August 7 – 9, 2004
These restored messages come from the Quilt History List, an online forum where quilt historians, collectors, researchers, appraisers, and enthusiasts discussed antique quilts and related textiles. The archive dates from 1996 through approximately 2016 and is being restored gradually. Sign up in the form at the bottom of the page if you want to know when a new page is added. Original spelling, opinions, formatting, and inactive links may remain unchanged.
Primary topics of this QHL Digest:
- Copyright and Pattern Reproduction Debate — A wide-ranging, sometimes heated debate over what copyright law does and doesn’t protect in quilt patterns, fabric designs, and photographs.
- Selling Reproduction and Licensed-Fabric Quilts — Members weigh in on the ethics and legality of selling quilts made from licensed character or designer fabric.
- IA/IL Quilt Study Group Meeting Recap — A member recaps a recent Iowa/Illinois regional quilt study group meeting. (see the article on quilt study groups)
From: <chrisa@>
Along the same lines as the Mickey Mouse Fabric: American Quilter magazine accepted an article of mine a few months ago about developing creativity and the quiltmaking process. I included pictures of quilts I have made for the article and one had the Monopoly line of fabrics. The editor of AQ told me I would have to get written consent from Parker Bros, the board game maker, (not the fabric company), in order for them to be able to include that quilt. She agreed that copyright is getting nearly ridiculous, but we all agreed that the originator deserves the credit and recognition. In this quilt’s case however, I decided to substitute another quilt for use in the article and skip the hassle. Given this conversation, I wonder what Parker Bros’ response would have been.
Kim Wulfert www.antiquequiltdating.com
From: Midnitelaptop@
I’m Nobody! Who are you? Are you-Nobody-Too? Then there’s a pair of us? Don’t tell! they’d advertise- you know!
How dreary – to be- Somebody! How public – like a Frog- To tell one’s name – the livelong June- To an admiring Bog!
From: Babette Moorleghen <happyquilterq@>
This has been a most interesting topic. I would like to ask a question… I’m thinking it’s been about 2 years ago, maybe 3 years, that at least 2 quilt guilds made the Dear Jane quilt and used them as their raffle quilt. I think one of the guilds was located in California and I can’t remember where the other guild was located. Does anyone happen to know what, if any, negative response there was to this? I was on the Dear Jane main list at the time (yes, I am a DJ quilt fan)
and remember getting a link to both of the guilds for their raffle quilts. I do not remember this much brohaha over these quilts! Thanks. Babette
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 04 :24:41 -0700 | From: “Chris and Carol Gebel” <gebeljps.net>
Hi, Julie and others —
I definitely agree with Andi Reynolds about MESDA – great quilt collection, a great museum and Old Salem is wonderful – old Moravian village – be
sure to see the inside of some of the buildings – also Winkler Bakery where bread and cookies are baked the “old-fashioned” way – in a brick oven. Have
you seen the book: Quilts Coverlets & Counterpanes: Bedcoverings from the
Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts and Old Salem Collections. Paula Lochlair. It was distributed by the University of North Carolina Press, published 1997. Sandi Fox gave a wonderful lecture at MESDA in the mid 1990s that I drove 2 hours from Raleigh to hear. I loved visiting Old
Salem and MESDA and yes MESDA is a great place for research.
Capital Quilters Guild in Raleigh, NC, is a very large guild – nearly
300 members when I left Raleigh in 1996 and I know that they had to move to another location for meetings because of additional growth. They bring in speakers to make presentations. If you are interested, let me know and I’ll call my Raleigh quilting friend and get contact info.
I am a new member to the QHL and a member of AQSG since 1988. I’ll be going to the Vancouver, WA, AQSG Seminar in October and would love to join the 2-group meeting at Sunday breakfast. How do I do this?
— Carol Gebel (now in Rocklin – near Sacramento, CA)
> > > > —
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 04 10:18:12 -0700 (PDT) | From: janakamom <janakamom@>
Hi Julia, Isn’t that block unique? I sent a message through the webshots and she said she was in the process of making a pattern for this quilt. She is wanting to publish it, so it is not available at this time. She has reproduced the quilt top in order to keep the integrity of the deteriorating quilt intact. I recommended she join this group as it seems she might be able to get direction and help as to the process. YOu can write a note to her in her webshots page and she will probably contact you personally. Thanks Jan B
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 04 23:10:57 -0600 | From: “Cindy Brick” <brickworks@>
Hi all, I’m pretty sure this is not the first DJ piece ever sold on Ebay… I found Brenda’s response especially interesting since she was not
the first to pattern directly from the Jane Stickle quilt…I remember seeing patterns for at least some of the blocks, including those from that distinctive wedge-shaped border, in a mag sometime in the 1980s…I think it was Lady’s Circle Patchwork Quilts. Maybe Quilt World. I read anything that came down the pike at that time, but those two titles stick in the mind. I’m pretty sure it was LCPQ. Here’s another wrinkle. Fabric manufacturers “repro” antique prints all the time, whether or not they peg it as an official “reproduction.” Remember Jinny Beyer’s Quilter’s Palette line that came out from RJR? Terrific colors, so blendable…and if not all, most of those prints were reproes. I kept running into them in antique quilts. I believe the official rule is ‘changing’ (i.e., resizing, recoloring, eliminating certain design elements) somewhere between 7-9%. The quiltmaker said upfront that she changed the pattern size — in other words, was not using the Dear Jane patterns as-is. Nor is the general quilt, though recognizable as DJ, exactly what the book shows. Are the changes between 7-9%?? Hmmm… DH brought up the estate question, which is also interesting. Is quiltmaker dies and wills pieces to her family, who then keeps some and sells some — does this mean that ALL the quilts made from patterns for sale, or books, should be cleared for sale by the authors? Or they can’t be sold?? Technically this would be well-nigh impossible to get everyone, especially if the pattern sources have disappeared or quilter is dead
or publisher is defunct. And think about it. I know this from my experience as an appraiser. There are a heck of a lot of Block of the Month quilts out there in people’s collections…and they get appraised right along with the antique stuff for estate purposes. If we wanted to take this to the point Disney headed, if ANY quilt is sold, then we could get really weird about this, and have to get the permission of every fabric manufacturer that had fabrics featured in the quilt in question…this just gets nutso after a while.
