copyrights and multiples...eh?

Hello All,

I am somebody who would like to respect copyright laws as much as
possible.

But here is one for the people who like to tell me that I must pay 10x
for working a chart 10x (for myself, original chart purchased, etc...):

My public library owns needlework books. They lend them to anybody
with a library card, and these borrowers can work designs from the
books.

Now here's my point: public libraries cannot afford to pay more than
the list price for a book but they make the designs available to many
many people. So are the libraries violating copyright, or are the
people who work charts from these borrowed books violating copyright?
NOOO as long as they are not selling the worked pieces or selling
photocopies.

So why should designers get their knickers in knots?? WHY don't those
designers spend their efforts on chasing down the really blatant
violators who photocopy charts to resell with kits, and leave us honest
accumulators of charts alone?

And while we're at it, can any of you designers come into my house and
tell the difference between a chart that I was given as a gift, and one
that I bought?

Didn't think so. SO BACK OFF the honest people.

Oh, and it is ILLEGAL to scan a photo from a book, and convert it to a
chart. No question there at all...the photos are copyright.

Irene

Libraries have to follow copyright laws too. next time you are in your
public library, go over to the photocopy machine and look for the
copyright notice that should be posted on it (or near to it).

If you would like more information, talk to you public librarian. I'm
sure (s)he'd love to discuss Fair Use. ;-)

an academic librarian

wrote:
Hello All,

I am somebody who would like to respect copyright laws as much as
possible.

But here is one for the people who like to tell me that I must pay 10x
for working a chart 10x (for myself, original chart purchased, etc...):

My public library owns needlework books. They lend them to anybody
with a library card, and these borrowers can work designs from the
books.

Now here's my point: public libraries cannot afford to pay more than
the list price for a book but they make the designs available to many
many people. So are the libraries violating copyright, or are the
people who work charts from these borrowed books violating copyright?
NOOO as long as they are not selling the worked pieces or selling
photocopies.

So why should designers get their knickers in knots?? WHY don't those
designers spend their efforts on chasing down the really blatant
violators who photocopy charts to resell with kits, and leave us honest
accumulators of charts alone?

And while we're at it, can any of you designers come into my house and
tell the difference between a chart that I was given as a gift, and one
that I bought?

Didn't think so. SO BACK OFF the honest people.

Oh, and it is ILLEGAL to scan a photo from a book, and convert it to a
chart. No question there at all...the photos are copyright.

Irene

lid wrote:

Libraries have to follow copyright laws too. next time you are in your
public library, go over to the photocopy machine and look for the
copyright notice that should be posted on it (or near to it).

That assumes the person borrowing the pattern book is going to copy it.

If the argument is that one pattern = one finished work, then the
library is violating copyright by making one pattern available to create
many finished works by many people. The library could limit this for
law-abiding folks by not allowing renewals but that doesn't account for
someone who could actually stitch the design in the time before the due
date.

The spirit, therefore, is that if it's in the library, it's fair game.

Let's list the arguments and define our terms.

Argument 1: One pattern = ONE finished work. Pattern may no longer be
used by anyone ever again. Finished work may not be sold, traded, or
gifted. Copies of pattern may not be made for any purpose other than
"working copies" (and some designers don't even like working copies)

Argument 2: One pattern = finished work. Pattern may NOT be traded,
sold, or gifted. Original owner of pattern may use the pattern more
than once. Finished work may or may not be sold, traded, or gifted.
Copies of pattern may not be made for any purpose other than "working
copies."

Argument 3: One pattern = finished work. Pattern may be traded, sold,
or gifted once original owner is through with it. Finished work may or
may not be sold, traded, or gifted. Copies of pattern may not be made
for any purpose other than "working copies."

IMO, the greater damage is done by those making copies that they then
sell, trade, or gift. In none of the arguments I listed above is this
acceptable, as I think we all acknowledge that it's not. Those who
practice this on a large scale basis know what they're doing is wrong
and attempt to justify it on one level or another or simply thumb their
nose at the law and do it where they're out of reach.

I must admit I'm really rather stunned about the quilt thingie, which
brings to fore yet a fourth argument (which I have heard expressed and
in a very detailed manner):

Argument 4: One pattern = one finished work in the exact manner which
it was written (i.e., in no other medium). No conversions, no floss
brand alteration, no fabric change, no change of any type; any and all
of these may be considered copyright violations.

My level of comfort as a designer/charter is at Argument 3. There is no
way I'm going to police my charts or track where they go in order to
make a point that's riven with inconsistent legal interpretation.


--
Elizabeth
Pop the bubbles to reply.

www.effervescentdesigns.com

So do copy stores like kinko's. I worked at one for 3 yrs in college
and we were really strict about not copying anything with a copyright,
unless the person asking produced ID to prove they owned it.

Self-serve was another story, but we were supposed to monitor it, and
stop people from copying an entire book!

Caryn
Who once understood, sorta, "fair use."


lid wrote:
Libraries have to follow copyright laws too. next time you are in your
public library, go over to the photocopy machine and look for the
copyright notice that should be posted on it (or near to it).

If you would like more information, talk to you public librarian. I'm
sure (s)he'd love to discuss Fair Use. ;-)

an academic librarian

wrote:
Hello All,

I am somebody who would like to respect copyright laws as much as
possible.

