posted on 4-1-2012 at 12:46 PM Janel: Is this a bad April Fool's Joke Carol? :P I've spent the last 15 or so minutes looking at the site. Even if they are correct, I find them offensive. I'm struggling to get past the offensiveness. I'll come back later for a clearer perspective. Bringing Personal Style to Home Sewing One Stitch at a Time http://www.janelmessenger.com Our Mary Frances Sewing Lessons http://missarianasews.blogspot.com

posted on 4-1-2012 at 02:31 PM Carol: Janel, I was turned off at first, as well, with respect to the "antagonistic" flavour of the writing. However, I tried to put myself in their shoes, after reading a bit more of the information. I suspect that they have been on the receiving end of much 'abuse' with the respect to these laws and after fighting in court, multiple times, I can see where some of that might be coming from. If you noticed the dates, this has been around for some years and was updated last in Aug. of '11, I think. Once you have time to read through it Janel, I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on the 'material'. ;) I know, it's a tough pill to swallow when the appeared spirit of the writing is less than kind, but not having been on the receiving end of such actions, I don't think I can say too much. :) Carol

posted on 4-1-2012 at 04:46 PM FrancesGrimble: This website is full of hogwash. 1. Copyright protection exists as long as the material is in "fixed and tangible form"--not just an idea in someone's head. The copyright can be registered, and this increases the amount of damages that the owner can claim in court if the copyright is infringed. However, the copyright does not have to be registered to exist, or for the owner to sue for infringement. There are some good reasons not to register copyrights, especially for works the owners deem to be ephemeral. Every time you register a copyright, you have to fill out a form and pay a fee. The time and money adds up. Note that most people do not bother to register their websites or blogs, yet these also are copyrighted. I have seen no evidence for the claim that most pattern companies do not register their copyrights. However, the US Copyright Office does have a PDF issuing instructions for the “deposits” (copies or images of the work to be copyrighted, which must accompany the registration form) of awkwardly sized works—including sewing and needlework patterns. They would hardly do so if they did not accept patterns in the first place. 2. Copyright includes certain of the fine arts, but is no means limited to them. Works of instructional nonfiction, including instructional/how-to works, are also covered by copyright. These include textbooks, computer manuals, how-to books, crafts books . . . and sewing patterns, in books or otherwise. Even fill-in-the-blanks forms that contain information are also copyrightable. The US Copyright Office’s standards for “creativity” in a new work are minimal. 3. The author of this website does not seem to understand that copyright covers *intellectual* property. There are cases such as sculpture where the intellectual property is inseparable from the physical object. However, in the case of garments, the garment itself is not copyrightable (though it may be patentable), but the pattern for it is. Patterns consist of text and images and both are fully copyrightable. 4. A pattern is not a procedure. It is a set of instructions describing *how to perform* procedures. How-to instructions are fully copyrightable. The author of this website does not seem to understand the difference between what is patentable (the actual method or procedure, if sufficiently new) and what is copyrightable (the instructions for it, whether the procedure itself is new or as old as the hills). Similarly, ideas are not copyrightable but the *expression* of them is. This is why copyrighted works have to be in “fixed and tangible form.” 5. The copyright owner does have a monopoly over the work, and this is what enables the owner to sell, license, give away, bequeath, and otherwise temporarily or permanently reassign portions of the copyright. (Copyright to a work actually comprises a whole bundle of rights.) The text on the back of the pattern saying things like, you can use it for personal sewing but not for commercial manufacture, is a license, whether signed by you or not. A license, once granted, is covered by contract law, not copyright law per se. For example, if someone publishes your work without permission, you can sue them for violating your copyright. But if you license a publisher to publish your book and pay you certain royalties, and they do not pay you those royalties, you can sue them for breach of contract but not for violating your copyright. Note that a pattern manufacturer is a publisher who themselves have hired or licensed designers (sometimes ready-to-wear manufacturers), illustrators, technical writers, etc. They are bound by contracts with those people that you will never see, and they have to honor those contracts. If they promise a ready-to-wear manufacturer that buyers can only use the pattern for personal