copyright infringement?

[mlapaglia]

As a general rule the patterns from Tandy are copyrighted. Therefore if you make a collor where the pattern is a Tandy copyright then it would be considered a derivative work. They can only copyright the changes they made not the original pattern and then can only distribute with Tandy's permission. Chances of them being allowed to copyright a Tandy copyright is probably not likely. Read the following link. http://copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf. It will help. Below is a portion of that page.

Copyright Protection in Derivative Work

The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions,

changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in

the work. It does not extend to any preexisting material and

does not imply a copyright in that material.

One cannot extend the length of protection for a copyrighted

work by creating a derivative work. A work that has

fallen into the public domain, that is, a work that is no longer

protected by copyright, can be used for a derivative work,

but the copyright in the derivative work will not restore the

copyright of the public-domain material. Neither will it prevent

anyone else from using the same public-domain work

for another derivative work.

In any case where a protected work is used unlawfully,

that is, without the permission of the copyright owner, copyright

will not be extended to the illegally used part.

As a general rule most people are wrong in cases like this, where they start with someones copyright as the basis.

All the above is my understanding. I could be totally wrong. Only a copyright lawyer or someone who does this as a profession can give you accurate information that you can follow.

Michael

[mlapaglia]

10 big myths about copyrights explained.

excerpt

10 Big Myths about copyright explained

An attempt to answer common myths about copyright seen on the net and cover issues related to copyright and USENET/Internet publication.

- by Brad Templeton

Note that this is an essay about copyright myths. It assumes you know at least what copyright is -- basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work. If you didn't know that, check out my own brief introduction to copyright for more information.

continue here 10 big myths about copyrights explained.

Michael

[Nefarious]

......

Michael

Michael, I dont know if your response was to me or someone else, but I wanted to clarify that in my question, no one is using designs from Tandy. I'm strictly referring to the use of decorative spots, rivets, conchos, etc available from Tandy. For instance, store XYZ creates leather dog collars and decorates them with brass spots available for purchase from Tandy. They placed these brass spots in a pattern they chose. Store XYZ then sells these collars on their website for a set price. Now another store ABC see's these collars and realizes that all the spots used are available from Tandy and decides to duplicate the same pattern as seen on XYZ's website and also sell them. My question is if duplicating a pattern in this manor is wrong? All the spots are purchased from Tandy for both parties, so I dont understand if the order they are placed is copyrighted and can't be duplicated. If it is wrong, where does it stand on offering plain leather collars, leashes, belts, etc as I'm sure someone owns the right to every kind of plain leather strip with a buckle on it.

I hope that makes it easier to answer.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Nefarious

[TwinOaks]

Short answer is if ABC is copying the design of XYZ's collars...specifically the decorative/artistic arrangement of them...then ABC is violating the copyright because they are duplicating the pattern someone else arranged.

[mlapaglia]

Michael, I dont know if your response was to me or someone else, but I wanted to clarify that in my question, no one is using designs from Tandy. I'm strictly referring to the use of decorative spots, rivets, conchos, etc available from Tandy. For instance, store XYZ creates leather dog collars and decorates them with brass spots available for purchase from Tandy. They placed these brass spots in a pattern they chose. Store XYZ then sells these collars on their website for a set price. Now another store ABC see's these collars and realizes that all the spots used are available from Tandy and decides to duplicate the same pattern as seen on XYZ's website and also sell them. My question is if duplicating a pattern in this manor is wrong? All the spots are purchased from Tandy for both parties, so I dont understand if the order they are placed is copyrighted and can't be duplicated. If it is wrong, where does it stand on offering plain leather collars, leashes, belts, etc as I'm sure someone owns the right to every kind of plain leather strip with a buckle on it.

I hope that makes it easier to answer.

