copyright selling dear jane quilt top
Taria
auction but thought the notes at the bottom of the listing regarding the
copyright laws were kind of interesting. Perhaps we will see some
litigation regarding the sale.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=19162&item=8121416446&rd=1
NAYY, Taria
maryd
quilt made from the templates could not be sold. Maybe had the quilter
given it a different name there wouldn't have been a problem.
--
Mary
http://community.webshots.com/user/mardor1948
"Taria" <taria....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:2jcRc.4744$114....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
I.E.Z.
Look here:
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/trademarks.html
Iris (seems like the reason for a quilt pattern book is to make the quilt -
and once you make it, it's yours to do what you want with - she *wasn't*
selling the pattern on E-Bay)
Marcella Tracy Peek
using her registered name "Dear Jane".
Sheesh the quilt wasn't the authors original work, it was a COPY of a
quilt made by Jane Stickle. Does she give the estate of Jane Stickle
12% of all she's made off the books and lectures and computer programs?
Didn't think so.
marcella
thinks someone is getting a bit greedy and making other designers look
bad in the process.
In article <yScRc.12273$9Y6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Jan <maketim...@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
> Interesting... I'd be curious to know if that claim would stand up... after
> all... you purchase the pattern to make the quilt?? I'm not quite sure I
> understand why it became illegal??? Can someone enlighten me... I'm not
> usually this clueless.... must need more coffee...... and chocolate....
>
> Jan
>
> Taria <taria....@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:2jcRc.4744$114....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
Diana Curtis
auctioner had chosen to use other words to describe the quilt, never
alluding to the Dear Jane name the problem probably wouldnt exist. Im not an
expert and so could be completely wrong.
I do think its rather petty anyway. The author of the book certainly
doesnt loose anything from Sandra selling this quilt. I believe Sandra is
right that it generates more interest in the book and software.
Lets all try to look at this situation from both sides. How would we feel
had we written the book?
Does 12% seem high in any case, to anyone else?
Diana
"Marcella Tracy Peek" <marc...@peek.org> wrote in message
news:marcella-73E149...@netnews.comcast.net...
maryd
design.
--
Mary
http://community.webshots.com/user/mardor1948
"Marcella Tracy Peek" <marc...@peek.org> wrote in message
news:marcella-73E149...@netnews.comcast.net...
maryd
to make the quilt.
--
Mary
http://community.webshots.com/user/mardor1948
"Diana Curtis" <mdcu...@baldwin-sodatelecom.net> wrote in message
news:NZKdncaoSfB...@bright.net...
Mtsny0
If the seller had described it as "inspired by the Dear Jane quilt in the book
by BP" or, even better, "based on the quilt by Jane Stickle" would that have
made it kosher?
The second phrasing just leaves BP out of it completely. And the first is just
referring to it - it's not saying it is a DJ quilt but it was inspired by one.
Just curious.
-Michele
clancy
why in heaven's name do we buy books and patterns - we buy them to make
quilts and a lot of us sell them - it's a great hobby, but if any
egotistical designer (and hey, she didn't even design this one - just wrote
a book on it!!) thinks we keep all the quilts we make, they're crazy.
Sharon (N.B.)
............................................................................
.....
"Marcella Tracy Peek" <marc...@peek.org> wrote in message
news:marcella-73E149...@netnews.comcast.net...
Pat in Virginia
though I am Queen of Everything, I am NOT an expert on this
topic!! I could be wrong. So ........
Brenda Papadakis invested lots of time to work up the templates,
and to write up the instructions. Her published work (those
patterns) is protected under the copyright law. Most patterns
(for quilts, stained glass, clothing, woodcraft, etc.) are for
personal use, not for resale of items.
Miss Stickles' work itself is 'out of copyright', having been
finished so long ago, as was Jane herself. Someone wondered if
the Stickles family is receiving royalty from the book sales. I
do not know. They may not even have a claim to it. Perhaps the
quilt passed out of the family years ago! My own Grandmothers'
quilts are long gone ... but not forgotten!
In any case, if you decide to sell any work, look into these
issues ahead of time and save yourself some difficulty.
PAT in VA/USA
georg
There is discussion of this occuring on the Dear Jane list. Brenda is
not talking about it, but our Jennifer is. There's a lot of confusion
about what is legal and what isn't, and most people on the list are
expression confusion.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think if she had not called it a "Dear Jane"
because that *name* is copyrighted, it could have been a legal sale.
Certainly the person who put up the auction is not intending to make an
actual profit for her time and effort. Nor is she intending to mass
produce this item, and she did purchase the book with the intention of
making the pattern.
Frankly what bothers me is the posting of personal email without
Brenda's permission. Worse, I have no way to verify that it was or was
not Brenda. For all I know, it could be someone willing to cash in on
Brenda's name who asked. Always, posting what someone else sent you
without their permission is just tacky.
All in all, it's rather awkward. There's no malice in any of it, but it
still feels dirty. I know the lines should be drawn around here
somewhere, but I know not where, and to a certain extent, I don't want
to know. I do worry about the counted-cross stitch DJ pattern, and
anyone selling potholders based on a DJ block and how legal that is,
somewhere in the back of my mind. But I don't fret over it, because I
know I'm not doing anything like that.
I was watching the auction initially to see how much the general
populace would think a DJ to be worth. Now I'm just sorry about it.
I know I'll never sell my Dear Jane after the effort I have put/am going
to put into it, and I hope in future it will be valued because of my
effort, and not because of the pattern, just as I hope for all of my
artworks. It does make me happier about making up stuff and not using
other people's patterns though.
-georg
Pati Cook
the individual blocks and the photos of the blocks. As well as the title of the
book.
The auctioneer also says she used the software to produce the paper piecing
patterns, which are also under copyright. (I don't have the software so can't
give you the info on how the copyright info is worded there.)
Generally speaking, when you make anything from a published source you need to
make sure you have permission to sell the finished item. For example, on some
commercial pattern from "the big 4" companies, (Vogue, McCall's, Butterick and
Simplicity) there is a statement that you may not sell items made from the
pattern.
These patterns are sold for personal use.
In some ways this is a very tricky legal issue. The best way to deal with it is
to always ask permission first. In most cases permission will be given to sell
up to a certain number of products made from the pattern. Always, Always,
Always give credit for a pattern or inspiration on labels. that is common
curtesy as well as legally needed.
< Off the soap box............ grins>
Pati, in Phx.
Pati Cook
And you are right, the expenses in producing the book were very great. Brenda
lives in Indiana??? and the quilt is in Vermont. She made several trips up
there to see the quilt and get close enough to be able to draft the patterns.
I did redraft some of them on my own, wanted them closer to what *I*
interpreted the pattern to be, rather than as Brenda interpreted the same
block. It wasn't easy, or fast.
Any one who has had anything published understands more about it. My DH gets
about 15cents for each copy of one of his books that is sold. Cover price is
about 6 dollars. The rest of the price goes to: the bookstore, the
distributor, the printer, the publisher, the paper maker, the editors, and so
on.
It takes selling a whole lot of books (or patterns or whatever) to break even,
much less make money on any printed material.
Pati, in PHx.
maryd
--
Mary
http://community.webshots.com/user/mardor1948
"Pati Cook" <pl...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4115BBC7...@mindspring.com...
georg
explain herself well. Asking 12% is much less what the average agent
gets on comission was mentioned there.
Here are sites to help understand copywright law:
http://www.welshofer.com/WebThreads/excerpts/two_three/nancy2.htm
and http://www.sylvias-studio.com/copyright.htm
And there was a cheap book recommended as well: "The Nutshell on
copyright/trademark. It's a small, paperback book, you can probably get
it for about $1 on half.com and it's written for the 1st year law
student - so anyone can understand it." Recommended by an attorney on
the list.