sewing, then they pass that commitment onto you. Most of the rant on this webpage is objection to the licensing arrangement, and this is based on the writer’s failure to understand the differences between licensing and copyright. By the way, the “chart” they are referring to in the Drury vs. Ewing case is probably a form of sloper used by the Victorians and the early Edwardians, not a pattern printed on tissue paper. “Charts” had various grading mechanisms (such as different lines of holes) for tracing off the desired size (often of the most basic bodice only) and the rest of the pattern was designed by the user. 6. Derivative works are copyrightable, but here again, the writer fails to understand licensing. I said above that copyright is actually a bundle of rights. If you write a novel, you can license the right to translate it into French to one party. You can license the right to translate it into Spanish to another party. (And so on with other languages.) You can sell part of it to a magazine as a standalone, and another part to anther magazine. You can license the right to make it into a play to one party, and the right to make it into a movie to another party. If you have also created illustrations, you can license any of them to authors of other books. (Of course, all these different contracts depend on whether any party wants to negotiate an exclusive—for example the movie producer may insist that you not also license rights to a playwright.) But the important thing is, *none of these derivative works may be issued without your permission*, or the permission of someone such as a literary agent or book publisher whom you have authorized to act for you in this matter. 7. Magazine and book publishers often register copyrights as a service to the authors and artists who have created the works contained within. (And there is a place on US copyright forms to explain that you are doing exactly this.) The registration to a periodical or a book with works by different creators, is just as valid as the registration of a book that contains the work of only one creator. The registration does not only cover the publisher’s work, it covers everyone’s. Nor is it true that the rights to an article or portion of a book always remain with the author or the illustrator. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don’t. That depends entirely on the contract between the publisher and the creator. It is quite common for a periodical or book to contain both material where the publisher owns all rights, and material merely licensed for that use from the creator. And again, the writer of this website seems unaware that the work is copyrighted whether registered or not, and whoever owns the copyright(s), it is not the person who just bought a copy of the book or magazine. 8. Actually, although there is a minimum copyright statement required by the US Copyright Office, expanding on that statement is very common. It serves as an extra warning to people who might violate the copyright. For example, due to the current climate of e-piracy, I and a great many other publishers include warnings against unauthorized scanning and electronic distribution. We have a right to sue for that anyway, but we are making it crystal clear to anyone who might be thinking about piracy. 9. I doubt that no one has ever been sued over unauthorized use of a pattern. But, getting sued costs you a lot of time and money even if you eventually win. It’s a lot cheaper to just buy another copy of the pattern. In fact, patterns are the cheapest part of a sewing project. They are usually cheaper than the material and trimmings, and cheaper than the sewer’s time. Why get adamant about wanting free patterns when your real costs lie elsewhere anyway? And anyone running a custom dressmaking business can just pass the cost of the pattern along to the customer. 10. Here’s the section on selling a used book at a yard sale. Again, the writer of the website does not understand the difference between the physical object and the intellectual property. Copyright literally governs *the right to make copies*. It’s legal to re-sell the identical book you bought, just not to make a copy of it to sell, or keep the copy and sell the original. 11. Licensing agreements again. You do not have to actively consent, except by your purchase and use of the item. There are examples galore of this on e-forums, when downloading software, and so forth. 12. The Copyright Office and what *may* qualify for copyright registration. All that means is, the US Copyright will not (and cannot) guarantee you that they will issue you a copyright registration till after they’ve examined your deposit copy. If they have any questions, they do call you and ask before issuing the registration. 13. A pattern consists of images and illustrations, both of which are copyrightable. The pattern is copyrighted even though the garment (object) is not, and again, the writer fails to understand licensing. 14. Frankly, this web page is a misleading rant designed to make people believe that it is legal to violate copyrights and licensing agreements.