I can also understand this from Brenda’s viewpoint, having had at least two people (including our own Pat Cummings) offer Hanky Panky quilts (made from a method shown in my book) on Ebay for sale. Pat had the grace to come and ask me if it was ok; good for her! The only lady did not. (And actually sells her quilts on my website now…) I was glad for the copyright on the book because it protected me from the well-meaning quilter who just had to “share this” with her friends, then photocopied like crazy. THIS is the person who really sends me into a tizzy…not the person who makes one then sells it. DH pointed out, though, and I think he has a point, that making the same pattern over and over and over and selling it as an ongoing business is far different than the
casual maker who sells just one! The letter of the law may be the same for both, but the intent sure isn’t. If Brenda could have/would have suggested a smaller royalty, I have a feeling the quilter would have gone along with it. BUT… Having said that, I know of the strange feeling you get when your
“baby” is the issue…you get mighty protective. (And thus Brenda’s protective tone in her responses.) There are plenty of people out there more than willing to ‘lift’ your patterns — shoot, not just patterns, but text and the page layout! — and that’s what these copyrights protect us from. Sadly, we Americans have been the leading offenders in “borrowing” things over the decades. Charles Dickens got so sick of American imitations of his novels (they argued that he should be thrilled because ‘imitation was the sincerest form of flattery’) that he finally stopped trying to take everyone to court and said, “Let them empty out their little pot of filth, and welcome.” In Dickens’ works, the only people who ever benefit from these hairy legal battles are the lawyers…and they stop being interested once the money is used up. (Witness BLEAK HOUSE.) This is a situation where tact and dignity is necessary for everyone concerned — us included. It is painfully clear that the quilter never meant to just “make a buck” on Dear Jane…but it is also painfully clear that an author doesn’t want anyone and everyone down the pike to be able to profit from his/her hard work and effort, as well. Hard, hard situation. Cindy
–whose office just got flooded in flash-stormed Colorado, only a few
miles from the International. Thankfully, only about 5 books were nailed.
BRICKWORKS www.cindybrick.com
From: “Jocelyn Martin” <jocelynm@>
>>>I think it might address the question someone asked: since when did the quilt world become so petty?
It’s my understanding that if a copyright/trademark holder knows of an infringement and allows it to take place, they imperil their right to enforce their rights in the future.
Perhaps Brenda P. is content enough to have this ONE person sell a ‘Dear Jane’ quilt…but she doesn’t want to have her hands tied in the future if some Chinese manufacturer decides to print fabric using her block designs and then sell ‘Dear Jane quilts’.
IIRC, the designs in the quilt are not as Jane originally designed them, but are based on her work but re-drafted and re-sized (at least in some cases) by Brenda. So if someone wanted to base THEIR work on Jane’s original
quilt, and not use Brenda’s ‘Dear Jane’ trademark, that would be a whole ‘nuther matter.
I suspect that if we COULD talk to those 19th century quilters, we’d find that they were amazed to hear of this happening- not because of the idea that ‘quilting is meant to be shared’, but because in their day, the courts ruled that women had no right to their own handiwork, that their husbands were owed everything they did. Even if they saved a few pennies by economical shopping, that belonged to their husbands and wasn’t theirs to spend. A husband could legally take the quilts and sell them any time
he wanted, and the quilter had no legal grounds to retain her work.
Perhaps if we lived in that era, we’d be less attached to our designs, because society was hammering it into us that women didn’t have the right to say no, didn’t have the right NOT to share. And perhaps, instead of calling us ‘petty’, they’d be thrilled to hear that if they drafted a quilt pattern, they had the legal right to profit from it, AND to keep others from profiting from it without giving them due credit.
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 04 03:39:45 -0500 | From: “Jocelyn Martin” <jocelynm@>
>> Given this conversation, I wonder what Parker Bros’ response would have been.
Kim, Not much, considering Hasbro bought the rights to Monopoly from them some time back. 🙂
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 04 04:26:50 -0700 | From: “Christine Thresh” <christine@>
Cindy Brick said, “I believe the official rule is ‘changing’ (i.e., resizing, recoloring, eliminating certain design elements) somewhere between 7-9%.”
This is a pernicious myth. There is no such “official rule” in the copyright law.
Christine Thresh http://www.winnowing.com
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 04 07:08:12 -0600 | From: Xenia Cord <xenia@>
Cindy Brick said < Sadly, we Americans have been the leading offenders in “borrowing” things over the decades. >
Now here’s a lesson for anyone considering a “reproduction” of a found piece of chintz, especially one with interesting flora and fauna. Having ventured into those waters myself, I can tell you it’s potentially dangerous out there. Some of you may remember that at AQS in 00 I bought a wonderful bundle of chintz at the auction; fodder for reproduction, methinks.
Well, long story short, I learned that a great many of those designs are STILL under copyright, and as my DH is an attorney, I was counseled not to get involved in international copyright violation! My research turned up the fact that many of the designs were from the venerable Bannister Hall Print Works, which was bought out in the late 19th century by (now) Stead, McAlpin, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of John Lewis Partnerships, which entity still owns the copyrights (and the archived designs). The earliest designs in the archives date to the 1780s.
So take a long, long look before you leap into that particular pool.
Xenia
(Fortunately, terms can be negotiated; look for a line in early 05, from FreeSpirit.)
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 04 09:36:34 -0400 | From: “Karen” <charter.net>
That is correct. It’s why Paramount has never, and probably will never, go after Star Trek fan fiction – they not only ignored it, they *encouraged* it for years until the franchise was revived. It’s also why there are so many Trek novels out there – the fan fiction made them realize there was a
huge demand for new stories, so they decided to make some money.
[as she outs herself as a recovering Trekkie…..]
