> >Which means: I can put a picture on my website, but not the pricking, and I
> >should name the source - correct?
>
> Not in my opinion. Many people do this, but I believe it is a breach of
> copyright. A completed piece of lace is a 'derivative work' from the
> pricking, and is subject to just the same copyright limitations as a
> straight copy of the pricking.
Hmmm... You mean the designer of the pattern actually holds copyright on the
piece of lace I made, and images of it??? That seems very strange!
> To help understand why this is so, consider a similar situation. I bought
> an oil painting by E B Watts of a teapot shaped like a cauliflower in a
> field of carrots. The painting I bought is the one and only oil original.
> However, I didn't buy the copyright to the image, only the physical painting
> itself. So E B Watts can (and I believe has) sell prints of the painting I
> own. She can produce Christmas cards with that image on, I can't. The
> image still belongs to her, unless she chooses to sell it. This is
> important because obviously it enables her to continue to earn money from
> her idea.
Right. But this is an image of something she painted, not of something you
made. Of course buying a book doesn't give me the right to post copies of it
anywhere, but I think that should only apply to copies of the book, not of the
lace I made from the book pattern...
The designer can still make money by publishing the pattern, which I can't do.
Of course it's possible for people to look at my image of the lace (or even at
my lace itself, which it's clearly OK to show and lend to others) and try to
reproduce the pricking, but if that is breaking copyright (I've no idea either
way), it's them doing it, not me.
Weronika
--
Weronika Patena
Caltech, Pasadena, CA, USA
http://vole.stanford.edu/weronika
-
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line:
unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
