copyright infringement?

[MonicaJacobson]

@catstamp

There are SO MANY people who make field notes covers, and they're almost exactly alike (by necessity). I would hope another leatherworker wouldn't hold that kind of thing against anyone, because it goes with the territory on that particular item. It also sometimes happens that a customer takes offense because they feel you've ripped off a design from their favorite seller.

As I see it, there's almost nothing new under the sun in leatherworking. Unless it's an actual brand, it's fair game. Some things are too distinctive to copy, but I look here and everywhere else on the internet for inspiration. It's part of learning - you have to learn how to make all the cool little details, and that isn't dishonest or infringement. The way you pull it together is what distinguishes you.

[NVLeatherWorx]

The biggest issue when using patterns, whether templates or design drawings, is when a person claims that the artistic elements that they have carved/tooled as their own work. I still use several of the original Al Stohlman designs that I started with back in the late 70's as they are still quite popular among those who enjoy true art in leather, but every time I do list one of these works I give full credit to Al, or whomever's pattern that I have used, as it is THEIR design, I only put it to leather as a tribute to their artistic skill.

Another issue is that ever so frequent question that pops up, including here within our community of leatherworkers, for patterns to copy a specific namebrand product or item; there are enough fakes out there already so I just don't understand why there is a need to add another name to the list of those who have already stolen the concept/idea of another. However, using the idea that field notes cover/case is violating some trademark or intellectual property rights is extremely absurd and I would suggest that the "leatherworker" who gave you flap over it is himself one of those who copies everything he can from others and puts his name on it with no "tip of the hat" to the original artist.

[Northmount]

Here are some links about copyright and fair use I came across this morning.  They contain good information and "lots of opinion".  Helps to define fair use, derivative works, transformation, etc.  After reading them, it appears we should give credit to the originator even though our work may be very transformative.  For example, it we take someone's photograph, convert it to a line drawing, use that as a tracing pattern to tool a piece of leather, we should give credit to the originator, even though there is really no copyright infringement due to the transformative nature of our work.  It is good etiquette.  Further, the originator should be asked for their permission, again as good etiquette.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/compound-eye/infringement-or-fair-use-have-a-look/

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/compound-eye/infringement-or-fair-use-part-ii-the-opinioning/

http://bizarrocomics.com/2013/07/21/fly-by-drawing/

Tom

 

[JLSleather]

It's likely appropriate that this topic went on for years   

This stuff certainly can be confusing - some of that is no doubt deliberate.  I make patterns from time to time, so I did look into it a bit, though I'm not paying the lawyers to give me every line of legal code.  Still, there are some things which can be stated fairly clearly.

A 'copyright' needs to be fairly specific.  If you make notebooks, don't assume that the next person won't make them as well.

And it would need to be yours.  I've actually heard from people who used elements from Disney, Harley Davidson, and the NFL-- and then got mad when someone else did the same thing.  

It needs to be ENFORCED.  This can get expensive on it's own, so not surprising that not EVERY violation is pursued (much like not every cocaine seller is arrested, doesn't mean it's legal).  Some owners are better at "protecting" their property than others, and sometimes "protecting" it means NOT 'enforcing' it (if you aren't following that, don't worry).

Finally, it's NOT about how many you sold, or who you sold them to, or even IF you sold them.  If you make belts with the Pittsburgh Steelers IP, there might well be a problem (one guy been asking me for a good while now).  If you GIVE it away, then that organization could still show that they lost revenue due to your actions (you get the idea).  As for someone else's patterns... you may have seen some fancy looking speeches about "for your own use, not for distribution, not for commercial use"or something along those lines.  As a rule, if you purchase a pattern, you can make things with that pattern INCLUDING items you intend to sell. What you can't legally sell is THE PATTERN itself.

I personally saw one situation not far back.  Kid graduated from Iowa State University.  Somewhere along the line, he decided it was a good idea to have matching shirts for his buddies, only other boys who had graduated ISU.  The boys all kicked in the price of the shirts, and he printed (or had them printed) shirts which used the ISU logo -- about a dozen of them.  Now, most likely think of the school as a "state" school, but don't be deceived ... that is a business.  Kid ended up on the local news, apparently had been contacted and had agreed to collect and destroy the shirts and not make any more, like "all friendly" like.

 

[JLSleather]

Oh, yeah... young fella around here mentioned once he got a "friendly" letter from a wallet maker -- apparently the guy thought he had 'rights' to a shape, or style, etc. But I've seen pics of the wallet he was supposedly trying to "safeguard" the design of, and it's so plain that it's unenforceable.  It's also so plain that anybody over age 12 could make them by tomorrow, but that's another story   So i (not a lawyer) suggested that the kid continue to make as many as he cares to make, long as he isn't using the other guy's logo on it.

I add this to make the point:  because someone contacts you about "copying" does not give them any legal rights at all.  Again, it first needs to be original, specific, and YOURS to "protect" it.  I could protect a pattern for a pancake holster for the Colt Commander (but, I don't.. download it free at will) but I have no rights to pancake holsters, Colt Commanders, or even OTHER patterns for the same thing.  Someone else has made holsters for that, and if they choose to sell them there's nothing I could do about it (even if I wanted to).