Karen Evans —– Original Message —– From: “Jocelyn Martin” <jocelynm@> To: “Quilt History List” <qhl@> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 04 4:39 AM Subject: [qhl] RE: Everything that’s legal isn’t generous
> It’s my understanding that if a copyright/trademark holder knows of
an > infringement and allows it to take place, they emperil their right to > enforce their rights in the future. >
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 04 09:46:54 -0500 | From: “Karan Flanscha” <SadieRose@>
Hi, Julie, Did you get a response from anyone with Barbara’s e-mail addy?? I was at our Iowa/Illinois Quilt Study Group meeting yesterday, and was talking with an elderly lady who is trying to find the “Patchwork Souvenirs” book. I said she should try to contact the authors, often they buy up the remaining copies when a book is going out of print. She had no idea how to do this, so I said I would contact Barbara for her. This lady told me how badly she wanted to go to the 1933 World’s Fair, but her family were poor farm folks. A local man who hauled cattle offered to clean out the trailer, put in fresh straw and for $10 would haul the neighbors to Chicago. She said you could get in to the fair for free, if you brought a jar of cinch bugs!! (As they were ruining the crops). But her father forbid her going, and she said, very vehemently “I will never forgive him for that!” She said she “wanted to see those quilts!” and how the prize money, even $1000 could save your farm and change your life back then. Sorry, off on a tangent 🙂 Please feel free to forward this note to Barbara, if you don’t feel comfortable giving out her address. If you didn’t get an addy, please let me know, as I do have her “snail mail” address & can contact her that way. Thanks!! Karan
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 04 10:55:14 -0400 | From: Kathie Holland <kathieholland@>
http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?acsl&stsl&qiW1BRinUpu,AdJrNPqFC2dDFX5Ys_0541415171_1:14:30 there are a few copies on sale I went to bookfinders.com and typed in the title! hope she can buy one of these —– Original Message —– From: “Karan Flanscha” <SadieRose@>
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 04 09:45:07 -0700 | From: “Laurette Carroll” <rl.carroll@>
Re: the use of copyright fabrics. There is one lady who makes items from fabrics made by Disney and others, and sells them on ebay. She has had her auctions shut down numerous times because the copyright holders complained. BUT she has not taken it sitting down, and when she responded through legal means, she has been able to prove that she has the right to use these fabrics, and has won her cases and the right to sell items made from these fabrics. She is a feisty little lady and does this on her own, no lawyers.
It boils down to the fact that if you buy a copyright fabric, once it
is sold the copyright holder has been paid and has no further rights. She sites the following to the lawyers and courts,
“The whole point of the first sale doctrine is that once the copyright owner places a copyrighted item in the stream of commerce by selling it, he
has exhausted his exclusive statutory right to control its distribution.” Justice Stevens, delivering an opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court in the case QUALITY KING DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. L’ANZA RESEARCH INT’L, INC. (96-1470), 98 F. 1109, reversed.
If you are interested you can read her story here at her site.
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/trademarks.html
I applaud her for fighting the ridiculous restrictions that these copyright owners would go to.
Laurette Carroll Southern California
From: “sue reich” <suereich@>
It all has to do with what a contract says! A magazine, book or the photographer of the quilts should own the copyrights to the quilt photo. They may not own the quilt or the object but they may own the image. Is it the owner of the image who is violated or the owner of the object? It all has to do with what a contract says! Trust me on this, I know because of a copyright infringement on the book that our documentation project wrote about Connecticut quilts. I cannot go into the details of the litigation because it is going to trial, however, I can tell you that your contract is what will come back to bite you or
save you regarding who owns copyrights to a photo. And the bottom line is, ifyou have any doubts about reproduction or usage, consult a copyright attorney. The current discussion is the very reason I offered to do a round table at AQSG on copyright laws. They are very hard to grasp. You can study
them, and study them, review the copyright laws for idiots, and all of the simplified explanations that the internet provides but bottom line is
this; if you have any doubts consult an attorney! While we are discussing the copying of old quilts, should we examine Our challenge quilts for AQSG? Are any of us in violation of copyright laws! Ithink not and here is the reason why. 1. These quilts are being reproduced for study purposes. They are not for profit. 2. You cannot claim that a quilt or quilt pattern, highly recognizable and in the public domain for decades and even centuries belongs to any one person. 3. Designs and patterns are not copyrightable, only a specific quilt might be and that would very likely be determined by its age. 4. If you have any doubts, best to try to go to the owner of the quilts, explain what you are doing and ask permission or return to rule #1, consult a copyright attorney! With regard to the Dear Jane quilt, 15 years ago, as soon as I saw the quilt in the Vermont book, I drafted each pattern myself for eventual reproduction. I did this long before the Dear Jane patterns were published specifically for the purpose of reproduction. Marie Webster’s patterns were sold for reproduction! Her quilts were not seen, copied by someone else, reproduced, and then sold illegally. Her patterns were put out there
for that specific purpose. Any patterns published in newspapers were placed there for reproduction. It would be very hard to argue a copyright infringement. In addition, with all of the Dear Jane groups and classes that have sprung up over the years, we will be seeing hundreds of Dear Jane quilts hit the market in the future. sue reich
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 04 13:24:55 EDT | From: Midnitelaptop@
this is a really fascinating topic… how about barter/trade? what if i reproduced a so called “copyrighted” quilt and gave it to someone who gave me an expensive tv…i didn’t sell the quilt for profit..i traded it for something of equal value…. .or if i just sell the quilt for exactly what it cost me to make…paying myself 10 – 15 dollars per hour…
what if there’s an estate auction/sale and a reproduced quilt is among the items? does that mean the auctioneers at the sale are not allowed to sell the quilt?… and how about all of the antique quilt dealers…are they all sure that none of the quilts they sell are not reproductions of patterns?.. it sounds like most copyright laws have little or no chance of being
protected…
as i recall,watching an entertainment show the day after a major entertainment award program…they showed a tape of dress manufacturers in NYC making a copy of some originally designed dresses worn at the ceremony by some entertainment stars…hasn’t the designer copyrighted that pattern?
jeanL
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 04 14:17:55 -0400 | From: Patricia L Cummings <quiltersmuse@>
as i recall,watching an entertainment show the day after a major entertainment award program…they showed a tape of dress manufacturers in NYC making a copy of some originally designed dresses worn at the ceremony by some entertainment stars…hasn’t the designer copyrighted that pattern?
jeanL
As I understand it, any original work, including the dress you mention, Jean, is copyrighted from the moment it is a tangible, existing object, whether or not a copyright has yet been sought officially, in
writing. The statement that something is copyrighted shows intent and
fair warning, i.e. a reminder to those who would breach the law. Having in hand an issued copyright from the Library of Congress is essential if one decides to institute law suits to defend a copyright.
I am following this discussion with great interest as I have run into
all kinds of people who have thought that they could infringe on my rights as a writer. I have had requests to upload entire articles to several other sites. My negative response was met with extreme anger when I suggested that a link be provided to my existing site.
The writings on my free, educational website are there for others to enjoy. They are not there to download, pass around to guild members, re-word slightly and sell for publication, send off in the mail to Aunt Harriet on the chance she might enjoy them, or otherwise distribute. By law, the right of distribution lies with the writer, artist, photographer or other creator of a unique object.
The only exception to the rule is the sharing of information in higher institutions of learning. If you are a teacher in a classroom setting at a high school or University, you can have access to copyrighted materials, within reason, and would have my blessing to utilize my website for your students. At the same time, if you are a travel coordinator for quilters, a workshop instructor for pay, a shop owner in search of free things to give your customers, you have to realize that you don’t share the same right for free distribution of someone else’s copyrighted material. I am not making this up. Check it out. It’s the law.
