Possible pattern

F.James Cripwell wrote:

They send it to me, I turn it into a pattern, and send it back. Where is the
copyright violation?

This is the part that's problematic. In this scenario, the picture has
then changed in status from a one-time personal use to a distributed
product. What you charge for the product (or don't charge, as the case
may be) is not a determining factor.

I actually retained a copyright attorney to guide me in making decisions
such as this with regard to what I can take off the web and use (e.g.,
NASA photos, like the one Cheryl is stitching for me now) and what I
have to pay licensing rights for.

I personally find no fault in your offer to provide someone else with
something beautiful; it's just that a war is being waged on
intellectual theft across all media and some of us are particularly
sensitive to what is and isn't fair use.


--
Lizard Gumbo
aka Elizabeth

http://www.effervescentdesigns.com
Blog: http://effervescentdesigns.com/effdesblog/

Pop the bubbles to reply.

On Jul 12, 4:20 pm, LizardGumbo
wrote:
On the other hand, I've referenced Jim's most excellent stitch count
article on my site for people who are interested in the more technical
details of how much fiber they used and I did not get his permission,
so... Jim, may I have your permission to reference that?

http://www.effervescentdesigns.com/tipsntricks.htm

Not that it isn't nice to ask, but you don't need permission to
REFERENCE the article, particularly since you've credited it. If you
put a copy of the article up on your own website, you'd need
permission, because you'd then be reproducing it.

Allura
------
WIP: The Dreamer, Clean Dog
Cross Stitch News: http://csnews.blogdrive.com
NJNeedleworkers: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NJNeedleworkers/
Allura's Ramblings: http://allura.blogdrive.com

Allura wrote:

Not that it isn't nice to ask, but you don't need permission to
REFERENCE the article, particularly since you've credited it. If you
put a copy of the article up on your own website, you'd need
permission, because you'd then be reproducing it.

Thank you! I was attempting to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing.


--
Lizard Gumbo
aka Elizabeth

http://www.effervescentdesigns.com
Blog: http://effervescentdesigns.com/effdesblog/

Pop the bubbles to reply.

On Jul 13, 9:33 am, (F.James Cripwell)
wrote:
Let us look at this in detail. There is a picture on the web; I
download it, turn it into a pattern and stitch it for myself. Where is
the copyright violation? I find a picture which looks like it might make
a nice pattern. I bring it to someone else's attention. This person
downloads it, crops it, but does not have pattern making software. They
send it to me, I turn it into a pattern, and send it back. Where is the
copyright violation? There is a picture on the web. I download it, print
it up as a picture and hang it on my wall. Where is the copyright
violation? There is a picture on the web, I down load it onto my computer
and look at it; then I save it. Where is the copyright violation?

IANAL, but technically, they're ALL violations.

"Fair use" only lets you reproduce the item for very specific
purposes, such as for review or criticism, scholarly or technical
work, illustration or clarification of the author's observations
(quoting text, usually, in defense of your statement), parody, summary
in a news report, reproduction by a library of a portion to replace
part of a damaged copy, reproduction by teacher or student of a part
to illustrate a lesson, for legislative or judicial proceedings or
reports, incidental reproduction during a newscast bc the work was
present during an event being reported. These uses come straight from
the US Copyright Office: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102 .

As you can see, none of the examples are close to entertainment,
hobby, or decorative purposes. While in a legal suit, the financial
rewards & losses would be considered for a judgement, reproduction for
all of your purposes would, technically, be a violation. Whether any
copyright holder would care? *shrug*

Also, keep in mind that US legal system includes a certain
responsibility upon the creator to defend violations when they find
out about it. I know of an author, for example, who lost copyright on
her settings, because she allowed too much fan material (I have no
references for that, so it may be urban legend; author was Marion
Zimmer Bradey, and the setting was her Darkover novels).

Think of downloading images from the web like downloading a book or a
music file from someone other than the copyright holder. Even if you
have the book bound yourself, it's not really fair use. Nor would
copying the song to your ipod be fair. Art is no different. You can,
of course, often purchase the same items and have many more options
about what you can do with the work.

For more info on US copyright: http://www.copyright.gov/

Allura
------
WIP: The Dreamer, Clean Dog
Cross Stitch News: http://csnews.blogdrive.com
NJNeedleworkers: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NJNeedleworkers/
Allura's Ramblings: http://allura.blogdrive.com

Allura
------
WIP: The Dreamer, Clean Dog
Cross Stitch News:http://csnews.blogdrive.com
NJNeedleworkers:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NJNeedleworkers/
Allura's Ramblings:http://allura.blogdrive.com

OK, I have to know - what is Clean Dog? Sounds like something I'd
like to do!

