Pls Write Warnings on Tuts

[Kalera]

Originally Posted by MoltenMuse

ack. My post poofed.

I just wrote that I had revisited the section posted by Carolyn V. Peters. There is only *one* exception that she makes in her discussion of the copyright laws on quilting and purchasing patterns, then making the article and reselling it. She states you can sell the article (note, singular - not plural) that you have made from the instructions you pay for. She specifically says you cannot mass produce the article for commercial purposes. So, if this is the case, the two lawyers opinions differ on one point - whether or not the single article derived from the pattern or tutorial can be sold. I can't see how there's any other contradiction between what the two attorneys have written.

Here's the text from Carolyn V. Peters article: For example, if a designer makes a quilt that meets the requirement for a copyright, the copyright is granted for the quilt itself. A photograph of that quilt may also be copyrightable. But if that designer is in the business of selling patterns and in fact turns this new quilt into a pattern, complete with instructions, the pattern also enjoys copyright protection for the instructions and any illustrations that are expressed in the pattern. You, as the quiltmaker, purchase this pattern. Under the copyright laws, you are not allowed to make a copy of the pattern, except for your personal use. As the legal owner of the authorized copy of this pattern, you have purchased the right to make the article that is presented in the pattern, to sell or give away your authorized copy of the pattern that you purchased, and to sell or give away the article that you made from the pattern. You do not have the right to make copies of the pattern with the intent of distributing them to friends or guild members, or to mass produce an item from that pattern for resale for profit or personal gain.

Thank you so much for going back to that point and clarifying it. Something about that had me scratching my head, but I haven't gotten a lot of sleep two nights in a row and my think-parts aren't working too swiftly today.

[Kalera]

Originally Posted by Paul Ewing

I have been to several arts and crafts business courses and copyright laws come up at all of them. One of the sessions I attended included a person that had won a copyright infringement lawsuit against a large infringer. The key thing that I took out of the meeting was that if you were copied, then you better hope that it was by a major company. That was the only way that it would be worth pursuing a legal case past a cease and desist letter. The cost to take a copyright case to trial runs at least $20,000. There have been a few high profile cases against large retailers such as Target that were won by the craftspeople that were copied.

In just about all other mediums, it is understood that tutorials and patterns are not to be used as resale. This is especially true in the sewing realm. This is explained on this Australian Copyright site at http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/...s_pdf/G039.pdf which is similar to the US interpretation.

Seeing the attitude of some of the posters here it is pretty plain that there wants are the only thing that is important and they will do what they desire even if they are not given license explicitly. Since there is relatively little financially to be gained in the bead market in pursuing a copyright infringement case, I can't see where infringers would have to worry about legal consequences of their actions. This just leaves the ethical issues which is what some the tutorial authors have talked about.

It is nice that many of the authors are granting the rights to buyers to sell the designs from the tutorials. I think that buyers should be jumping up and down at this very unusual situation. To get the license to a popular design for $15 to $20 is unheard of in the real world.

Thank you, Paul. This is a great post!

[pam]

Interesting, Kalera. I hadn't thought of that, but I think you may very well be right. Something else to ponder.

[rosebud101]

This has been a good thread that has made me really stop and think, so much so, that I'm confused again over the issues. I often wonder if it's safe to take a step and do something without the protection of a lawyer in house versed in copyright and trademark law. OMG! I guess that all we can do is the best we can do. I don't think that makes sense, but then, today, not a lot does.

[miahawk]

Originally Posted by Kalera

Actually, unless there is a very major detail that I'm missing, according to copyright law you would not only be relinquishing copyright protection on that particular bead design to the purchasers of your tutorials, but in fact would be relinquishing copyright protection on that particular bead design, PERIOD. Once you relinquish copyright, it would seem you don't get to pick and choose who can use your design... anyone who learns it downstream, or figures out how to duplicate your bead would be legally perfectly free to do so.

There are thousands of patterns out there in all different crafts, and for the most part the pattern/tutorial authors don't relinquish copyright on the designs they use for examples. The only reason we're having this discussion now is that patterns/tutorials-for-sale are new to the lampworking world. They're not new to the knitting, sewing, woodworking, or jewelry worlds.

I think there are a lot of considerations to make. Limited license to reproduce a specific design might, for example, be a preferable alternative to relinquishing copyright.

no, because unless you state you're relinquishing any copyrights, you retain them. a tutorial on how to do something gives the purchaser at the minimum permission to make something to improve their skill, which would fall under "fair use". you can even say "if you've bought this tutorial you can feel free to make and sell this design", without giving up your copyrights to both the tutorial and the bead design.

trademarks, however, if not actively protected, can be lost.

