I've been giving this subject a lot of thought lately. Well both pattern and recipe copyright. Let's look at recipes and cooking blogs first.
I go to a lot of cooking blogs, I suck at cooking and I'm always looking for something new to make, and I'll scroll through them to see what other blogs or sites the author of each site may contribute to. Some bloggers have their blog and they also write for Paula Deen or Craft Magazine or one of dozens of others and get paid handsomely for doing so. Then I'll look at their recipes and notice there's not an original recipe in their blog. Pages and pages of "adapted" recipes. I think ok they can adapt but let's take a lookie loo at the original to see what they've adapted. When I think "adapted" I think they're adding to the recipe to make it better but that's not usually the case. They'll change a teaspoon of salt to half a teaspoon of salt. They will change curly parsley to flat parsley. The changes made are so minimal that these aren't adaptations, this is outright recipe theft because they are getting paid for these recipes which can be found on Rachael Ray's site or the Food Network site. From what I understand, though, there is no copyright for a recipe. This chaps my ass. It's one thing if you do your own blog of unoriginal copied recipes and expect recognition for a cooking blog which is bs too in my opinion, but it's another thing to take Rachael's recipes and get paid for copying it over at Paula Deen's site.
This brings me to pattern copyright. I understand there is no copyright on patterns. Some people adapt (again that damn word) patterns and sell them as if they created it themselves. Is there a set of rules that should be followed? Is there a percentage of stitches that have to be different to qualify as being an original pattern? I've seen this discussed on several blogs and forums but there seems to be nothing set in stone about this. I understand sometimes two patterns could be written by two people and be somewhat similar, that happens. But for a person to deliberately take another person's pattern, change a few stitches, put their name on it then sell it? Is it theft? Is it creative control? Also what about taking a pattern, making said object and selling it? Should the pattern writer be given credit or even a percentage of the profit made?
Personally, I think it's a breach of ethics. If you haven't written a pattern from scratch from beginning to end, it's theft. But that's just me. And what the heck do I know, I'm just a knoobie. But an ethical one.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 Talk to me:
I agree with you, adapting a pattern or recipe with a few minor changes does not make it a new original, and it is a form of theft. Also selling items make from a pattern is theft. Often patterns will actually state that it is intended for personal use, not commercial use. Yet another reason I do not sell what I knit - it's not my design to sell.
I've been interested in this issue for some time, and follow a forum on Ravelry. The best description of copyright distinctions I have come across is a TED talk by Johanna Blakely, which you can find here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
US copyright law does not give strong protections to utilitarian items, such as food or clothing. The law gives more protection to literary and artistic work. As I understand it, the words you use to write a recipe or a knitting pattern are copyrighted, and cannot be copied without permission. Also protected by copyright would be a unique visual representation, such as a graphic used on an intarsia sweater. The construction of the sweater itself cannot be copyrighted.
Other countries do give stronger protection to fashion design and the like.
It's doubtful that prohibitions against selling any item knit from a copyrighted pattern could be enforced in the US. As I understand it, the person who owns the copyright controls the reproduction and distribution of the written pattern, not anything that is made from it.
Check out the vid - it seems there may be more than one side to this coin!
There is such a thing as pattern copyright, and is usually denoted by the little c mark at the bottom of the pattern, even free patterns have this. And using that pattern and making a few insignificant changes and then selling that (elongating the chart or something) is illegal, though I've yet to see a knitter take anybody to court on this. Personally I don't think that slightly adapting a pattern makes it yours, and if you do so contact the original creator to ask them if it's okay that you publish it (for free). As to selling it, that's a very touchy subject. the Haruni pattern clearly states that you're free to sell your FO, and I sort of agree with that, I mean it's your labour, your work and you should be able to sell it even if you're working off a pattern. I mean people who sew home made clothing also sell their work (hypothetically) from patterns gotten from magazines etc.
I would add a reference to the original pattern maker though, out of respect. Though if a pattern maker explicitly states that they don't want you to sell your FO, then I won't, since I also respect them enough to think it's their call in the end.
From what I've been told, yes patterns are copyrighted as well as any product made with their instructions. I was at a Nicky Epstein event early this year and they were talking about this. Something about it's not legal to sell something created by her patterns (and you see this on the bottom of a lot of Ravelry posted patterns- free or not).
I'm on the fence about this. I mean, I did the work to make a baby blanket to use up some stashed yarn, but have no baby to give it to so why can't I sell it? I did the work. I paid for the yarn. But then I think of it as someone trying to set up an Etsy shop. Well I don't mind sharing/selling my patterns, but I also want to be able to sell what I make from them...without competition from another knitter using my pattern.
I've also been told that buying a McCall's sewing pattern, making a shirt and selling it is the same thing. I don't really know...I feel like that by purchasing the pattern, I'm paying for the rights to use it. I've already given the designer payment for what they've made.
I guess if I want to design something and sell products made with the pattern, I shouldn't share or sell the pattern otherwise.
