McKimm's attitude probably was different from the average

quilter's, in that she was employed for her designs, whereas a

lot of the other designs were submitted by women who were 'paid' with

the thrill of having their design chosen and their name in print. The

KC STAR didn't even archive the patterns, they were considered so

insignificant! At the time, it was just 'women's work'... nobody got

protection for needlework designs. That was for men who wrote serious

books.....

Jocelyn

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 15:13:21 EDT

From: Lalalawyr@aol.com

To: ajones2@tampabay.rr.com, QHL@cuenet.com

Subject: Re: QHL: Re: more copyright

Message-ID: <8907df79.360beb51@aol.com>

Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 98-09-25 04:50:22 EDT, ajones2@tampabay.rr.com writes:

<< Actually you could call your book Stack and Whack. What's trademarked is

 her technique. >>

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Techniques cannot be trademarked - they

cannot be protected in any way, shape or form.

The instructions for a particular technique could be copyrighted, of course -

but not the technique itself.

Names, however, can achieve trademark status through usage (with or without

registration, which only establishes certain presumptions). So it is entirely

possible that "Stack N Whack" could be trademarked, and this would preclude

others from using this title.

I'm sure, for example, that if someone tried to use "Quilt in a Day" as a book

title, they'd hear from Eleanor Burns' lawyers. It's a well-known series of

books (as well as a television show, and her quilt store), so I think it would

be pretty easy to establish the criteria for trademark status for that

title/name.

Whether or not "Stack N Whack" has achieved trademark status is a factual and

legal question, and sometimes this issue is far from simple - but as a lawyer

who deals in intellectual property issues daily (and has done so for 16

years), I'm certainly not prepared to say that someone else could use it.

<< Same wirh Sex for Dummies;  what's trademarked

 is the look, layout, and content.  You could certainly write a mystery

 novel and call it Sex for Dummies. >>

Maybe - maybe not.

It depends on whether there was a plausible argument that you were using that

title in order to capitalize on the popularity of the "Dummies" series.

Assuming that the "Dummies" series has trademark status, you'd almost

certainly have to spend big bucks to defend a lawsuit if you tried to do this

- so most publishers wouldn't even go down that road.

But, of course, most book titles don't have trademark status - which is why

you will see multiple books with the same titles.

<< But, I'm worried how ramant commercializaton

 is going to effect the future of the art..  If our ancestors hadn't

 freely shared patterns and ideas, we'd have a pretty miserable legacy

 today.  Where are the new patterns our generation will pass on?  At the

 same time, an artist has a right to profit from her original

 intellectual property.  It really presents a dilemma.  >>

The copyright laws strike a balance in the issues which concern you, and

they've been operative for a couple centuries without significant problems,

either to designers/artists or to the general public.

Copyright protection is meant to encourage designers and creative people to

come up with new designs and art, because they are allowed to profit from

their creations. After all, how many people would write a book, if anyone

could publish the same book and make money from it?

But there are limits on copyright protection (such as the duration of the

term, and the "fair use" doctrine), and this ensures that the artist/designer

does not keep a monopoly on a given work indefinitely, or in all

circumstances.

Besides, many quilt designers either write books and/or publish the patterns -

and this permits individuals to make the same quilt for personal use (just not

for resale or any other commercial/public use). So hobbyist quilters really

aren't being deprived of these new designs for the most part.

Personally, I don't see the same problem you do with copyright protection.

Eventually all quilt designs and patterns and books pass into the public

domain. In the meantime, we generally have the benefit of the work of quilt

designers in one fashion or another - even if only as inspiration.

<< I recently saw a copyright on a pattern for a plain log cabin barn raising

quilt.>>

Just because you saw a copyright notice on that quilt does not mean it has any

copyright protection. Copyright only protects what is unique and new - not

anything pre-existing (whether public domain or under someone else's

copyright).

The log cabin block is clearly in the public domain, and the barn raising

setting isn't protectible anyway. So at best, the copyright in that quilt

might protect that exact combination of fabrics, colors, block pattern, etc.

