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.

weesandy joined Etsy March 14, 2008 and is located somewhere in or near British Columbia. weesandy specializes in patterns and giving bad information on the Esty boards.

knotworkshop - "being useful means it can't be copyrighted" clearly doesn't apply to patterns. Patterns are very useful, but definitely ARE copyrighted. Any lawyer who tells you differently probably won't be allowed to practice law for much longer. Posted at 12:48 pm, February 23 2010 EST The pattern is copyrighted, which means that anything made from the pattern (or a derivation of the pattern) is covered under the pattern's copyright. Legally. If you buy my pattern and make your own Leprechaun hat, you can show photos of it, but you can't sell it unless I give permission (which I do, incidentally, but that's my choice). You can't sell the pattern, ever, or post it anywhere for free, or change it slightly and then sell it, or (as some do), type it up yourself and sell it as your own. Posted at 12:55 pm, February 23 2010 EST

Point 1 - 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 2 - Perhaps in Canada but few patterns are copyrighted in the US and those are generally for soft sculpture and the like. As of March 22, 2009, a search of the copyright records using the word "Simplicity" yielded 339 copyrights registered. Many of these copyrights were for magazines, catalogs, presentation materials, etc. Simplicity had only a few copyrights on patterns and those were for soft sculpture items. Point 3 - A good thing weesandy is not allowed to practice law. Point 4 - 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 5 - 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 6 - "Legally"? Refer to Point 3.

Feille said: This is what I was legally told too. You can't stop someone from making items from it to sell, if it's a "useful" item (like clothing), per se, but you can stop, say, a seller from buying your pattern, copying it, and reselling or giving away said pattern. __________ "Whoever gave you that counsel was either misinformed, or failed to get you to understand the correct legalities. "You can't stop someone from making items from it to sell," may be true, but you can certainly sue their asses off - and win! - if they do so. And then you can legally prevent them from doing it again. Saying that only non-useful items (i.e. useless, frivolous, etc.) can be copyrighted and/or patented is foolish and completely incorrect. Anyone who tells you that is either dreadfully mistaken, or jerking you around." Posted at 2:06 pm, February 23 2010 EST

Point 7 - What is in the water in British Columbia? There is no legal support for the claim that you can "sue their asses off - and win". There is not a single court case that supports that contention. If you could "win" then it would be easy to stop them. But you and your fellow Mavens cannot point to a single court case where someone was successfully sued for using a pattern to make and sell items. Point 8 - weesandy misses the entire point of the non-copyrightability of useful items and does not get the fact it is the law. Perhaps we should call her "foolish and completely incorrect"? See 17 U.S.C. § 101 Definitions - "Useful article". A useful article that "conveys information", such as a book, newspaper, motion picture, etc., is copyrightable. weesandy needs to get her wee head out of her wee butt and read up before she puts her wee foot in her wee mouth.