RE: [lace] Re: Chandler's Mat
Adele wrote: Hmmm. Not to start an international copyright war, or anything, but - suppose somebody did make that mat from the photo, without using the pricking that Ruth Bean published. Would they be able to, say, make a hi-resolution scan of the mat that they made, and then either sell it or provide it to lacemakers for free, and have it all be perfectly legal? I wouldn't have thought it would be legal. I haven't compared the two, but isn't the Ruth Bean one a version of the mat - i.e. not an exact copy of the original. Both of those designs and photos would still be under copyright, but you could always make a pricking of a similar mat of your own design which had different elements in it. If the original and Ruth Bean ones aren't identical, then that's what has been done there and Patricia Bury produced a pricking based on the photo. You'd have to get legal advice on whether or not you could photocopy the existing pricking and than makes changes to it or if you'd have to start with a blank canvas. Jean in Poole, Dorset, UK - To unsubscribe send email to majord...@arachne.com containing the line: unsubscribe lace y...@address.here. For help, write to arachne.modera...@gmail.com. Photo site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lacemaker/sets/
Re: [lace] Re: Chandler's Mat
It would be perfectly legal to draft the pattern from scratch working from the photo of either the Ruth Bean version or the older pre Bean print runs. In the process some differences would creep in anyway. Particularly if the lacemaker freely acknowledged the original source material. But if you have the experience to do that, why not design your own mat over a point ground net background. If you can't draw from scratch then take motifs from other pieces as your starting point, as Jean said. Although either of these options would be a huge task, I think it would still be easier than trying to work over the top of a not clear photograph. It would be so difficult with that to see where you might want to put the pins, and which are your threads and which are white parts of the photo. Having looked at the photos in both my 1926 Channer and my 1953 revised edition, I can tell you that under any magnification at all the picture just breaks down into dots and cross hatchings or whatever the photo equivalents of pixels are. It is really not possible to see where pins might have been placed around the cloth stitch motifs and absolutely impossible to get any help from the photo on points such as how many pairs have been used, added or removed. We have been spoilt by our modern digital photos and on screen enlargements, allowing us to follow a pattern thread by thread. I don't have the Ruth Bean reprint so it is possible the photo in that of Pat Bury's mat might be a better quality and more amenable to enlarging, but even if it is I still believe it would be more of a challenge to work over a photo than onto a pricking and I suspect those of you who have made the mat would feel it was sufficiently challenging already. One of my Students is currently working a Floral Bucks brush back, I think a Marjorie Carter design from an ancient Lace Society magazine. Even with a well made pricking it's sometimes hard to plan through the forest of pins which ground pairs are available, how many extras might be needed for the cloth work and if a pair can be removed or should be carried a short way with a gimp to be used in the next bit of cloth stitch. If she had a photo underneath it would all be so 'busy' I think she'd have cut it off long ago. As it is, there's no photo at all so she is working by reading the pricking in the traditional way! Jacquie in Lincolnshire. - To unsubscribe send email to majord...@arachne.com containing the line: unsubscribe lace y...@address.here. For help, write to arachne.modera...@gmail.com. Photo site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lacemaker/sets/
Re: [lace] Re: Chandler's Mat 2
I should have made clear I meant perfectly legal to use the photo in order to be able to make a pricking for your own use. Not to sell. And assuming you own or have a copy of the book all the time you are making the mat (see below). I seem to remember in an earlier Channer mat discussion some explained that technically once you sell, give or even loan a book or pattern, at that point you no longer are entitled to keep any copies you made from it, even for your own use. You sell give or loan your entitlement to benefit from the copyright as the item leaves your possession. You will be relieved to hear though that you can keep the lace you made as that is your interpretation of the pricking and thus has a copyright all of its own - presumably explaining the Pat Bury/Ruth Bean copyright of that version of the Channer mat. Can whoever posted the information tell me if I have remembered that correctly? When did Miss Channer die? Margaret Waller is already talking about her in the past tense in 1953. Once a certain number of years have passed (70?) from her death, will her original pricking be out of copyright, or will Ruth Bean's successors still hold that, even though it's not the pricking used in the reprint? Jacquie in Lincolnshire. - To unsubscribe send email to majord...@arachne.com containing the line: unsubscribe lace y...@address.here. For help, write to arachne.modera...@gmail.com. Photo site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lacemaker/sets/
Re: [lace] Re: Chandler's Mat
Hmmm. Not to start an international copyright war, or anything, but - suppose somebody did make that mat from the photo, without using the pricking that Ruth Bean published. Would they be able to, say, make a hi-resolution scan of the mat that they made, and then either sell it or provide it to lacemakers for free, and have it all be perfectly legal? Just wondering. Adele West Vancouver, BC (west coast of Canada) On 2014-01-03, at 4:36 PM, Clay Blackwell wrote: I also have the book you mention, but I can tell you that, from the experience that I have had in reconstruction, blowing up (a grainy process) from a grainy picture in an old book, will leave you very unhappy about what you are seeing. In spite of that, I challenge you to do this and will be the first to admit that you have achieved a miracle, if and when it is done!!! On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:05 PM, Louise in Central Virginia humem...@verizon.net wrote: I have Ruth Bean's book on Ms Chandler and resolved that if I every decided to try the Mat, I would just scan the picture of it in the book, enlarge to size and work directly othe picture as a pricking. I think That would work for me and no problem with copywrites - To unsubscribe send email to majord...@arachne.com containing the line: unsubscribe lace y...@address.here. For help, write to arachne.modera...@gmail.com. Photo site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lacemaker/sets/
Re: [lace] Re: Chandler's Mat
Hello Susie and everyone I can add that the scan at any resolution can only be as clear as the image itself being scanned but should be ok to work on, and the image would then be available in magnified view on-screen for reference :) On another note, for those searching and/or waiting to own a copy of the pricking for Miss Channer's mat, there are some fine challenges to do in the meantime from the booklet of Floral Bucks Point patterns edited by Jean Leader. http://www.jeanleader.co.uk/publications/floralbuckspoint.html On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:50 PM, C Johnson cjohnson0...@comcast.net wrote: I was wondering - in regard to working from a picture on the pillow, wouldn't it be better to scan the picture at 300 dots per inch or better and then print from the picture -- Bev in Shirley BC, near Sooke on beautiful Vancouver Island, west coast of Canada - To unsubscribe send email to majord...@arachne.com containing the line: unsubscribe lace y...@address.here. For help, write to arachne.modera...@gmail.com. Photo site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lacemaker/sets/