One of the reasons why Brenda asked was to help avoid trademark
dilution. We already think of that pattern as a Dear Jane, just as we
tend to think of tissue to blow our noses as kleenex. Puffs would very
much like us to stop thinking of their tissues as kleenex, because the
brand Kleenex gets rather offended. Calling a toilet a crapper is the
same thing, only much older. There really was a Thomas Crapper who
manufactured and sold a LOT of toilets in England, and had his name
printed in them. American GIs started calling them crappers because of
his name, and now it's more of a dirty word, instead of a fine name for
a plumber with a rich tradition.
Brenda is well within her rights to defend her copywright, and is trying
to do it in a polite fashion without dragging in all the lawyers.
There is no money paid to the Stickle family. Copywright law for the
original Jane was 50 years after MRs. Stickle's death, and Brenda saw it
100 years after Mrs. Stickle's death. The Benington museum owns the
quilt. The photographer owns the copywright on the picture of the quilt
you see everywhere. Brenda owns her drafting of the patterns and the
name "Dear Jane". If you went to Vermont and looked at the quilt and
drafted your own, and did not call it a Dear Jane, you could do with it
as you wished, most likely.
-georg
C & S
book I always give credit to the author and creator however, very rarely do
I follow the pattern to the letter. Perhaps I should change my label to
"inspired by" (as Michelle suggested) or "adapted from". Also, I was always
under the impression (and wrong I was) that I could sell a quilt from a
pattern as long as I mentioned the credit (not that I sell my quilts).
Thanks everyone for your input.
Carole (Champlain, NY)
"Taria" <taria....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:2jcRc.4744$114....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
DrQuilter
thought and decided 12% royalties would be OK. Isn't this something to
be determined by lawyers?
Marcella Tracy Peek wrote:
--
Dr. Quilter
http://community.webshots.com/user/mvignali
(take the dog out before replying)
DrQuilter
but did she really use the books/patterns to make it? Couldn't she have
seen the original by some other way? (I have no clue about this, is this
quilt in a museum or does the author of the dear jane book own the quilt?)
Pat in Virginia wrote:
--
DrQuilter
course! :O) and then go home and reproduce it by your own means. who
came up with the name Dear Jane? Is it called like that in the museum???
Pati Cook wrote:
--
Taria
She will take the amount not to sue I guess. I understand
the need to protect your work but the whole thing makes the author
look pretty cheap to me. I would look at it different if she herself
had made the original quilt. Yeah she put a lot of time into the
research but I bet dollars to donuts she makes a bunch at shows and
lectures and classes.
Taria
georg
> so you could go to the museum, take a pic of the quilt (sans flash of
> course! :O) and then go home and reproduce it by your own means. who
> came up with the name Dear Jane? Is it called like that in the museum???
Brenda came up with the name Dear Jane and has it trademarked.
Yes, you could go to the Benington Museum and do the pattern drafting
yourself.
The ebay seller made it clear that she did use Brenda's patterns, and
software.
-georg
georg
> The way she represents it the 12% sort of seems like ransom.
> She will take the amount not to sue I guess. I understand
> the need to protect your work but the whole thing makes the author
> look pretty cheap to me. I would look at it different if she herself
> had made the original quilt. Yeah she put a lot of time into the
> research but I bet dollars to donuts she makes a bunch at shows and
> lectures and classes.
> Taria
No, she's not making a living alone on the Dear Jane book, templates,
and software sales, or the lectures. She still has the day job doing
other things or additional things.
-georg
Teresa in Colorado
homework and make sure it's legal to sell it. In this case, it's the name
"Dear Jane" that is being used improperly and the owner of that copyright is
not out of line for requesting some of the profit.
The name "Dear Jane" flagged this quilt as something exceptional. The words
"appliquéd quilt" just doesn't mean the same thing. The owner of the quilt
being auctioned would most likely have received a higher amount for a "Dear
Jane" quilt than she would have if she hadn't used those words. She,
intentionally or not, was capitalizing on the "Dear Jane" fame. Because
the "Dear Jane" name helped the seller, it's only right that the person who
made the name famous would benefit from the use of the name.
I produced and marketed exactly one pattern before I decided that it just
wasn't worth the effort! It's hard work and is not cheap. I could
wholesale the pattern for $4 (so it would sell at $8), but I certainly
wasn't making a $4 profit. The printing costs and cost of the materials
were high enough that I wouldn't have seen a profit until quiet a large
number of patterns had sold - and that wasn't even taking my time into
account! If I'd kept going, I would have had advertising and promotional
costs on top of this. Postage for mailing patterns out to customers and
shops. There are all sorts of expenses. It wasn't worth the effort -
aren't you glad that there are lots of designers out there who do think its
worth the effort? These ladies (and gentlemen) deserve the credit and
profit for their hard work.
I would be quite upset if someone copied my pattern and didn't give me
credit and didn't buy the pattern. If someone used my pattern as a starting
point, I'd want "inspired by" credit. If someone saw my pattern and it gave
them their own ideas, then they should go ahead with their plan and not
mention my pattern at all! If someone emailed and said "I can't find your
pattern anywhere and want to make this quilt, may I?" I would dig out the
box of unsold patterns and send it to them for free - and be pleased as
punch that someone liked it.
--
Teresa in Colorado
http://home.comcast.net/~treesaquilts/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
The Presser Foot
www.thepresserfoot.com
"Taria" <taria....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:P3tRc.6866$BO....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
NoMoreSpam
you make, and the pattern goes with it. This is what I have to do if I
am sewing dresses say for a wedding party, each person has to buy their
own pattern.
Christina
Taria
the book is probably the smallest portion of income generated
by the whole DJ thing. The whole following the DJ stuff has
is amazing to me. There are so many wonderful old quilts several
other than DJ have generated books. Taria
georg
> I doubt she is making a living but she the money she makes on
> the book is probably the smallest portion of income generated
> by the whole DJ thing. The whole following the DJ stuff has
> is amazing to me. There are so many wonderful old quilts several
> other than DJ have generated books. Taria
True, but Brenda doesnt get any kick backs for other old quilts that
have been picked up and copied, or inspired by her passion for Dear
Jane. For instance, "Nearly Insane", "Quilted Diamonds" (1 &2), or
"Dutch Treat" are all discussed on the Dear Jane mailing list- which
Brenda herself pays for. Qulited Diamonds admits to be inspired by and
started off by DJ- yet there is no money going back to Brenda for it.
Nor does Brenda make a dime on the Civil War repro fabric being snapped
up by quilt makers like me.
And gosh yes, I am more interested in reading and seeing older intricate
quilts as a result of learning about the original Jane quilt.
-georg
Taria
I had a shop years ago and folks would pull out a
notepad sometimes and actually copy the idea down. Frustrating.
I just have a bad feeling over the whole DJ thing. It seems
BP has made it 'her' quilt and not Jane's. That is a sad thing
to me.
TAria
Marcella Tracy Peek
"Diana Curtis" <mdcu...@baldwin-sodatelecom.net> wrote:
> The name "Dear Jane" is what is under dispute, not copying the quilt. If the
> auctioner had chosen to use other words to describe the quilt, never
> alluding to the Dear Jane name the problem probably wouldnt exist. Im not an
> expert and so could be completely wrong.
Sorry, you are. Actually the author has trademarked "Dear Jane" and
that is one issue. The other issue is that the seller used the
book/computer program and Brenda's copyright there also procludes
selling items for sale made from them. Several publishers feel this way
- C&T is one. Leisure Arts makes the exception for a small number of
items to be made a sold. I don't know about Martingale. Self published
patterns are all over the board depending upon the designer.
Essentially, if you use a book or pattern to make a quilt you need to
not only give credit where credit is due, but if you want to sell said
item (whether for your own profit or to benefit the poor children in
Botswana with a raffle quilt) you need to ask permission. Many
designers will give it. Sure saves a lot of grief to ask first as this
poor woman on e-bay has learned the hard way.
> I do think its rather petty anyway. The author of the book certainly
> doesnt loose anything from Sandra selling this quilt. I believe Sandra is
> right that it generates more interest in the book and software.
