PDA

View Full Version : Copyrights- the law and the truth about pattern ownership



lawrence
04-13-2012, 09:56 PM
Allright... I know I'm possibly opening up a can here and I don't have an incredible desire to create enemies or cause angst..... but I want to make sure everyone understands the truth about patterns.

Legally,

If you find a picture on the internet or elsewhere, unless you have specific permission or the item is under public domain, you are not allowed to download and use that picture.

Even if you "change" a picture by turning a 2d picture into 3d or even by adjusting the image a certain percentage, it is still legally owned by the creator- not you!

Most of us have an ethical line that we use to determine whether we feel that we are breaking a moral or ethical barrier, but to be perfectly honest from a legal standpoint, many of the patterns here are not legally the pattern creator's to sell, give away, or argue about. Unless the pattern creator made the original art themselves or got specific permission to do so, using the item is a theft of copyright.

Also, an item does NOT need to be marked with a circled C or be registered to be copyrighted (since 1989).

This does not mean that it is right for someone to sell someone else's items on ebay or elsewhere... but it does mean that there are many (many) cases where we say a pattern is "ours" when it is in fact, not.

Made a pattern that contains a font? Do you have specific legal right to use that font (like you get with the standard fonts when you buy microsoft word etc) If you get the font somewhere else and do not have permission to use that font in a commercial work then this pattern is not entirely yours...

I guess my point is that we need to be VERY careful raising ourselves up on our high horses too much as there are few folks indeed creating their work from scratch. I technically am in the wrong all the time... and I know it... I have my own ethical lines, and I try to stick to them.

If you make your patterns from scratch completely (drawing the art) then I am not talking to you. I suspect, however, that the vast majority of patterns out there are not created from scratch....

It does happen though....

a great example though is this one by Stephen
http://www.patternsuperstore.com/Store.html#ecwid:category=1789151&mode=product&product=7758901
He created this wonderful pattern from scratch... not deriving it from anyone else's picture or work... this means it is HIS to use, sell, etc and if anyone tries to use it, he can go after them for copyright infringement (after he registers the copyright for $35).

If I even post a picture of it here without his permission, I am technically in violation of Copyright laws.

Just because you create a pattern, does not mean that you own the rights to it-- only with specific permission or if you are the original artist of all the components are you within your rights to feel infringed upon.

Just food for thought....

Lawrence

ps- the guys selling y'alls (and my) patterns on ebay are still pretty cheeky and I hope they get closed down--IMHO they are blatantly breaking both the legal and the ethical guidelines regarding copyright.

LDR

lawrence
04-14-2012, 09:42 AM
Just one more thing that i wanted to add.... I really really appreciate all the patterns and pattern sharing that goes on here. I dont plan to stop sharing the patterns i make and hope that the above post will be read in the spirit in which it was intended.
Lawrence

fspearman1
04-14-2012, 10:26 AM
Very well put Lawrence and well written.
Folks don't realize I think that when you put something out on the internet that it's pretty much fair game. There are a lot of people that make a good living from others work.

bergerud
04-14-2012, 11:11 AM
What do you guys think about artwork produced by the scanner? It seems to me that there is a great deal of material for sale in the pattern depot which is not original material. How ethical is it to take a physical art piece made by someone else, scan it and then sell the scanned pattern? This crosses my line. Using the work of others to make money is, to me, a pretty solid line. Sharing these scans, I could live with, but not selling them.

fspearman1
04-14-2012, 12:38 PM
Read this from Lawrence's post......

If you make your patterns from scratch completely (drawing the art) then I am not talking to you. I suspect, however, that the vast majority of patterns out there are not created from scratch....

No matter how the pattern is created, scanner or whatever, unless you create FROM SCRATCH, then you don't technically own the pattern.

I and I don't believe Lawrence, are judging anyone. It's a really dark grey area....

I guess it's no different than I have seen a post with some oriental art that patterns are being made from. I also saw what I think are cribbage boards made from that art. Is the maker selling them? I don't know.

