Weave restrictions
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Knitting Circle
   
Author Message

Joined: April 13, 2009
Posts: 12
Submissions: 3

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:00 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I have updated my blog post a bit since this morning to be a little more clear, added more exact quotes, fixed some typos and edited unclear statements. Just FYI, trying to be transparent, etc.

To be absolutely clear, at no time was she trying to enforce her copyright for the general stepping stones weave (as I believe some posters on this thread seem to be thinking). This is/was purely a 'her registered designed pendant vs. my similar pendant/earrings' claim, and no other.

She did however inform me that she holds the copyright for the weave but chooses not to enforce it.

thanks guys,
-amy


--
sterling silver, brass, and copper jump rings
http://raine.net

Joined: December 24, 2009
Posts: 68
Submissions: 0
Location: Folsom, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:45 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I'm confused now about the whole weave/design copyright thing Sad

If I make/sell jewelry from a weave tutorial, say this one am I obligated to ask the tutorial author's permission to sell a piece of jewelry based on that weave?

Please someone enlighten me before my head asplodes.

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3601
Submissions: 150
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:11 am || Last edited by ZiLi on Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:16 am; edited 2 times in total
Link to Post: Link to Post

suulia wrote:
I'm confused now about the whole weave/design copyright thing Sad


In principle COPYRIGHTS always refer to CONCRETE PIECES of artwork, and NOT to knowledge like constructive principles. So the tutorial itself is a concrete piece, that may not be freely duplicated apart from 'fair use' application without author's consent, while the KNOWLEDGE therein is NOT subject to this type of protection.

Another matter are particular designs, like shown in the Gallery. Here it's very advisable to ask the creator, before a concrete shown PIECE is to be DUPLICATED. There's NO excuse if trouble arises in such cases of duplication without permit.

If an author claims to extend the copyright to the knowledge, that claim is invalid, unless other means of protection are used - a simple copyright simply doesn't cover that. As I frequently wrote, that's a patent affair (and regarding weaves it's very doubtful whether a patent application for a weave would have much chance of getting approved without being challenged). And there is NO juristic difference between a filed and a non-filed copyright - registered ones just have a bit better 'leverage', as creation dates are officially registered, what can be important if predate challenges are made.

So don't worry if you use a weave tutorial published on MAIL for making own designs - tutorials claiming more protection would be subject to be thrown off the M.A.I.L. site; and I'm not aware of an existing candidate for this yet (while not excluding the possibility at all). Same goes for published weaves 'as-is', that may be freely rebuilt, if one manages to do that without a tutorial. Please note that the so-called 'Unit weaves' are most times in fact designs, that have copyright protection, whether remarked by the author or not (but that's a matter to be followed elsewhere). So be a bit more cautious when making these - in doubt follow the rules of conduct for Gallery items told above.

Final remark: Weave inventors, and tutorial creators love to be credited for their work, like designers do, if someone bases own designs on existing ones. So if you know the creator's name, simply refer to - that strokes egos. And never forget to ask an author before, if you want to COPY something...

-ZiLi-

Edit: Typos removed


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper Mfe.s Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Pj Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hi

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: November 16, 2009
Posts: 162
Submissions: 3
Location: Finland

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:15 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Copyright law sucks. I thought people are innocent until proven guilty! If one has reason to believe Amys work is a blatant copyright violation, one ought to have proof, roight?
I know it would truly piss me off, if someone claimed I'm copying, when I really am not. And the amount of work that goes into deciding what size rings to use is staggering, as Amy pointed out in her blog.

There are real copycats out there, everyone here knows the lurkerprowlers, but often they seem to have such horrid worksmanship the pieces fall apart after a month of wear -> word spreads, and they're out of business.
Or they learn as they go and start making their own pieces.


Only one word can make me angry, and trust me dear, you can't pronounce it.