[Kalera]

Originally Posted by miahawk

no, because unless you state you're relinquishing any copyrights, you retain them. a tutorial on how to do something gives the purchaser at the minimum permission to make something to improve their skill, which would fall under "fair use". you can even say "if you've bought this tutorial you can feel free to make and sell this design", without giving up your copyrights to both the tutorial and the bead design.

trademarks, however, if not actively protected, can be lost.

My point was that IF you state that you're relinquishing copyright to the purchaser, then you no longer retain any copyright over the design. Once you've relinquished copyright, you can no longer control who does and who does not use your design. An alternative could be to state that purchase of the tutorial licenses the purchaser to make X copies of the example design.

The limit is arbitrary and unenforceable, but at least that way the tut writer isn't legally giving up all copyright to the example design, and also would have some legal recourse if a purchaser decided to mass-produce the design.

I just think that, if people are going to preface their tutorials with releases allowing the purchasers to profit from the duplication of their example design, they probably need to consider the wording carefully. For example, "I don't care what you do with these beads" seems like a statement that is loose enough to be considered forfeiting copyright altogether.

[miahawk]

oh, yes! if you share copyrights with the purchaser then they have equal rights to the design and what to do with it, including creating their own tut on how to make it. I'm not really sure that that would work out legally, it may end up being the equivalent of putting a design into the public domain. same with the tut. makes way more sense to put a limited license on the design.

[miahawk]

and, if you relinquish copyrights to the purchaser, you no longer have the right to it yourself, just the purchaser. so you can't continue to assign rights to anyone else.

[rosebud101]

I'm still so confused! Somehow, it just doesn't seem right. The confusion is what I mean. This discussion has been great! I've learned a lot by lurking. Thank you to all the people who have contributed.

[pam]

So, Miahawk and Kalera, what you are saying, from my understanding, is that should an author say that a purchaser of the tutorial is free to do whatever they want with the bead pictured in the tutorial, reproduce it for sale, for instance, they are then relinguishing copyright to the world for that bead?

The remedy, then, would be, as Kalera stated, to say the purchase of the tutorial includes a license to produce 25 (whatever) copies of the bead pictured in the tutorial. Am I understanding this correctly?

[Kalera]

Yes, I think tut authors should probably, to cover themselves, either say nothing and retain all copyright to their design, or should make a specific statement about how they are licensing the example design to be used by the buyer.

I think at this point, I've come around to agreeing with the OP... just for different reasons.

[Asil4]

Sarah, add my good wishes. I hope everything settles down over there and you and yours stay safe.

Lisa

[Torch&Marver]

Originally Posted by Kalera

Yes, I think tut authors should probably, to cover themselves, either say nothing and retain all copyright to their design, or should make a specific statement about how they are licensing the example design to be used by the buyer.

I think at this point, I've come around to agreeing with the OP... just for different reasons.

I agree with this. And (as a tutorial user) would fully expect to pay a LOT more than $10-$20 for the right to duplicate beads -- even in a limited sense. I'm sure many (most probably) won't agree with me on this but that's the way I would expect things to be.

[Torch&Marver]

Sarah, I've been in such a holiday bubble I wasn't even aware of the recent goings on. Please, be safe.

[sarah_hornik]

Thanks, Lisa and Avena.

[sarah_hornik]

Originally Posted by Kalera

Yes, I think tut authors should probably, to cover themselves, either say nothing and retain all copyright to their design, or should make a specific statement about how they are licensing the example design to be used by the buyer.

I think at this point, I've come around to agreeing with the OP... just for different reasons.

This is all a bit confusing - correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like if tut buyers actually got the "warnings", they would be much worse off than they were to begin with?

I have no intention of changing my policies either way, just trying to understand.

[pam]

Actually, Sarah, I totally agree with you.

So, basically what I have heard from most tutorial writers is that they wish to allow purchasers to make beads for whatever reason to their heart's content, but they do not wish to lose the copyright on the tutorial.

So, to all of you wise ones, if they said something to the effect, "Purchase of this tutorial allows unlimited license to the purchaser to reporduce the bead/beads pictured in this tutorial," would this allow the purchaser license to reproduce the bead, but keep the copyright for the tutorial in effect?

[Kalera]

Originally Posted by pam

Actually, Sarah, I totally agree with you.

So, basically what I have heard from most tutorial writers is that they wish to allow purchasers to make beads for whatever reason to their heart's content, but they do not wish to lose the copyright on the tutorial.

So, to all of you wise ones, if they said something to the effect, "Purchase of this tutorial allows unlimited license to the purchaser to reporduce the bead/beads pictured in this tutorial," would this allow the purchaser license to reproduce the bead, but keep the copyright for the tutorial in effect?

I think that it would have to be more specific. It would have to allow unlimited reproduction of the beads by the purchaser of the tutorial for both personal and commercial purposes. However, I would personally steer clear of the "unlimited" wording, because it seems to me that an AH or similar company would then have specific license to use the tut as a template for their mass-production.