On 7/13/07 2:10 PM, in article
, "lewmew"
wrote:


Allura
------
WIP: The Dreamer, Clean Dog
Cross Stitch News:http://csnews.blogdrive.com
NJNeedleworkers:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NJNeedleworkers/
Allura's Ramblings:http://allura.blogdrive.com

OK, I have to know - what is Clean Dog? Sounds like something I'd
like to do!

There is such thing as a clean dog????
C

Allura ) writes:

IANAL, but technically, they're ALL violations.
(snip)
the US Copyright Office: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102 .
(snip)
For more info on US copyright: http://www.copyright.gov/

Allura

I find this very interesting. A few weeks ago, I did exactly the
same as I have just done with a picture of a ladybug taken from BBC World
News web site. No one mentioned any copyright infringement, but because
it was Robert Bateman all hell broke loose this time. Further, I live in
Canada, and I dont give a tinker's dam what US law says; it does not
apply to me. Quote me from Canadian law. Finally, I have a hide like a
rhinoceros, and no amount of insults etc. make any difference to me. If I
find some nice pictures in the future, I will do exactly as I did this
time. If you and anyone else wants to make a "federal" case out of it, go
ahead. A fat lot of good it will do. Generally speaking, if there is a
post on this sort of newsgroup that you dont like, the best thing is to
ignore it.

On Jul 13, 2:45 pm, (F.James Cripwell)
wrote:
I find this very interesting. A few weeks ago, I did exactly the
same as I have just done with a picture of a ladybug taken from BBC World
News web site. No one mentioned any copyright infringement, but because
it was Robert Bateman all hell broke loose this time. Further, I live in
Canada, and I dont give a tinker's dam what US law says; it does not
apply to me. Quote me from Canadian law. Finally, I have a hide like a
rhinoceros, and no amount of insults etc. make any difference to me. If I
find some nice pictures in the future, I will do exactly as I did this
time. If you and anyone else wants to make a "federal" case out of it, go
ahead. A fat lot of good it will do. Generally speaking, if there is a
post on this sort of newsgroup that you dont like, the best thing is to
ignore it.

First, I didn't read your earlier thread, because I'm not particularly
interested in ladybugs, but the same laws apply, no matter the source
of the image. Photos are usually credited to the photographer, even of
natural items/critters. Second, I don't even know who Robert Bateman
is, and in fact, the image wouldn't load in my browser, so that really
didn't cross my mind. Finally, I apologize, I forgot that you were
from Canada. I really don't know Canadian law, as I'm from the US. I
suppose the other factor is the nationality of the creator.
International copyright treaties come into play when you mix up
countries, which makes things all the more complicated. I believe that
both the US and Canada are signatories to the Berne Convention,
however, which regulates international copyright, and is very simliar
to American copyright law.

I'm not insulting, I'm declaring fact. I don't create much, and yet I
think it's worth protecting other's creations. YMMV.

Allura
------
WIP: The Dreamer, Clean Dog
Cross Stitch News: http://csnews.blogdrive.com
NJNeedleworkers: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NJNeedleworkers/
Allura's Ramblings: http://allura.blogdrive.com

On Jul 13, 2:10 pm, lewmew wrote:
OK, I have to know - what is Clean Dog? Sounds like something I'd
like to do!

Heh. It's a chart from Brittercup Designs, and is actually titled
"Keep it Clean!": http://www.brittercupdesigns.com/keepitclean.html .
Specifically, I've been working on the "clean dog," after finishing up
the dirty dog. The two sewn back to back & lightly stuffed will make
one of those clean/dirty indicators for my sister's dishwasher. I'm
debating whether I want to attempt the finishing myself (I'm not a fan
of hand sewing) or pay the finisher at my LNS to do it. I'll need to
read the instructions again to decide how clear they are. Oh! This is
also my first project on linen. I've used evenweaves before, but not
actual linen.

Allura
------
WIP: The Dreamer, Clean Dog
Cross Stitch News: http://csnews.blogdrive.com
NJNeedleworkers: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NJNeedleworkers/
Allura's Ramblings: http://allura.blogdrive.com

lewmew wrote:
Allura
------
WIP: The Dreamer, Clean Dog
Cross Stitch News:http://csnews.blogdrive.com
NJNeedleworkers:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NJNeedleworkers/
Allura's Ramblings:http://allura.blogdrive.com

OK, I have to know - what is Clean Dog? Sounds like something I'd
like to do!


Clean dog? An oxymoron if ever I heard one!
--
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont
(Remove teeth to reply)