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3601
Submissions: 150
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:05 am || Last edited by ZiLi on Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Link to Post: Link to Post

Well, these laws themselves don't 'suck'. But their interpretation very often does, as many people don't know how to apply and interpret them correctly - even some lawyers and judges included. And so there are many violations (to be honest: who active on the internet behaved EVERYTIMES 'well'?), and there are many false or at least doubtful claims. I had already my fair share of dealing with 'intellectual property law' affairs, and even I continue to be sometimes in doubt, how some cases have to be dealt with, and have to consult a specialized lawyer from time to time - in the meanwhile that lawyer is on my list of yearly xmas card receivers; and I on his... Very Happy

I may add my personal opinion on the 'Shenandoah vs. Stepping Stones' case: Both are already derivatives of the basic Japanese construction principle, that's a long time legacy weave family. Both share roughly similar, but not identical design principles, as the ring arrangements are similar (not identical), but ring sizes used differ significantly, what e.g. mirrors in the different number of rings possible to arrange around the central ring of a weave cell. As that arrangement is an inevitable discovery, and the differences seem to be large enough, both do imho NOT infringe each other. And to repeat myself: constructive priciples are NOT covered by a copyright. So takedown notices due to copyright infringement are imho not valid in this case, except VERY similar pieces had been made. But this high grade of similarity is not given, as the ring size combination dependent differences between Shenandoah and Stepping Stones are already too much to be considered as 'the same design' - they're just similar to a limited degree, not more, not less...

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper Mfe.s Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Pj Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hi

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: August 10, 2005
Posts: 7026
Submissions: 294

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:53 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Blaise wrote:
rainestudios wrote:
http://www.crazymokes.com/2010/08/copyright-infringement/


Wow. Just, wow..... I am simultaneously disheartened and frustrated.

But, to be fair, this is only one side of the story. Legs, do you have a response?


I think I've already been convicted and sentenced but the reason I got 'heavy' with Amy is that after a very polite conversation through Etsy she claimed I was infringing her copyright on the pendant and earrings so I retaliated. It would appear she's only telling half the story.

The weave itself was copyrighted with the other 7 designs but I already negotiated with the publisher (at the time of registering) that the weave was part of the community and so had to be left alone.

Any more questions should be through PMs as I am not opening myself up to any more abuse on the forums.


Maille Code
V2.0 T7.3 R5.4 Ep Feur MAg/Cu Wm$ Cbjpw$ G0.5/3.0 I1.5/12.0 N322.150 Pajs Dacdjsw Xa7g631p4t24w64 S88 Hipsu

Joined: October 19, 2009
Posts: 31
Submissions: 0
Location: Boston

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:02 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Who initially claimed copyright infringement, and on what grounds?

Joined: October 05, 2009
Posts: 18
Submissions: 0

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:19 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

No Legba. Amy told that part of the story as well. So she has both sides showing. The only person who seems unwilling to be open and honest about this is you.

Did you read her blog? If not, do so before replying to anything else either in PM or out of it. Not doing so just shows your contempt for her and for this community.

She stated that after YOU were unable or unwilling to show YOUR ORIGINAL DATE of design, it appeared to her that her design had actually come first and she called you on it. Only then did you come forward with a photograph supposedly taken in February.

You were heavy handed before that point and after that point.

Seems your "Martyr Card" is a fail this time...

Joined: April 13, 2009
Posts: 12
Submissions: 3

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:43 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Oddly, I find myself coming to Legba's defense.

For the record, since it has been asked for repeatedly and it doesn't appear that she will be offering them anytime soon, here are the pieces she has registered. Anyone can find this information if they comb her flickr thread a bit, as I have:

A necklace for Alice:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redcrow/4170866111/in/set-72157611096575542/

Esme's stepping stones:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redcrow/4163759591/in/set-72157611096575542/

A necklace for Rosalie:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redcrow/4171622762/in/set-72157611096575542/

Athena's Tears:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redcrow/3096766322/in/set-72157611096575542/

Twilight Inspired 2 (1 large SS unit with wolf drop)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redcrow/4156886239/in/set-72157611096575542/

Stepping Stones (necklace with an X of small rings in center large ring + pearl drop)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redcrow/2938619897/in/set-72157611096575542/

Mystic Topaz set (1 small ss unit with mystic topaz drop)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redcrow/3094039514/in/set-72157611096575542/

and of course, the generic SS weave. This one does NOT have a "registered" comment on her flickr stream as the others do, but it was included when she sent me her copyright registration information:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redcrow/3006381466/in/set-72157621095586500/


In my opinion, I think there are three issues here.