In Wood magazine, each month there is a column that states that some of the plans in there can not be used for monetary gain. It also gives the criteria for the statement. Can't think of the exact wording right off.

I suppose that each of us must follow their own conscience.

jpaluck
04-14-2012, 01:39 PM
I use images all the time in the background when modeling. Is it my model? Imo yes, But only to an extent, its not my design. Sometimes I will use a few images and may take a little here a little there and then combine them in a model. Sometimes I just make a rough sketch out of my head...but even it was based on something I saw somewhere. I have been making a lot of classic woodworking stuff lately like scrolls anthecus leafs etc...they are timeless designs..my models but not my design. For me it's all hobby so don't get too caught up in the legalities of it all. I just kinda stick to my own ethics with it and have a lot fun modeling and learning modeling. I can pretty much make a fairly decent attempt on most patterns....so for me its important to come up with my own ideas to an extent, besides thats the fun of it all...Im ok using image references in my mind. But to duplicate a model that someone else made I think is unethical. For example, if MT makes a nice POM, which he comes up with a lot of cool ideas, and I go wow thats neat and duplicate it and either give it away or sell it..thats wrong, plain and simple and cheesey as you know what.

I guess an argument could be made as to what is truly orginal. I can see a photo, a painting, or a peice of furniture and snap a pic and use it in the background as a reference and only take a small peice of what I saw and make something completely different. In my mind it's my model but not truly my orignal design. I guess I kinda look at it like I am taking from one artistic medium and applying it to another...enough mind games for me on it

mathman
04-14-2012, 03:24 PM
Just one thing I think isn't quite accurate in Lawrence's post: It isn't necessary to have registered the copyright in order to pursue someone for copyright infringement. Having it registered would probably make such a pursuit easier but isn't absolutely necessary.

Then there's the one thing that really throws a gray are on things - the "fair use" clause. But even that doesn't give a person the authorization to pass it off as their own and definitely doesn't give someone the ability to sell it.

There is also something about 'derivate works' in the copyright law which gives some information on copyright issues on derivations but I'm really fuzzy on the details of it.

dcalvin4
04-14-2012, 04:03 PM
Allright... I know I'm possibly opening up a can here and I don't have an incredible desire to create enemies or cause angst..... but I want to make sure everyone understands the truth about patterns.

Legally,

If you find a picture on the internet or elsewhere, unless you have specific permission or the item is under public domain, you are not allowed to download and use that picture.

Even if you "change" a picture by turning a 2d picture into 3d or even by adjusting the image a certain percentage, it is still legally owned by the creator- not you!

Most of us have an ethical line that we use to determine whether we feel that we are breaking a moral or ethical barrier, but to be perfectly honest from a legal standpoint, many of the patterns here are not legally the pattern creator's to sell, give away, or argue about. Unless the pattern creator made the original art themselves or got specific permission to do so, using the item is a theft of copyright.

Also, an item does NOT need to be marked with a circled C or be registered to be copyrighted (since 1989).

This does not mean that it is right for someone to sell someone else's items on ebay or elsewhere... but it does mean that there are many (many) cases where we say a pattern is "ours" when it is in fact, not.

Made a pattern that contains a font? Do you have specific legal right to use that font (like you get with the standard fonts when you buy microsoft word etc) If you get the font somewhere else and do not have permission to use that font in a commercial work then this pattern is not entirely yours...

I guess my point is that we need to be VERY careful raising ourselves up on our high horses too much as there are few folks indeed creating their work from scratch. I technically am in the wrong all the time... and I know it... I have my own ethical lines, and I try to stick to them.

If you make your patterns from scratch completely (drawing the art) then I am not talking to you. I suspect, however, that the vast majority of patterns out there are not created from scratch....

It does happen though....

a great example though is this one by Stephen
http://www.patternsuperstore.com/Store.html#ecwid:category=1789151&mode=product&product=7758901
He created this wonderful pattern from scratch... not deriving it from anyone else's picture or work... this means it is HIS to use, sell, etc and if anyone tries to use it, he can go after them for copyright infringement (after he registers the copyright for $35).

If I even post a picture of it here without his permission, I am technically in violation of Copyright laws.

Just because you create a pattern, does not mean that you own the rights to it-- only with specific permission or if you are the original artist of all the components are you within your rights to feel infringed upon.

Just food for thought....

Lawrence

ps- the guys selling y'alls (and my) patterns on ebay are still pretty cheeky and I hope they get closed down--IMHO they are blatantly breaking both the legal and the ethical guidelines regarding copyright.

LDR




how does using a probe come into play ?

katec911
04-14-2012, 06:51 PM
So are you saying that when I buy images in the pattern store, I cannot use them on things that I sell?

Alan Malmstrom
04-14-2012, 06:51 PM
Kind of a blurry line when it comes to copying even parts of graphic design. I was told when going to school many years ago that you can get ideas from places but that you had to change the design a certain percentage. I think it was like 50% or maybe 80%. But in any case you don't want to plagiarize a well known piece espesially if the peice you make is going to be widely distributed. I believe that you should not use other peoples work for your own gain.

This subject kind of makes my GIMP tutorials stand out as a shining beacon of light. GIMP itself is protected as free source code that cannot be used as a source for others to make money on. By law it must always be offered for free if smebody updates it and distributes it. And there is nothing wrong with some guy like me writing free tutorials on how to use it.


Alan


http://www.patternhelp.com

lawrence
04-14-2012, 06:59 PM
Just one thing I think isn't quite accurate in Lawrence's post: It isn't necessary to have registered the copyright in order to pursue someone for copyright infringement. Having it registered would probably make such a pursuit easier but isn't absolutely necessary.

Then there's the one thing that really throws a gray are on things - the "fair use" clause. But even that doesn't give a person the authorization to pass it off as their own and definitely doesn't give someone the ability to sell it.

There is also something about 'derivate works' in the copyright law which gives some information on copyright issues on derivations but I'm really fuzzy on the details of it.

Sorry, I wasn't clear-- you are correct, you don't have to register to pursue, but you do have to register a copyright to bring a lawsuit for infringement.

a good site is here-
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

dcalvin- the probe is a factor because unless you have permission to copy a piece from the designer, it is technically copyright theft to do so.

Folks- we all do it... what I'm saying is that unless the works are ours alone, we have no legal rights against someone selling the items elsewhere...

Even more strangely, many of the patterns come from google sketchup. The user's agreement specifically says that the models there can be used royalty free. This means that technically I am within my rights to sell the models I make from sketchup files

http://sketchup.google.com/intl/en/3dwh/tos.html

section 11.1 c is the part about end users

I'm certainly not in any way casting stones here, I'm as at fault as anyone else.
Lawrence

fspearman1
04-14-2012, 08:14 PM
I suppose I am uilty also. when some one asks me to build a piece for them we go thru pictures on the internet to find something they want and then I create a plan from that.

lawrence
04-15-2012, 12:02 PM
So are you saying that when I buy images in the pattern store, I cannot use them on things that I sell?

No, I'm not saying that at all-- and I don't believe anyone else is either.

Good question though-- if any of the sellers on the pattern store have any input (do you have limits on how many items someone can make with your patterns etc) please add your input, but I have never seen anyone with patterns on the pattern store make a limit. I am really referring to the patterns that folks post here on the forum for free (as I and many others often do)

Lawrence

Pratyeka
04-15-2012, 04:20 PM
what if someone is doing repair or restoration work on a house, and grabs a piece of molding and reproduces it by scanning it and carving it with the CW... then of course charges the client for the work... is that copyright infringement?

lawrence
04-15-2012, 05:40 PM
what if someone is doing repair or restoration work on a house, and grabs a piece of molding and reproduces it by scanning it and carving it with the CW... then of course charges the client for the work... is that copyright infringement?

