Sewing from patterns for profit and copyright - please advise

[Bunnykins]

Oh, Bunny, how awful!  I saw a note somewhere a few years ago when the pattern companies were starting to enforce their copyrights that I found absolutely silly and wondered how their terms could be enforced.  One company (McCalls?) was claiming that no one could ever use their patterns for commercial production AND, even if a person changed their pattern somewhat and called it their own, that the base pattern still belonged to them, so commercial production of any kind was illegal. I believe they were chasing down and intimidating a group that sewed to raise money for charity at the time, making it all the more offensive.  I do not understand how the pattern companies' claim of copyright infringement can be solid given that every garment that can be made has been made at some time or another.  I can understand it for things like some stuffed toys (not teddy bears) or hats/handbags, but to claim every garment of every shape when other pattern companies are making very similar patterns is outlandish.  Of course, an individual threatened by a large corporation doesn't seem to have much of a chance.  The US copyright laws are interesting, though, in that a company had to renew their copyright before a certain date or the thing became public property.  I think it was 1972 when this changed and all copyrights were automatically renewed forever. Collectors and the ladies who sell copies of embroidery patterns ran into this when Plaid bought the Vogart patterns and sent them cease and desist notices for even posting pictures of the Vogart pattern envelopes.  Madness.  This from a woman who's outfit, hairstyle and jewellery were knocked off by a Canadian designer and shown as his own.  Hmmm.

[shams]

It's extra annoying when you consider that many of their non-designer patterns are copies or "inspired" by designer looks.  That has been happening forever and I don't, personally, mind it, because the copies are not as wonderful as the originals and the people sewing these patterns can't, for the most part, ever afford the originals.

On a more disturbing topic: I was reading a thread on another forum and there have been some outrageous rip-offs by big companies of small designers.  For example, I think it was Forever 21 who came out with a necklace that was identical to a necklace being made and sold by a woman on Etsy.  And another big company, maybe Anthropologie, was using a fabric that was an exact imitation of another small designer's work.  In both cases photos were posted of both versions and anyone would be hard pressed to believe that both parties independently came up with the same design.

[andib]

That is so sad that the little person is the one to suffer!

I have come up with some interesting jewelry designs and I have been very leery to post photos of them, as I have been selling a bit her at home.  If I post photos, I know someone will reverse engineer it and then there goes my edge.  I personally hate looking on etsy to see all of the people selling projects right out of the craft/jewelry mags! 

[theresa in tucson]

Shams, Feral Child, a small independent company, is suing Forever 21 right now because Forever 21 copied one of their original prints without their permission.  This is something Forever 21 has reportedly done before.

[Gorgeous Things]

I'm friendly with Susan Scafidi, a professor of law at Fordham University in New York. She has helped draft the fashion copyright protection bill that is currently working its way through Congress (not holding my breath to see how it turns out, but that's another story). She has a very interesting blog, Counterfeit Chic. It's worth a read.

Ann

[nurselizk]

It is absolutely legal to post a picture of something you own for sale.  It falls under fair use.  The companies who threaten legal action against someone who does this are banking on intimidation tactics working.  And Ebay nearly always removes the listing in question rather than allow the seller to exercise their legal right--I think they want to avoid controversy, but in my mind that is an unfair restriction of sellers' rights.  Amy Butler can claim she has the right to restrict what people do with her fabric, but that doesn't mean the law backs her up.  These strong-arm tactics by companies really rot my socks.

I may be in the minority, but I am not in favor of the bill before Congress.  I think it will kill off anything but expensive high fashion.  As Bunnykins' friend already experienced, companies are already claiming rights to obviously basic shapes.  And getting away with it if the targeted party doesn't have the resources for a legal battle.

[Merl]

I stand by my own methods of historical documentation of anything I produce.
If someone wants to claim something I make was their idea I can show them my paper trail and the final draft (if there is one) with a notary seal to prove the date.
I can then demand to see the same documentation from them. If they are a real company I'm sure they have some kind of paper trail but, so do I and mine shows I came up with the idea myself so, they can pound sand.....
This type of intimidation tactic, used in an attempt to preserve market share (or to even create it), is the worst kind of business practice. I can't even call it a valid business practice as it would just seem to be a last ditch effort to try and scare up business not by virtue of the quality and variety of ones wares or service but by strong arm and intimidation tactics.
It's the lowest of the low that stoops to this and it makes my blood boil to think about it.
We are still innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof lies on the one bringing the suit.