posted on 4-1-2012 at 05:47 PM FrancesGrimble: One other point from the "Hall of Shame": Laura Marsh is accused of making false statements about "copyright law in general" even though her business is situated in the UK. There is no such thing as "copyright law in general." Every country has its own copyright laws and they do vary. If Laura Marsh publishes her patterns in the UK, they are governed by UK copyright law. Any quotes from US copyright law do not apply to UK law. BUT foreign users are obliged to abide by the copyright laws of the country where the work was published. Fran Lavolta Press

posted on 4-1-2012 at 08:53 PM Carol: Hi Fran, I was hoping you would weigh in here. :) Thank you for taking the time to write this all out. I am still working my way through all the information, both on the site and what you have shared. The writer of the site gives several court cases and links to information on them. I have not done my research on them. Fran, are you familiar with any of those court cases that are sited and do you believe the information on the cases, provided on that site, are valid? I need to go back and read the writers words on copyright and licensing, as I thought she did a fairly good job of describing the differences between them, but perhaps I am wrong. I'm cringing as I read some of this stuff on that site, but yet at the same time, I can't help but want to know if there is truth in these words. I do not want to perpetuate wrong interpretations of the law. I am not a lawyer and have relied on the knowledge of others to help me swim this big world of copyright and licensing laws. I do remember, several years ago, finding a case where a crafter was being sued or was sued, for having been producing garments and selling them at craft sales. It was one of the large pattern makers. However, a few years ago when I went to get that information, I could not find it! The article had some very good information in it, but now I am wondering if it had been bogus, thus why it's unavailable to find. Thank you again for your time and sharing your knowledge, Fran, I am reading through all of this. :) Carol

posted on 4-1-2012 at 09:39 PM FrancesGrimble: Carol, I don't think most people without any legal background can research court cases and see how they really apply. I wouldn't mess with it myself, though I can tell there is a ton of bogus information on that site. I suspect the writer is hoping merely to impress everyone with a lot of references whether they are meaningful or not. I also don't think she needs to refer to all these court cases. Understanding that a copyright exists whether or not it is registered and that the owner can license copyrights would clear up most of her issues. I can tell you from personal experience as a how-to writer and editor since the early 1980s, that copyrights can most definitely be registered for how-to nonfiction and illustrations. I suggest that you instead read a book on copyright for the layperson, such as attorney Stephen Fishman's The Copyright Handbook. I am surprised that anyone would trust such an emotional and personally attacking website. I mean, she accuses a UK pattern maker of "hiding overseas" just to "lie about copyright law"? Right! I also fail to understand why this writer (and occasionally other people) post long, wounded rants about things like a publisher's or vendor's licensing policies, high prices, slow shipping, or whatever. There is a really simple solution: If you don't like someone's policies, prices, etc., don't ever buy from them. That way you are not bound by whatever terms you object to, and you are not supporting them financially. You can take your money elsewhere. It's very simple to do that and is much better for all parties. Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress.com

posted on 4-1-2012 at 09:58 PM FrancesGrimble: The US Copyright Office Another thing many people do not understand that it is NOT the job of the US Copyright Office to determine whether a work infringes on another work (things like, how can this skirt pattern be copyrighted when it is similar to another pattern). They just determine whether it is a kind of work that can be registered. Just about anything printed can be registered, although the form you fill out and your requirements for deposit vary. The determination of what is an infringing work is made later, in court, provided one of the parties sues. Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress.com