Common sense should rule the day. Those of us who work the arts need/want to be respected and compensated for our work. Everyone is entitled to a livelihood, and so are we.
By the way, I did offer a little quilt on eBay, one of the extremely rare times that I have ever attempted to sell any of my work. The quilt did not sell. I did not feel like “giving it away”, and I will not be relisting it. Beforehand, I had contacted Cindy Brick. I felt it only right to ask if it was okay with her, since the quilt was inspired by my having seen her on Simply Quilts with her “Hanky Panky” program/book.
At the time, I had some hankies that were brand new that had belonged
to my mom, and also a beautiful antique one in excellent condition. So, I had the fun of assembling the piece and have done and taught Crazy Quilting for years, so the project was “right up my alley”. The
only reason I even considered selling it at all was due to heavy office and research expenses that month. I nearly flipped when the credit card bill came in. I do pay off my bills in full every month. At any rate, Cindy was most gracious and did not have a problem with my offering the quilt for sale. Honestly, I’m happy to still own it. That same week, another opportunity arose which allowed me to pay the Visa bill.
Cindy is right about those of us who design wanting to protect “our babies”. Always, there are two sides of any issue. This is why we have attorneys to help us sort it all out. So many variables…….copyright law is anything but cut and dried.
To think that many of these disputes are solely based on an attempt to gain money is a dismal commentary on the sad state of affairs in corporate America.
Pat Cummings www.quiltersmuse.com
From: Litwinow@
Here’s an account of yesterday’s IA/IL Quilt Study Group. I apologize
in advance for any errors. Wish you all could have been there. Catherine
Litwinow
We entered a cathedral August 7, 04. The third IA/IL Quilt Study Group met in the Quilt and Textile Museum at the Kalona Historic Village in
Kalona, IA., “the largest community west of the Mississippi. Hung on the walls in this vaulted ceiling and dimmed lighting were some of the best doll and crib quilts designed by Amish women with no more then an eighth grade education and no training in geometry or design.” (quote from the cataloque accompaning the exhibit-“No Calico Allowed”). This writer’s favorites were a North Carolina Lily in Pots, blue pots with pink flowers, a row of white squares followed
by a black border, Schoolhouse, one the three to have been made by Amish women in the U.S. and soon to travel to Japan for a Shelly Zegart show, and Jacob’s Ladder made in Ohio 19-30 which contains multicolored squares bordered in red and pink. Also of beauty were the many antique spool cases beautifully refinished and a super accompaniment to the quilts. Then the Show and Share quilt show began. Everyone in attendance was a special guest, including Sarah Miller-many of her doll quilts are now
in the International Quilt Study Center and Bettina Havig, President of AQSG, to view the quilts from Iowa and Illinois. Pictures of the quilts will be posted as soon as possible on the web site http:// www.quilthistory./com/study/IAIL.htm. To j oin the wonderful Quilt History List for a one time gfee of $15 hhttps://quilthistory.com/subscribe.htm Virginia Berger showed a red and scrap crazy quilt from the 30’s. Madley Randall brought lovely silk 4-patch made by Helena Burdick of
NY circa 1860-1880 had very little shattering. Virginia also shared a wood block that could have been used for printing fabric. Lucillee Nordhousen’s 19’s Star and Crescent wedding quilt in pinks and white is in pristine condition is now owned by Lois Mcaken. With early blues, shirtings and reds 1 inch strips Sunshine and Shadow Log Cabin was displayed by Beverly Ring. Melva and Bill Berkland brought a family 9-patch. Each block contained a pinwheel and a variety of striped or checked fabric. “Overall the quiltmaker arranged a pleasing display of geometric and floral fabrics.” (quote taken from the Berlands).Rosie Moeller’s grandmothers faded red and white Double Irish Chain made in the 30’s was shown by Sandy Mente. A sheet
blanket was used for the batting. Pennie Horras (Who’s quilts were on display last time IIQSG met in Feb.) exhibited a wonderful collection of hankies appliqued to a backing for a cheerful quilt. Some of the hankies contained the designers name and most coing from family members. A Sunburst/ Mariner’s Compass made of Garibaldi red black charcoal and white fabrics. Two compasses each with 24 points and separated by white circles came from a Lyndon, IL estate. Marilyn Galley the owner of the quilt also shared a piece of reproduction fabric of the print used in the quilt. A precious Jack and Jill from an Aunt Marta kit/pattern was made by the mother and of Zoe Dorsey. The Tobacco Seal Quilt (discussed on QHL) was given to Jennifer Perkins. Her research noted that in 1910 there were 77 city seals produced costing $8-$12 and college seals going for $10. This lovely piece was given to Jennifer who will be a wonderful caretaker. Donna Furrow found at an estate sale a quilt with Log Cabin blocks on one side and Amish-like bars on the other side. The Straight Furrow was made with various 19-1930 fabrics and the bars made of wool. A Wind Blown Square/ pinwheel, parallellagrams and squares made with multi-colored fabric and made by Billie Nickolan’s great aunt was a treasure. Glennda Freel purchased and brought a baby quilt made with scraps forming crazy quilt. Serving as a baby sitter in the McCellan Heights area of Davenport, IA. Maud Hainstock Grindred stitched a crazy quilt. Embroidery over the seam lines started in the the upper left corner and was left incomplete when she
married. Granddaughter Rosemary Fuller has kept this family quilt. Catherine Noll Litwinow, brought a Hexagon Basket purchased at the MN
show June’04. It was decided that the quilt was the result of a pattern in
the 70’s since the greens and pinks weren’t quite 30’s. Quarter inch horizontal quilting was an interesting choice by the quilter. Shirley McElderry wow us all from an E-Bay kit quilt she stitched for
her granddaughter. Shirley’s exquisite applique and quilting only enhanced the beautiful pansy/rose/and fantasty flower bouquets. This 1942 Progress
Kit # 1394 was named “The Dresden.” Another lovely Log Cabin Quilt this time set in the Court House Steps
variation contained muted multi-colored prints. The pink and teals of
the 1870’s helped to date Jane Ellen Colella’s quilt. The What is award? was won by Barb Eckoff’s solid black, not quite a long rectangle piece which was quilted in cables. After a discussion it was thought to be a pall for a casket. A Square in a Square family piece was shown by Donna Furrow. THe piece was dated turn of the century and tied with 2 different red yarns. Donna also showed a Snowball variation made by “Little Grandma Heneke and a tobacco bag
top with a dresser scraf backing. 1900’s peaches and green whirling Tulips was made by Lois M. Macken’s
grandmother. This must have been a best quilts due to it’s excellent condition. Lois’ also stumped the gathering with an Anvil with Squared green with multi-colored fabrics made by Great Grandmother Clara Troyer. It was thought the quilt dated circa 1909. The tailor that lived next door to Nellie Garrelts Janssen gave her his wool suit samples which were zig-zagged together. Kathy Last removed the rotting backing to discover some of the pieces still had their paper labels. Jane Ellen Colella found a Octagon (not quite a Pineapple) Log cabin from a Des Moines, IA quilt show. The quilt was said to be made in Goldfield, IA in the 1860’s – 1880’s. Pat Wood saved an old Whig Rose Variation. The solid red, greens with
double pink print had only the seams left. The vibrant green was visible with the fabrics worn away. Oh, to have seen this Whig Rose in better condition. Anna Hinkhouser displayed a Crossed Canoe made with possible Gibaldri
red print. This lovely piece, like many others shown, was without provenance. Shirley McElderry teased us with a maker’s original Sun Bonnet Sue with animals. This quilt and other crib quilts will be the next display at
the Kalona Quilt and Textile museum.