[Bunnykins]

Another of my vices is collecting vintage patterns, and rebuying patterns I tossed in my ill-spent youth.  Just btw, Amy Butler's hooded raincoat pattern is a straight knock off of a common 70s pattern.

[Pipsy]

It is not too difficult to accept the 3 yr concept on original designs for reproduction. providing they apply for copyright registration.  How far back do you go in the paper trail, Merl?  How many centuries do you go back to make a simple cape?  A simple tunic. The concept of copyright was developed to protect those who were truly inventive. But over the years has been rife with conflict. I think when copycats get world wide recognition for an invention (as in academic and scientific research findings) and MAKE lots of MONEY from the copy it is a problem.  But what about the little guy who builds something in his garage for his grandchildren, never even thinks to apply for a copy right and then his neighbour becomes rich making the 'something' in mass for sale. Sometimes the things that copied are only copied for one's own use.  What happens when we make a pattern from a RTW that fits really well? I do this quite regularly. It seems like those who sue or threaten to are bullies. Especially those who seek to make money from their invention by suing someone who copies the invention for personal use when they would be better to work harder to promote their own product.

This copyright stuff does have some benefits but many listing have very black overtones. Do you know that some drug companies are copyrighting genes as they are discovered?  Think of the consequences of that practice. I wonder if anyone plans to register oxygen as they make it in their lab.

[Ann]

I wonder about these copy right laws from a little story I was told.

Designer A has a cute piece of clothing for sale in a store in City A. Several people admired it and Designer B purchases it. Designer B copies the design into a pattern making a few changes. Pattern Company A has it for sale under Designer B's name. People buy the pattern.

My question is - if big name people are doing this, why can't we do this?

Ann

[Merl]

Pipsy, my paper trail starts with a sketch or handwritten "note to self " when I get an idea for something I think I want to make.
As a machinist I'm accustomed to sketching out ideas as they come up and because I have so many ideas in a weeks time I have to include notes on the drawing or I simply forget what the heck "this " is supposed to be.
That is usually a good test for something too. If I can't recall what it was that I was thinking of at the time of the sketch then it obviously hasn't made much of an impression on me and likely won't on anyone else either.
As the item (IF the item ) moves forward in development I keep revising the sketches and notes until I make a disposition to either make the item or, set it aside until I'm better equipped or, decide not to do it at all.
When I get this far on a project I do go and have the latest revision notarized and the file stays together as a working project.
Now remember, I'm not applying for a copyright on anything , I'm just trying to show the origin of the idea as my own.
I have no doubt that more than one person will come up with an idea at the same time but, this is the only way I can think of to protect myself from people like we are talking about here.
BTW, I do reverse engineer items I like from an existing item all the time but, I don't do it for resale to others.
Like any bully will eventually learn, you can't bully everybody all the time.
I'm not afraid of being pursued into court by one of these bullies, I'm just one little guy with a few ideas and a sewing machine.
I'm not interested in making cheap knock-offs of the same cheap junk that is pushed on us already. I try and develop a quality product from good materials at a price that I am happy with.
I'm not even too concerned with the practice you describe of the drug co's copywriting their gene discoveries. That is an unsustainable practice that will come to no good for them in the end. It's a case of simple greed and , the greedy never win.

 

[Susan in Saint John]

What we're talking about here is sometimes referred to as "intellectual property".  It includes copyright, patents, trademarks, and perhaps more.  It should be noted that the laws are different in every country and that there are international agreements on the subject too.  It is clearly very complex.

Sometimes "intellectual property" is licensed.  Software for example.  The Vogue designer patterns may be a license from the designer.  I think sports teams and Disney also license their logos, characters, etc.

[Fox Valley Patti]

This is an interesting discussion. I have read the beginning and own Kathleen's book - but I too wonder about how certain "things" can be copyrighted.