I agree that her handling of this issue is extrememly petty. Do a
search on e-bay and see how many things are selling with that name "Dear
Jane". Only one has the authors demand to a percentage because of
copyright. Now compare the price of the one she wants the percentage
from with the rest. Big difference.
And as for the person who suggested that it was improper for the seller
to post Brendas e-mail to the e-bay site. When you respond to a seller
on e-bay a flag comes up that warns you that your message may be used on
the site and become public. So, it wasn't done without permission. No
expectation of privacy there.
I think it's a shame and I think many designers will be painted with
this same ugly greedy brush if they attempt to protect their copyright
on their designs by wanting to grant permission for items being sold off
their patterns.
> Lets all try to look at this situation from both sides. How would we feel
> had we written the book?
> Does 12% seem high in any case, to anyone else?
I have sold a pattern. I think the 12% is cheesy and petty. My pattern
forbids anyone copying it themselves to hand out to friends. It doesn't
forbid anyone from making a quilt from it and then selling it or
raffling it off. My choice. I think that the quilt is the property of
the person who worked hard to make it. I don't believe I own a piece of
it; 12% worth or otherwise.
If anything, I hope quilters who desire to sell their items for whatever
reason learn to ask when they need to and to seek out patterns that give
permission to sell a given number of items made from the pattern.
Nothing wrong with protecting your copyright, but it's all in how you do
it and how consistently you do it.
marcella
Marcella Tracy Peek
Jan <maketim...@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
> That's what it says on the ebay page at the bottom under
> correspondence... but it leaves me wondering... surely someone checked
> to see if the emailer claiming to be the author really was the author...
> and not someone posing......
It was the author. She did respond to all this hoopla on the Dear Jane
list.
marcella
Diana Curtis
lot of things a long time ago and have no problem saying so. I appreciate
all the good information you provided and all the thought provoking
discussions this has led to in our house. When a person comes up with a
unique design how much does that entitle them to? Hmmm.. Food for thought.
Mike informed me that if someone wanted to they could take my moon
design, copywrite it and then sue me for giving it away. I cant picture that
happening, because no one on this group is that unscrupulous, but boy.. that
would sting. It wouldnt bother me that someone else is using my design,
after all, thats why I give it out freely, but I gave birth to that
particular design and wouldnt like my contribution to it ignored.
Diana
"Marcella Tracy Peek" <marc...@peek.org> wrote in message
news:marcella-C94F32...@netnews.comcast.net...
> >In article <NZKdncaoSfB...@bright.net>,
Mardi
any quilt that was made from her patterns. I do believe the copyright
stands at the level of the book, not at the level of the goods that
are made using the book. If any author of a book could hold someone
liable for royalties if they made something from their book, then
Real e-mail address spelled out to prevent spam. mardi at mardiweb dot com.
____________________
My Quilting page: http://www.mardiweb.com/quilts/MardiQuilts.html
Paint Shop Pro tutorials: http://www.mardiweb.com/web
Low-Fat Lifestyle Forum: http://www.mardiweb.com/lowfat
Mardi
>Brenda is well within her rights to defend her copywright, and is trying
>to do it in a polite fashion without dragging in all the lawyers.
But, I think that Brenda copyrighting the "Dear Jane" name was a bit
beyond the pale. What gives her the right to "own" this name just
because she wrote a book and a piece of software which only duplicates
the patterns that were originally produced by someone a hundred years
ago.
For her to now say she owns the rights to something that she did not
originally produce is more than a bit egotistical to me.
Mardi
Marcella Tracy Peek
"Diana Curtis" <mdcu...@baldwin-sodatelecom.net> wrote:
> No need to be sorry. I came to the realization that I could be wrong about a
> lot of things a long time ago and have no problem saying so. I appreciate
> all the good information you provided and all the thought provoking
> discussions this has led to in our house. When a person comes up with a
> unique design how much does that entitle them to? Hmmm.. Food for thought.
> Mike informed me that if someone wanted to they could take my moon
> design, copywrite it and then sue me for giving it away. I cant picture that
> happening, because no one on this group is that unscrupulous, but boy.. that
> would sting. It wouldnt bother me that someone else is using my design,
> after all, thats why I give it out freely, but I gave birth to that
> particular design and wouldnt like my contribution to it ignored.
> Diana
You can copyright something as your design and still give it away
freely. A good example of this is the patchpieces site. She has a
copyright disclaimer on her flying geese directions. You can use them
for free. You can even copy them for a class. However, you cannot
print out her directions and sell them. You can see it at the bottom of
the page here:
http://patchpieces.com/Flyinggeese.html
I suspect if someone took your moon design, got a copyright for it and
then bothered to sue you, it would be easy enough to prove that you had
your design out there before their copyright date. But then again,
weirder things have happened in court!
marcella
Teresa in Colorado
is true whether or not we agree with them. I personally tend to be in the
middle on this issue. I think that people who produce a work (whether it is
a book or a cartoon character or whatever) need some protection, however,
this has been taken to the extreme in recent years - partly because it is so
very easy these days to copy things. Disney is a prime example of absolute
greed. They are greedy to the extent that I no longer buy Disney products,
and I don't normally boycott things I like (I sure do miss my Tigger
shirt...)
I do have a question. Did she invent this name when she was writing the
book or was the name already in existance? If the original quilt (or quilts
inspired by the original) were called "Dear Jane" quilts, then I don't think
that Brenda should have copyrighted it. If she coined the term, then it is
hers, IMHO.
--
Teresa in Colorado
http://home.comcast.net/~treesaquilts/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
The Presser Foot
www.thepresserfoot.com
"Mardi" <ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:k3cdh0dmgorkib50k...@4ax.com...
Julia Altshuler
> Mike informed me that if someone wanted to they could take my moon
> design, copywrite it and then sue me for giving it away.
Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Whether they win in court is
another matter altogether. The copyright on your own design is yours.
--Lia
georg
> I do have a question. Did she invent this name when she was writing the
> book or was the name already in existance? If the original quilt (or quilts
> inspired by the original) were called "Dear Jane" quilts, then I don't think
> that Brenda should have copyrighted it. If she coined the term, then it is
> hers, IMHO.
>
She coined the term in that context. Dear Jane letters have been around
for a while - like a Dear John.
Before her book, there were no copies of that quilt, to the best of my
knowledge.
The quilt only says, "In War Time 1863, Jane Stickle" and then the
number of pieces. So you could say that quilt's name is "In War Time".
-georg
Pati Cook
Brenda was researching and starting to teach some of the patterns, she started
writing notes to Jane. Thus "Dear Jane".
Pati,in Phx
Pati Cook
Simple" or something like that. Can't get to my copy at the moment.
Pati, in Phx.
anneNOSP...@covad.net
The way the new copyright law was written, you have intellectual copyright from
the moment your work is "published". I'm not familiar with recent case law, but
I would imagine that someone has already tested the fact that a web site is a
publication. So, your Moon is safe. You have published it on your web site so it
is copyrighted. Now, if they try to sue you and you have to go to court and all
that hassle, there is no protection from that sort of thing -- except that
usually judges make the loser pay the winners fees and costs ... Maybe we
needn't go so far as killing all the lawyers, but if we could only get rid of
frivolous lawsuits wouldn't it be loverly?
--
Anne in CA
"It's not having what you want; it's wanting what you've got." -- Sheryl Crow
http://home.covad.net/~arudolph/annes.htm
Diana Curtis wrote:
> <snipped>
> Mike informed me that if someone wanted to they could take my moon
> design, copywrite it and then sue me for giving it away. I cant picture that
> happening, because no one on this group is that unscrupulous, but boy.. that
> would sting. It wouldnt bother me that someone else is using my design,
> after all, thats why I give it out freely, but I gave birth to that
> particular design and wouldnt like my contribution to it ignored.
> Diana
remove NOSPAM to reply
Diana Curtis
Thank you for the reassurance. I wish we lived in a time when No one had to
worry over something like this.