posted on 4-1-2012 at 11:26 PM Carol: Thanks again, Fran! I am interested in this information for a couple of reasons. First, if the information she is sharing is correct, then I have been guilty of passing on false information and I do not want to be doing that. Secondly, she has posted many court cases and file references. I would like to know if she is full of hot air or there is truth in what she is sharing. I have passed this on to a family member who is great at legal research. I will certainly report back, once this information has been researched. The authors of the site are: Karen Dudnikov & Michael Meadors. I have already started my research on them ;) In fairness to her claim against the UK designer, Laura Marsh, I think she was trying to state that Laura was writing an article for a US site regarding copyright information and did not make reference to her statements whether or not she was referencing US copyright information or British. I do not like the way Karen writes, but I’m trying to weed my way through the antagonistic writing. The article she referenced can be found HERE. Here is what Karen wrote about Laura's article: Quote: So, Laura Marsh hides across the sea and makes self-serving false statements about copyrights without distinguishing whether she refers to US copyrights or the silly copyright laws of Europe. We are not familiar with European copyright law and it may be that copyrights do not have to be registered there. And we really do not care. This site is about US copyrights and trademarks. She is very antagonistic and it's very hard to stomach her writing, but again, if she has valid points, I want to learn from them. If she is full of hot air, I want to know that, too. :) Thank you for the book recommendation. I'll go take a look at that. Carol

posted on 4-2-2012 at 10:41 AM CarolAnn Schmitt: Thank you, Fran, for your comments. I completely agree with everything you said. I think the authors on the web site have chosen selected phrases from various court cases in an effort to support their argument. I could also carefully select phrases from articles and court cases involving various fast food chains and present an argument that all of the items on their menu are nutritious, low calorie and sold at a low price/serving. Legal citations must be read in full and in context to fully understand what is being said. I do know first hand that several of the arguments on the web site are not correct, including their statements: - "Patterns are not generally copyrightable." - "Toys, games, dolls, ...or similar articles are examples. The exclusive right to make and sell such articles should not be sought by copyright registration." - "Unregistered copyrights lack legal enforceability" I once worked in the product development office for a major manufacturer of collectible plush animals and sculptured figurines. The company I worked for filed suit against a manufacturer that had stolen our designs. Some of the designs were copied as originally produced; others had been "cut and pasted", i.e. the top of one design had been paired with the bottom of another design. We had already registered the copyrights for some of the styles; copyright registration for the remainder of the styles was in process. The company I worked for won the case. All of the merchandise based on stolen intellectual property was seized, impounded and eventually destroyed by federal marshalls. Our company was awarded substantial penalties (which were donated to charity) for all the styles, whether or not the copyrights had been registered. I read enough hot air on this site to float a fleet of balloons. Regards, Carolann Carolann Schmitt cschmitt@genteelarts.com http://www.genteelarts.com Ladies & Gentlemen of the 1860s Conference, March 1-4, 2012

posted on 4-2-2012 at 12:04 PM FrancesGrimble: Carol, I understand your concern, but that website is not an objective or knowledgeable place to turn to for copyright information. I suggest that you read some copyright handbooks for the layperson. The legal publisher Nolo Press (their motto is "law for all") has several good ones. They quote court cases too. Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress.com

posted on 4-2-2012 at 03:32 PM Sewing Kitty: You may recall, I was recently asked if I would be interested in making aprons for a friend of mine to sell on her website. But in trying to research and get ideas on the style she wanted I discovered that their are literally patterns for any and every style you could think of for an apron. So I felt stuck, and still do, I can't think of a single way that I could make an apron that wouldn't infringe on someone else's copyright. Am I right to assume this? And is there anyway that I could make an apron design that would be legal to sale? [Edited on 4-2-2012 by SewingKitty] ~Natalie A Seamstress Cat - My Sewing Blog A Happy Hobbit Home - Family Blog In pre-production, based on the novel by Charles Sheldon: In His Steps: The Series

posted on 4-2-2012 at 04:37 PM FrancesGrimble: Just design your own apron from scratch. As a writer, I have written on topics than many other people have written on before. For example, I have written instructions for basic hand stitches and seams. I just take care not to copy anyone else's text and to think hard about adding new hints, helpful comments, clearer language, everything I can to make my instructions different and better. Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress.com