When the National Signature Quilt Documentation papers come the following will share their quilts. Marilyn Woodin-Dression Era rectangles from Frytown. Karan Flanscha-her IQG president wall hanging and Marcella’s Friendship quilt made for Marcella’s retirement. Jennifer Perkins-Basket blocks with paper name tags attached, a Brown
Goose block had the words”catch me if you can.” Marilyn Galley- embroidered names and Bird blocks possibly from the Omaha World Herald & designed by Nadine Bradley from a Colona, IL estate. Donna Furrow- Granddaughter’s graduation quilt Sarah George and now the pwned by the Kalona Quilt and Textile museum-Album block quilt with India Ink signatures from OH, Sable, Salem and Goshen id’ed. And 1850 date was found on a block. Betty Robinson-Album block one where the Indigo/Lancaster Blue dye spread to the backing. Shirley Pfeifer-the Washington United Methodist Church quilt with many, many names and an embroidered picture of the quilt made in the first quarter of the th century. Pat Skillman-Colonial Ladies, Pat brought the binder full of pictures
and biographies of the makers. Bishop Hill, IL Bicentennial Quilt-pictures of the building embroidered around the edges and people of the village signature’s. The day ended with Emily’s presentation of weaving and a tour of the new Loom house and a display of blocks and tops in the Woodin Collection. Next meeting April 2, 05 the Quilt and Textile Museum in the Kalona Historic Village.
From: Judy Schwender <sister3603@>
In a previous post I wrote: “…it’s a copy…and as such, you cannot realize personal gain from it.” Woooo, I think I have to eat those words!
Go to: http://www.quilttownusa.com/Town_Hall/cpexperts.htm and read the article. My words are negated in paragraph 3 of the answer portion. And when the author writes of “moral rights” she isn’t talking religion. See: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html
[chomp, chomp, chomp]
From: Joan Kiplinger <jkip@>
Jean — as explained to me by someone in the garment trade, fashion knockoffs are not subject to copyrighted designs. Those dresses modeled by the Oscar-night crowd and rushed into production by manufacturers have been altered to a mere resemblance of the original
while management to look like the original. In other words, pattern pieces, fabric, buttons, etc. are not the same as the designers; the manufacturer has created his own original in effect by reshaping pattern pieces. There is no violation of copyright. The knockoff pros know just how far they can push the line. Ditto commercial patterns. It is the pattern pieces that are for personal use and not resale. Every seamstress creates her own original by virtue of choice of fabric, buttons, and of course altering pattern to fit her or her customers body lines. If a person is making clothes
to sell outright, she/he runs doesn’t mention pattern name; not much point as again it is an original and who can tell with all the modifications that have been made. A famous case maybe some of you will remember was Grace Kelly’s dress made from a Simplicty pattern which she wore when she first was
invited to see Monaco by the Prince. Everyone rushed out to buy that pattern; of course the fabric was not available but there were no lawsuits against Grace’s dressmaker for revealing the name. Great publicity for Simplicity. I don’t know how fashion copyrights apply to quilting patterns; it seems from this thread that there is a law for every stitch taken.
😀
From: <chrisa@>
Thanks Jocelyn- for letting me know I made the right decision to switch quilts. I now know where THEY would have sent me- thus the hassle would have begun with a bang.
Kim
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 04 12:14:27 -0700 | From: <chrisa@>
If this is the case- why wouldn’t the same terms apply to patterns in
books once they are sold or patterns by themselves? Or how about those learned in classes? In each case they were put in the mainstream of selling commercially. What’s the difference. This “point of first sale dosctrine” would make things a great deal easier.
Kim Wulfert www.antiquequiltdating.com
“The whole point of the first sale doctrine is that once the copyright owner places a copyrighted item in the stream of commerce by selling it, he
has exhausted his exclusive statutory right to control its distribution.” Justice Stevens, delivering an opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court in the case QUALITY KING DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. L’ANZA RESEARCH INT’L, INC. (96-1470), 98 F. 1109, reversed.
If you are interested you can read her story here at her site.
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/trademarks.html
I applaud her for fighting the ridiculous restrictions that these copyright owners would go to.
Laurette Carroll Southern California
From: “Lucinda Cawley” <lrcawley@>
Did I miss something re. AQSG. Carol refers to the 2-group meeting at Sunday breakfast. Don’t have fun without me. Cinda on the Eastern Shore
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 04 12:32:14 -0700 | From: “Christine Thresh” <christine@>
Sue Reich said, > 3. Designs and patterns are not copyrightable, only a specific quilt might > be and that would very likely be determined by its age.
Many designers have copyrighted their patterns.
Christine Thresh
From: “Jocelyn Martin” <jocelynm@>
s is a really fascinating topic… how about barter/trade? what if i reproduced a so called “copyrighted” quilt and gave it to someone who gave me an expensive tv…i didn’t sell the quilt for profit..i traded it for something of equal value..
I don’t think the law distinguishes between WHAT item of value is exchanged, whether it’s money, or a TV, or the recipient’s services in cleaning your house. 🙂
.. .or if i just sell the quilt for exactly what it cost me to make…paying myself 10 – 15 dollars per hour…
The copyright holder does not have to prove that you profited, but that your acts tended to decrease HER profit. That’s why photocopying is so bad- it removes all motive to buy the original pattern from the recipient of the photocopy. It doesn’t make any difference if you actually paid to photocopy the work for your friend, so that not only did you not make a profit,
you lost money on the deal- the concern is whether your actions decreased
the author’s/artist’s ability to profit from her own work.