I was not responding to you. I am now. FYI I am not a lawyer. Only a lawyer can really answer your questions. The information below concerns a Supreme court ruling about this matter. You can copyright a design or pattern. If you want to protect it from being duplicated by others for fun or profit you need to apply for and obtain a patent. A copyright does not prevent you from duplicating a pattern for your own use or sale. A Patent does. This will raise a large discussion but read the following then read the whole item here.

In Baker v Selden, 101 US 99 (1879), the Supreme Court specifically addressed the issue of whether or not something made from copyrighted information in a book was covered by the copyright on that book. The Court said, "The mere statement of the proposition is so evident, that it requires hardly any argument to support it." The Supreme Court felt the whole idea was so obvious that it took little explanation but it explained it anyway:

A treatise on the composition and use of medicines, be they old or new; on the construction and use of ploughs, or watches, or churns; or on the mixture and application of colors for painting or dyeing; or on the mode of drawing lines to produce the effect of perspective, would be the subject of copyright; but

no one would contend that the copyright of the treatise would give the exclusive right to the art or manufacture described therein.

[emphasis added]

The Supreme Court in Baker v Selden then went on to say:

That is the province of letters-patent, not of copyright. The claim to an invention or discovery of an art or manufacture must be subjected to the examination of the Patent Office before an exclusive right therein can be obtained; and it can only be secured by a patent from the government.

What the Supreme Court was saying was that is if someone wanted to claim an exclusive right to a product, they needed to apply for a patent. Once one copyrighted material and published that material, the information contained in the material was openly available for the public to use as they wished. Copyright only granted the copyright holder the exclusive right to publish the material, not to control how the material was used.

In Baker v Selden, the Supreme Court also specifically addressed the "practical application" of patterns and rejecting the notion that a copyright would cover the dress made from the pattern:

In

Drury v. Ewing

(1 Bond, 540), ..., a copyright was claimed in a chart of patterns for cutting dresses and basques for ladies, and coats, jackets, &c., for boys. It is obvious that such designs could only be printed and published for information, and not for use in themselves. Their practical use could only be exemplified in cloth on the tailor's board and under his shears; in other words, by the application of a mechanical operation to the cutting of cloth in certain patterns and forms. Surely the exclusive right to this practical use was not reserved to the publisher by his copyright of the chart.

Under Works of The Visual Arts, the US Copyright Office lists "Patterns for sewing, knitting, crochet, needlework" as examples of what "may" qualify for copyright registration. From the US Copyright Office, Circular 40, Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts [in PDF format], page 2, Useful Articles:

Copyright in a work that portrays a useful article extends only to the artistic expression of the author of the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. It does not extend to the design of the article that is portrayed. For example, a drawing or photograph of an automobile or a dress design may be copyrighted, but that

does not give the artist or photographer the exclusive right to make automobiles or dresses of the same design

. [emphasis added]

There is no such thing in US Copyright Law that gives a copyright owner the authority to impose restrictions upon the use of copyrighted material once it has been sold or given away by the copyright owner. There is no such thing in U.S. Copyright Law concerning the "moral rights" of a copyright holder. Selling an item relinquishes future control over that item unless BOTH parties agree otherwise or unless otherwise specifically stated by law. And, there is no protection under the so-called "common law copyright" for things that are defined as being eligible for federal copyright nor is there "common law copyright" protection for things defined as being ineligible for federal copyright protection.

We cannot locate a single federal lawsuit that went to trial where someone has been sued over the use of a pattern. Consider the millions of patterns that have been sold in the last sixty years plus and not one lawsuit? It certainly cannot be because purchasers are strictly following the demands of the pattern manufacturers. Patterns manufacturers do not have the legal right to make many of the demands that they make. Of the major pattern companies, Simplicity, Butterick, McCalls and Vogue, not one has posted on their web sites anything remotely concerning customer limitations on the use of their patterns. Why do you suppose that is? They know they cannot legally restrict the use but they will tell you differently if you email them. The pattern companies are in the business of selling patterns and the great majority of them routinely lie about the use of those patterns. Pattern manufacturers and designers do not have the statutory right to control how many items are made from their patterns or what is done with these items. Imagine purchasing a book on how to build a shed in your back yard from your local hardware store. The book certainly has plans (patterns) and instructions and is copyrighted. Do you expect to have to get permission from the hardware store, the lumberyard, the paint store and the book publisher before you build the shed? Of course not. And then ask for permission to post a picture of this shed on Facebook? Of course not. It is YOUR shed.

