, 2007 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [lace] Pattern copyright
Most books carry a notice on the copyright page saying that the book
cannot
be resold, but in most cases it wouldn't be practical or financially
worth
the author or publisher taking legal action to stop a secondhand copy
being
Hi all,
Afaik, publishers destroy old unsold books by tearing off the front
cover before destroying them. This means that if you are offered a book
without the front cover, neither the author nor the publisher has made
any money from it, so it is considered stolen goods.
Regards,
Katja Gamby
The reason books have the statement about covers and copyright pages in the US
is that paperback books are sent out to bookstores, and if not sold, the
bookstore can return the cover and copyright page for credit on their account.
The bookstores are supposed to destroy the rest of the book,
: Re: [lace] Pattern copyright
Most books carry a notice on the copyright page saying that the book
cannot
be resold, but in most cases it wouldn't be practical or financially
worth
the author or publisher taking legal action to stop a secondhand copy
being
sold
Wow, that's hard to believe
My understanding of the phrase (I can be corrected if someone has more
official information) the book can't be resold without the original cover
is that this is for paper back books. If they are not sold at the store they
are shipped to, the cover is to be removed and returned, and the remainder
Hello, everybody:
In many (if not most) countries the *intent* of the original law is also
considered before an action is deemed to be illegal.
For example, the law against reselling without the original cover would mean
that if your cover fell off or were somehow destroyed you were out of
If making items for money raising is against copyright, then woe be tide to
all those who purchase Family Circle magazine and the like for putting
patterns in their magazine for just that purpose.
Well, if they actually say they're for that purpose, that's clearly OK, but
otherwise I don't
But can putting a boasting picture, with proper credits to book and
designer, on a non-commercial boasting website, really be described as
*publishing* except in the very widest sense of the word, ie make generally
known. Surely it's the modern equivalent of having it hanging on your wall
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:24:23 -0700, Weronika wrote:
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
In respect to this current thread I wondered if there was any copyright on
items you produce and want to sell? Do they have to be your own patterns or
can you make someone elses?
Rhiannon
-
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line:
unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
SORRY!! I'm a little behind on the emails and realise someone has already
asked this..many apologies - but good to know where we stand
Rhiannon
-
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line:
unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
With regards to selling items made from other peoples' designs this happens
all the time. I have collected soft toy patterns, both knitted and sewn, for
about 40 years now. When I attend craft fairs I often seen knitted toys for
sale designed by Jean Greenhowe among others. And I frequently
Bev wonders if any designers make a living out of their designs. Well, there
are many who make part of their living from designing and selling their
designs. One I know prints her designs onto red paper to prevent illegal
photocopying for friends etc in order to protect her income. I don't
Hi everyone and Pat who wrote:
I don't think the
prices
she charges refelect the time spent designing and then making the lace.
Every
piece she designs is made before the design is sold. There is nothing to
stop
you, Bev, from printing your own designs and selling them.
Good points - to the
This isn't strictly lace, but same copyright subject. I bought a book last
year about making beaded christmas tree ornaments(amongst other things) and
am planning to sell some at a Christmas Fair I am helping to organize to
raise money for the Care Home for which I work. As I have so little
I think this is clearly a breach of copyright. Even if you were making the ornaments
yourself to sell, the law of most countries stipulates that instructions/patterns are
for personal use only. Making ornaments and selling them is not personal use; it's
commercial use, even if you're doing it
As lace patterns pubished in books and magazines or sold as individual
patterns are meant to be made and the design admired, then I can see no
problem putting photos of the finished items on web sites, or displaying
them elsewhere with the source of the pattern stated. In fact I'm sure the
While still on this subject, but not about lace, I have a book of quilting
blocks that I wanted to print off and use for a master copy. The book
handily came with a cd of all the blocks to print(and adjust size if you
like). Since I knew the author, I emailed her and asked permission to make
a
My youngest son, Alex, who is 20, just informed me the other day that Jimi
Hendrix(for all familiar with 1960's music) did not, nor does his estate,
own any of his works, and they cannot afford a proper burial site for him
because the record company owns all his music and anything Jimi Hendrix.
If making items for money raising is against copyright, then woe be tide to
all those who purchase Family Circle magazine and the like for putting
patterns in their magazine for just that purpose.
I think there is a point where the copyright issue becomes just a silly bit
of nonsense. If you're
I also have the quandry that in making lace for the great niece/nephew's
Christening gown, I am using my grandmother torchon lace, made over 80 years
ago, as a guide to design mine. I have looked through several books to find
similar designs incorporating spiders with fans and then had help
Steph wrote: 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.