And in all likelihood, it protected nothing - the quilt maker was probably

being overzealous and/or unknowledgable to put the copyright notice on.

Melissa

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 16:05:25 EDT

From: Lalalawyr@aol.com

In a message dated 98-09-25 08:16:04 EDT, texas_quilt.co@mail.airmail.net

writes:

<< It's just as bad as throwing LOL's in jail for selling raffle quilt

tickets...raffle, ahem, donation quilt ticket sales were illegal in the state

of TX until one of the Dallas guild members DH, who was a long term State

Senator introduced a bill to "keep his wife and her LOL quilter friends out of

the county pokey". >>

I can see some very valid reasons to exempt charitable organizations from

lottery laws. But state legislators are well aware of charitable raffles when

they draft the laws - this is not a new phenomenon. So if they didn't see fit

to exempt charitable raffles, then you're stuck with that law until you change

it.

If a state senator changes lottery laws to permit raffle quilts - well and

good. Until this happens, though, people should either obey their state's law

or be prepared for the consequences if they break them. And, of course, lobby

to change the law if they wish - but not just moan about how unfair it is and

how it shouldn't apply to them.

Besides, a few quilt guilds facing fines for raffle quilts might be the best

way to get a state's law changed. (And btw, the law will look at the substance

of the transaction - changing the name from a raffle quilt to an "opportunity

quilt" or a "donation quilt" won't shield you from prosecution).

I really can't see an argument against quilt guilds being aware of, and

hopefully compliant with, laws relating to their shows, whether it is

qualifying as a charitable organization under tax laws, or the potential

liability from a slip and fall.

<< Quilters are, by nature, some of the most honest, trusting, and giving

 people that you will ever find. Too bad the world of "big bidness" has

 gotten in the way >>

I have quite a different perspective on this whole issue.

I don't think it is a matter of "big bidness" getting in the way of those nice

little old lady quilters (though I hate this image, being barely middle aged,

and having quilted since I graduated from college! ;-).

I think it's a matter of some quilters wanting to do what they darn well

please, and thinking that laws should be crafted to suit them personally. They

want to ignore the very real and very valid reasons behind these laws. (Btw,

I'm talking in a general sense - not meaning to insult anyone posting with

different views).

Copying a quilt design and selling the pattern (or selling the quilt itself)

is exactly the same, both practically and legally, as taking a copyrighted

painting and putting it on greeting cards or cross-stitch designs. I find it

quite odd that quilters usually understand the need to stop the latter, but

some think they should be able to do the former.

I think that people have the right to profit from the fruits of their labor,

and that quilters have sometimes taken advantage (perhaps unknowingly, perhaps

deliberately) where they shouldn't.

It doesn't mean the law should be changed - it means people should learn the

reasons behind the law, and how to stay within its bounds, rather than getting

their knickers in a twist when they break it and there are consequences.

It's patently unfair to the people who publish quilt magazines and books and

patterns, or to the people who design and write for those outlets, if one

person buys the original and then a dozen make photocopies. (Btw, this is very

different from passing around a single book, or a clipping, which is legal, as

long as copies are not made).

The publishers, designers and writers all have the right to make a living. The

quilt designers have the right to control their designs - to decide how and

when and where they will license or permit their use. If you take the

financial incentive away (or even decrease it significantly by unauthorized

copies and uses), what makes you think you're going to have all the lovely

books and magazines and designs which are now available? Copyright protection

does not stifle creativity - it has the opposite effect.

The technology that has made copyright infringement easier (photocopiers,

VCRs) has given many people the idea that they have the right to infringe,

just because they can and they want to.

In my view, the law hasn't changed, nor does it need to be changed - the

problem is some people's sense of entitlement to disregard it when it suits

them. I can't see any reason for quilters - or any hobbyists - to have some

sort of special dispensation from copyright laws.

Melissa

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 19:01:55 EDT

From: QuiltEvals@aol.com

Hi - Dorothy Osler, the e-mail address I have for you is not working, and

someone in the UK very much wants to meet with you about a teaching

project....please e-mail me with an updated address. 

Thanks for letting me barge in..