Technically, yes it is-- and even more to the point, you don't have to sell the item for it to be infringement... just making it (even for yourself or as a gift) is breaking the law. There are exceptions though (like public domain or in cases where the copyright has run out) If the item was created before 1923 for example, you can use the item (such as music) royalty free and without cost.

per the US copyright manual
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
page 3, section 1, number
5 pictural graphical or sculptural work

Unless you are the original creator of the art, have specific permission, or the work is part of public domain items.

Again though, I'm not trying to say we all need to stop making and sharing patterns. I think there is a great degree of latitude that we all take with regard to copyright items and there is a fairly easy to recognize "just feels right" factor that many of us use. We all know that we shouldn't sell a picture of mickey mouse-- because it is both Trademarked and Copyrighted... and Disney goes after folks for trademark and copyright infringement. Harley Davidson and the NCAA both do as well. The same copyright protections exist for every other piece of literature, art, sculpture, etc. but most folks (including me) and companies create their own personal lines as to how far they are willing to go....

Heck, even the military symbols etc are copyrighted and though the military generally doesn't care and even encourages symbol use through vendors etc., if someone uses the symbols in a way the military doesn't approve of, they have been known to go after those folks (with a cease and desist order first) to get them to stop using their trademark/copyright.

If any of us were asked to stop by the original author of the work, I have little doubt that we would do so. IMHO, this is one of the differences between us and those blatantly collecting and selling our work and putting it on EBAY. Also, for the most part, original authors are unknown/difficult to find. I use work I find on the internet all the time, and I know I am technically wrong.... (with exceptions like with google sketchup where royalty free permission is granted) or it is my original work. This is my personal line, and I'm not judging anyone else's if their line is different...

http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Copyright-Infringement

I'm really sorry if this is causing any angst-- (and I promised Connie that I'd try not to bring up controversial stuff on the weekends any more... dangit... sorry) I was just trying top simply say "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" (referring to the recent ebay sales) This being said, I think though many of us are technically outside the letter of the law, we are still meeting the spirit of the law for the most part (heck, my avitar is technically copyright infringement) and to me, this is at least as important.

Heck, every time we sing Happy Birthday, we are technically breaking the law with regard to copyright... (seriously)... but again... there is a point where you gotta just shake your head and just do what feels like the right thing.

Lawrence

ladjr
04-15-2012, 06:50 PM
Get back to carving. Can anyone make a carving of what we figured out here.

Just kidding. Lets get back to fun.


Leo

brdad
04-17-2012, 06:03 AM
Kept civil, discussions like this can be fun but generally nothing does get figured out. Generally when it comes to issues like this, it comes down to who has the better lawyer, which most likely is not us.

Pratyeka
04-17-2012, 06:23 AM
Just goes to show that this law is not enforceable in every cases. I see it more as a mean for the artist creator to block exploitation by someone with large production capacity. But in a case like the nipic.com website, where artist creators pool their creation for other artist to share, with the condition that the original image not be sold, but carvings made from those images can, I think the line is clear.

dbfletcher
04-17-2012, 07:05 AM
I've been keeping quiet on this one. But I pretty much agree with brdad. This topic is seems to be quite cyclical on the forum and I'm sure those of us who have been around for a while are always thinking "Oh no.. not this again". But when we stop to think of how many new users we have or perhaps even users who just happened to miss the previous discussions, it probably isn't a bad thing to let this rehash itself every so often.

There are still a lot of people who think that if they make something themselves, even if using someones elses artwork or ideas that they are totally in the clear. Most often not the case and it is a good message to keep repeating so none of us ever have to deal with men in black suits knocking on our door.

cestout
04-17-2012, 05:29 PM
I seem to remember something in that statment in the woodwoking mag. that said if you chang a designe enough to make it uniquily your own, then you can use it. The small tambour boxes I made for 5 of my grandsons for Christmas were chanded greatly in design and engeneering from those in the magazine, but looded similar (but mine looked better). I used the CarveWright, he used hand routgers with jigs, I used mortise and tennon and he used biskets, etc. I sent photos and discription to the magazine after contacting the editor. His box could not be built like I built mine. All music scores are copmprised of riffs and phrases thet have been used before, but assembled differently. An inspiration is not the same a copying. Give credit to those who go before, but move forward and improve the art.
my openion (or rasionalization)
Clint

unitedcases
04-17-2012, 07:41 PM
I brought this up a couple of times and all I really got in the end was if you went thru the painstaking process of putting a copyright on something, then you had the funds, means and ability to sue the crap out of whoever used your stuff. Of course after a cease and desist letter.