Im not going to change. I still want to share my work with others. It was a
gift that I developed and it gives me so much pleasure to know others find
some measure of joy from it as well. So, the offer still stands. As far as I
know everyone who has liked it well enough to want to copy has asked for the
pattern, and that is a great form of payment, flattery.
Thanks Anne!
Diana
<anneNOSP...@covad.net> wrote in message
news:4116BE21...@covad.net...
> Diana,
> The way the new copyright law was written, you have intellectual copyright
from
georg
> Actually she first saw a picture of the quilt in a book about Vermont, "Plain and
> Simple" or something like that. Can't get to my copy at the moment.
Yes, and I have seen that book. Mea culpa. I meant physical copies w
cloth- not photographs.
-georg
Ellison
I'm on the side of the creator, the quilter who had the sense and
creativity to "re-design" a beautiful, unusual quilt.
http://www.dearjane.com/
Brenda Papadakis didn't "just copy" someone's quilt, she invested time and
energy and research in the project. She MADE this quilt and the pattern,
legally,
she put *her* time and talent into it; why shouldn't she get the credit for
it?
She should. And everyone who makes a copy of her work should be more than
happy to credit her in some way, by paying for the book, paying for the
class and instructions, or by paying a percentage of the profit made by
selling a copy
or close-copy of it. Fair's fair.
When the perspective changes: who wouldn't want credit for her/his own
work? And compensation when someone is making a profit by copying?
Btw, the seller must have known she was on questionable territory when she
offered the quilt for sale because she did have the sense to right to Brenda
P and ask permission. Brenda's response is fair; why would it be "petty" to
offer a reduced percentage of her usual compensation as a good faith gesture
to the seller who did have the decency to ask permission? In this case,
"petty" is the seller who removed the item from her sale while publishing
Brenda's response
in a way that makes it look like the seller thinks Brenda's wrong. If the
seller doesn't want to play fair, that's her problem. If she wants to sell
the quilt legally, let her raise the price 12% to cover the cost of
compensation. That she had to take this case to her public site makes
her look small, IMO.
Anyway, I have the "Dear Jane" book; I paid for it. I don't have any
interest in making the quilt (passed on that idea in a group a few years
ago; they wanted to trade fabric and blocks, I didn't; a couple of those
quilters made their own version of the DJ quilt, named it so, and gave
credit where due). I like the book, the history, and some of the details
included in the patterns. Good for Brenda P !!
Ragmop/Sandy--wondering what pattern Teresa designed and sold...?
"Teresa in Colorado" <teresa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UL2dnXerk7S...@comcast.com...
Becky
Becky
" Ellison" <el...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8lCRc.1113$vz2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
Taria
that I enjoy. The DJ one will probably go to the guild raffle table
next month. I just have a bad taste for the whole thing now.
I have recreated old quilts but I would never take on the ownership she
has. Just a different opinion than yours Sandy. Legally she is in the
right but I still think the whole thing is tacky.
Taria
ginmaru
times fast) and we often have discussions about the property of the
photographs. Many artists have a hard time understanding why pictures
of their art are Glenn's property. The short and fast answer is
because the photograph is his work. The long answer takes longer.
My question is: why is she selling the quilt after 2 years of work?
I think the author chose 12% because it would sting a bit. After all
she put a lot of time and effort into her book and did trademark the
name. A lesser amount might have given the impression she wasn't that
interested.
When I made jewellery to sell, a lower price made people question my
workmanship. But when I got annoyed and doubled the prices, I sold
everything I would bring. Funny. Someone said the same thing happened
when they invented the Toni home perm. They sold it for .05 and no one
bought it, they marked it up to .35 and it took off.
Ginny
why, oh why did I decide to color my hair garnet?
Diana Curtis
how to copy that... wouldnt the person who copied be morally obligated to
share the wealth with the original creator? Im not talking about Jane
Stickle.. Im talking about god (or God). Tho, it wouldnt bother me to know
that Jane's relatives were getting a nice cut of whatever profit there is.
Diana, not totally tongue in cheek
"ginmaru" <gin...@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:c723d7f.04080...@posting.google.com...
MB
one...stopping anyone
from going to the Bennington Museum and drawing up their own block patterns.
I've been to the museum...seen the quilt....quite lovely and glad Brenda P.
drew up the
patterns. She does't own the rights to the quilt but the patterns she
drew up and the
name Dear Jane. Mary in VT
MB
Mary...
Betty in Wi
Betty in WI
"MB" <redsa...@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:10hfmig...@corp.supernews.com...
georg
> If someone copied your work and then copywrited it and sold instructions on
> how to copy that... wouldnt the person who copied be morally obligated to
> share the wealth with the original creator? Im not talking about Jane
> Stickle.. Im talking about god (or God). Tho, it wouldnt bother me to know
> that Jane's relatives were getting a nice cut of whatever profit there is.
> Diana, not totally tongue in cheek
That's called tithing, and some religions still do this. Tithing is
between you and your god, because not everyone has the same belief.
The government, of course, insists that everyone believe in it and its
laws no matter how asinine we find them.
-georg
Mardi
quilt as a "Jane Stickle reproduction quilt" and there would have been
absolutely nothing the author of the "Dear Jane" book/software could
have done about it. The seller did give the author credit.
So, here's a scenario. I have a very large Paint Shop Pro tutorial
website. I was once writing a book on Paint Shop Pro (that was never
published). The main part of the book was tutorials on how to create
certain graphics with Paint Shop Pro. So, following the logic of the
people who are defending the author of the book and software, if
anyone had used my tutorials (basically formulas I created) to create
graphic images, then I could demand that they pay me a percentage of
anything they would make off the sale of the images. I don't think
so! And this is a much more solid argument because I did create the
formulas for creating the images, I didn't copy someone else's
formulas!
I could buy this argument in favor of the author of the book and CD if
the author had actually created these patterns herself. But, she
didn't. All she did was write a formula to replicate the patterns
that were created by Jane Stickle. She was not the original author of
the patterns. So, in my opinion, her rights ended at the sale of the
CD and the book.
And that's my opinion and I'm stickin to it!
nana2b
embroidery machines with the designs in them, but you can't really do
anything with them. How many gifts can one make already!!!!! Many years
ago I painted the ghostbusters logo on a sweatshirt for my nephew. Someone
gave my sister a hard time about it's copyright. Can you believe that?
--
Sugar & Spice Quilts by Linda E
http://community.webshots.com/user/frame242
Carol Doak
Since you asked the question....It states in my books that the purchaser may
reproduce the designs for personal use and not for commerical purposes.
However, over the past dozen years I have been contacted many times requesting
permission to use my designs for raffle quilts and limited sales such as craft
fairs etc. and I have always given permission for these types of commerical
uses. I only ask that the source of the design used is stated and that it is
being used with permission. Many times I have seen quild raffle quilts using my
designs where permission was not requested and I do nothing because I would
have given them permission if they had asked anyway.
The "personal use" statement protects my publisher and myself from a large
business using the designs that I created to make products that I would not
approve of or flooding the market of discount houses with large numbers of
quilts made in China using my designs.
I am sure that quilters understand that the effort and funds that a designer
and a publisher put into producing a book has to be protected by copyright laws
otherwise there would be no books produced.
However, the current discussion about the Dear Jane quilt top is not about
copyright, it is about a trademark issue. The ebay seller of the quilt used the
registered trademark "Dear Jane" and the owner of the trademark is the only one
who can use it unless she gives that right to another.
Although this issue has created quite a bit of discussion, it is important to
keep things in perspective and if in doubt, just ask.
All the best,
Carol Doak
http://quilt.com/CDoak
Taria
Thanks, Taria
maryd
for doing nothing.
Mary
http://community.webshots.com/user/mardor1948
"nana2b" <hap...@retired.com> wrote in message
news:i4TRc.9600$BO....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
nana2b
situation.
maryd
--
Mary
http://community.webshots.com/user/mardor1948
"Carol Doak" <qca...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040809184519...@mb-m25.aol.com...
Carol Doak
Well Taria, I think you must be pretty cool as well to respond so quickly with
such concise positive feedback.
