Copyright Terrorism

LeahDay

Leah Day has been teaching online since 2009. She's the creator of the Free Motion Quilting Project, a blog filled with thousands of quilting tutorial videos. Leah has written several books including 365 Free Motion Quilting Designs, Explore Walking Foot Quilting with Leah Day, and Mally the Maker and the Queen in the Quilt.

226 Responses

  1. Nanasrcool says:

    I am late to the discussion but have spent a good while reading all the posts in response as well as a couple of blogs (one really slamming you good to the point of accusing you of tax fraud!). So you really hit a nerve and I would say on both sides of the issue.

    I completely agree with you. I think the copyright thing has gotten so far out of control it is ridiculous. As well as so many people claiming "original designer" on things that are definitely NOT original. I read one blog that was selling cupcake potholder patterns and wrote the entire blog post complaining about someone else selling "her design". Seriously? A cupcake potholder? Like NO ONE has designed one before? (I use caps for emphasis too. It is to try and make sure I am not misconstrued.)

    I can understand a little of Kate Spain's position. However, I also think that there are times you need to consider the repercussion of how you handle things. Once she knew she had to bring the book into it, she should have reconsidered how she handled it. By bringing them in, her point was lost and she alienated many that will not buy her product again. Fabric designers need pattern designers to get their fabric's sold. Just as music bands need radio stations playing their music. Without that medium, their art is not brought to the masses. When we quilters (especially us newbies) see another quilt designed using a fabric, this does inspire us to purchase that fabric and make our own. If not in that design in another simply because we like how it all came together. Many newbies cannot put it all together and see how the different fabrics in a line come together till we see it done by another. Her actions will make other pattern designers reconsider using her fabric simply because they don't want the problems that may arise from it. I know I wouldn't want to use it. I would prefer using another one that didn't carry so much risk.

    She has obviously seen the backlash from her suit, hence the olive branch to the quilt pattern designer, though I imagine it will do little good.

    I understand the need to make a living. However, with any business you need to weigh the risk of legal action to the loss you will take doing so. She made a huge mistake and listened to the wrong people I think. Just because you CAN sue a person, doesn't always mean you should.

  2. Taryn says:

    I love this post and you totally nailed my feelings about today's quilters/designers wanting to slap their copyright on an art product that is nothing if not derivative of someone else's work. I think it is the free sharing of ideas on blogs and the web that has drawn thousands of new quilters into the quilt world and inspired thousands of others to do more. All of these people buy more fabric, more patterns, more books – you get the picture. Ms. Spain's actions not only alienate me from her designs (why take the risk with her) but Moda as long as she continues to design for them. I've met many "famous" quilt/fabric designers and so many are incredibly generous with their instruction/advice/design that I am loyal to them forever. They embody the great results one reaps when they "pay it forward."

  3. Personally, I'm not sure where Kate got off suing at all – Moda is the one that gave a ton of fabric away free for the book and didn't bother with an agreement with Kate OR the author OR the publishing company. Personally, I have pretty much switched to solids, hand dyed fabrics and some batiks for my work. And honestly, I won't purchase any Kate fabrics. I don't cave to bullies – and her going after the author was so very wrong.

  4. Leah, I enjoyed your thought-provoking post and have given it much thought. I'd like to quote from it today as well as link to it several times in my post. Please let me know if you have any concerns with that, but I'm guessing you won't given your statements here!

  5. Leah Day says:

    Rachel – Obviously you're welcome to quote from this article! Have fun and shoot us a link when your post is live.

    Cheers,

    Leah Day

  6. Rachel says:

    I am really late to this discussion too, but as a novice quilter with no other quilters in my family I constantly find myself learning by looking at other people's work. I am a software engineer and we constantly look at other developers code to draw inspiration for a better way to design our own software. I don't know if I made a good analogy here but this brings to mind the classic case of Andy Warhol and his work, especially the Campbell Soup cans. After all some other designer did design the art on the can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol
    I am not up to date on the specifics but if he did get sued what was the outcome. This situation seems similar.

  7. Val says:

    Leah, There's a lot of good common sense in your comments on copyrighted design! This reminds me of similar problem that I was made aware of because I am also an avid gardener.
    A few years ago I realized the big box stores were only selling brand name plants. I thought it was odd that suddenly my marigold plants were twice as much even though they looked the same, but sported a snazzy label! Then I was told I could not buy a plant (with a label & name (such as "Petunia Pete's Tropical Twister"), take it home and try to root the stem which broke off on the ride home, because that would violate the growers rights. I am not selling or claiming this newly rooted stem is MY designer plant. I did some research and the growers were adamantly claiming their rights over my broken stem. I doubt this has passed the smell test in an actual court, but just the same, I now buy most of my plants at a local farm.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Hi Leah, I was just looking through your blog archive for the Heart and Feather posts, and I stumbled onto this one again.