Deb Roberts

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 19:29:33 -0600

From: Sharon Harleman Tandy <harleman@micron.net>

To: fwfans@btc-bci.com

CC: QHL@cuenet.com

Subject: QHL: buttermilk and baby quilt

Message-ID: <360C437D.4E38@micron.net>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Nancy and all QHLers,

  Almost forgot to tell you; in Omaha at the Conservation Workshop in

the Gerald R. Ford Conservation Center, Deborah Bede from the Minnesota

Historical Museum's conservation facilities (try saying all that fast!)

told us that not only had she never heard of the buttermilk 'thing' but

that it would have terrible long-lasting effects on textiles due to the

fatty acids in the milk.  Short-term whitening may be enough of an

advantage for some quilts but not if you want them to last very long. 

  Hate to dampen the enthusiasm for this 'recipe', especially since I

haven't gotten around to trying it yet) but feel we should know all

sides of issues and techniques.  Sharon Harleman Tandy, Quilts &

Answers, Boise, Idaho.

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 22:13:13 EDT

From: @aol.com

Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

One thing to add to Melissa' s excellent summary - you can parody away to your

heart's content, and by and large, you'd be safe.  A pamphlet satirizing Stack

N Whack is fair game.....

Karen Evans

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 22:41:57 -0400

From: "J. G. Row" <Judygrow@blast.net>

To: "Jan Mills" <decision@tigger.jvnc.net>,

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I just found this in my local paper, and have not been yet, but will try to

go next week and report back:

"Russian Fiber Art, Rider University Art Gallery, Lawrenceville, NJ,

609-895-5588, or 609-896-5168.

Opening reception for a traveling exhibition of work by prominent Russian

textile artists Natasha Muradova, Ludmile Uspenskaya, and Ludmila Aristova

curated by Princeton artist Joy Saville.  The artists will also take part in

a panel discussion in the gallery on Thursday, October 8, at 7:30 PM.  Show

continues to October 25.  Free.    Monday thru Thursday 2 - 8.  Friday thru

Sunday 2 - 5."

Three things --

First -- I believe Uspenskaya and Aristova have been featured in QNM.  I may

be wrong, but that is my recollection.

Second -- Joy Saville is a Princeton area QUILTER.  The Russians are

QUILTERS also.

Third -- This newspaper calls them all ARTISTS!  Ain't that wonderful.  This

paper makes no distinction.  Forward thinking, eh what?  (Or did they just

print the news release verbatim?)

Judy in Ringoes, NJ

judygrow@blast.net

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 00:06:42 -0500

From: Mary Waller <mswaller@iw.net>

To: QHL@cuenet.com

Subject: QHL: Homeowners' Insurance Coverage

Message-ID: <360C7662.19E45B07@iw.net>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

If I understand my homeowners' and business insurance policies

correctly, my quilts are covered against theft by my insurance when

they're in my home, in my car when I'm in it and in my car when the car

is "secured" (windows closed, doors locked etc) and if signs of forced

entry are evident.  But as soon as I turn them over to someone else, as

in entering them in a quilt show or shipping them, they are no longer

covered by my insurance.  Another reason quilts need to be appraised: so

that in case of loss or damage, their value beyond the price of the

materials, has been documented.  A separate rider on your insurance

policy may be needed, just like if you have expensive jewelry, art,

antique china, John Lennon's Rolls Royce, etc.

Mary Waller

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 08:21:22 EDT

From: JQuilt@aol.com

To: QHL@cuenet.com

Cc: Lalalawyr@aol.com

Subject: QHL: officer while you're giving me a ticket

Message-ID: <b56eb128.360cdc42@aol.com>

Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Officer while you're giving me a ticket ... that car that just went by, has a

kidnapped child inside...or

In 1866 Jean-Francois Millet painted a famous painting titled Noonday Rest..in

1889 Vincent Van Gogh painted the same painting...in 1910 Pablo Picasso

painted the same painting..the first one is owned by the Museum of Fine Arts

in Boston, the second one is owned by Paris Museum and the third one is owned

by the Museum of Modern art in NY.....

