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

Needlework Retailer Hall Of Shame Member Added September 1, 2008

People should not be offering opinions on subjects about which they are clueless. Needlework Retailer is guilty of spreading false and misleading copyright information through flawed articles. The article in question, titled Copyrights, was first printed in the November/December 2000 issue of Needlework Retailer. We have highlighted the incorrect passages in red and will address each here. Whatever nimrod wrote this article should be required to write a retraction and apologize while attending services at Our Lady Of Misconceptions. It is a self-serving, error-filled piece of garbage. Legally, you cannot ever make a copy without the express permission of the copyright owner. Wrong. There is nothing in the copyright law that prohibits a person from making copies for personal use of a lawfully acquired product. You may not make copies to distribute free, use in classes as course material, or to sell. The wording of the copyright law gives the copyright holder the right "distribute copies...to the public". Copies made from a lawfully acquired original, for personal use, is not prohibited, nor is it infringing. It followed this with: This even applies to out-of-print patterns or patterns appearing in magazines. Lawfully acquired out-of-print patterns or patterns appearing in magazines are still yours to use. Just because it's out of print doesn't void the copyright or the sale of the pattern. Patterns printed in magazines are printed by permission and therefore yours to use as you wish once you have purchased the magazine.. Legally, you do not have the right to do this without permission from the designer; again referring to a "working copy". It has already been "legally" established, for example, of the right of the owner of a phonograph record (or CD), to make a copy for personal use. Again, you have not done your homework. The outrageous statement that "stores have actually been sued" over the use of their copiers is so ridiculous it defies comprehension. You notice there are no references for the reader to verify this statement. It's similar to the urban myth about Disney confiscating a woman's sewing machine and driving her into bankruptcy because she used Disney fabric to make and sell something. We sued Disney over the use of their fabric and they couldn't wait to settle. implied permission is granted to create a derivative work Here your ignorance reaches new heights. Permission to create a "derivative" work is NEVER implied; it rests solely with the copyright holder. Permission to create a derivative must be specifically granted. You badly misinterpret what a derivative is. For a work to be considered a derivative work the work must contain originality and must be a variation of the copyrighted material. While it is obvious that "it is intended that you use the design to make something", it is not the end-product that is copyrighted; it is the pattern. A derivative of the pattern would be another pattern, showing originality, that was drawn from the copyrighted pattern. The end-product, let's say a quilt, is not copyrightable because it is a useful item, and as such, cannot be copyrighted. A derivative is not "made from" from a copyright; it incorporates the copyright into a new, original form. Also, to be a derivative, the product must in of itself be copyrightable. To repeat the obvious, the quilt example cannot be copyrighted (Neither can a scarf, an apron, hat, etc.). Simply stated, a design cannot be used to create items that are to be sold or for any other commercial reason. This is pathetic. State any law, or court decision, that supports this boldly false and misleading claim. Is there anyone at Needlework Retailer who is an adult who can keep the little ones in check? There is absolutely no federal or state law that prohibits a person from making an item from a pattern and then selling that item. Likewise, there is no federal or state law that prohibits a person from buying licensed fabric and then making an item for sale from that fabric. Manufacturers attempt to give the impression that this is prohibited by making sweeping and unsupported statements like, "This is licensed for non-commercial home use only". However, they do not have the authority, nor the legal right, to impose such spacious restrictions on the sale of their products. These "restrictions" are not enforceable in court. If the copyright holder is unhappy with the way their work is displayed in public, they can require that the method be changed, or that the work be removed from public display altogether. This is not true. It only applies to a contractual sale of the copyright. If a company buys a copyrighted painting or lithograph, puts it in a god-awful frame, and then hangs it in the lobby of their building, which would qualify as a "public display", the original copyright owner cannot have it removed regardless of objections. The right to display ends once the copy has been sold. Wake up, you idiots, and embrace logic as well as case law. It's companies like Needlework Retailer who are perpetuating the false and misleading propaganda that the manufacturers want the consuming public to believe. Needlework Retailer is located at http://needleworkretailer.com/, 117 Alexander Avenue PO Box 2438, Ames, Iowa 50010. Phone: 800-561-5380 or 515-232-6507. Fax 515-232-0789. email info@needleworkretailer.com