Carol Doak
Hi Linda:
You are most welcome. I was away teaching in California last week and came home
to catch up on my computer and starting reading lots of incorrect information
and a bit of hysteria. When I saw my name being used in this matter, I felt it
was important to clarify what is stated in my books and what my position is
regarding this matter.
Carol Doak
You are most welcome.
MB
restrictions concerning your patterns, as I know you have a lot of hard
work
in producing them and , after all, you are in business and it isn't just
a 'little hobby' for you. Mary in VT
Carol Doak
restrictions concerning your patterns, as I know you have a lot of hard
work
in producing them and , after all, you are in business and it isn't just
Hi Mary:
You are most welcome. I just wanted to make sure that the correct information
was stated. Yes, this is my carreer for 24 years now and I consider myself so
fortunate to work in an industry with quilters who in my opinion are the nicest
people!
Pat in Virginia
and expense of writing a book or publishing patterns would also
consider it a business, not 'a little hobby.' Do you know people
who do this for a little hobby?
PAT, who also appreciates Carol's input on the topic
Julia Altshuler
I think I understand what's meant by personal use and not wanting a
major manufacturer to produce thousands of your designs, but while we've
got you here, let me ask more specific questions.
Hypothetically: I buy your book. I painstakingly make a quilt using
the patterns in your book. I do a really good job. I put the quilt on
ebay calling it the "Carol Doak Paper Pieced Quilt." I've only made
one. I get a bid of $1000. Do you object? Would you ask for a
percentage? The quilt was made entirely for profit. This was not a
guild project or something to be raffled for charity.
2nd hypothetical: Using your paper piecing books as a basis, I change
the patterns around a little. I make them a bit bigger, and I erase
some lines while adding others the way you suggest. Then I set them a
little differently and put a border from one of your quilts on to a
block design from another. My color schemes are close to yours, but the
fabrics are different. Anyone who was familiar with your work would
recognize the quilt as having been inspired by your books but could see
that they're not exactly the same. Could I produce those quilts
commercially? For this hypothetical, let's say I intend to make a bunch
and sell them in as many gift shops as I can. Do you have an objection
in this case? Those who know me on this group will have no trouble
recognizing this as an absurd hypothetical. I'm not mass producing
anything, and I should be so lucky as to sell a bunch of quilts in
stores. Still, I think this is a question we're all interested in.
(Oh, and the part about buying your books is NOT hypothetical. They're
there on my shelf.)
--Lia
DrQuilter
20 in italian for its 20oz drink (or some other coffe company and some
other variation of the name...) I thought it was ridiculous, to
copyright a word in another language!!!
Teresa in Colorado wrote:
> The current copyright laws give her the right to own this name. :-) This
> is true whether or not we agree with them. I personally tend to be in the
> middle on this issue. I think that people who produce a work (whether it is
> a book or a cartoon character or whatever) need some protection, however,
> this has been taken to the extreme in recent years - partly because it is so
> very easy these days to copy things. Disney is a prime example of absolute
> greed. They are greedy to the extent that I no longer buy Disney products,
> and I don't normally boycott things I like (I sure do miss my Tigger
> shirt...)
>
> I do have a question. Did she invent this name when she was writing the
> book or was the name already in existance? If the original quilt (or quilts
> inspired by the original) were called "Dear Jane" quilts, then I don't think
> that Brenda should have copyrighted it. If she coined the term, then it is
> hers, IMHO.
>
--
Dr. Quilter
http://community.webshots.com/user/mvignali
(take the dog out before replying)
Patti
and 'trademark'. I would never have thought of that, and it sums the
controversy up quite neatly. Great.
.
In article <20040809184519...@mb-m25.aol.com>, Carol Doak
<qca...@aol.com> writes
--
Best Regards
pat on the hill
Carol Doak
--Lia
Hi Lia:
I would be happy to answer your questions. In the first instance, the fact the
you described the quilt as a "Carol Doak Paper Pieced Quilt." is not an issue
because I do not have any part of that description trademarked. The fact that
you are using the quilt in a commercial fashion would require that you request
permission from me and I would give you permission to do this only asking that
you identify the source of the pattern and that it is being used with
permission. However, if you did not ask for permission, and I learned of this
sale, I would either do nothing or contact you and give you permission to do
this. Btw, if you got a bit for a $1,000. for your quilt, and I learned of it,
I might send you an email and say "You go girl!".
In the second instance, copyright covers the original and any derivative. If
your quilt looks like a quilt made from my published designs then it is a
derivative. Also, in this instance, I consider the commercial use you describe
as a limited use (you aren't using a labor force and selling to hundreds of
outlets). Again, I would give you permission to do this if you asked and if you
didn't ask, I would give you permission to do this after the fact if I learned
of it requesting again that you identify the source and that the quilt is being
sold with permission.
The "used with permission" phrase protects you and makes your use legit and it
alerts others to the notion that they should ask for permission in such an
instance.
The answers that I gave you are how I would handle both situations.
Glad to hear that my books sitting on your shelf are not hypothetical....
Carol Doak
Julia Altshuler
that are still realistic for this group. After all, none of us is going
to start manufacturing in the Third World, I don't think, but many of us
dream of selling and want to stay within fairness and the law.
Here's one more hypothetical: I sign up to take a paper piecing class
at my local quilt store. The supply list includes fabric and sewing
machine but no book. Great! I'm always short of cash and am glad that
I don't have to spend for a book. Your books aren't even for sale at
the store. When I get there, the teacher passes out handouts that are
photocopied pages from your book, and we use them for text and patterns.
Now what?
--Lia
Carol Doak
<< Thanks for your answers. I tried to think of the most extreme cases
that are still realistic for this group. After all, none of us is going
to start manufacturing in the Third World, I don't think, but many of us
dream of selling and want to stay within fairness and the law.
Here's one more hypothetical: I sign up to take a paper piecing class
at my local quilt store. The supply list includes fabric and sewing
machine but no book. Great! I'm always short of cash and am glad that
I don't have to spend for a book. Your books aren't even for sale at
the store. When I get there, the teacher passes out handouts that are
photocopied pages from your book, and we use them for text and patterns.
Now what?
--Lia >><BR><BR>
Hi Julia:
Houston, we have a problem. Julia, when the teacher copies and distributes
these copies, she has violated the copyright of the book and has infringed on
the exclusive rights of the publisher. When I sign a publishing agreement, I
give the publisher exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the work. When
the teacher copies the pages of the book, she is infringing on their exclusive
rights and they have a right to address that issue with the teacher. If the
shop owner is aware of this situation and permits it, they are not only being
poor business people because they are in the busines of selling books, but they
are knowingly permitting an illegal activity in their shop.
Many years ago when I taught frequent classes a local quilt shop, there was a
large sign on the top of their copy machine that stated, "If you copy any
published material on this machine, you are fired!"
I think the shop owner took a definite stand on this issue and there was no
doubt about the fact that they would not tolerate such activity.
If I were a student in that class, morally I would feel compelled to publicly
announce that distribution of copyrighted material without permission is
illegal.
The reason publishers need this type of protection is logical because if their
product can be reproduced and distributed by others, they would not be able to
stay in the business of publishing and if they can't afford to publish then I
can't afford to create and design.
nana2b
could sell shirts and things. How much is too much?
Marcella Tracy Peek
Pat in Virginia <pat.q...@cox.net> wrote:
> Mary: I would think that *anyone* who goes to the trouble, time,
> and expense of writing a book or publishing patterns would also
> consider it a business, not 'a little hobby.' Do you know people
> who do this for a little hobby?
> PAT, who also appreciates Carol's input on the topic
I do and it astounds me! I've met several authors who didn't read their
contracts with their publishers, I've met a designer who sold templates
for years at a loss because she never bothered to figure out the cost to
produce them...the list goes on and yes these are names you have heard
of. There is a group of people who do this for the love of it and
really don't think much about the business aspect of it. They clearly
aren't trying to pay the mortgage with their quilting work :-)
I really enjoy reading all the posts on this topic. I find the subject
very interesting and important. However, and I know I will get
harrassed for this.....Most everything that has been said is personal
opinion. A big discussion on this topic has been going on over on the
quilt designers list. Some agree with the C. Peters web site that says
making and selling a quilt from a published source is ok. Others have
posted other websites (some US government, others from other IP
attorneys) who disagree.