From my perspective, we all need to recognize that there is really nothing new under the sun. We all have a creative process based on our backgrounds and experiences and inspiration from the world around us, and so we are all really re-creating even when we are creating something new. For me, copyright is more about the spirit of the law than the letter, and it all comes down to motive. In my opinion, if I were to look at another designers work and think “Oh, that’s really neat! I could lengthen that torso a bit, change the neckline, and sell it as my own!” I would be a sneak and in violation of the spirit of copyright. However, if I saw a pattern (say for a women’s sweater) and thought my husband would look good in something similar, and completely re-wrote it to fit a man (changed the neck, sleeves, basically wrote the pattern from scratch so that the only thing taken from the original pattern was the cable placement) I would call it my design INSPIRED by such-and-such designer. Now because I want to be able to sleep at night, if I wanted to publish said pattern I would contact the original designer to make sure they were ok with me publishing my nearly-original design, or at least give them a nod in my acknowledgements. You see this all the time in publications like Interweave, where designers used a chart or motif from a pattern book, and acknowledged that while the design is theirs, the lace or cable came from ABCD book. I think this is fair because it goes way beyond the mythical “change 10% and you’re good” rule. I personally take this a bit further, in that if the design was directly inspired by a machine knit I saw and decided to re-create, I will make that pattern free because the original design concept wasn’t mine. Again, just something I do so I can sleep at night.
Frankly, designing takes a LOT of work, and I completely understand why designers get upset when someone takes their copyrights lightly. I myself have given designers a heads up when I’ve sent their designs for sale on etsy.* But in a highly creative industry – where there are scores of knitters who can look at a design and think “hey, I bet I could make that without a pattern!” – we have to acknowledge that there is going to be some overlap. And in those cases it comes down to whether or not we trust the motives of our fellow designers. I would suggest, however, that a polite email of inquiry may be the way to go before sending out a scathing message over the internet about so-and-so ripping off your design.
Sorry this got suuuper long, but you did ask for opinions. :)
*side note on selling items made from patterns: If a designer requests in their copyright that you not do this, don’t do it. Again, designing takes a lot of work, and most designers do it for the love of the craft, not because they can make a living at it. There is a difference between people who get paid by big companies to produce designs so that people can reproduce them and sell them, and people who just want to create so that others can enjoy. When you fall into the latter category it can feel like a violation to have your work essentially pimped out for another’s profit. I liken it to taking a library book, making copies, binding it, and selling copies on ebay. No one would do that, because it would be ridiculous. However, some of the same arguments I’ve seen for knitting and selling pieces can be applied: “I did the work to copy it. I bought the materials to bind it, and got the space on ebay to distribute it. Doesn’t that mean I have a right to do what I want with my copies?” Um....what do you think?
a copyright for patterns and recipes does exist - as soon as you put your words/ideas down in a tangible medium (book, pamphlet, electronic file), a copyright exists. the little "c" symbol is simply used to serve notice of the copyright, but is really unnecessary in modern usage.
to add two more thoughts:
1. copyright violations do not require "intent." they are not violations of motive. if you violate copyright, it doesn't matter whether you intended to or not.
2. a general image (i.e. rose) or general method (i.e. stockinette stitch) cannot be copyrighted.
First let me just say I'm from Europe (Netherlands actually) and our laws are probably a lot different then your laws. But we do have copyright laws here too.
Obviously when you make an exact kopie (i.e. xeroxing or typing it word for word) it's a violation of the copyright, but only if the person claims the copyright by putting it on the pattern in the first place. Most designers do, if not...well then they can only blame themselves. (Me personally think it's common courtesy not to xerox it and sell it as my own). But the copyright does not, in my opinion extend to the finished piece. The words, yes. The piece, no.
My biggest issue is where to draw the line? If a designer starts screaming bloody murder when a stitchpattern they use in their design for socks shows up in someone else's design for socks. Most likely both designers picked the design out of a book or from the internet in the first place. Same thing goes for cardigans, sweaters and the like.
As far as I know there's only a few ways to construct a sweater. Front, back, 2 arms or knitted in the round (unless you put 3 arms in there, now that would be something!). It's how you describe the process (put ink to paper) what falls under the copyright. Not the finished piece itself.
I don't think it's fair for a designer to put restrictions on the pattern and say; you can only make 1 item from this pattern for your own use and you better not sell it! Again, the words, yes. The finished piece, no. Maybe there's a different law for that, I don't know. But I don't think it should fall under copyright. It's not like you can put the sweater under the xerox machine, push the button and hey presto! New sweater!
Most (stitch)patterns were made up long before we were even born. All or most patterns you see today are just an adaptation from patterns made up by the women (and men) who invented knitting.
Whew, I can't believe I'm sticking my head in this can of worms :-D
Remember it's just my opinion! I'm not saying I'm right ;-)
A lot of good information on pattern copyright, originality, licensing, etc can be found here: http://bit.ly/bql6B1
The logic of "it's my labor I should be able to sell it" does not follow.
If you go to a concert & hear a singer or musician perform a song (that is not public domain) or go see actors perform a play, you are paying for their "labor". HOWEVER, the talent then pays a certain fee to the author of the play or song for the rights to perform (and make money) off of his or her work. Perhaps knitters should have to do the same.
It's your labor, but you are making money off of somebody else's creation.
I've blogged about copyright issues: http://www.knit-a-while.com/?p=373.
As for recipes, lists of ingredients are not protected by copyright, just the way the instructions are written.
Everyone had such great comments on this! I think most people seem to feel the same but it would be interesting to hear from a person who knows the law in this situation.
The one thing I forgot to mention in my post was Stitch Dictionaries. If you use a motif from one, do you have to mention/cite this? It's what they're made for afterall.
Also (since I was listening to back episodes yesterday), Episode 6 of Fiber Beat from March 6, 2010 featuring CookieA- she talks about it! Listen at about 13minutes in. Mike's question: "This is sort of a copyright/sampling question. In terms of pattern design, where does duplication or emulation end and inspiration begin?"
Post a Comment