    It's still quite relevant, and frankly, if you brought up the issue on an annual basis, you'd be doing a great service for the quilt community.

  9. nattiebug says:

    Hi Leah. I liked your post. For you and others who are interested in making patterns and other content available to the public for free, check out the Creative Commons licenses, which fall under federal copyright law but are much less restrictive.

    http://www.creativecommons.org

    Also, should it come to this, you can "protect" quilting designs such as the spiral, which I don't think could ever pass muster in court as copyright-protected by "publishing" them (i.e. just posting on your website is enough) into the public domain. Info about that is on the Creative Commons website, as well.

    I will add that I am constantly annoyed by quilters and knitters who publish patterns and include the statement that products made from the patterns cannot be sold. Copyright law, unless it has changed in the past year, clearly states that only the pattern is protected, not what is made from the pattern.

    Natalie

  10. Jude Edling says:

    Hi Leah, I enjoy your blogs & tutorials. I would ask that you reconsider the use of Nazi. Nazis are and were bad to an entirely different level that this. A current term for companies &/or lawyers who snap up trivial copyrights then make money by suing companies for infringement are copyright trolls. Maybe you'd like to use quilt copyright police or something. I just don't think anybody in the quilt world has reached a point of evil to justify Nazi. Please just think about it. I do think it is wrong to copy a quilt and pass it off as your own. There should also be room for "great minds". I saw the spitting image of a quilt I'd made but in a different color at a national show once. I didn't copy hers and she didn't copy mine because I'd never shown my quilt and I'd never seen her quilt. The similarities were incredible. Mine was green & hers was red. Thanks & all the best.

  11. Gene Black says:

    I am very late coming to this forum, but I have to say I love you even more for speaking up. This is also why I am using many more solids.
    I bought a piece of fabric that was on clearance at an off price fabric store to make a baby quilt for a friend. I expected to use the scraps in one of the quilts I make to sell. OOOPS! there on the selvedge was "for personal use only." This is a rare instance in which the scraps went in the trash. I watch very closely for that now.

  12. Leah, thanks for posting. I'm a quilter and a textile artist and I just finished taking a course in Copyright Law and Policy at Harvard Law School. I took the course out of concern over all the copyright issues that have arisen recently in the art and quilting world. I hoped to get some answers.

    Well, I did get answers but they are not all that encouraging. In fact, I have decided to go to using all solids and hand-dyed fabric instead of commercial fabrics. As much as I love all the designer fabrics, there are just too many issues that can be litigated; and I do not care to litigate. I just want to make art!

  13. Amen, Leah! I have long pondered the whole copy right bit when dealing with fabric. I always give credit if I use someones tutorial to make something so readers can go to his or her blog and get the tutorial and any other ideas they may want from visiting the site. That is good sharing, I think. As for my quilt labels (on gift or personal use quilts), sorry but they don't include details on the pattern, fabrics or tools used. Just a made by ___ ,for ___, why and when and sometimes where. If I paid for the fabric, tools, and pattern my duty to those people is done. This whole thing is out of hand. I've been quilting for 36 years and that art was SHARED with me for free from the hands of many. And low and behold a few ideas came from my own mind and those were shared with many as well. Art is for sharing.
    I so appreciate you willing and giving spirit and your brilliant, well spoken, mind. You are a beautiful example of a lovely way to live.

  14. I actually don't quilt, although I have friends and family that do. However, I knit, crochet, and make jewelry.

    I've seen lots of patterns worth a "non-commercial use only" clause on them. On the one hand I think I understand where they're coming from, but on the other hand I've seen perfectly rectangular scarves with a simple, traditional stitch pattern get similar notices, plus seen the designer bully people for "copying" it.

    But bullying people over materials? That is astonishing. I can't think of a single non-toxic substance where that would be allowed — and the toxic substances are for health and safety reasons, not copyright.

    I don't understand how that would ever hold up in court.

    But I've been surprised before.

  15. Emily says:

    Hi Leah!
    I think the issue you mentioned regarding Emily is very well within the realm of copyright, as a book was published without all the proper people's permission. That being said, suing someone over a minor little thing is a foolish way to conduct business. I bet those parties spent more on attorney's fees than on the book royalties.

