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.

[Northmount]

45 minutes ago, roo4u said:

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.

His works, photos he has posted, can be copyrighted.  How he braids, unless he can prove it is totally new, can not be copyrighted.  Totally new type of braiding could be patented.

If he makes an instruction manual, he could copyright it.

Tom

[roo4u]

well his braiding is not original nor are his color combos.  some of his products are original just because he has some custom metal items he adds to the braiding.  the statement about copyright on his website made is seem as if all of the items he braided were his original designs and therefore protected by copyright law.  this is of course impossible for the most part just because of how long braiding has been around.  i do see that he has a new design to his website and has removed the bit about copyright.  

[Sledzep01]

On 9/28/2017 at 6:00 AM, roo4u said:

 the statement about copyright on his website made is seem as if all of the items he braided were his original designs and therefore protected by copyright law.  this is of course impossible for the most part just because of how long braiding has been around.  

I see statements like this all the time.

Many work as intended... someone comes along thinking they would like to do this and gets discouraged by the statement. thereby creating 1 less competitor on Etsy or whatever...

I remember taking a class on marketing a Loooooong time ago and the key thing I remember was that the teacher would take the sunday ads and spread them on the floor, go make coffee, walk back in and see what caught his eye.

He would then examine it for whether he could use the design elements in an ad campaign he was involved in.

Then he copied the ??? Integrity? thought? or whatever of the add and ran it till he received a cease and desist from the company.

 Never sure he was truly over the line, he knew he could not fight the large companies sohe stopped or changed...

Point is scare tactics are always used

and copying is always done.

By that time he got good exposure for very little cost (since he copied)

Stay on the right side of YOUR heart an morals and you should be OK. Otherwise do the dance and take your chance

 

Sled

[mikesc]

Because you see someone else copy another person's work or design, or use it, post it etc without the original creator's written permission, does not make it ethical to do so ( it is highly unethical )..nor does it make it legal ( it is illegal ) the laws relating to / governing copyrights were agreed a long time ago in legislation signed by many countries ( including the USA ) "The Berne Convention"..they apply to all citizens and companies etc in each signatory country.

In a simple form the laws say.."all creative works are automatically copyright, they do not need to say so , they may not be reproduced, nor may derivatives be made from them, without the written permission of the original creator of the work".

You would take a car that did not belong to you just because you saw someone take the one which did not belong to them that was parked in front of it..You wouldn't claim a melody or a song ( lot of people get sued over songs and melodies and music ) or a piece of writing was yours , if it was based on something done by someone else..and you wouldn't post a picture from the NYT or post a big chunk of an an article from them without asking them for their permission, ( and getting it, in writing ) ..so , don't do it it the smaller guy / girl..otherwise it is saying that you know that ripping off ( stealing ) other peoples ideas is wrong, but is OK if you think that you can get away with it..Like stealing candy from a little kid, but only as long as their dad or mom isn't there to stop you..

 

Giving "attribution"..is not a get out..you have to have the original creator's written permission to use it first..You can't take a car or candy and say "it's OK..I got it from them "..." I'm only borrowing it, I'll give them credit for where I took it from, I'll maybe even give it back later, they'll love the exposure"..They won't love the "exposure"..that is like raping someone and saying that "they are so cute, here is their address, they'd love for you to visit and maybe do the same to them".

 

It is easy to understand , if you are honest..

Edited January 7, 2018 by mikesc

[roo4u]

it is fear of punishment that keeps most people honest.  but i believe it is unethical to create something like a braided item and know that you are copying things you learned from someone else and then tell the rest of the world if you copy me i will sue you.  the number of people in the world with integrity seems to be shrinking quickly.  very sad

 

tracy

[LeatherNewbie76]

my question on copy right aand reference to the " only so many ways to make a boat" i make dog collars as part of my line.

upon searching the web for collar parts I.E D rings, buckles etc. i came a across a website with this design which is a basic design that everyone uses. HOWEVER. their copyright claim states that all products and designs are theirs. how can they say that and not get in trouble?

[mlapaglia]

Anyone can claim anything they want on a website. Those dog collars would be more of a patent iss and not a copyright thing. It’s to generic an object to be patented any more. A design on the collar could be a copyright but not the basic collar. Consider the Kleenex. They copyrighted the name and the patterns but not the facial tissue it self. 

[Northmount]

3 hours ago, mlapaglia said:

Consider the Kleenex. They copyrighted the name

Kleenex is a registered trademark rather than a copyright.  There are many registered trademarks that have fallen into everyday usage.  Xerox is another common one.

5 hours ago, LeatherNewbie76 said:

their copyright claim states that all products and designs are theirs

Photos and web page may be copyrighted.  So you can't legally publish their photos or pages.

They may also make a pattern and copyright it.  So you couldn't legally resell or distribute their pattern without their agreement and permission.  But you can make and sell any number of collars after purchasing and using their pattern.  Just can't sell the pattern.

A new type of dog collar would be patented if it was something new and unusual.  You can't legally make and sell a patented item without permission.  You can make one for yourself though.  Patents may apply to only one country, but can also be registered in other countries too. 

------------------------------------

Need to be clear and understand the definitions when talking about copyright, trademark, and patent.  I think a lot of people confuse what each refers to.

Tom

[LeatherNewbie76]

Thanks for the replies. I was just curious about the copyright and patent thing as well because their disclaimer says "copyright"

 so maybe the do mean the photos them selves cant be used as your own. The we own all these designs was the kicker to me.

[BDAZ]

I have been involved in a $1M patent suit involving scuba equipment and I hold a number of patents, trademarks and copyrights. The bottomline is how much you are prepared to pay a lawyer to file and later defend a patent or trademark. In the $1M suite the $1M went to the lawyers on both sides and they were the only winners. Trademarks can be modified slightly and copied BUT they are only viable once tested in a court. Same with copyrights. 

If I am producing a non commercial item, say a T-shirt for a party or festival that will be distributed, not sold, I have no worries about ripping off art that the creator will never see, IF I can't find them and get permission, which is usually given. In the case of trademarks, fair use is the only way they can be used by a 3rd party without weakening your trademark in future.

An example is this T-shirt I "created" which was not offered for sale commercially and qualified for fair use. Note: I don't have a political stance in this instance. It was commissioned  for a group of friends.

 

 

Bottom line is, I wouldn't worry about any of this unless you are going into mass production. If threatened, simply offer a licensing fee or explain this is a limited run. Otherwise ignore it. Lawyers will cost more than the problem is worth for the plaintiff.

Note, I am not a lawyer, but have paid them enough to put me through law school!

Bob

Edited July 22, 2018 by BDAZ

[fredk]

Copyright laws are slightly different in the UK and Europe. There is no such defence as 'fair use'; breach of copyright is breach of copyright - simple. But as Bob says; how much are you willing to spend on lawyers? Rip off a Disney character and they'll have your ass in court as soon as you blink because they can afford it [or rip off a pop star's image eg Rihanna; a court case in Belfast, small shop printed her image on T-shirts, sold a few dozen shirts. She had them in court. sued, and won thousands of $$]

When a product goes into patent office before a patent is granted a lawyer and a person from the office searches the records to make sure there hasn't already been a patent issued and that the item is not a 'common use' item eg. you can't patent a potato peeler, but you can patent any improvements to make it work better

PS. Note how Tandy do it. They will sell you the plans/patterns to make nice leather goods. They have the copyright in that design usually and they not only encourage you to make that item, but to make more and sell them. What you cannot do is print off that pattern and sell it as your own

 

Edited July 22, 2018 by fredk

[fredk]

Not leather work - its about chocolate.

In short the story proves how hard it is to 'trademark' [or 'copyright'] a shape. The maker of KitKat has not proven its ' distinctiveness'  against rivals' similar bars

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44939819

[BDAZ]

Again, patents, trademarks and copyrights aren't  worth the paper they are printed on until te$ted in court. Interestingly enough, Tobler has reverted to it's original shape this week, probably to protect it's patent. Sue somone for patent infringement and they will immediately counter sue claiming your patent should never have been issued. So all of a sudden you are forced to defend your patent and spend twice as much on lawyers.

 

Edited July 25, 2018 by BDAZ

[Jarednem]

I have been trying to figure the whole copyright thing as well. A couple weeks ago this guy posts books that he made that is a direct replica of my book design (not the artwork) and has them posted for $200 (way more than I would have charged if I had just started). Then posts a picture of my book (with watermark) to show what people are paying for them. FYI my company it JT Laser- N-Leather.

 Does he have a right to copy my book design? He even admitted to copying it and sell it. Do I just have to live with it and compete with him for business?

Edited August 6, 2018 by Jarednem

[BDAZ]

One aspect of patent or copyright is damages.  You can send him a cease and desist letter and he can either ignore it or stop copying your design. You would have to prove that your design is unique and YOU didn't copy it or it's unique design aspects. Quite frankly its a check book cover with a built in pen holder. Nothing unique there. Even if there was you would have to prove damages. How many lost sales due to his product being on the market. My guess is damages wouldn't pay for a lawyers visit to Starbucks.

My advice....fogedaboudit! Spent the time on making and marketing.

 

Bob