Someone posted an e-mail from Brenda herself from the Dear Jane list in
which Brenda stated that her decision was two fold. One to defend her
trademark in using the Dear Jane name and two that making a quilt from
her pattern and selling it violates Brendas copyright. So, part of what
Carol said agrees with Brenda and part does not.
It's a hairy issue for all of us and frankly we won't get a definitive
answer until it's tried in court, and likely several times :-) I think
the best we can do for now is give credit where credit is due, ask
permission if we desire to sell an item and there is no permission
already given on the pattern (and some patternmakers do give outright
permission) and hope that this amount of due dilligence will protect us,
in the end.
marcella
Betty in Wi
make her quilts. Brenda's makes me want to boycott anything she does.
Betty in WI
"Marcella Tracy Peek" <marc...@peek.org> wrote in message
news:marcella-6F7C73...@netnews.comcast.net...
Diana Curtis
Since it takes a lawyer to sift thru the tangles of legalese I think Ill
just give blanket permission to make, or copy and distribute my patterns
willy nilly as long as youre not making a bazillion dollars off it or
claiming it is your own design. If you get rich, please remember me. :-)
I think this discussion can fall under the umbrella of *do unto others as
you would have them do unto you*. Morally, not legally.
Diana
"Betty in Wi" <bev...@NOSPAMfrontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:3G5Sc.2498$dg2....@news02.roc.ny...
Mardi
<marc...@peek.org> wrote:
> One to defend her
>trademark in using the Dear Jane name and two that making a quilt from
>her pattern and selling it violates Brendas copyright. So, part of what
>Carol said agrees with Brenda and part does not.
I actually think that Carol has a much better claim on her patterns
because she actually designs them herself. Brenda did not design the
patterns, she simply replicated them and put them into a book. She
does not "own" the patterns since she did not create them. The fact
that she trademarked the words "Dear Jane" and now claims them as her
own, is an issue, even though I find it rather tacky.
I assume if the person selling the quilt on E-bay had simply called it
a "Jane Stickle replica quilt" then Brenda would not have objected.
But, on the other hand, I think she still would have objected because
she seems to think that she owns the patterns that she replicated.
Carol...I think your approach is very professional and I admire you
greatly for it. YOu are a shining example of what a quilt artist
should be.
Julia Altshuler
wonder about the right thing to do. This has never happened to me, but
I've known others who have been put in the awkward spot.
For example (not hypothetical), I used to belong to a guild. One guild
member was telling us all about her wonderful trip to a remote corner of
Nova Scotia where she met quiltmakers who didn't have access to a lot of
books or patterns. She cheerfully asked us all to photocopy our
favorite books to send to these quilters. Note that the request didn't
come from the quilters themselves, just from this one guild member.
Another member said "careful about the copyrights!" to which the first
one replied in the most offhand manner "oh, I don't care about that."
Most of us were appalled but didn't know what to do. An argument
ensued, and everyone seemed to agree that the important thing was to
quash the argument. I'm unusual in that I would have prefered to take
the errant photocopier aside and say "look, you don't have to like the
law. I don't like half the laws on the books either. But you do have
to follow them, and what you said earlier was way out of line." I've
always been more plainspoken than your typical quilter.
Thus with the situation with the class. If it should happen, I'm sure I
would point out that the distribution of the copies is illegal, but I'm
not sure what I would do if the store owner brushed it aside with a
breezy "oh, I don't care about that."
--Lia
Kathy Applebaum
Julia Altshuler wrote:
> Thus with the situation with the class. If it should happen, I'm sure I
> would point out that the distribution of the copies is illegal, but I'm
> not sure what I would do if the store owner brushed it aside with a
> breezy "oh, I don't care about that."
It seems the *right* thing to do would be to tell the store owner that
*you* are uncomfortable with the illegal situation and would like your
money back for the class. :)
Kathy A. (Woodland, CA)
Longarm Machine Quilting, Queen of Fabric Tramps
mailto:Kat...@KayneyNOSPAMQuilting.com
(remove the obvious to reply)
Carol Doak
<<I knew when I asked that the hypothetical quilt shop was wrong, but I
wonder about the right thing to do. This has never happened to me, but
I've known others who have been put in the awkward spot.
For example (not hypothetical), I used to belong to a guild. One guild
member was telling us all about her wonderful trip to a remote corner of
Nova Scotia where she met quiltmakers who didn't have access to a lot of
books or patterns. She cheerfully asked us all to photocopy our
favorite books to send to these quilters. Note that the request didn't
come from the quilters themselves, just from this one guild member.
Another member said "careful about the copyrights!" to which the first
one replied in the most offhand manner "oh, I don't care about that."
Most of us were appalled but didn't know what to do. An argument
ensued, and everyone seemed to agree that the important thing was to
quash the argument. I'm unusual in that I would have prefered to take
the errant photocopier aside and say "look, you don't have to like the
law. I don't like half the laws on the books either. But you do have
to follow them, and what you said earlier was way out of line." I've
always been more plainspoken than your typical quilter.
Thus with the situation with the class. If it should happen, I'm sure I
would point out that the distribution of the copies is illegal, but I'm
not sure what I would do if the store owner brushed it aside with a
breezy "oh, I don't care about that."
--Lia >><BR><BR>
HI Lia:
As with most things in life, doing the right thing isn't always the easiest
thing, but it is worth the effort when you consider that it is your face that
you wake up to every morning and you want to feel good about yourself.
Sometimes being creative can solve the situation...
As to the guild member who suggested that everyone photocopy their books. In
the first place, if she was any kind of a friend, she would not have put her
guild members in that situation to begin with.
Some alternatives to her suggestion could have been.
1. Ask members to donate books they no longer wanted.
2. Ask members to do a fund raiser to raise money to purchase books...miniature
quilt auction, ufo auction etc.
3. I'm sure members could have come up with any number of ideas if given the
chance.
I remember several years ago receiving correspondence from someone running a
woman's shelter who wanted to copy designs from one of her books to teach the
woman how sew. It built their esteem and was a very worthwhile project. I
wanted to help her but could not give her permission to do that. So, my
wonderful editor and I each donated a small amount of money to purchase "hurt
books" from the publisher and sent them to the instructor to create a library
at the house for the residents to use. We solved the problem and also felt good
about the solution.
As to the store owner who would look the other way or tell you she did not care
about illegal activity of copying books and distributing them in a class, I
would just inform her if that ever happens again, you will take it upon
yourself to personally write the publisher and the author of her practices.
That might make her realize that she does need to address the situation.
Gosh, I feel like this subject has gotten quite heavy. I know that it is
important to be educated about proper use however, the bottom line is simple
courtesy. If in doubt simply ask. If you feel something is not as it should be,
act in the manner that would make your Mom and Dad proud of you.
Carol Doak
*you* are uncomfortable with the illegal situation and would like your
money back for the class. :)
Kathy A. (Woodland, CA) >><BR><BR>
Hi Kathy:
Now that is another good answer!
Natalie
> your quilt looks like a quilt made from my published designs then it is a
> derivative.
I have thought about this a bunch, and in general, I'm confused.
For example:
I am about to finish a baby quilt. The pattern was a double pinwheel.
How do I know if this is copywrited? By who? At what point does a
pattern become general use? There are lots of pinwheel patterns in
books.. If I lay it out the same way as any of them, did I violate a
copywrite? How do I learn which patterns are copywriter? Log cabin?
What if I see a boarder or a quilt, and take the concept - triangles and
squares, and re-design it with changes?
I have more questions, but the above I think covers my confusion on the
topic.
This is related to, am I never allowed to sell a quilt b/c I have no
idea if I saw it once somewhere and am now using ideas from it...