>>entertainment stars…hasn’t the designer copyrighted that pattern?
No. THe designer may have a copyright to his or her own pattern and directions, but that does NOT mean that someone else can look at the dress, then cut their own pattern and make up their own directions. The visual look cannot be copyrighted, only the written instructions.
Also, keeping in mind that someone said this was an issue of TRADEMARK, not copyright- If Brenda P. trademarked ‘Dear Jane’, just as Eleanor (I forget the last name) trademarked ‘Quilt In A Day’, they have the right to keep anyone else from doing business under that name without their permission. Just as none of us would have the right to start bottling soda pop and selling it under the name COKE- even if Coke is in the language as a generic word for ‘soda pop’.
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 04 14:35:53 -0500 | From: “Karan Flanscha” <SadieRose@>
After private e-mails with several QHL members, I was encouraged to share this with the list. I think the big lesson here is that we need to learn more about these laws and how they affect us as quilters. What we “think” or “feel” about the law really doesn’t matter. The original Jane Stickle quilt contains 169 blocks that vary in size from 3 inches to 5 inches. Jane Stickle managed to put this puzzle together in such a way, that it appears to have sashing between the blocks (but it really doesn’t). Brenda asked, and was allowed to make tracings of all the blocks and triangles from the original quilt at the Bennington Museum. Brenda adapted her diagrams, making them a uniform 4.5″ with .5″ sashings to make the design uniform and easier to stitch. Her book calls her blocks “In the manner of Jane”… not stating that they are exact replicas of Jane Stickle’s quilt. Since Jane Stickle has been dead well over 100 years… If she had any printed patterns with a copyright, that would have expired. Brenda’s copyright is on her patterns… not on the antique quilt. Brenda has a Federal Trademark on “Dear Jane”. I believe the museum owns the “image” rights to the quilt. Anyone who buys the book is actually purchasing the right to use these patterns for their own personal use, to make blocks, quilts, etc. for their own use or to give as gifts… as per the Fair Use definition of the Copyright laws. Selling the patterns… or selling the completed quilt is a violation
of the law. Not the author/designer being ornery… but a legal violation. Jennifer Chiaverini, well-known quilting fiction author, and also a
member of the Dear Jane e-mail list, responded to the list with this comment: “According to the exchange the seller posted on the eBay website, she is not being forced to withdraw the quilt from sale. She is being asked to share a small percentage of the sale with the owner of the copyright. (Interestingly, the percentage Brenda requested is actually less than what I pay my agent for selling my manuscripts.) I am actually quite surprised that the seller did not agree. It was generous of Brenda to give her that option, considering that both her copyright and her trademark had been infringed upon.” Brenda has generously allowed quilt guilds to make raffle quilts using her book/patterns, she pays for the e-mail list which has something like 00 members…. certainly she has benefited monetarily from writing the book (and subsequent books)… but isn’t that why people write & publish?? So, if you want to make a quilt with 169 little blocks, making them 10% larger than a commercial pattern doesn’t change them legally to give you something “new” to copyright. Giving
the name of the book, which is a trademarked name, and saying you are
giving the author and publisher free advertising… is still a violation of copyright. Even if you are in desperate financial straits… selling the quilt is still a violation of copyright (would you rob a bank and
think you could get away with that reason??) Brenda has written to the DJ list, that she does not plan to “go after” the family of a deceased quilter who might choose to sell the quilt. But there was also a post from an attorney DJer, who worked for Universal Studios, who supported Brenda for taking a stand: “One reason that even Brenda seemed to overlook is copyright/ trademark dilution. If you do not strenuously protect your copyright/ trademark, it can and will fall into the “public domain” and will no longer be protected by federal law. When this happens, it is all but
impossible to reverse.” She cited several situations (one was the Frankenstein image) that had fallen into public domain, as the studio
did not fight to protect their copyright until it was “too late”. Two websites that have been mentioned in the copyright discussion are: http://www.welshofer.com/WebThreads/excerpts/two_three/nancy2.htm
http://www.sylvias-studio.com/copyright.htm
Here is an excerpt from the second website regarding “Fair use”: “Purchasers of commercial patterns expect to recreate designs according to copyrighted instructions. This constitutes “Fair Use.” You can make a project from a pattern to keep yourself and give the project gifts. However, if you try to profit from the design, <or> mass produce it for sale in nearby shops or fairs, you would surely hear from the pattern company. They have the right to seek an injunction to stop further production and force you to turn over profits legally theirs.” As many have said, copyright is a complicated subject, best approached with expert legal assistance. Historically, women did not have access to this help, and many quilt designs were shared from one quilter to another without thought of monetary benefits. Gee, what if Mary Simon had sued someone who copied one of her Baltimore Album block designs…then we would have some great legal records to help unravel the mysteries of the Baltimore Album genre (and was Mary
Simon really the artist that should be getting credit??) Happy Stitching, Karan
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 04 18:05:02 -0400 | From: “sue reich” <suereich@>
> 3. Designs and patterns are not copyrightable, only a specific quilt might > be and that would very likely be determined by its age.
Many designers have copyrighted their patterns.
This is absolutely true! You cannot, however, copyright the patterns such as Bear Paw, or Drunkard’s Path, or Charter Oak, etc, etc, etc. That said there are many original design quilts being made today, and just like novels or research papers once the ideas are placed on paper they are immediately copyrighted. This is the way I understand it. Say for instance you reproduce an original work of a quiltmaker or quilt artist from a recent quilt show you attend. The maker of this quilt did not deliberately make this quilt for copy
or reproduction. Those same fabrics are still available, and you have your photo image for reference. With the aid of a Photo Suite or EQ5, you
can make an exact, or near exact or even a slightly altered replica of the original quilt. Once done, you submit it for judging in quilt shows,
to magazines, or sell it as your work or even an exact copy of the original quilt. That would be a violation of a copyright. If you place the Jane Stickle quilt next to Brenda’s Dear Jane quilt, their near-identical similarity is undeniable. It should be considered a derivative work, however, Brenda had permission from the owner of the
quilt to adapt those patterns and to write a book that would be sold to encourage people to reproduce the quilt. There are going to be hundreds of Dear Jane quilts come into the market place in future years. Again, if it was not spelled out in the original book, that these quilts could never be sold even as copies then I’m not sure that there is a case. sue reich
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 04 :10:35 -0500 | From: “Susan Wildemuth” <ksandbcw@>
The Kalona Quilt and Textile Museum in Kalona, Iowa has a wonderful antique Amish Quilt Exhibit entitled “No Calico Allowed” which will be shown through the end of August. There is a catalog entitled “MIDWESTERN AMISH QUILTS” highlighting some of the quilts featured in the exhibit. Those that contacted Marilyn Woodin woodinkctc.net about wanting a catalog before it was printed please email again. If you would like to get one via snail mail the address is Marilyn Woodin Box 340 Kalona Iowa 52247. Cost is $10.00.
38 of us got to see this exhibit at the Iowa-Illinois Quilt Study Group meeting and it was wonderful — full of one-of-a-kind Amish quilts. There were a wide variety of quilts and some really extraordinary “hired man” quilts.
We also heard at IIQSG that an exhibit of Shirley McElderry’s quilts will be coming to the Kalona Quilt and Textile Museum this fall. Will post more information on Shirley’s exhibit when it becomes available.
Wishing you all 18th Century quilts in mint condition, Sue in Illinois
From: “Suzanne Pratt” <swmpratt@>
I too have thought for a long time that the copyright issue is getting ridiculous. Being a new member of this list I have lurked a lot but
I really do not understand this issue.
What I don’t understand is – how is the dear jane stuff different from buying a Simplicity pattern for a period dress, making the dress and selling it? I don’t see the pattern companies yelling copyright infringement
when this happens and this sort of thing is common. Isn’t this the same thing – they took a picture of a dress from some historical period, made a pattern for it, packaged it and sold it. When I buy it they get their fee for their product; I don’t pay them again (and I have seen nothing that indicates I should) if I then sell something I made with it.
If dear jane is copyrighted and I can’t do as I please with what I make from it, what about the patterns I print out and use to make quilts from Electric Quilt – when I sell one of my quilts from it is EQ going to complain about copyright infringement? If not, then what is the difference???
I understand copyrights for original material but the blocks in Dear Jane are not original to the author…she derived them from a museum quilt….EQ s blocks are not original to them….so just where is being infringed? the name “dear jane”….would the author have objected if it had been called a Civil War reproduction quilt in the manner of Jane Stickle”?
Can someone help me understand this issue??
Suzanne M. Pratt
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 04 05:25:57 -0400 | From: “Linda Heminway” <ibquiltn@>
Jocelyn (love your name by the way) said: Perhaps Brenda P. is content enough to have this ONE person sell a ‘Dear Jane’ quilt…but she doesn’t want to have her hands tied in the future if some Chinese manufacturer decides to print fabric using her block designs
My response: I may be missing a point, here, but isn’t Jane Stickle the one whose copywrite is truly at issue here. Yes, Brenda took it upon herself to write a book (which I actually own two copies of, by the way, one cut
and 3 hole punched as a working copy and one original as my “keeper”) and did make some “concessions” in her design to simply or conform. I fail to see how she can be copywriting a design that is not truly hers, it’s Jane’s. Just my humble opinion. By the way, if I make a quilt from any book and decide to sell it, it is mine to do so with, as others have said. I love Brenda for what she did, her book and Jane’s quilt, truly, and have made and exchanged several of the blocks, trying to keep them as original in look as possible, yet I see nothing wrong with someone selling their quilt. Sometimes the world can take the legalities of things way too far. If I buy that quilt, and then re-sell it on e-bay, it is mine to sell and should Brenda then get a royalty from that as well? Should I buy a used Ford and drive it for a few years and re-sell it,
do I then owe Ford a “commission” as their vehicle design is copywrited? Interesting concept.
On another subject, any ideas on how to get what I think is a chocolate stain out of my white on white wholecloth quilt? I think my kids did
this, unknowingly, and then it set it until I turned the quilt over to reposition it in the hoop and found it. I have tried a few products. It’s one of those pre-printed queen sized panels that I bought at Keepsake. This “baby” of mine is very special to me and my “masterpiece”. I’ve
been working on it 7 years, and it’s almost done, and now it’s got this “lovely” stain “shadow” on it. I’ve tried Woollite, dish detergent, Oxyclean spray stain remover (several times, letting it set, rubbing with my fingers, pouring cold water over top of the area and blotting with paper towels) so far. It’s gone from a glaringly dark brown stain to a light tan one, but it’s still there. I can’t immerse the entire quilt as it’s got the blue markings on it that I am quilting, still. Any other suggestions? Oh yes, speaking of this quilt, it’s a pre-printed panel. One similar to it won “Viewer’s Choice Best of Show” at my guild show this Spring. I was astounded that this woman submitted it for judging and also got a ribbon for it as it was a pre-printed panel and not her design. But, she WON. So, does she owe credit or “royalties” for this design? Was it ethical to submit this for judging? I was kind of amazed that it was done and that she won with it. I always felt that my own quilt, when finished, would go in a show as “non judged” as it was not my design. If she then sells this
quilt, would she owe royalties to the designer of that pre-printed panel?
Linda Heminway Plaistow NH
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 04 11:00:58 +0100 | From: Sally Ward <sallytatters@>
I’ve received an enquiry from a lady in Canada hoping to find out about a quilt block described in a novel (Jill Paton Walsh entitled Pieces of > > Justice). She thought I might know because the book is set in England and apparently by an English author.
Since the block is called ‘Coast o’Maine’, however, I was never likely to be much help <G>. She contacted the author and got this odd reply that although it was ‘a real pattern’ she didn’t know where she got it from.
Her question and description is below, if anyone has any ideas I’ll pass them on.
Thanks
Sally W
> years ago I read a mystery by Jill Paton Walsh entitled Pieces of > Justice. The characters work on a quilt in a pattern called Coast > O’Maine. I wote the author for more information after I had no luck
in > finding the pattern. She told me it is a real quilt pattern but she has no idea of her source.
Description: It had a flowing curved wavy look to it although it was made of triangles and squares. The second row was offset by half a block making it harder to see.They look like compass stars when you see them one by one….The background fabric which appeared broken up as small areas round the edges of the block narrow triangles between the spokes of the patterned stars joined up when they were laid together making plain stars between the patterned ones.You cpuld see the quilt as made of multicoloured compass roses on a plain background or as scattered with plain stars in an elaborate interwoven lattice of colour.