posted on 4-2-2012 at 05:04 PM Carol: Fran, I agree that is not an objective site! :) The emotion, so negative and all, is certainly not objective. I really want to investigate the legal citations given and have a closer look at what is being said. It's terribly unfortunate this lady is speaking with such vile. Carolann, thank you for weighing in on this discussion, I appreciate hearing your experience. I am a tad confused on one of the quotes you gave from the site: Quote: "Toys, games, dolls, advertising novelties, instruments or tools of any kind, glassware, embroideries, garments, laces, woven fabrics, or similar articles are examples. The exclusive right to make and sell such articles should not be sought by copyright registration." Congress incorporated the above rule into copyright law in 1976: Her quote there, if accurate, was taken from "Copyright Act" stating from "Rule 12 (g)" in 1976. I am wondering if this has been updated based on what you have shared OR is there something there I don't understand?! :) Natalie I am almost afraid to answer your question since I am now questioning what I have learned and trying to understand what is *current* and what is applicable, today. :) I am assuming you are talking about making your own pattern, is that correct? If you are looking to design your own pattern, you can do 'knock offs' of any garment you want, so long as you are doing the creating. Form there, you can produce patterns and the actual apron, IF I understand things correctly. ;) I have so much to learn.... Again, Fran, thanks for the book recommendations. At some point, I will have to invest in a book or two on this subject. I'm appreciating the discussion....thank you, ladies. Carol

posted on 4-2-2012 at 05:13 PM FrancesGrimble: Carol, if you don't want to buy any books right away you might be interested in this copyright lawyer's website: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/ Fran Lavolta Press Books of historic clothing patterns http://www.lavoltapress.com

posted on 4-2-2012 at 05:29 PM FrancesGrimble: And regarding licenses, see: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/nightmare.html. What Ivan is basically saying here is that if you don't have a contract you may end up in court, but there is no guarantee that you will win. I know Ivan slightly and he does not give free legal advice. However, I once asked him about a topic it turned out he was interested in, the "implied license." Out of curiosity, I pointed out that it is customary for book publishers to send out large numbers of press releases for new books, with the hope that the press release will be printed entire or in part by as many publications as possible. It's the same with many other consumer products. Very often, the publication gives no indication that they copied the text and any accompanying illustrations from the publisher's or manufacturer's press release. Yet, press releases are copyrighted, so . . . how, actually, can the publications legally do this? Ivan responded that press releases have an "implied license" and then proceeded to complain about the ambiguity of all implied licenses. Yet, they have to exist. I cannot sign a separate contract with every periodical and blog I want to reprint my press release, and a pattern company cannot sign one with every customer. Fran Lavolta Press Books of historic clothing patterns http://www.lavoltapress.com

posted on 4-2-2012 at 05:39 PM FrancesGrimble: There's another thing publishers sometimes do that is even more similar to the pattern situation. Since periodicals are often hungry for free material, sometimes publishers (especially how-to and self-help publishers) send a short article or excerpt along with the press release. Something like "Ten Tips from This Book." This is usually accompanied by a statement that the periodical can have nonexclusive rights to print this material, free of charge, *as long as they include a byline mentioning the book and author*. (Nonexclusive meaning, every other publisher this article is can reprint it also, under the same conditions.* Now, the periodical does not sign anything but still, the legal understanding is, according to this license, they can use the article but they have to credit it in a way useful to the publisher's marketing. Fran Lavolta Press Books of historic clothing patterns http://www.lavoltapress.com

posted on 4-2-2012 at 09:41 PM ElizabethStewartClark: I made a list! Cool! And it's a Shame list! Wow! (Kinda doubly cool, actually, particularly because the site writers don't seem to actually click through to the site or read anything I posted about the difference between copyright and licensed use. Fun! Fran, if there were a "Like" button for your thoughtful and well-presented posts on this topic, I would get tendonitis clicking it over and over. I really can't add anything else to your and Carolann's statements, because you've said it all! Our patterns will continue to be sold with a stated license for personal use. We have a licensing provision, and a discounted price on multiple pattern copies, for seamstresses who wish to sell them to their client families. Between the fact that the patterns don't actually *work* without a unique child's measurements, and the big sizing ranges, most sewists prefer to have at least one copy of the pattern for each family, anyway. The instructions are copyrighted; the drawings, illustrations, and physical pattern drawings are copyrighted; and the licensed use is noted. If someone doesn't want to work within that licensing restriction (*not* the same as a copyright restriction), they are very welcome to return to original sources, and develop their own drafts, rather than buy my patterns or use my free project articles. On aprons: if you've not purchased someone else's pattern, you can draft and design your own, and make any number of them for sale, without violating a single speck of copyright *or* licensing rights, because you own *all* rights to your own from-scratch drafting and design, even if your version of an apron style comes out very similarly to my own independently-developed apron style. Regards, Elizabeth