lawrence
04-17-2012, 09:47 PM
Thanks for the inputs all- I didn't mean to bring up a dead-horse subject, but I thought it a fair point considering the consternation that folks were going through over another related post- I wish y'all happy, error free, and no-sandpaper-needed carvings-

Lawrence

unknowncarver
04-18-2012, 07:36 PM
Lawrence, I found this very interesting and it was even more interesting that the principles in the other thread did not chime in it would have been interesting to hear their side of this.

fwharris
04-19-2012, 10:49 PM
Lawrence, I found this very interesting and it was even more interesting that the principles in the other thread did not chime in it would have been interesting to hear their side of this.

The other thread had some to do about copy rights, but it was more of someone (being nice about that) being low enough in values to try to make a profit (ripping other off) from others work who gave it freely to help others on the forum.

As a side note I did talk with a guy today who did buy one of the CDs. His stated it was a total rip off as most of the patterns were low quality and had very few he would carve. After hearing what was behind the making of the CD he was even more critical..

jpaluck
04-19-2012, 10:53 PM
Well said floyd

badbert
06-06-2012, 03:59 AM
I have spent my life selling a service, so I have a skewed outlook on copyrights. For example, music. It is made up of notes. Anyone can freely use the notes. But if you put the right combination of notes together you can be sued by a person who put those same free notes Together first! Words are free, we have freedom of speech. But if I put those free words together in the same pattern as someone who previously did. I can be sued. A guy recorded a song, and in the song he records the sound of a Harley being started up and ridden away. He now owns the copyright to the sound a Harley makes. So now Harley (a company that has been building bikes for 100 years) has to pay royalties to this guy, if they want to use the sound of their own product in a commercial!

TerryT
06-06-2012, 08:57 AM
Over the years there have been a lot of opinions posted on this issue. This is my opinion and is just as valueless as all the others.

I have been trying to ignore this post because it is, unfortunately fairly meaningless. During my career I have worked with copyright cases in a court room setting. So even though I am about as far from an expert as you can get, I can tell you this. Copyright laws are not black and white, they are more convoluted than our tax code. The only meaningful opinion will come from a judge at the end of a trial.
However, as a general rule, the copyright belongs to the person that first puts something in a visual and or tangible format. Just having an idea doesn't count. You must make it visible or tangible (see, touch or hear) to be the copyright owner. The purpose, material, media, format and other issues will also come into play.

If I am a sculptor and you purchase one of my creations, take it home, make a mold, cast identical replicas and then compete with me for sales of my own creation, is that an infringement? Most likely. And you don't have to sell them to be liable. Infact giving them away for free could even be more serious as more economic damage may occur to the copyright owner as more prospective customers would take your version rather than buying mine.

How about if you photograph it and sell the photo's, infringement? A photo of something is not the same. Different size, different media, different purpose, have I been injured? Are my customers likely to purchase your photo over my 3 foot tall sculpture? And if so how much have I been damaged in lost sales?

In my town we have a large 30? acre park in the downtown area. There is a piece of art there, a "Radio Flyer Wagon" which the artist built as a giant 30? by 70? foot replica. If I build one like it or as a tourist take photos of it and put them on a post card, is that an infringement. OR is the artist the one that commited the infringement when he copied the likeness of a product from the 1930's that tens of thousands of other people have already taken pictures of years before he built his "art"?

The last time I was in Japan I stood on a two foot square piece of ground on top of a mountain in Yamakoshi. From there you can see miles and miles of green hills and mountains with hundreds of tiny lake like ponds carved into flat spots on the sides of the mountains, each belonging to a different koi farm. It was a breath taking view. I took several photos and even thought that some day I would write a book and use the photos. So the question is, do I own the copyright to that photo in the book or does the first one of the several hundred thousand tourist that stood in the same place and took the same shot?

