[artic^wolf]

Actually, I don't think you do transfer your copyright to the design through a tutorial, yet you also don't retain the right to dictate what the buyer does with the knowledge you provided in the tutorial. It is unreasonable to sell a tutorial and not allow the purchaser to actually carry out the steps in the tutorial. Once the buyer has carried out the steps, it is reasonable that they have created the same article that the instructions provided for. If you read further into First-sale doctrine and exhaustion of rights you'll see that "Copyright law does not restrict the owner of a copy from reselling legitimately obtained copies of copyrighted works, provided that those copies were originally produced by or with the permission of the copyright holder." By purchasing the tutorial I have permission from the copyright holder to recreate the article, then the copyright holder does not have the right to restrict what I do with the article. The copyright on the tutorial is on the tangible tutorial itself not the articles made with the legal permission of the copyright holder. Another point, if the tutorial author states that the articles can not be made for commercial use and I give it as a gift...the receiver of my gift can then sell the article, the fact that the receiver of the gift is legally allowed to sell leaves some law professionals with the opinion the courts would not enforce the restriction of sale to the first holder of the article.

Now the subject of Disney was brought up, Mickey Mouse and the other characters are trademarked, which carries different protections, the cartoons or movies they are in fall under copyright law.

Personally I understand that where the law stops ethics steps in, but tutorial authors cannot refuse their buyers' legal rights. Any statement can be made on the tutorial, that doesn't mean it is enforceable by law.

I'm also not a lawyer, I'm reading the laws and concluding what I think they will or will not provide for. Do you think that a tutorial author could take a buyer to court and claim they did not mean for the buyer to actually make the article the instructions were for? Once it is determined that it is reasonable to have permission, then the article is the buyers to do what they wish.

I find the subject interesting because it is an area that doesn't leave a clear and concise answer. It is important, in my opinion, that both the tutorial author and buyer know what they are getting into, and it isn't a case closed situation.