copyright infringement?

[JohnBarton]

Thanks Michael,

I should have read through the thread. You said it all right here.

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

[St8LineGunsmith]

If I by a Tandy cell phone case, tool it with one of their template designs and sell it, is that ok? If I use that same cell phone case "as" a template, use my own leather that I buy from Tandy can I tool it and sell it with my own carving on it? I guess the question is where is the line drawn. I could cut a peice of leather for a cell phone case of my own design, but there may be someone out there that has already created one and Patented that design. Or I may have drawn something, carved it, and later someone sees what I have created, and sue me. So, basically, I just unknowingly infringed on someones art?. Like I said before, I have seen many things out there selling that are VERY similar that could have been "stolen" or just a coincidence. I am fairly artistic, and have done some cool drawings that I could use for leather. With just starting out I have friends that want to buy some of the stuff I've made for practice peices and I want to be clear on what I can and can't do. Perhaps I should start reading up on the "legalities" of this stuff. One of the wallets I did for my son was a "Jackass insignia, I didn't sell it, but thats what my kid wanted on his wallet. That would be concidered wrong, even tho it wasn't sold? This is only a hobby for me, but if I can sell some of the stuff I do for practice I'd like to, unless it turns into a pain in the a**.

if you make something with a jackass logo for your own personal use or as a gift then it is fine but to make items to put on an open market would be considered copy right infringement of the use of the logo without expressed written consent from the owner of the copyright.

as far as the tandy kits are concerned if you buy a kit and make what is in that kit then sell it you have broken no copyright laws because tandy has marketed it to sell to the public after you buy the kit you can do what ever you please with it . now where the copyright infringement would come into play with something like this is if you were to mass produce the kits using the exact patterns and boxing them to sell as a kit.

[LeatherSmith68]

This is just my .02 cents on this and I hope I don't piss anyone off ,BUT I think a lot of you are way off on this Harley thing. It has been stated that if you make something and put something made by Harley on it, you might be in trouble. I see this totally different. If I make something and I put say a Harley patch on it, then there is no way I can be wrong. Isn't that what Harley was selling the patch for in the first place? I don't think they expect anyone to buy a patch and then stick it in a drawer. The other way of thinking, I have a big Harley emblem in the back window of my truck, which I bought the sticker from a Harley dealer. So now if I sell the truck I am breaking the law?

This is done everyday. I don't know how many of my friends have Harley stuff on there vest including me. I don't see a thing wrong with it.

[electrathon]

This is just my .02 cents on this and I hope I don't piss anyone off ,BUT I think a lot of you are way off on this Harley thing. It has been stated that if you make something and put something made by Harley on it, you might be in trouble. I see this totally different. If I make something and I put say a Harley patch on it, then there is no way I can be wrong. Isn't that what Harley was selling the patch for in the first place? I don't think they expect anyone to buy a patch and then stick it in a drawer. The other way of thinking, I have a big Harley emblem in the back window of my truck, which I bought the sticker from a Harley dealer. So now if I sell the truck I am breaking the law?

This is done everyday. I don't know how many of my friends have Harley stuff on there vest including me. I don't see a thing wrong with it.

This is not a matter of adding a Harley patch (made by Harley) on something. It is a matter of making a Harley patch and adding it to a jacket, then marketing it as a harley jacket.

And yes, it is done every day. It is not legal but only so many can be prosicuted. Legality has nothing to do with if you see it as wrong, it has to do with if the court/laws see it as wrong.

[mlapaglia]

if you make something with a jackass logo for your own personal use or as a gift then it is fine but to make items to put on an open market would be considered copy right infringement of the use of the logo without expressed written consent from the owner of the copyright.

as far as the tandy kits are concerned if you buy a kit and make what is in that kit then sell it you have broken no copyright laws because tandy has marketed it to sell to the public after you buy the kit you can do what ever you please with it . now where the copyright infringement would come into play with something like this is if you were to mass produce the kits using the exact patterns and boxing them to sell as a kit.