Thanks,
NS
Natalie
schools...
I've had professors copy material for us to read, and then return it b/c
it was copywrited.
I've had professors read 5 page articles out loud in class...
On professors compliant was that it is very hard to keep up with recent
events and obey copy write stuff b/c it can take a very long time for
academic publishers to reply on the subject...
All kinds of stuff.
Thanks for all your informed comments.
Best,
NS
Julia Altshuler
I was imagining asking to use the phone and calling the publisher right
then and there. Hmmm, most classes are on a weekend. Would anyone
answer the phone? How about a copyright violation hotline? I am so
glad this is all hypothetical.
--Lia
Carol Doak
For example:
I am about to finish a baby quilt. The pattern was a double pinwheel.
How do I know if this is copywrited? By who? At what point does a
pattern become general use? There are lots of pinwheel patterns in
books.. If I lay it out the same way as any of them, did I violate a
copywrite? How do I learn which patterns are copywriter? Log cabin?
What if I see a boarder or a quilt, and take the concept - triangles and
squares, and re-design it with changes?
I have more questions, but the above I think covers my confusion on the
topic.
This is related to, am I never allowed to sell a quilt b/c I have no
idea if I saw it once somewhere and am now using ideas from it...
Thanks,
NS
>><BR><BR>
Ok, let me see if I can ease your pain and confusion with a bit of plain talk.
There are many patterns that have come down through the ages that are in
general use. Barbara Brackman's book of blocks is a wonderful resource of block
designs and their source.
When you set out to make a quilt, you either come up with on your own or you
are making it from a pattern or picture. If you come up with it on your own,
then you are have created the quilt design. You also could rely upon readily
common use blocks such as log cabin, shoo fly, pin wheel etc. There is
absolutely no way to know if someone else came up the same or similar design in
the past or will in the future so it is not an issue that would be definitive.
However, let say you make a complex quilt that looks exactly like a published
design except for say, color or size. The copyright holder could assume that
you made your quilt from her published design. If you did not, simply state
that you did not. End of story and you can go on your way with your quilt.
If you did but just changed a few things and it still looks essentially like
the published design then you made a derivative of the published design. If the
design you purchased stated for personal use only and you wanted to sell it,
simply ask for permission to do so.
Let me give you an example of one of the very few times I have ever addressed
the copyright issue of my designs. Many years ago, I made a quilt called
Comical Country. This quilt was chosen from a field of 1,000 quilts to be in
Great American Quilts. It was a medallion style quilt with a barn, sheep,
bunnies, apples, flowers, cows, ducks and trees. We published the pattern in a
national magazine, booklet and in Great American Quilts.
There was a crochet magazine that ran a contest for afghan designs. One of the
winners was a replica of my quilt. The afghan used the exact setting, all the
objects and colors that I used in my quilt. This quilt had been in several
national quilt magazines and books so the image was readily available to the
public. I resented the fact that the winner not only never mentioned the source
of the design but claimed it as her original design and also won a contest
beating out others who did submit their original work. I wrote the editor of
the magazine and included pictures of my quilt. I never heard from the magazine
or the winner and that was fine. I just didn't want the winner to have unfair
advantage and not play fair. Now, what do you think the odds are that the maker
of the afghan came up with such a complex setting, color, style and objects on
her own?
NS, the bottom line is just play fair, give credit where credit is due and
don't sweat the small stuff. Most of us quilters are pretty reasonable people
and we really are fun to play with.
Natalie
Best,
~Spidey
<mdcu...@baldwin-sodatelecom.net> wrote:
>The name "Dear Jane" is what is under dispute, not copying the quilt. If the
>auctioner had chosen to use other words to describe the quilt, never
>alluding to the Dear Jane name the problem probably wouldnt exist. Im not an
>expert and so could be completely wrong.
> I do think its rather petty anyway. The author of the book certainly
>doesnt loose anything from Sandra selling this quilt. I believe Sandra is
>right that it generates more interest in the book and software.
> Lets all try to look at this situation from both sides. How would we feel
>had we written the book?
>Does 12% seem high in any case, to anyone else?
Yes, 1% is too much. She got money when the book was purchased.
KI Graham
In a twist on this discussion, I had a really difficult time convincing my
publisher that I WANTED to allow photocopying of my book under certain
circumstances. Totally goes against the grain for craft books, though it's
often done for curriculum materials. Since I want my book to be used in
women's ministry in churches and by missionaries, the copyright notice says
"may be reproduced for use in a local church..."
No doubt someone somewhere is ignoring my notice anyway: there's one woman
on the internet who has posted a picture of a quilt made from my patterns as
an example of her original DESIGN service! She claims that, because she used
different colours from the original, she designed the quilt. Not worth
pursuing her [okay, I admit, I'd be more upset if her colour choices weren't
downright homely!]
As for making a living from my copyrighted material? I'm figuring that
sometime in the next decade, I might break even [but only if I stop buying
fabrics for samples!]
--
Kim Graham
http://members.shaw.ca/kigraham
Nanaimo, BC, Canada
THE WORD IN PATCHWORK
"Carol Doak" <qca...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040810102339...@mb-m01.aol.com...
MB
some think
that it is their artistic property to use as they will . Mary
"Pat in Virginia" <pat.q...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oBWRc.2220$73.1374@lakeread04...
georg
> This section was interesting to me b/c it is a constant battle in
> schools...
>
> I've had professors copy material for us to read, and then return it b/c
> it was copywrited.
>
> I've had professors read 5 page articles out loud in class...
>
> On professors compliant was that it is very hard to keep up with recent
> events and obey copy write stuff b/c it can take a very long time for
> academic publishers to reply on the subject...
>
> All kinds of stuff.
Most publishers will allow personal copies for the interest of
education. They will also allow quotes for inclusion into academic work
or into reviews.
Most of my college professors photocopied the text, then put that copy
in the library "on hold"- so you would have to request it from the desk,
read it, and give it back. They would also do this with out-of-print
books if they had the book.
I'm not sure what the law is. I have taught informal classes on the
history of plumbing where I photocopied pictures in books and shared
these with my class, because it was easier than showing them all of the
books proper. I gave them all my bibliography. I think if I did charge
them for photocopies of the pictures from books that I'd be in
violation, even if I was not making a profit. Although the items
pictured are well out their copywright, the photographs *aren't*. The
few pictures I have of garderobes that I have seen- I can distribute
those as I wish.
-georg
ginmaru
> Most of my college professors photocopied the text, then put that copy
> in the library "on hold"- so you would have to request it from the desk,
> read it, and give it back. They would also do this with out-of-print
> books if they had the book.
>
When I worked in the Reserves section of Circulation at Florida State
University, the professors were allowed to place articles on reserve
for one semester without copyright approval. If they wanted to use it
for another semester even if they skipped one, they had to fill out a
request for copyright approval and have it to us before the semester
started or the articles in question were removed. Same applied for
electronic reserves.
Ginny in Tallahassee where we are waiting for Tropical Storm Bonnie.
C & S
The University I attend (Concordia in Mtl) has solved that problem by using
the svc of a company that takes care of the copyright stuff and royalties
are paid accordingly (stated on the cover of the crse package). As Carol
stated, one has to "wake up to one's self in the morning". Well put Carol.
Carole (Champlain, NY)
Who is finding this thread quite interesting
"Natalie" <scorp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lAdSc.1852$EQ5....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
I.E.Z.
"Taria" <taria....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:tpLRc.9381$114....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> I paid for the book too. I have a lot of historical quilt books
> that I enjoy. The DJ one will probably go to the guild raffle table
> next month. I just have a bad taste for the whole thing now.
> I have recreated old quilts but I would never take on the ownership she
> has. Just a different opinion than yours Sandy. Legally she is in the
> right but I still think the whole thing is tacky.