Then, after building the shed, since you no longer require the services of this book, you sell it at a yard sale. Do you need permission to sell this book? Of course not. It is YOUR book. And the purchaser of this yard sale book? Does the purchaser need to ask the same permissions as well to build the same shed? Of course not. Sound silly? But this is what pattern designers expect everyone else to do. They are stuck on stupid. And they think you are stupid.

A pattern can be a template, or set of templates, for manufacturing an item, be it a birdhouse or a dress. Templates are not copyrightable. A pattern can also be drawings accompanied by instructions for knitting, crocheting or quilting. A method or procedure is not copyrightable. While the drawings themselves could possibly qualify for copyright protection, the actual instructions are not copyrightable. The only other aspect of patterns that could possibly qualify for copyright protection would be the artwork and that would only be if its intrinsic properties allowed it to be separable from the design, which very, very few designs can do. And to be enforced in federal court a copyright almost always must be registered with the US Copyright Office. When someone releases patterns into the stream of commerce they effectively have relinquished control over the uses of that pattern. What we find disturbing is that there are so many people who want to believe that a pattern manufacturer or a fabric manufacturer has the right to tell you what you can and cannot do after you buy their product. It just is not so. Imagine if General Motors tried to tell you where and when to drive a vehicle you purchased from them. Would you listen to them? Of course not! Read what Carolyn V. Peters, Esq. says about patterns and why the pattern copyright does not cover the end product. She makes a few comments with which we take issue here.

A copyright statement as defined in the US Copyright Act is using the symbol © along with the word "copyright" (or abbreviated "Copr."), the first year of publication of the work, and the name of the copyright owner. Nothing else. Any other statement by the copyright owner is irrelevant, extraneous, unenforceable and improper. Yet companies, and individuals, persist in issuing what they call their "copyright statements".

Pattern designers do not have the legal right to tell you what you can and cannot do with patterns that you have purchased from them. Period. Even if the pattern is a federally registered copyright, and very, very few are, their claims exceed the rights granted under copyright law. Period. They are lying to you. Period. Why are they lying to you? We think some believe what they say. We think some are just plain fools running their mouths. The rest are control freaks. None are correct.

Michael

Edited January 9, 2012 by mlapaglia

[TwinOaks]

Thanks Michael, that was very informative. I'll be sure to refer all instances of "running down case law on issues" to you!!!! Outstanding effort finding all of that.

[mlapaglia]

Thanks,

This particular topic is a strong interest of mine. Glad to help. Of course being a little OC doesn't hurt either.

Michael

Edited January 9, 2012 by mlapaglia

[DoubleC]

Thanks,

This particular topic is a strong interest of mine. Glad to help. Of course being a little OC doesn't hurt either.

Michael

I just took the time to read this whole thread although I'll admit at times my eyes glazed over. I don't understand why people are worrying about disney, harley etc. when I see photos of people's original work HERE being downloaded over and over. Are there people who just come to this board to work from other's pics of finished projects, or not so finished even?

[mlapaglia]

It has happened on other boards. No reason to believe it isnt happening here.

[Leatherbaron]

I know there are laws against it, but I have seen alot of stuff out there that I know is copy righted....and /or a trademark. I'm sure I could spend days reading stuff on the internet and get totally confused, I was more interrested in what was "acccepted" with the "leather Pros".

You want to open a pandoras box , if your worried about all that stuff then you had better not post anything

because even have of the words you say are prone to copyright , best way is if anyone objects delete it , they will give warning anyway ,

if you are selling something then you are more prone to copyright and you should not be using copyright material ( which is anything you did not create )

regards