I've worked in the printing industry for years and know about IP there regarding font use, graphics, content - but how can someone claim that they own the copyright to a square fabric bag with a drawstring top?!  I suppose the proportions could be stated to be copyrighted by a designer.

But this is why I'm looking for information on this question as well - I purchased some historical patterns online, they have a very stern copyright notice on them.  They are Xeroxed copies of instructions from a newspaper article from 100 years ago! How can the person who Xeroxed the articles state that they have a copyright on any items made from those xeroxes! There aren't even any pattern pieces, just "cut a square x" by x" and gather it up".

I certainly don't want to be the person who gets sued, but I had hoped I'd be able to start a sewing business, and it appears that I cannot if everything that comes out of anyone's granny's attic anywhere can be said to be copyrighted.

Not asking for legal advice, just wondering if it's pure audacity for someone to claim that Xeroxed instructions from an old newspaper are copyrighted by them.  If I wanted to use said "x by x square", would I have to find the original newspaper the directions were published in? 

[Ann]

I am wondering if people can copyright Xeroxed copies of patterns that are 100 years old especially if they came from newspapers. Weren't they put in the paper for all to use? That is what rolled through my head when I read your post Patti. I would use the pattern with some minor changes and sell it. I wouldn't claim the pattern to be my own though if I was asked.

I have bought several patterns that don't have pattern pieces only "cut pieces by a certain dimension and sew them up" directions. Then I see other patterns that are variations of these patterns. They are basically the same with very similar directions and techniques. And people make them up and sell them with no problems. I have made reusable grocery bags and given them away as gifts. My bag comes from a pattern I bought but over time, it has evolved to what I want it to be. And I continue to adapt it to suit my needs. I would sell the finished product if I could find a market for it.

I took a class on making a "gift bag" and by the next weekend had changed the pattern considerably. The only thing that remained constant was the embroidery. The creator owns that embroidery design. I noticed a lot of the items designed by this person are taken from another source and then tweaked prior to her selling the design. I would say this person only owns the embroidery that she created to fit the pattern. No one has sued as the business continues on.

The western shirt pattern I use to sell shirts is a basic pattern that I had drawn up for us. I know I was doing the legal thing. Over time we have added to that pattern to keep it updated. Now that I make rodeo queen tops, I found out I had to design my own pattern. After much discussion, some advice, and reading drafting books, I looked for a basic top pattern, did what changes I needed, redesigned what I needed to, and drafted a collar for it. I make minor adjustments to the pattern all the time. It is my design to use for these tops I sell. Each person who makes these tops goes through the same process. No one will put their pattern up for sale. What makes our tops so different is the materials we use for the shirt and the trim we put on them.

In the end, I think it comes down to common sense. Look for and at other patterns that are similar and if there is little difference in the instructions, then proceed. Add your own twist to the pattern to make it your own. I know this is happening and people are being successful. It is the changes in the pattern that makes it your own.

Ann

[Pina]

I am wondering if people can copyright Xeroxed copies of patterns that are 100 years old especially if they came from newspapers. Weren't they put in the paper for all to use? That is what rolled through my head when I read your post Patti.
Ann

Ann,
I was thinking the same thing,but was afraid to post my thoughts.I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking that way ! 

In the end, I think it comes down to common sense.

Ann

     

[Bunnykins]

I am wondering if people can copyright Xeroxed copies of patterns that are 100 years old especially if they came from newspapers. Weren't they put in the paper for all to use? That is what rolled through my head when I read your post Patti. I would use the pattern with some minor changes and sell it. I wouldn't claim the pattern to be my own though if I was asked.

I could understand the copyright warnings on a reconstructed and retyped old knitting or crochet pattern as most of those are written for discontinued yarns with obscure needle/hook sizes and instructions that give you a headache reading them.  But, straight copies of newspaper articles?  Nonsense.  Much better to do what Fiddlesticks designs does and print on a paper which cannot be copied (black ink on dark green does not copy.)