posted on 4-2-2012 at 11:27 PM Sewing Kitty: Quote: Originally posted by ElizabethStewartClark On aprons: if you've not purchased someone else's pattern, you can draft and design your own, and make any number of them for sale, without violating a single speck of copyright *or* licensing rights, because you own *all* rights to your own from-scratch drafting and design, even if your version of an apron style comes out very similarly to my own independently-developed apron style. Thank you for clearing this up for me! I was under the impression that if an apron pattern that I had drafted myself looked just like someone else's, it would still be infringing on their copyright since they made it first. ~Natalie A Seamstress Cat - My Sewing Blog A Happy Hobbit Home - Family Blog

THREAD MOVED 4-3-2012 at 08:06 AM Thread CLOSED 4-3-2012 at 08:37 AM Thread closed pending moderator discussion. posted on 4-3-2012 at 09:16 AM

Actually, US Copyright Law is very similar to European copyright laws and Canadian copyright law because of international treaties and such things as the Berne Convention. The Western World countries have gotten together to standardize copyright laws. While there are differences they are probably 90% the same.

We do not know what Janel's problem is. "Offensive"? What we say is mild. Perhaps she is offended because she does not agree with us? That would our guess. What we find offensive is designers who attempt to impose improper restrictions upon items they sell.

We were sued in 2002 by M&M/Mars over the right to use their fabric to make and sell items. When we contersued, representing ourselves, M&M/Mars offered a settlement (which is confidential). In December 2002, we sued Disney Enterprises over the same issue, again representing ourselves. That settlement, not confidential, is on our web site. We also sued Major League Baseball Properties, Sanrio (Hello Kitty), Debbie Mumm and United Meadia (Peanuts), all over the use of their licensed fabrics, all while representing ourselves. They all settled in our favor. They, like Disney, agreed to leave us alone. Antagonistic? You bettcha!

Hogwash? Really? As a publisher of patterns, Frances Grimble is not inclined to agree with us, of course. Either she is very misinformed or she just does not want to believe. Yet, we cite statutes and court decisions to back what we say. Paragraph #1 - "However, the copyright does not have to be registered to exist, or for the owner to sue for infringement." WRONG! From 17 U.S.C. § 411, Registration and civil infringement actions (in part): no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title "Every time you register a copyright, you have to fill out a form and pay a fee. The time and money adds up." The fee is $35 and you can copyright a collection, or compilation, saving money. "I have seen no evidence for the claim that most pattern companies do not register their copyrights." On our web site we go into detail on this subject. Click here and read. "including sewing and needlework patterns. They would hardly do so if they did not accept patterns in the first place." Since Frances Grimble does not name the circular, we assume it is Circular 7b, on depositing the best copy of the copyrighted work. Circular 7b makes NO mention of sewing and needlework patterns.

Paragraph #2 - We say that as a general rule patterns are not copyrightable. Some patterns, a few, are copyrightable and we state this. The rest of her statement here is accurate.

Paragraph #3 - "The author of this website does not seem to understand that copyright covers *intellectual* property." Really? Of course copyright covers intellectual property. The claim by Frances Grimble that we do not understand this is just plain absurd. When one cannot reasonably debate the issues, Frances Grimble, the alternative is to turn to personal attacks. "the garment itself is not copyrightable (though it may be patentable), but the pattern for it is. Patterns consist of text and images and both are fully copyrightable" The "text" is nothing more than procedure, process, etc., and as such they are not copyrightable. Patterns are templates, useful articles, and do not qualify. FL103 from the Copyright Office states that a dress design may be protected but says nothing about the pattern.