Actually its Trademark infringement not copyright. Logos are handled a little differently. As stated in this thread using a logo patch is ok, making a logo patch is not ok

Just remember, if you buy a pattern, no matter what it says on it, you can make and sell items made from the pattern. Copyright protects the sale of the pattern. Even if the owner say you can NOT make and sell the item it is legal to make and sell it. The only time someone can be protected is if they hold the patent on the item. Patent protects the item copyright protects the instructions.

[hollisyoung]

I've done alot of things with "Playboy Bunnies" and "trucker girls" on them. I know these are probably trademarked but I try to put my own twist on it. Plus all the leatherwork I've put those things on is on chaps and spur leathers for the fine feedlot cowboys of the Texas Panhandle so I think I'm in the clear.

[prc77ro]

I'm new to the site and to leather work and I wouldn't want to infringe on anyone elses work so i have some questions as far as patterns for knife sheaths and spur straps( as this is what i am currently working/practicing in).

There are alot of custom knife, knife and sheath and sheath makers on the net. I have done alot of reasearch, read "how to's" watched the Youtube vid's and watched the vid's on Tandy. So my question is this: is it an infringement on a custom maker if I look at their website, and use the design of one or several of their sheaths as an insperation for my own? For example: the first website I found was for a Canadian custom knife maker who put a tutorial on his website for making a pocket type sheath, seemed a good place to start so I ordered some leather(I started with a Belly) dye, stamps and gave it a go for a cheap Frost skinner that I had. the second site gave a pic intensive how to for a stacked leather sheath by another custom sheath maker(but he only makes sheaths for a certain brand of knives). I tooled the front and over 3/4's of the back and did a double row of hand stiches (ladder stich) for another Frost, a 13" fixed blade. I am currently working on another sheath for another Frost knife that I wanted to have the spine and a portion of the blade grind exposed on. For this I found another custom maker who hand makes all of his knives and the sheaths are custom to each knife he makes, but he does not make sheaths for any other knives. He makes several exposed spine sheaths with different types of retainers and that is I guess my real question, I don't want to "steal his work" but the designs are incredible, and i was hoping that through my own practice I will be able to draw the curves and lines without needing to take bits and pieces of others work.

2nd as far as spur straps...Tandy has patterns for download so i was wondering if I do the tooling all on my own as far as choosing the stamps, the layout and any carving and the buckles then that would be considered original? Like i said I'm new to this trade and I just want to do it right. It's mainly for fun and a hobbie but since I finished my first two some of the guys at work are asking for sheaths to replace canvas or worn out leather ones and holsters too.

Oh, i hope to eventually get photos uploaded of the work that I have done so I can get some feedback.

Phil

[Cyberthrasher]

I'd say that for the most part you are ok. The Tandy stuff is sold for you to make. You can't sell their patterns, but you can produce the item portrayed (this has been discussed in detail in this thread). As for gaining stuff from tutorials, it could be a little trickier. Because you're taking the designs from a tutorial that was offered up, then I would say that any reasonable person would expect their patterns used in the tutorial to be reproduced unless stated otherwise. Your final example though where you are just really inspired by a specific artist can get trickier. If he is the ONLY person that makes that design, then it could be said that he has an implied claim to it. The best bet here would be to contact the artist and ask his permission to use aspects of his design while you try to make it your own. You'll find that many artists actually love that they inspire people and are more than happy to share their ideas as long as credit is given and permission asked.

[Phil1]

Looks like I saw this Thread just in time....

Cigarettes went to 'Plain Packaging' a few months ago out here in Australia, and I was thinking recently of making some Leather Cigarette Cases, with the Cigarette Logo (or as close as my skills will allow, anyway), and sell them....now, after seeing all these comments, I'm not so sure :-/

[Shamenlong]

As far as I'm aware you only need to make seven changes to the original design to avoid any opyright issue