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 04 21:42:36 +1000 | From: <kerrybrack@>
hello all
i am searching for the maria c hanks quilt – wife of abraham lincoln’s first cousin.
can anybody point me in the right direction for a picture of the quilt or which book it is in. i know sandy fox discovered this quilt.
tia cheers kerryx
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 04 07:31:28 -0500 | From: Gail Ingram <gingram@>
I think what we are experiencing is a disjunct between our notions of justice and justice as it is encoded in law—–very complicated set of laws, btw, more complicated than Jane Stickle’s quilt.
I appreciated Jocelyn’s review of BP’s reasoning, which gave balance to an otherwise rather emotional (mine included) general first response.
Perhaps it would be a good idea for someone to study the copyright law as it applies to needlework patterns—with help of copyright attorneys—and produce a simplified guide that can be understood and appreciated. Evidently Sue Reich has done this for a roundtable at the upcoming AQSG meeting. But not everyone will be there.
Then people like the seller can simply reword their descriptions and remain within the law’s intent.
Gail
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 04 06:13:23 -0700 (PDT) | From: Rissa Peace Root <rissapeace@>
Have you tried spot cleaning it with Savon de Marseille or other high grade olive oil soap? If you don’t have access to any, I can send you a piece, I buy it mail-order by the the 2 kilo bar! 🙂 I discovered how wonderful this stuff was when I was doing a lot of Boutis and needed to clean my work. It did the job after Biz, Ivory and Oxyclean failed. My teacher was French and must have assumed everyone had access to this and knew it would work, because she sure did not stress it enough in class. LOL
Rissa Peace Root http://www.prettyimpressivestuff.com
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 04 14:11:28 +0000 | From: “jocelynm@” <jocelynm@>
On August 9, 04, Linda Heminway wrote:
> My response: I may be missing a point, here, but isn’t Jane Stickle
the o ne > whose copywrite is truly at issue here.
Linda, After a certain length of time, the originator’s copyright lapses. If
Brend a P’s ‘Dear Jane’ book came out while Jane’s copyright was still in effect, Jane’s heirs could have sued. Apparently, they didn’t, or the designs had gone into ‘public domain’.
Brenda P. has a copyright to the work SHE did, even if it’s based on design s in the public domain.
And if, as someone said, this is really a trademark issue, Brenda P. DOES h ave the right to keep other people from profiting from ‘Dear Jane’ (the tit le) if she’s registered it as her own trademark. In which case, someone cou ld sell a ‘Modified Jane Stipple Quilt’, and Brenda couldn’t stop them, jus t as RC Cola can sell a cola drink- they just can’t call it Coke. 🙂
> Oh yes, speaking of this quilt, it’s a pre-printed panel. One similar to it > won “Viewer’s Choice Best of Show” at my guild show this Spring. I
was > astounded that this woman submitted it for judging and also got a ribbon for > it as it was a pre-printed panel and not her design. But, she WON.
So, > does she owe credit or “royalties” for this design?
When fabrics are sold, there’s an implied release for the buyer to use the fabric. So no, no additional release is required. In this case, I’m surpris ed the show didn’t have rules, although I would guess that a pre-printed pa nel could be as beautifully quilted as a pieced panel, and perhaps the judg ing category was Best Quilting (not Best Quiltmaking)? At any rate, perhaps the sponsoring agency ought to think about that, since viewers are likely to respond more to the design without thinking about the work involved. The re could be times and places a preprinted panel would be appropriate,
I sup pose, but it ought to be in the rules for the contest.
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 04 14:22:55 +0000 | From: “jocelynm@” <jocelynm@>
On August 8, 04, Suzanne Pratt wrote:
> What I don’t understand is – how is the dear jane stuff different from > buying a Simplicity pattern for a period dress, making the dress and sell ing > it?
Because ‘Dear Jane’ was used, as a phrase. I don’t think anyone could successfully argue that ‘Dear Jane’ predates Bre nda P’s work. It is HER phrase. And as such, she has the right to protect i t, and to keep others from using it to make a profit.
Using the patterns, and calling it a Civil War Era Reproduction Quilt
would n’t be the same thing at all. Brenda P can’t lay claim to the latter title as being her unique work. 🙂
Simplicity patterns holds the copyright of the original pattern drafter (if you work for a creative firm, quite often you don’t get to hold your
own c opyrights, your employer does), and as such can release the copyright
to th e purchaser. If they choose not to enforce their copyright, that’s their ri ght. It shouldn’t be implied that because they do, every other designer is being petty or selfish if s/he chooses to enforce his or her legal rights t o protect his/her work. Disney vigorously enforces its copyrights because t hey HAVE to to build the case that Mickey Mouse etc. are actually trademark s of the business that should not enter into public domain. If you think th ey should, consider- nothing would stop a pornographer from making a Mickey and Minnie Do Miami video….there’s been porno cartoons before. Disney is desperately afraid that Micky etc. will be put to uses that Walt would nev er have approved of, and which would be counter to their business interests , and they’re laying the groundwork for keeping control of the Mouse.
🙂
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 04 11:24:40 -0500 | From: Mary Persyn <Mary.Persyn@>
I’ve been reading with interest the comments on copyright law. One of the things that caught my attention was the citation to the case that
tabberone had on her website with the quote from Justice Stevens. It
caught my attention because the citation was wierd. (You know how it
is when something in your area of expertise comes up 🙂 ).
If anyone is interested in reading the Quality King Distributor, Inc.
v. L’Anza Research International, Inc. case, the proper citation is
Quality King Distributor, Inc. v. L’Anza Research International, Inc., 523 U.S. 135 (1998).
It can be found on the web at
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?termsquality%king%2istributors&url/supct/html/96-1470.ZO.html
Justice Steven’s point comes from 17 U.S.C. § 109 (00) which states the first sale doctrine – that after a person purchases a copyrighted
item, for example a book, lawfully, that person can sell THAT copy without getting the permission of the copyright owner.
More detail than you wanted to know, I’m sure.
Mary in Valparaiso, IN where the power outage was not nearly as long as we
thought it would be
— Mary G. Persyn 219-465-7830 Associate Dean for Library Services
From: “Pepper Cory” <pepcory@> y
Hello friends, With Kris’ permission, I’m selling some dupes from my quilt book library. The titles are The Quilt Engagement Caledar for 1980, 1991, and 1994, The Pieced Quilt by Holstein, North Country Quilts & Coverlets
from the Beamish Museum, and Patchwork by Averil Colby. If you’re interested, contact me at pepcory@ and I’ll send the descriptions and prices. First come, first serve! >From the beautiful Carolina coast, Pepper Cory
