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

Editor Sew News Magazine 741 Corporate Circle, Ste. A, Golden, CO 80401 sewnews@sewnews.com. To Whom It May Concern, The Q&A article by Marla Stefanelli in your January 2006 issue makes a number of misleading statements that do not correctly address the issue of using patterns and copyrighted fabrics. The article was very self-serving to the interests of the pattern and fabric manufacturers but is misleading as to law. We cite legal authority to back our arguments. "Patterns are published for personal use" may be accurate but it has no legal binding on the purchaser. The seller of a product, unless specifically stated in law such as software and motion pictures, cannot set conditions of use before or after the sale. The First Sale Doctrine, codified in Copyright Law, simply states that "once the copyright owner places a copyrighted item in the stream of commerce by selling it, he has exhausted his exclusive statutory right to control its distribution." Justice Stevens, delivering an opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court in the case QUALITY KING DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. L'ANZA RESEARCH INT'L, INC. (96-1470), 98 F.3d 1109, reversed. There is no law, state or federal that supports this statement made by Ms Stefanelli. "Technically, you need to purchase a pattern for each time you make an item" misrepresents the copyright issue. The pattern is copyrighted, not the end product. The purchaser may not reproduce and distribute the pattern. The pattern manufacturer has no legal basis for limiting the number of items made from that pattern by the legitimate purchaser of the pattern. There is no law, state or federal that supports this statement made by Ms Stefanelli. "You also can't use fabric with licensed images on it for commercial use." Again, wrong. When a fabric is sold to the public, the owner of the fabric, for a monetary consideration, has relinquished control over how that fabric is used. In 2002, Disney Enterprises was sued in Federal Court in Denver over the use of their fabric for commercial purposes. Disney settled rather that fight the issue, candidly admitting, "they did want to be the test case in this issue". Actually, they would not have been. In 1997, the First District Court stated, "The copyright owner's right to distribute the work is limited by the 'First Sale' doctrine, which permits the owner of a legally acquired lawfully made copy of a work to sell that particular copy without the consent of the copyright holder". Precious Moments vs La Infantil,1997, (D.P.R.) 971 F.Supp. 66. The court rejected the arguments by Precious Moments concerning the use of their fabric by La Infantil to make bedding. Additionally, Major League Baseball was sued in 2003, in Federal Court in Denver over the use of their fabric to make and sell items, as was United Media (Peanuts fabrics) and Sanrio (Hello Kitty Fabrics), all of which decided to settle rather that fight the issue in Federal Court. There is no law, state or federal that supports this statement made by Ms Stefanelli. Wording is more important when someone is selling an item made from licensed fabric. An item should not be advertised as "A Mickey Mouse Apron Home Made" but rather "An Apron Made From Mickey Mouse Fabric". Karen Dudnikov P.O. Box 87 Hartsel, CO 80449 Karen@Tabberone.com