Let's not get carried away with the major ramifications of, some quilter

copying a block pattern and then selling the quilt or some guild selling a

raffle quilt.

Enough! let's get on with quilting stuff..

jean

jquilt@aol.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Sep 98 08:16:23 PDT

From: "Christine Thresh" <christine@winnowing.com>

> Besides, many quilt designers either write books and/or publish the pat=

terns -

> and this permits individuals to make the same quilt for personal use =

(just not

> for resale or any other commercial/public use). So hobbyist quilters =

really

> aren't being deprived of these new designs for the most part.

I am a small-time quilt block designer and a former publisher of fiber =

art books. Our copyright attorney told us that the actual pattern drawing=

s and the specific instructions were the items we had a right to protect =

against copying. As I understand it, people can make quilts from patterns=

 and sell them, but they can NOT make copies of the pattern drawings and =

instructions and sell (or distribute) the patterns as their own. This mak=

es sense to me.

Christine Thresh

http://www.winnowing.com/

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 13:08:46 EDT

From: Lalalawyr@aol.com

To: @aol.com, QHL@cuenet.com

Subject: Re: QHL: copyright

Message-ID: <10214dc1.360d1f9e@aol.com>

Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 98-09-25 22:15:01 EDT, @aol.com writes:

<< you can parody away to your

 heart's content, and by and large, you'd be safe.  A pamphlet satirizing

Stack

 N Whack is fair game..... >>

Not necessarily - you're mixing trademark and copyright issues.

And please note the "by and large" qualification, and get legal advice if

you're thinking of publishing anything (including on the Net).

#1 - What constitutes parody can be quite tricky.

Political satire, of course, is the easiest to justify on First Amendment

grounds, since political speech is really the main thing the Constitutional

framers had in mind to protect. (All of this relates to U.S. law, of course -

I know that there are people all over the world on these lists).

Outside of that, there is a four part test articulated in the "Pretty Woman"

case (i.e., a test to see whether you have a parody that can be justified by

"fair use," which is an exception to copyright protection). But these

guidelines are quite subjective and quite difficult to apply in many

situations. So you might think you had a parody and still find yourself

defending a lawsuit.

#2 - Copyright and trademark are quite different, so the "fair use" argument

for a parody that might apply in to a potential copyright infringement does

not apply if you are using someone's trademark. You may still have a First

Amendment argument, but it is not as clear cut. There is a tort known as

"trademark disparagement," so you have to look at that issue, which is not the

same analysis as for copyright.

Melissa

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 13:09:48 EDT

From: Lalalawyr@aol.com

To: JQuilt@aol.com, QHL@cuenet.com

Subject: QHL: Re: officer while you're giving me a ticket

Message-ID: <31fca587.360d1fdc@aol.com>

Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 98-09-26 08:21:22 EDT, JQuilt writes:

<< In 1866 Jean-Francois Millet painted a famous painting titled Noonday

Rest..in 1889 Vincent Van Gogh painted the same painting...in 1910 Pablo

Picasso painted the same painting..the first one is owned by the Museum of

Fine Arts in Boston, the second one is owned by Paris Museum and the third one

is owned by the Museum of Modern art in NY..... >>

Using a copyrighted work for inspiration is not the same as copying it or

making a derivative work in the copyright sense.

Van Gogh did not do an exact copy of Millet's painting, and Picasso did not do

an exact copy of either Van Gogh's or Millet's - nor did they use enough of

the prior work(s) to constitute a derivative work. No copyright issue at all -

so the analogy does not hold.

<< Let's not get carried away with the major ramifications of, some quilter

 copying a block pattern and then selling the quilt or some guild selling a

 raffle quilt. >>

Some people may think this is a nothing issue in the quilt world - but if it

were YOUR work being infringed, and your livelihood being potentially

impacted, I'm quite sure you would feel differently.

In general (and not meaning Jean personally), it seems to be those who want to

do as they please without consequence who minimize the importance of these

laws.

So when you get hit with a copyright lawsuit for infringement, or given a fine

for an illegal raffle, try the defense of "it's just not that big a deal in

the scheme of things" - and see how far it gets you.