Given that a lot of the clothing designs I see now are straight copies of 70s clothes, I think the pattern companies have some nerve saying you cannot use them to produce things for sale.  As for the fabric designers who sell their fabrics openly in stores yet demand that nothing be made for sale from it, well, that's just indefensible.  Why not be like Vera whose fabrics seldom show up for sale, and then are mostly scraps or vintage?  You just can't have it both ways.  Of course, I'm in Canada where the urge to sue hasn't taken hold to such an extent as it has in the US.   The only thing I've heard of lately is the company which bought the Vogart pattern company and made a collector site take down pictures of the old Vogart envelopes.  That's overkill.  Wonder what they're doing to the people who take those old designs and digitize them for the new embroidery machines?

[Ann]

Bunnykins, I am also in Canada and see lots of items made for sale using patterns people bought in stores. I wonder what our laws say about copyright.

Another thought -- books loose their copyright when they get to a certain age and people can download them. I wonder if some big company is going to copyright them and sell them under new publications.

As for selling items made from fabric that has a copyright on it and then selling it. When you sell your bolts of fabric to some fabric store for people to buy, items will be made and some will end up being sold. If those fabric designers don't want that, I agree with Bunnykins, don't have it in fabric stores.

And I too wonder what people will do with old embroidery designs and new embroidery software. I think there is a lot more going on quietly than we really know.

Ann

[Pina]

And I too wonder what people will do with old embroidery designs and new embroidery software. I think there is a lot more going on quietly than we really know.

Ann

Ann,I wish all embroidery design sites had a policy like Embroidery Library.On their site it says :
Q:  Can I sell things with Embroidery Library designs -- including the free designs?

A:  Yes, you certainly can -- and we wish you much success! When you buy a design from the Embroidery Library, or download a free design, you're actually getting a license. That license dictates what you can and cannot do with the design. Here are the licensing terms and policy:

When you purchase a design from the Embroidery Library, you are purchasing a license to embroider that design. Anything that you make with the design embroidered on it can be used for personal use, given as a gift, donated to charity, or sold. There is no limit to the number of times that you can use the design, no "bulk licenses" are necessary.

I make different things for animal shelters and have been making things for other charities for decades.I don't profit myself,but the charities do.I think when I use a pattern or design it falls under the fair use provision of copyright. 

[ejvc]

This is really a minefield, but copyright applies to the expression of ideas in a particular form.  When a copyright lapses, as it certainly has on the newspaper article, then a new copyright may be generated if work goes into creating a new form of the work (ie, another "edition").  Hence many classic works, such as the Wizard of Oz, can now be taken and republished.  The republished work is under copyright, but you can still use the original edition to make your own copy and sell it.  The legal verdict would hinge on whether the xerox was a proper edition on which the new creator could claim copyright, but it seems like it would be a weak case.

As I understand it, utilitarian items such as clothing can't be copyrighted, for the reasons above and to keep people from claiming that they own all skirts, for example, and everyone needs to pay them every time they wear a skirt.  Of course patterns *can* be copyrighted, and you can't reproduce and sell a pattern claiming that it's your own.  I think not selling garments from the pattern is a stretch of copyright, myself; the seamstress puts quite a bit of work into the finished product, chooses fabrics, etc; I would not think that this is what copyright is designed to protect.  Indeed, it seems to me you can knock off a pattern that you see and sell things from it (disclaimer: I am NOT a lawyer) -- see my point about a skirt, above (or the point about the drawstring bag.  I mean, who can own a rectangle?  Sure, you can draw a rectangle and colour it and put type on it and own the creation, which no one can copy (an artist's work would be an excellent example of this), but not a pattern.  It seems to me that pattern-related things fall under patent law, and again you can't patent clothing (most of it -- I do not refer to scuba suits etc).

Again, not a lawyer....

[Bountyhunter]

I don't know how many of you are aware of the attempts at greed brought out in the New York times article in the link below, but I would not doubt such attempts being made by companies and individuals you are discussing here to attempt the same thing with patterns, fabrics, and/or designs.

Maybe some of you already live in homes/condos with this little deed insertion and will have the "privilege" of paying a fee (Remember that even though the fee is included in the price, the buyer of "your home/condo" may ask for an adjustment.) for the house/condo you "own" when you sell it.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/business/12fees.html?pagewanted=all


Bountyhunter