    Also, I want to add that in general, patterns can be copyrighted, but the writer of the pattern has no right to control the use of the product. Unfortunately, many online blogs who do offer free patterns have no legal standing to put limitations on how the product is ultimately used. However, they do give them for free. What makes me angry however is when certain companies put these unenforceable limitations on their pattern that are actually purchased. I encourage quilters to boycott certain designers who add these "only for personal use" limitations because they are simply a legal lie. They are lying to you. That clause unenforceable. Unless you actively sign an agreement that you agree to their terms thereby creating a license or contract, you have every right to sell the end product. Mere purchase is not an agreement and it is not a contract. Therefore, Federal Copyright law applies and Federal Copyright Law says you have every right to sell the end product.

  16. Lisa says:

    Leah–Frances at http://theoffkilterquilt.wordpress.com/ mentioned this post on her podcast. Thank you for such a well written piece on this subject. I could not agree more. I do not want to buy from folks with the attitude of those you and Frances mention. Additionally, I think you are an incredible example of the blessings you received by providing FREE content and giving permission to use the information you provide.

    Thank you, again

    Lisa

  17. creolala says:

    Two words. Cheryl Fall. Princess of cultural appropriation and personal back slapping. Did y'all know she invented Sashiko embroidery? She also owns French proverbs. I wish I were her.

  18. Denise says:

    Wonderful post. A few months back I was attacked by another quilter in a facebook group I belonged to at the time over my ad for a quilt pattern.She got her panties in a bunch because I said I was willing to upload the pattern onto a thumb drive or burn to a cd for the same price as my pdf, they pay shipping of course. She didn’t do her homework by checking my name on the website I provided a link for.
    According to the library of congress, you can copyright your photos, your written words but you are correct, you cannot copyright shapes and they way they are positioned. However, if someone purchases my pattern, they can make and sell the quilt but they cannot sell my pattern. If they attempt to use my photos and my words that is copyright infringement. There is a fine line there but it’s clear.
    It is unfortunate really. There are a lot of block patterns out there in public domain, so many that each of us could never make every one in our lifetime. Myself, I love finding rarely if ever seen blocks and creating with them.I would love to redraft the blocks and offer them on my site for free to assist new quilter. But as you are aware, some will go too far with their claims of ownership.
    Flying geese, economy blocks and many more including your spirals have been used in mosaics in ancient Rome. Most of the quilting designs I see people claiming and selling can be found in out of print design books. So if you can find a design in public domain, share and share alike. Sell it for you want. And when the secret police come calling show them the public domain image.

    • LeahDay says:

      Thank you for sharing Denise! Yes, you are completely correct on your understanding of how copyright effects quilt patterns. There are a few gray areas within the copyright of quilt patterns, but I agree there are a lot of people exaggerating their rights and frankly being bullies. Enjoy being creative, making new quilts, and let the secret police go rot as far as I’m concerned!

  19. Kim Gerber says:

    The history of quilting is about women using any fabrics from clothing to create useful products for their families, their homes, make a little money to support the household budget. I buy the books, patterns and fabrics. I would like to sell or give away what I make. Then I can buy more books, patterns, learn more, buy more fabrics. Make more useful items. Sell, if I choose. I also make wood toy products to sell. When I purchase a pattern from this company they promote the pattern, they advertise royalty free. Your creations are yours to give away or sell. Copy rights apply to the pattern itself. How about those wonderful ladies at Gees Bend. Just about any improvisational quilt book I have purchased have been inspired or can be very similar to Gees Bend quilts. These women have a generous spirit passing along their creative ideas and talents to others. Then it seems that a bunch of white ladies(I am white), want to copy right beyond the books, patterns, and fabrics that I enjoy buying and using. Beyond that purchase I think I have earned the right to create my products from my grandmother’s 1965 Singer sewing machine then sell it without feeling guilty about it.

    • LeahDay says:

      I absolutely agree with you Kim! I think a lot of the reasons behind the copyright frenzy is due to women with insecurity issues who seek to control rather than share and teach with an open heart.

  20. Hey, Leah! I know this is an older post — thanks for sticking your neck out on this important issue and for leaving the comments open so the discussion can continue. As I was reading through this, I thought of another example. All of those 1930s and 1940s feed sack prints in vintage quilts have a very distinctive, recognizable look. Those print fabrics were designed by employees of grain and feed companies and printed onto the cotton sack cloth in-house, and if copyright persists for 100 years, then feed sack prints from 80 and 90 years ago have not yet passed into the public domain. Imagine if the flour companies and the chicken feed companies, or the heirs of some of these companies that may no longer be in business, decided to enforce their copyright over quilts containing their vintage feed sack prints in the same way that Kate Spain and other contemporary fabric print designers are doing. They could sue quilt museums for publishing posters/exhibit brochures/promotional materials, publishers of quilt history books, manufacturers of popular reproduction print fabric lines, etc and not only would that stifle current quilters’ creativity, but it would also seriously hamper the work of those who are trying to document and preserve the rich history of quilting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *