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.

hopskipshop joined Etsy October 4, 2008 and is located somewhere in or near San Antonio, Texas. hopskipshop does not have an Esty shop. Seems she just likes to run her mouth and give out bad information on the Esty boards.

"I think you are misinterpreting first sale. First sale is the manufacturer to the fabric store in most cases, and the fabric store can re-sell it to customers, AS FABRIC. The customer cannot turn the fabric into a dress and re-sell it. There is a site that provides some mostly false documentation that disputes this with regards to companies that have settled (terms undisclosed) but there is just as much documentation and many instances of copyright and trademark owners successfully suing violators. Do your own research and don't just listen to someone posting on the forums and assume you are in the clear." Posted at 1:24 pm, August 20 2009 EST

Point 1 - No, Hoppy, it is you that misinterpreting the "first sale". There can be a series of sales with all of them conveying the rights to the subsequent purchaser. The key ingredient is the phrase "lawfully acquired". Disney contracts with Springs to manufacture Disney fabric. Springs then sell the fabric to various outlets like fabric stores, and in doing so, makes the "first sale". With that first sale goes the right to resell the fabric to others. This second sale is a lawful acquisition by the purchaser who then acquires the same rights held by the fabric store and is in essence, and under the law, covered by the first sale doctrine. The courts call it the "first sale doctrine". The statute refers to any "owner" of a copy. Therefore the person who buys the fabric in the store is still covered by "first sale doctrine". Point 2 - While we cite statutes and court cases to support what we say, you do not cite anything to back your claim that a "customer cannot turn the fabric into a dress and re-sell it" The logic of your claim is insane. Can you custom paint a van and then re-sell it? Point 3 - Tabberone posted on this thread asking Hoppy to give more information about the site she claims has "mostly false documentation" but she has never responded. Please, Hoppy? Tell us which documents are false? We really do want to know. Point 4 - There are many cases where rights owners have sued and won against violators. We never said there were not. But what we document are the false claims of infringement by corporate lawyers in relation to what someone can and cannot do selling on the internet. But Hoppy has her bias. We still love her.