I have a question about patterns

[Ike]

I am hoping to get a straight answer and hope I don't sound like a nut! First this is not about commercial logos such as sports teams or products logos. I know we make and use these logos on our own risk.

Ok that said my question is the ptns I make and share can anyone else take that pattern and in the pattern editor make changes? I know the patterns I have downloaded I can not.

So saying they can not be edited, I see the concerns to post any pattern for free that is in the vendor store. But what about other vendors making the same or similar pattern and selling it in their store?

Again my example is the Last Supper if you look in past pattern shared it has been posted for free and I know for a fact 2 or more vendors offer the pattern at different cost.

So I guess I am asking is why can't the member make the choice to what pattern they want? If it is a free pattern or a purchased one? When I go to the department store and I am looking for a computer I have my choice of several brands for the same item. If a person offers a computer for free in front of the store that is not as good does that mean it is wrong?

I know I am comparing apples to oranges, but the concept is the same. With all the resources and the software a person can use the same logo and software and come up with the same pattern. That said, then one person may sell it and the other shares it. Both people made the pattern and did not copy from another pattern. Then both pattern shouldn't be able to be edited by anybody? The exception is a pattern hand made into a ptn. I believe Vector Art 3D artists design all their patterns. I am sure others do as well, I am asking about the patterns that are made from images that are available to everybody.

Or is somebody taking the pattern image and making a pattern from the image? I have made patterns inspired from other patterns I have seen without using their image/ptn. I have made them using a j-peg I found on the net and I have used them for my personal use. I have a sign frame I made using a branch HT made for me and he has it for sell. If he wanted to make that frame and sell it, I would not care!

A long way to ask if you can share a pattern you made even if it is offered in the pattern store? If not then what about the patterns in the store that are same pattern offered by the member who made them? Does it go back to our choice and choose the pattern we like the best? If so then can I/we who makes patterns post and share ptns that are offered in the vendor store?

I know we can post any patterns in a mpc that have been sold. Again I ask even if it is posted in a mpc wouldn't the pattern appear in red or can it be used by others?

Ike

[mtylerfl]

Hi Ike,

There's no problem with someone posting free patterns, even if they are similar to commercial ones. Artists use photos, drawings, etc. all the time to help guide them when they are making a painting, sculpting a clay form, or creating a 3D model in software. Sometimes a photo is used for creating a nearly exact copy - for example, my Lincoln head penny is pretty close. Artwork can also be used to copy from if it is believed to be in the public domain. Most artists try to be careful that they are not infringing morally or legally on someone else's work. Usually the worst that happens is a copyright/trademark holder will send a cease and desist to the "infringer"! (Although some companies will just start with a threat of a lawsuit...Disney, for example, is very aggressive in this.)

Bottom line, we all can enjoy the freedom to create, but at the same time, do our best to be mindful of others' copyrights/trademarks and the like.

[Ike]

Thank you Micheal, I should have made my post more brief, plus needing more info. I was trying to steer the post from commercial trademarks. My question came from the pattern sharing thread where a post was remove and appeared to me as a statement edited by the moderator. It said please to not post commercial patterns, this followed a post with a Coke bottle pattern. It was not about the coke pattern, but from what I gathered was a store pattern?

In the past there has been allegations of pattern theft, that is as nice as I can put it! But it was not that at all another member made the same pattern using a similar source and software and posted it in the store to sell when it was posted for free originally.

Back to the subject, what was posted, was it in mpc format and was it from the store? I am asking to avoid future issues of this nature, if it was not meant for all to see then I think it should have been dealt with via PM and the post removed.

I have been away for 3 weeks with limited internet and I have been curious about this subject and now that I am home I am asking! If a pattern is shared in a mpc from the store can anyone use it? I have experienced in the past I have downloaded a mpc with a store/commercial ptn you could not upload the mpc to the flash card.

Maybe I am lost completely or having trouble explaining what I am asking or both!

Ike

[mtylerfl]

Hi Ike,

Only patterns that have an embedded copy-protection will be marked in "red" and unusable by an unlicensed person. Many patterns are sold in other locations than the CarveWright store. Those patterns are vulnerable to theft, misuse and unintentional misuse. Any MPC that has an unprotected pattern on it may not be posted or distributed here or anywhere (whether contained on an MPC or individually). When it does happen, usually it is recognized right away and removed. (As in the post you referred to - again, had absolutely nothing to do with a coke bottle.)

One could argue it is the responsibility of the creator to devise their own copy-protection method. True enough, but not particularly simple to do. Part of the idea behind the CarveWright copy-protection on patterns was for protection of commercial project MPC's also. That was so we could have the "Try Before You Buy" feature. However, the "Try" feature is no longer allowing a prospective buyer to open and look at a project MPC anymore. Apparently, even that copy-protection wasn't "strong enough" to guarantee potential misuse protection.

Personally, I don't like copy-protection on anything. Unfortunately, it seems to be a "necessary evil" these days.