But here is one for the people who like to tell me that I must pay 10x
for working a chart 10x (for myself, original chart purchased, etc...):

My public library owns needlework books. They lend them to anybody
with a library card, and these borrowers can work designs from the
books.

Now here's my point: public libraries cannot afford to pay more than
the list price for a book but they make the designs available to many
many people. So are the libraries violating copyright, or are the
people who work charts from these borrowed books violating copyright?
NOOO as long as they are not selling the worked pieces or selling
photocopies.

So why should designers get their knickers in knots?? WHY don't those
designers spend their efforts on chasing down the really blatant
violators who photocopy charts to resell with kits, and leave us honest
accumulators of charts alone?

And while we're at it, can any of you designers come into my house and
tell the difference between a chart that I was given as a gift, and one
that I bought?

Didn't think so. SO BACK OFF the honest people.

Oh, and it is ILLEGAL to scan a photo from a book, and convert it to a
chart. No question there at all...the photos are copyright.

Irene

Dear Librarian,

Please tell me where I used the word "photocopy" in my post?

My public library owns needlework books. They lend them to anybody
with a library card, and these borrowers can work designs from the
books.


"Work" does NOT mean photocopy, it means STITCH.

This is the semantic point that I am trying to make: that a chart
grants explicit permission to work (stitch) it. In fact, to stitch it
as exactly as two different stitchers can work one design. A book of
charts grants the same explicit permission, and in a library, there
will be multiple users/stitchers.

Another legal point is, that when a book is resold, its author remains
identifiable. Its author and publisher retain the right to control
UNAUTHORISED duplication. But the fact that a needlework pattern is
published for the express purpose of encouraging other people to stitch
it (for their own use) also remains for the lifetime of the book/chart.

So here's our choice: either accept that the passing of original-copy
patterns from person to person is a compliment to the designer, or
create designs in a medium that will guarantee a single use per
purchase. Like printing on canvas/fabric instead of paper. Any
takers??

Irene

I am somebody who would like to respect copyright laws as much as
possible.

But here is one for the people who like to tell me that I must pay 10x
for working a chart 10x (for myself, original chart purchased, etc...):

Only a few designers explicitly insist this should be the case--and it
seems to me the assumption is that if you are stitching a chart that many
times, you are doing it commercially, which is not necessarily so. One's
designer's argument is that if you stitch a picture for sale, the cost of
the chart is part of your material cost, which in turn determines your
selling price. And of course the designer profits from your purchase of the
chart If you stitch the same picture again for sale, and sell it for the
same price, you have made an unfair profit because there is no cost of the
chart a second time.

I cannot see how those of us who stitch for pleasure not profit are
affected by this argument.

Dawne

It is very hard to control the usage of a chart once it has been put
onto the internet or into a book or kit. I think for as many of us
that care, there are more out there who don't care. Now that I think of
it, I have been to many, many craft shows over the years. I have seen
people who sell little items, ornaments and the like, with the same
design. They have, maybe, 20 of each item. I believe most of them
used someone else's design. This goes for all forms of crafts, Xstitch,
knit, crochet, plastic canvas, etc.

It is sad for the designer, and it reminds me of the music piracy out
there. Libraries also put out CD's for patrons to borrow. One would
assume that some are copying it. Either way, the designer (singer)
loses out

Diane







Dawne Peterson wrote:

I am somebody who would like to respect copyright laws as much as
possible.

But here is one for the people who like to tell me that I must pay 10x
for working a chart 10x (for myself, original chart purchased, etc...):

Only a few designers explicitly insist this should be the case--and it
seems to me the assumption is that if you are stitching a chart that many
times, you are doing it commercially, which is not necessarily so. One's
designer's argument is that if you stitch a picture for sale, the cost of
the chart is part of your material cost, which in turn determines your
selling price. And of course the designer profits from your purchase of the
chart If you stitch the same picture again for sale, and sell it for the
same price, you have made an unfair profit because there is no cost of the
chart a second time.

I cannot see how those of us who stitch for pleasure not profit are
affected by this argument.

Dawne

Diane wrote
" It is sad for the designer, and it reminds me of the music piracy out
there. Libraries also put out CD's for patrons to borrow. One would
assume that some are copying it. Either way, the designer (singer)
loses out

Our public library has introduced a service whereby you "borrow" a recorded
book on-line, into your Windows Media Player. You have it for 2 weeks,
then it disappears. I'm really looking forward to trying it.
The library's website says the file can be transferred into quite a range
of portable players, but unfortunately it is not compatible with IPod.
DAwne

Our library has that and we love it! We can borrow a book and never
leave home. We can have it for three weeks, though, before it disappears.

Lynn in Lancaster PA

Dawne Peterson wrote:
Our public library has introduced a service whereby you "borrow" a
recorded
book on-line, into your Windows Media Player. You have it for 2 weeks,
then it disappears. I'm really looking forward to trying it.
The library's website says the file can be transferred into quite a range
of portable players, but unfortunately it is not compatible with IPod.
DAwne

Dawne Peterson wrote:

Our public library has introduced a service whereby you "borrow" a recorded
book on-line, into your Windows Media Player. You have it for 2 weeks,
then it disappears. I'm really looking forward to trying it.
The library's website says the file can be transferred into quite a range
of portable players, but unfortunately it is not compatible with IPod.
DAwne

That would never do for me! I like actual books, with pages, which I can
read while sitting on the couch with my feet up, or in bed all cosy.

Olwyn Mary in New Orleans.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com