Paragraph #4 - "A pattern is not a procedure. It is a set of instructions describing *how to perform* procedures.." What? "How to perform procedures"? Frances, you are inventing phrases that contradict themselves. If you do not believe 17 U.S.C. § 102 Subject matter — "Ideas", try reading Circular 31 published by the US Copyright Office: What Is Not Protected by Copyright Ideas, methods, or systems are not subject to copyright protection. Copyright protection, therefore, is not available for ideas or procedures for doing, making, or building things; scientific or technical methods or discoveries; business operations or procedures; mathematical principles; formulas, algorithms; or any other concept, process, or method of operation.. [emphasis added]

Paragraph #5 - Yes, the rights granted un US Copyright Law include sale, licensing, display, etc. But a sale precludes a license. And the reverse. And just printing a restriction on an article does not constitute a license. A license requires agreement by both parties. "The text on the back of the pattern saying things like, you can use it for personal sewing but not for commercial manufacture, is a license, whether signed by you or not" This is a typical lie told by pattern designers and manufacturers. In 1908, the US Supreme Court in Bobbs-Merrill v Straus specifically rejected the notion that a copyright owner could control the use of their article once it had been sold. Bobbs-Merrill had printed in books it was selling: The price of this book at retail is $1 net. No dealer is licensed to sell it at a less price, and a sale at a less price will be treated as an infringement of the copyright. The Bobbs-Merrill Company. The Supreme Court stated: In our view the copyright statutes, while protecting the owner of the copyright in his right to multiply and sell his production, do not create the right to impose, by notice, such as is disclosed in this case, a limitation at which the book shall be sold at retail by future purchasers, with whom there is no privity of contract. Frances, you are dead wrong, wrong, wrong. Your interpretation of contract law is very flawed.

Paragraph #6 - Other than your obviously absurd statement that we do not understand licensing, paragraph #6 is accurate.

Paragraph #7 - "The registration does not only cover the publisher’s work, it covers everyone’s." A publisher cannot copyright material that is not original to the publisher. A contract between an author and a publisher often grants certain publication rights to the work but usually does not transfer ownership to that work. A magazine will obtain a copyright on the magazine but that copyright only covers the material owned by the magazine. Publication rights are not the same as ownership. whoever owns the copyright(s), it is not the person who just bought a copy of the book or magazine." We have never said that the purchaser of a magazine or book owns the copyright. But they own that copy that they purchased. And if there is a pattern in the book or magazine, that copy now belongs to the purchaser and is beyond the control of the copyright owner if the purchaser wants to make and sell articles made from that pattern

Paragraph #8 - "there is a minimum copyright statement required by the US Copyright Office" WRONG. 17 U.S.C. § 401 Notice of copyright, states that a copyright statement "may be placed on publicly distributed copies", not "shall" The copyright notice requirement was dropped in 1978. It then goes on to say that if the copyright owner does place a notice of copyright on the article that it "shall consist" of the three elements specified in 17 U.S.C. § 401. A warning about copying falls within the exclusive rights of the copyright owner and is not part of a notification of registration.

Paragraph #9 - We have been unable to locate any federal lawsuits that have gone to trial over the use of patterns to make and sell articles. But, again Frances, you contradict yourself. If no one has ever been sued, how is there a danger that requires one to purchase another pattern? Right. You sell patterns, that is why.

Paragraph #10 - Frances, you seem to stuck on the notion that we do not understand copyright law. You persist in your unsupported claims. Nowhere do we say it is alright to copy a book and then sell the copy, nor is it alright to copy a book and keep the copy and sell the book. Did you actually read the web pages? Based upon your comments, you did not.