Bev added: if a pricking is published with the intent that a reader would
use it to produce a piece of lace, then the designer
all those who purchase Family Circle magazine and the like for putting
patterns in their magazine for just that purpose.
If the magazine states its designs are for bazaar items, then that's tacit
permission to use them for bazaar items.
What if I bought yards and yards of fabric and made
In a message dated 25/08/2004 14:49:44 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, the case can probably be made
that they intended the patterns and their derivatives (the finished lace or
bookcase or whatever) to be for personal use and not for publishing by the
people who made
In a message dated 8/25/04 8:14:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If making items for money raising is against copyright, then woe be tide to
all those who purchase Family Circle magazine and the like for putting
patterns in their magazine for just that purpose.
I
I think there is a point where the copyright issue becomes just a silly
bit of nonsense. If you're making items to raise money for a cause, I
would say make them, sell them, and if someone wants to come sue you, let
them come. Imagine how silly THEY would look, having their attorney send a
nasty
But can putting a boasting picture, with proper credits to book and
designer, on a non-commercial boasting website, really be described as
*publishing* except in the very widest sense of the word, ie make generally
known. Surely it's the modern equivalent of having it hanging on your wall
where
Very interested in this thread.
Now here is a thought - I have a pattern which I bought last year for some
free lace. Now the 'pricking' is not a pricking in the true sense of the word -
it is simply a the outline drawing of the pin lines with no holes marked.
(Yes, very free lace indeed).
Lynn, I can put your mind at rest on one point - I.L.Soft (the author of the
lace programme) does not own the copyright on your pattern!! The computer
programme was only the tool you used to draw the pattern - from what you've
said to me privately, I would say the ownership of the design and
Hi everyone
R. wrote:
Designers make a pittance from their labors. Some are trying to make a
living at it and when we violate their copyright we are taking their
livelihood away from them. Some are so close to breaking even that they
B. scratches head in confusion:
Are we talking about lace
In a message dated 24/08/2004 05:58:41 GMT Standard Time, Adele writes:
Hi Weronika -
you raised a couple of interesting questions. Copyright law recognizes
that there is a process by which a copyright image or creation becomes
changed, changed again, and further changed, and eventually
For example, in the Milanese books by Read and Kincaid there are lots of
Milanese braid designsCan I use these braids in my patterns (including
patterns that are just a straight piece of braid for a bookmark g)
without copyright infringement? If I draw diagrams by myself, can I put
them on my
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:29:12PM -0700, Adele Shaak wrote:
Your bookmark sounds like an adaptation to me.
Which means: I can put a picture on my website, but not the pricking, and I
should name the source - correct?
If you had looked at a photo of a finished piece and said to yourself
And don't forget that each country has their own copyright rules, meaning
that whatever US copyright rules apply to the US, doesn't necessarily apply
to your country. You may have a copy of a book produced in the US, and
copyrighted there, but in your country it might be quite allright for you to
- Original Message -
From: Dorte Zielke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Weronika Patena [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: [lace] pattern copyright and adaptations
Hi Weronika, when you change the pattern at least 20 procent, you can call
it your own design,
so
Here's another thought, we are allowed under british copyright law to
photocopy a percentage of a book (which can't exceed certain qualifications, in the
uk it's no more than about a third of the book or x number of articles).
So, I get my book 'A visual introduction to Bucks Point Lace' by
In a message dated 24/08/2004 19:54:03 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Less it is written that this book is for eduction, you are alowed to make
a
copy to thouse you a teaching to lace.
Hope that can be to some help
Dorte
Dorte,
I like that caveat - that you can say that
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:55:06 -0700, Weronika wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:29:12PM -0700, Adele Shaak wrote:
Your bookmark sounds like an adaptation to me.
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
: Steph Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: [lace] pattern copyright and adaptations
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:55:06 -0700, Weronika wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:29:12PM -0700, Adele Shaak
wrote:
Your bookmark sounds like
you raised a couple of interesting questions. Copyright law recognizes
that there is a process by which a copyright image or creation becomes
changed, changed again, and further changed, and eventually is no
longer the original image or creation at all. Unfortunately there is no
It's my understanding that Read considers her *diagrams* of the braids to be
copyrighted but not the braids themselves. In Sandi Woods' class, she said
she specifically got Pat's permission to do diagrams like Pat's for her own
book. If you publish diagrams, I believe you need to develop
Hi everyone
Steph wrote:
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. So you should ask the copyright holder for
Fun with copyright. I see it this way: if a pricking is
Hi Weronika -
you raised a couple of interesting questions. Copyright law recognizes
that there is a process by which a copyright image or creation becomes
changed, changed again, and further changed, and eventually is no
longer the original image or creation at all. Unfortunately there is no
43 matches
Mail list logo