> Taria
>
>
>
I'm still not entirely sure she's in the right legally. From what I
understand (and I have to tell you I don't find the Dear Jane type quilts
attractive) this Brenda person made up templates or a book or both and sold
the templates and/or book to make this quilt. As far as I am concerned that
is it. The purpose of templates and pattern books is TO MAKE QUILTS. She
was paid for the templates and/or books, so she was compensated for her
labor. End of story. Disney and other companies tried to stop people from
selling items made with their licensed fabrics. A company called Tabberone
took them on in Federal Court. Federal Court said Disney (and Nascar and
Warner Bros) couldn't tell people what to do with their fabric. Once
Disney etc. put their fabric into the "stream of commerce" they no longer
have control over what happens to it. They have been paid. The purpose of
fabric is to make things. Once the things are made, they belong to the
people who made the things, not the people who made the fabric. They can be
given away, they can be sold. They can be sold by people they are given
to.
Iris
~Spidey
wrote:
>The way she represents it the 12% sort of seems like ransom.
>She will take the amount not to sue I guess. I understand
>the need to protect your work but the whole thing makes the author
>look pretty cheap to me. I would look at it different if she herself
>had made the original quilt. Yeah she put a lot of time into the
>research but I bet dollars to donuts she makes a bunch at shows and
>lectures and classes.
>Taria
I for one, will NEVER buy any of her books.
nana2b
sewingb...@webtv.net
Re: copyright selling dear jane quilt top
Aug 11, 2004, 6:03pm From: ieza...@ptd.net (I.E.Z.)
I paid for the book too. I have a lot of historical quilt books that I
enjoy. The DJ one will probably go to the guild raffle table next month.
I just have a bad taste for the whole thing now. I have recreated old
quilts but I would never take on the ownership she has. Just a different
opinion than yours Sandy. Legally she is in the right but I still think
the whole thing is tacky. Taria
Iris replies:
<<I'm still not entirely sure she's in the right legally. From what I
understand (and I have to tell you I don't find the Dear Jane type
quilts attractive) this Brenda person made up templates or a book or
both and sold the templates and/or book to make this quilt. As far as I
am concerned that is it. The purpose of templates and pattern books is
TO MAKE QUILTS. She was paid for the templates and/or books, so she was
compensated for her labor. End of story.
Not really, Iris, simply the end of your opinion on the matter, and
I'm not saying that rudely.
I've followed this thread with interest, and most of it has been
conjecture and opinion. I myself am none too sure where the rights
reside, but you bet your britches I'd ask either a lawyer, or the
originator's advice/permission before using a copyrighted or trademarked
name/'pattern/piece of work, etc.
('Copyright' generally-- but not exclusively--
refers to written work, whereas trademark usually refers to a product
name/moniker, ie, 'Dear Jane'.) I could write to my cousin Jane as 'Dear
Jane', but not bring out a line of products titled 'Dear Jane', because
someone else has already filed for the business use of those two words
strung together. And that someone would be business foolish not to
object to another person selling products under the 'Dear Jane' label,
whether labelled or stated. At the very least, a 'Cease and Desist'
letter from an attorney, to the offender, is in order if simply to
protect one's business investment.
As to the following paragraph, copyright law is complicated, not
easily discussed in a non-law forum, where opinion reigns---and opinion
isn't worth a hoot in court. Also, what applies to one particular court
ruling does not mean it applies across the board, to every similar issue
which arises. As you noted with Disney, large companies will pursue
their proprietary interests with vigor, lawyers, and a lot of money, as
is their legal right. It is worth noting that their ownership rights are
rarely denied, and I would be wary of buying, for example, a Disney
pattern to make Halloween costumes for a rental business; such rights
are retained by the Disney corp., who make a livelihood possible for
thousands of folks who work in the costume production industry.
The costume envelope does, however, state that you may make one
costume for non-commercial use.
Is there a site you can refer us to with a synopsis of the following
court decision?
Respectfully,
Cea
---
Iris continues:
KittyG
HTH
kitty in phx
--
Remove "s" and "i" in email to respond.
http://community.webshots.com/user/kittykatchee
<sewingb...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2551-411...@storefull-3114.bay.webtv.net...
Re: copyright selling dear jane quilt top
>snip<---
D & L
interesting. So how does this all apply to this ebay auction ?? "Dear Jane
Civil War cross stitch or mini quilt top "# 8121995076. This is a completed
cross stitch item from a pattern that is not a "Dear Jane" product but is
very similiar. The ebay seller used the "Dear Jane" reference in the title.
I am interested to know if this seller was contacted regarding a royalty
since the listings were so close and she clearly used "Dear Jane" to promote
her product. Any thoughts on this one???
Louise in Las Vegas
Re: copyright selling dear jane quilt top
Lisa C
Just visited the group after a long absence and already you lively
ladies gave me something to chew on.
I can't resist adding my 2 cents worth....
" Ellison" <el...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<8lCRc.1113$vz2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>...
> Howdy!
> I'm on the side of the creator, the quilter who had the sense and
> creativity to "re-design" a beautiful, unusual quilt.
> http://www.dearjane.com/
> Brenda Papadakis didn't "just copy" someone's quilt, she invested time and
> energy and research in the project. She MADE this quilt and the pattern,
> legally,
> she put *her* time and talent into it; why shouldn't she get the credit for
> it?
> She should.
Yes. The seller SHOULD have mentioned Brenda Papadakis' name when she
used the term "Dear Jane". It's copyrighted.
> And everyone who makes a copy of her work should be more than
> happy to credit her in some way, by paying for the book,
*DONE* the seller acknowledged she purchased the book, in her
correspondence with Brenda Papadakis.
> paying for the
> class and instructions, or by paying a percentage of the profit made by
> selling a copy
> or close-copy of it. Fair's fair.
The seller DID NOT make a profit and WAS NOT GOING TO make a profit on
selling a copy or even a close-copy of the BOOK OR THE PATTERNS.
> When the perspective changes: who wouldn't want credit for her/his own
> work? And compensation when someone is making a profit by copying?
>
> Btw, the seller must have known she was on questionable territory when she
> offered the quilt for sale because she did have the sense to right to Brenda
> P and ask permission.
Ummm.. you got the order wrong. Ms. Papadakis wrote the the seller,
and informed her she was in violation of copyright law. The violation,
however, was not in selling the quilt top, as Ms. Papadakis originally
stated.. but in using the "Dear Jane" name. The following quote is
from her website http://www.dearjane.com/toppage1.htm "Everyone is
free to use my patterns found in the Dear Jane® book or CD to make
quilts from them or sell any quilt they have made from them."
> Brenda's response is fair; why would it be "petty" to
> offer a reduced percentage of her usual compensation
Are you saying Ms. Papadakis regularly gets $150 every time someone
uses the phrase "Dear Jane"? (and, since I can't figure out how to
make the R in a circle you think *I* will be the next one targeted by
the esteemed author)?
> as a good faith gesture
> to the seller who did have the decency to ask permission? In this case,
> "petty" is the seller who removed the item from her sale while publishing
> Brenda's response
> in a way that makes it look like the seller thinks Brenda's wrong.
IMO the auther IS wrong. Perhaps not legally. But morally? Ms.
Papadakis wants ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS cuz someone used the name
"Dear Jane" - not realizing it was copyrighted. When the author
pointed it out, the woman asked for permission. AND permission to SELL
that quilt was NEVER needed. The original is in the public domain.
> If the
> seller doesn't want to play fair, that's her problem. If she wants to sell
> the quilt legally, let her raise the price 12% to cover the cost of
> compensation.
That would be difficult.. since the author wants a percentage of the
total sale. If the price is increased, so is the 'compensation'.
> That she had to take this case to her public site makes
> her look small, IMO.
>
<snip>
I think Ms. Papadakis looks small. This was not a major copyright
violation... it was an individual selling ONE quilt (legally!) and
describing it using a copyrighted phrase. A simple R in a circle would
have prevented Ms. Papadakis from claiming her 'right' to cash in on
the seller's hard work.
That the seller felt she HAD TO REMOVE the quilt from ebay after an
attempted extortion is simply a shame. What may be legal simply aint
right.