Melissa

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 13:17:32 EDT

From: Lalalawyr@aol.com

In a message dated 98-09-26 11:28:32 EDT, christine@winnowing.com writes:

<< As I understand it, people can make quilts from patterns and sell them, but

they can NOT make copies of the pattern drawings and instructions and sell (or

distribute) the patterns as their own. >>

The second part is correct, but the first is incorrect, unless your pattern

includes some sort of blanket permission to sell quilts made from the pattern.

Otherwise, this is not permitted under copyright law - you could make a

personal quilt from that design/pattern, but not sell it.

Of course, this is assuming the design itself is copyrighted, and not just the

pattern pieces and instructions. If it is a public domain design, then anyone

is free to make and sell the quilts made from that pattern - but not the

pattern pieces and instructions.

In addition, there may be very little which is copyrightable about the pattern

pieces. Needless to say, you can't protect a square, a right angle triangle,

etc.

Melissa

Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 23:04:20 -0500

From: QLTRSTORE@harlannet.com (Perkins, Jennifer)

Dear Friends,

I got the best surprise today when my Dating Fabrics book arrived from

AQS-hot off the press!  I haven't read the text part yet, but the pictures

and organization are wonderful!!  I think this book will quickly become as

important as Brackman's "Clues in the Calico" and Encyclopedias.

I had the great fortune to meet Eileen Trestain at the Quilt Restoration

Conference earlier this month, and she is a dear sweet person.  She has

really put together a treasure, and the colors are so good!  I know she

sent back the proof sheets quite a few times to the printers until they got

it right.

If you want to see what Civil War fabrics are like for you Dear Jane

quilts, this is the book to get!

Enjoy!!

Jennifer in Iowa

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:34:13 EDT

From: AZquilter9@aol.com

Melissa and QHL,

Thank you, Melissa, for the information that you have been so generously

sharing on the copyright laws.  I realize for some, this may not be important,

but for those of us who may be contemplating doing things for publication, it

is important on two levels.

The first level is to make sure that whatever we do not be in violation.  I

believe most quilters do not violate copyright laws intentionally, but from

lack of correct information concerning the law. Usually this information comes

to us from a well intentioned, but misinformed non-lawyers.

The second level is to protect our creations from being "stolen" by someone

else, who probably doesn't realize they are in violation of the same law.

Quilters are generous in sharing, but some are also trying to make a living

through their creations and should be allowed to earn what is rightfully

theirs.

I know what the hourly rate is for a lawyer in our area and so appreciate your

generosity in keeping us honest and out of trouble.

My apologies to those who aren't interested in this area.  I promise to

quietly lurk when the topic is something that isn't of particular interest to

me.  I learn so much from this list even when it's something I didn't know I

wanted to learn.

Thanks to all of you who share.

Lois

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:40:41 EDT

From: JBQUILTOK@aol.com

To: QHL@cuenet.com

Subject: QHL: Quilting on the Legal Side

Message-ID: <c17cf365.360edb09@aol.com>

Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

A recent thread on copyright contained this statement:

<< So when you get hit with a copyright lawsuit for infringement, or given a

fine

 for an illegal raffle, try the defense of "it's just not that big a deal in

 the scheme of things" - and see how far it gets you.

  >>

I just got back from the Oklahoma Quilters State Organization's Fall Retreat.

We've had a lot of problems in our state about raffle quilts.  They are not

legal & the 'buy a piece of candy for a dollar & get a chance on the  quilt'

is not legal either.  One of our wonderful members contacted a legislator & he

is in the process of attempting to get the law amended so that non-profit

organizations are exempt.  (There are a couple silly exemptions on the law

books now, so we stand a good chance of getting this one!)  It's supposed to

be introduced in January, so if you live in Oklahoma, please writing to your

senator &/or representative & ask them to support this! 

And if you don't live in Oklahoma, please don't assume that because everyone

does it, it is legal.  Check yourself instead of blindly trusting your

organization wouldn't do it if it weren't.   Penalty in OK was raised to a

felony!

Janet

  [ 98281 ]