Maybe something like "The purchase of this tutorial constitutes a license to the purchaser to personally reproduce the example beads in the tutorial for private or commercial purposes, for the lifetime of the purchaser".

Or, some authors might want to make it 25 beads, or leave out the commercial part, or whatever.

[midniteburner]

This is all so confusing!

Sara

[Torch&Marver]

Originally Posted by Kalera

I think that it would have to be more specific. It would have to allow unlimited reproduction of the beads by the purchaser of the tutorial for both personal and commercial purposes. However, I would personally steer clear of the "unlimited" wording, because it seems to me that an AH or similar company would then have specific license to use the tut as a template for their mass-production.

Maybe something like "The purchase of this tutorial constitutes a license to the purchaser to personally reproduce the example beads in the tutorial for private or commercial purposes, for the lifetime of the purchaser".

Or, some authors might want to make it 25 beads, or leave out the commercial part, or whatever.

From my understanding, this sums it up very well. I would, however, make one subtle change to the wording as follows:

"The purchase of this tutorial constitutes a license to the original purchaser to personally reproduce the example beads in the tutorial for private or commercial purposes, for the lifetime of the original purchaser"

And a sentence covering off the actual tutorial instructions: "The instructions in this tutorial may be printed or copied to another computer for the personal use of the original purchaser only. It may not be resold, reproduced for commercial purposes, copied or used as teaching materials without permission".

[pam]

I'M GETTING A HEADACHE!!! I think things were better before this thread was actually started! However, ignorance of the law is no defense, or so I have heard.

[sarah_hornik]

Originally Posted by pam

I'M GETTING A HEADACHE!!! I think things were better before this thread was actually started!

YES! Same here!

[Torch&Marver]

Sorry

[Moth]

I'm still checking in, but have avoided the headache by telling people they can do whatever they want.

As far as me being concerned that a bunch of chinese factory workers are going to replace me...not so much. My beads are too labor intensive for them to be interested in them I think. I haven't seen many huge complex encased focals coming out of china and if they are...they obviously aren't prominent enough to be noticed yet and by the time they are, I will be onto something else.

I have a 'catch me if you can' kinda attitude about the chinese and other factory glass beadmakers.

~~Mary

[pam]

Great attitude, Mary!!

Avena, it's not you, it is that you finally feel you have a handle on stuff and then it changes again!

I think I'm moving in Mary's direction.

Laurie had the idea as far as mass-production, but I'm not sure how effective it will be. The whole thing comes down to the fact that no matter what, beadmakers are 99.9 percent of the time never going to attempt to enforce a copyright. It is just too cost-prohibitive. So, no matter what is written on the tutorial, no matter who does what, once the "cat is out of the bag" it's gone. We can hope that purchasers have enough respect and integrity and creativity to try a few beads and move on to their own interpretation using the techniques, but I think it's obvious from some of the comments that that hope is probably not going to come true.

[Kalera]

Originally Posted by MoltenMuse

From my understanding, this sums it up very well. I would, however, make one subtle change to the wording as follows:

"The purchase of this tutorial constitutes a license to the original purchaser to personally reproduce the example beads in the tutorial for private or commercial purposes, for the lifetime of the original purchaser"

And a sentence covering off the actual tutorial instructions: "The instructions in this tutorial may be printed or copied to another computer for the personal use of the original purchaser only. It may not be resold, reproduced for commercial purposes, copied or used as teaching materials without permission".

That seems very straightforward and concise.

[pam]

Does it, or does it allow Mr. factory owner to buy 5 copies and give them to his 5 best beadmakers and use it for "commercial purposes"?

[sarah_hornik]

I can't remember where it was, but someone (Moth I think?) posted a link to a tut where the text was something like "you can make it and sell it, but you can't mass-produce it - meaning, you can make it yourself, but you can't have your employees make it for you".

On second thought, I guess Mr. Factory could still buy copies for his employees, and then I'm not sure what it would mean.

Yep. Headaches.

[miahawk]

I believe it would.

[Kalera]

Originally Posted by pam

Does it, or does it allow Mr. factory owner to buy 5 copies and give them to his 5 best beadmakers and use it for "commercial purposes"?

Ouch, good point. And if I was a factory or production-studio owner, it would make good business sense to give my employees an extra $15/month to buy a new tutorial.

It may be that limiting the quantity of beads each buyer can make would be a good idea... the only time it would be worthwhile to use that limit to take legal action would be if a large production studio or sweatshop was mass-producing them, but at least that protection would be in place, just in case.

100 copies is a lot, and certainly more than enough for anyone to learn to make them and recoup the cost of the tutorial, and then some. For that matter, 20 serves that purpose.