Paragraph #11 - "You do not have to actively consent, except by your purchase and use of the item". EVERY federal court, and the Uniform Commercial Code, flatly state otherwise. When you download software, almost every time there is a licensing agreement to which you must consent before downloading it. And if there is not, then there is a licensing agreement that appears when you go to install it. What you are claiming is that you can impose whatever restrictions you like, upon anyone you wish, at any time you desire. Really?

Paragraph #12 - Absolutely correct. We agree. We have never said otherwise. So, what is your point?

Paragraph #13 - Redundant. You made the same false statements in Paragraph #3

Paragraph #14 - Rant? We support our statements with statutes and federal court decisions. And we have NEVER supported copyright or trademark infingement. Your statements that we do are misleading and totally false.

We address this at the top of the thread. International treaties and the Berne Convention have made copyright laws in the Western World almost uniform. Again, Frances, you are misinformed.

Frances, What is your legal background? What you claim to be bogus is actually information with which you do not agree. We invite you, and anyone else, to find court cases that refute what we say or that support what you claim. We are not lifting quotes only from cases that support our positions. If the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow in a case that shows that we are wrong we will change the web pages to reflect that decision. And Frances, we have represented ourselves in state and federal courts over twenty times and won almost every time. Yes, a copyright does not have to be registered to exist. We never said otherwise. But, as we demonstrated, copyright law states registration is required before a civil action can take place. We have never denied that copyright owners have the right to license their work. What we insist, and what you do not comprehend, is that a license requires consent by both parties. A "How To" book certainly qualifies for copyright. We simply do not understand why you persist in distorting what we have said. A "How To" book is not a pattern. There is a difference.

CarolAnn, you are entitled to your opinion but you are wrong. See above what we said to Frances about selecting cases that only support what we say. "I do know first hand that several of the arguments on the web site are not correct". An interesting claim but then you support it by saying "I once worked in the product development office for a major manufacturer of collectible plush animals and sculptured figurines Except that "plush animals and sculptured figurines" qualify for copyright whereas patterns generally do not. A pattern for making the plush animal could be copyrighted but the plush does not fall into the "useful article" definition and clothing does. There is a difference. That is why we say patterns generally do not qualify. But a plush qualifies as "soft sculpture" and that is very different. So, it seems, you do NOT know first hand that we are not correct. "Toys, games, dolls, ...or similar articles are examples. The exclusive right to make and sell such articles should not be sought by copyright registration." This is a quote from a federal court case quoting copyright law. As such, see: KEMP & BEATLEY Inc. v HIRSCH et al 34 F.2d 291 (1929). What is your problem with this? "Unregistered copyrights lack legal enforceability". See above where we quote copyright law that flatly says otherwise. And, we have not found a single federal court case when the owner of an unregistered copyright won their case. And we have looked. Hot air? The hot air, punctuated with manure spreading, is coming from Frances and CarolAnn. We are trying to clear the air.

"a pattern company cannot sign one with every customer." Frances, therefore, what? Are you inferring that the pattern company can circumvent the need for a signed contract by simply stating on the pattern what their conditions of use are? The First Sale Doctrine negates the right of a copyright owner to control that copy after it has been sold or given away. The courts have held that a copyright owner cannot unilaterally impose rights that are specifically denied the copyright owner by statute. You claim a statemnt restricting use is all that is required. And we quote court cases and copyright law that states otherwise. YOU are guilty of spreading false information, not us.

"Our patterns will continue to be sold with a stated license for personal use." Liz, may we call you Liz? If this is the case, then why is it that YOUR web site, The Sewing Academy, http://www.thesewingacademy.com/, makes NO statement to this issue? We looked at all pages, including the purchasing pages, and NOWHERE do you say the above. WHY NOT? If you are so proud of it then why bushwhack purchasers with a hidden statement that they do not see until they get the pattern in hand? Could it be to try to deceive them? That is evil. And who is going to pay return shipping? Our guess is that it is not you. Eliizabeth, you state the instructions, etc., are copyrighted. Yet, a search of the on-line copyright records do not show you with a single registered copyright. So, are you really saying that your patterns have copyright but are not copyrighted?