On the lighter side, I'm occasionally amused (again) at the many people who use an airbrush on the edges of something in veg-tan leather.  Gibson guitars made that renowned over 70 years ago (back then, they called it "sunburst") but about every other year you see some leather worker "invented" the look (like, last week.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2016 by JLSleather

[MADMAX22]

On 5/25/2016 at 4:01 AM, JLSleather said:

On the lighter side, I'm occasionally amused (again) at the many people who use an airbrush on the edges of something in veg-tan leather.  Gibson guitars made that renowned over 70 years ago (back then, they called it "sunburst") but about every other year you see some leather worker "invented" the look (like, last week.

 

Haha no kidding, along with probably 95% of most leatherwork. People have been making this stuff for thousands of years, the only thing that changes really are a few new machines, the items they are made for and the styles which evolve over time. 

 

 

[Pavel]

I'm not an attorney (thought the wife studied law, but torts .. so different altogether) but I do know a fair amount about copyright do's and dont's.  I was the photographer for North Carolina's State Educational agency and had meetings with our lawyers on this topic. What I found interesting is that different lawyers can also understand this fun stuff in slightly different ways, when it gets dow to the fine points. What's a normal person to do?

Copyright is very different from trademark and patents are different yet again.  I was only ever concerned about copyright, btw.

One does not have to make ANY mark or statement to have copyright. Creating the image, text or melody grants that automatically,  except in the case of work for hire.  If for example one was to make a line drawing of one of my photographs, and then make a work of it without significant change then you are almost in some pretty serious trouble if I want to take the trouble to create it. However the act of creating and copying my work is not a problem I can do anything about - until you profit. It is how you use it. I can not stop editorial use. It is common and polite to ask however. As soon as you sell the work, however, you are in violation, and I can look to sue and recoup damages.  In respect to photographs however I will not likely get much money - unless before the violation I have also registered the photograph.  Than I can go after substantial sums - punitive damages. Fair use does not apply selling someone's copyrighted works ... but to non commercial use. I've never seen copyright used in manufactured goods. That I believe is the "trademark" area, or perhaps infringement of a patent, if there is something unique and new that is patentable in a wallet. Is there ever? 

contrary to what many people think, one can take all the photos of anyone in a public setting where there is no reasonable right to privacy. That goes for minors. You can publish them in an editorial context without any consent forms.  But the day you try to sell them to other than an editorializing venue service (such as a magazine, educational material or news outlet ) you may have a lot of trouble. And large companies have money for legal recourse, while that is tough on small one owner shops. If you are small, just having to show up in court is kind of a loss, right there, if it is bigger than small claims.

That is why commercial work should always have a good release, and keep in mind that a release is a contract so it must have benefits for both parties. Some releases are contracted at the venue. For example when you buy a ticket to many places.  What many photographers don't know and run into as a problem is that trademarks must not be in the photograph if it is sold. Technically if one takes a photographs at a wedding and there is Micky mouse in the shot  ... one should get a release from Disney, and good luck with that, getting it for no consideration.  Put Mickey mouse on your wallet, where it is recognizable as THE Mikey ... now that is taunting the fates. 

So yes it gets complicated and convoluted. I know what I've mentioned s is not directly related to leather-working but my basic point is that internet wisdom (my own, too) is worth mostly what you've paid for it.  It helps to realize the prudence is usually the best way forward and consulting an attorney is money well spent. But so few will ever think of spending it, will they?

Asking legal advice in a forum? That is almost as amusing as internet tax advice. I mean - what could possibly go wrong, right? :D

[ContactCement]

Stop buying the non-magnetic leather stamps sold by the thousands and make your own personal stamp designs and never sell them or loan them to anyone. If you want to carve a pattern no-one else has ever carved. Close you eyes and carve the stupid leather.

[JLSleather]

 

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".

It's going to depend on what you call "pro".  I think the definition is that you get paid for it... has nothing to do with skill (or the lack of it).  But the only one who decides what is "accepted" is the originator of the design in question.

A while back I talked with a kid who had received a letter telling him that even though he wasn't being "prosecuted" as yet, he should stop using this other guys' designs (and he hinted about lawsuits).

But looking at that guy's designs (the one who claimed he was being copied) there is nothing that is actually "his".  Women's wallets made from embossed hides and prints, veg leather wallets and belts with a "fade" dyed on them (which is at least 70 years old), Harley Davidson wrote on more projects than not (I assume we all know that aint his), and an old anvil (which has been around since Clint Eastwood was slingin' a sidearm  ).

Seriously, before anybody goes on about "being copied", make sure your design really is your design.  

I've seen some real talent in leather over teh years, but I have yet to see anyone making anything nicer than Stohlman did.  HEre's the point... if Al and Ann think it's "okay" to make Harley Davidson items, that means nothing without expressed permission from HD.  It may be worth noting, I've never seen anything from the Stohlmans with an 'HD' on it.

Incidentally, I recommended to that young man that he continue to do what he was doing - I wouldn't even reply to the letter.  If somebody wants to invest his time and money in a case he can't win, let 'em.

Edited April 30, 2017 by JLSleather

[roo4u]

here is a situation i recently came across regarding copyrights.  i am a braider and surf the internet once in a while to look at other braiders work...not to copy but just as an interest, never know when you might come across some interesting new knot or braid to learn.  i came across a site selling braided goods.  the braider states on his website that all his works are covered under copyright law but also states he learned to braid from same book i learned from.  none of his designs are original as far as the braiding goes so how can he claim copyright on something that has been done for thousands of years?  it boggles the mind that someone would even try that.