize a reseller from infringement liability. Such protection to the reseller extends to the point where said goods have not been altered so as to be materially different from those originating from the trademark owner."

Posted at 8:25 am, November 23 2009 EST (page 2)

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.

General

Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions

Corporate Lawyers
Cartoons | Code Of Ethics | Courtroom Remarks | Definition Of A Lie | Jokes | Lawyers | Lying | Who Have Lied

eBay - Land The Game

Definitions

Trademark Definitions
Blurring   |   Confusion   |   Damages   |   Dilution   |   History   |   Initial Interest Confusion   |   Likelihood Of Confusion   |   Material Difference Standard
Parallel Imports   |   Post-sale Confusion   |   Puffery   |   Secondary Meaning   |   Subsequent Confusion   |   Trademark Abuse
Unauthorized Use   |   Unfair Competition   |   What is a Trademark?
Copyright Definitions
Angel Policies   |   Contributory Infringement   |   Copyrightability   |   Copyright Extortion   |   Copyright Misuse Doctrine
Derivative   |   The Digital Millennium Copyright Act   |   EULA   |   Fair Use   |   First Sale Doctrine   |   Product Description
Registration   |   Registration Denied   |   What is a Copyright?   |   What is not Copyrightable?
Other Issues
Embroidery Designs   |   FAQs & Whines   |   Image and Text Theft   |   Licensed Fabric   |   Licensing & Licenses
Patterns   |   Patterns Index   |   Profit   |   Quilting   |   Selvage   |   Stanford School of Law Case Outline
Tabberone Disclaimer   |   Trademark Extortion   |   Urban Myths   |   What To Do If You Are Veroed

Federal Court Cases
Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations

Federal Statutes
Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22

VeRO (Verified Right's Owner Program)
VeRO Commandments | VeRO-Verified Rights Owners Program | Counter Notice Letter
Counter Notice (pre-2003) | Counter Notice present | On-Line Survey from 2004 | Articles about VeRO | What To Do If You Are Veroed

Original material by Karen Dudnikov & Michael Meadors is © 1999-2019

 

 

vBulletin statistics