If an artist paints his German shepard dog in the classic "Show Pose" does that mean everyone else for all time is banned from painting their German Shepard in the "Show Pose"?

Posting your creation on the internet does NOT mean you give up any rights. It may be foolish to post it and not expect a sleeze bag of the type we seem to encounter to steal it. Your generosity wil be repaid with theft by those that lack the skill or talent to make their own money. It will happen.

One last rant. If you take a picture with an older film camera and take the film in to be processed and printed, Who owns the copyright you or the first person to put it in a visible or tangible format (the lab guy)??

The most confounding issue with this set of laws is that common sense and the intent of the laws are the most at conflict with the "letter of the law" than many others.



Kind of a blurry line when it comes to copying even parts of graphic design. I was told when going to school many years ago that you can get ideas from places but that you had to change the design a certain percentage. I think it was like 50% or maybe 80%.

What constitues a lawfull change? Size, different pose, oil on canvas rather than wood carving, different media or purpose?

END OF OPINION

I know there are "experts" out there that have more to say, but please, unless you are an experienced copyright attorney you are wasting your time and forum resources.

cestout
06-07-2012, 07:00 PM
Your making a mold of a statue come closes to the problem. I a person is feeding his or her family by writing music or recording music and you take it and use it without compensating the artist, that is no different than shoplifting. Immoral and illegal.
Clint

TerryT
06-07-2012, 07:17 PM
Your making a mold of a statue come closes to the problem. I a person is feeding his or her family by writing music or recording music and you take it and use it without compensating the artist, that is no different than shoplifting. Immoral and illegal.
Clint

It is. No argument from me. I just wish there were more we could do to prevent that from happening.

TIMCOSBY
06-15-2012, 11:46 PM
i think the problem came when we put the patterns on here and said here you can use them for free and didnt specify or restrict there use.

SteveEJ
06-16-2012, 08:10 AM
I agree with Clint. The problem is growing because the gap between 'Moral' and 'Illegal' is getting wider every day!

It is also getting more difficult keeping a 'Glass half full' attitude these days. Executive orders overrule legally passed laws, with no one willing to challenge it, etc. Starting to get depressing!

ladjr
06-16-2012, 02:38 PM
It is sad the state of this counties morals, but when kids see elected officals do what ever they want and get away with it how do you explan to them it is wrong.

We must just try and set a good example and move froward.

Leo

eelamb
06-16-2012, 04:51 PM
Leo, what you said is VERY VERY true. It is not a matter of copyrights, it is a matter of moral values. A true shame that a member of this great forum feels he has the rights to take these wonderful patterns created for it's members, and sell them to unsuspected buyers on ebay. If the creators of these patterns wanted them to be sold, do you not feel the creator would have been selling them! But wait the ebay seller does not feel the creator has any rights to them, But wait again, he does feel he has the right to sell them!

ladjr
06-16-2012, 05:52 PM
Leo, what you said is VERY VERY true. It is not a matter of copyrights, it is a matter of moral values. A true shame that a member of this great forum feels he has the rights to take these wonderful patterns created for it's members, and sell them to unsuspected buyers on ebay. If the creators of these patterns wanted them to be sold, do you not feel the creator would have been selling them! But wait the ebay seller does not feel the creator has any rights to them, But wait again, he does feel he has the right to sell them!

I think you give seller to much credit. I believe he is simply greedy, and doesn't care about anyone but himself. I'm just glad to be a member of this forum and to have everyones help and freindship

Leo

fwharris
06-16-2012, 06:59 PM
I think you give seller to much credit. I believe he is simply greedy, and doesn't care about anyone but himself. I'm just glad to be a member of this forum and to have everyones help and freindship

Leo

Leo,
Yes that is what we are trying to be about! We will not let one bad egg spoil the rest of us!