Legal copyright, and the maille community, and the strength of said copyrights.

One has nothing to do with the others.

Legally, I don't believe that Legba (believed she) did anything wrong in registering her copyrights and enforcing them. These are all for pieces of jewelry which she created and she (believes she) holds the copyright on them, regardless of registration.

I think technically (and I am very sorry for saying so, Laura *hug*) Laura copied her design, even without the pearl drop, and as such, infringed on Legba's inherit copyright. Laura obviously did not think it was wrong to do so and made this mistake in error.

The problem comes with the 2nd issue -- the maille community. Over the past 2+ years since Legba posted the original weave, others have made the weave, posted their variations, & Legba herself has posted her designs. Due to the sharing nature of the site, it is quite possible for someone to mistake a jewelry design for something that they can freely make a copy of. In the recent past, from what I've looked through, Legba has even posted that such and such design are copyrighted. (Sadly, she turns around and deletes these comments at times.)

Probably the best route for Legba to have taken was to post something initially, saying, "hey I got some of my work published and as such I am going to need to start enforcing copyright on these pieces, just FYI. Here they all are! Cheers!" This would have alleviated much, if not ALL of this mess. There would be no hiding behind shadowy publishing companies and mystery on what is protected and why and "OMGWTFBBQ, can I not make stepping stones at all now? PANIC!?!" etc. Mass hysteria would have never been.

THAT BEING SAID! HOWEVER!

IN MY CASE, however, I believe that Legba copyrighted her design without checking to see if anyone else had actually made something similar, as I had. A simple enough mistake, sadly compounded by her present actions. I tried to point out the fact that my item(s) predate hers, and she sent me the cease and desist, fine. I am through discussing and reject her claims to the otherwise. The ball is in her court if she wishes to persue legal action.

Legally, I don't think Legba has done anything wrong except in my case.

and now comes the second HOWEVER! WOULD THESE COPYRIGHTS STAND UP??

Whether or not ALL of those copyrights would/will actually stand up in court is another question ENTIRELY. I think the ones with a lot of detail such as Athena's Tears and the piece with the X and the pearl drop (again, sorry Laura!) would stand the best chance of that.

The others, including the pendant which she claims I infringe on, is a toss up. Not a lot of, as someone had stated, "artistic STUFF" going on there. This is the discussion that could have continued when these pieces were originally posted, if Legba had been willing to participate in them.

as a PS -- Legba claims I am only telling half the story -- I will update my blog post to include the Etsy convos, (which were basically her request to take down my listing(s) and my asking her for the copyright information), and carefully mark what has been added, to include the beginning of the story.

It is true that I was very polite -- I was absolutely aghast at my possible infringement against a well known, venerated mailler -- until I saw the date of the registrations (the very recent past) and began to get suspicious, and then with further digging realized my piece predated hers.

-amy


--
sterling silver, brass, and copper jump rings
http://raine.net

Joined: August 10, 2005
Posts: 7026
Submissions: 294

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:59 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

One thing you are NOT telling Amy is that my piece does predate yours and I posted the photo on Flickr to prove it. I know you think this doesn't prove anything but if that's the case then your posted pics don't prove anything either. So it goes round and round.....


Maille Code
V2.0 T7.3 R5.4 Ep Feur MAg/Cu Wm$ Cbjpw$ G0.5/3.0 I1.5/12.0 N322.150 Pajs Dacdjsw Xa7g631p4t24w64 S88 Hipsu

Joined: January 21, 2004
Posts: 1039
Submissions: 26

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:12 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Legba, could you provide links to, or the text of the specific copyright listings for these 8 entries? I poked around the UK copyright site but couldn't find anywhere to look up registrations. If we could see them that would help to more fairly evaluate the situation.

-phong



Joined: October 02, 2003
Posts: 117
Submissions: 16
Location: Troy, NY

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:35 pm || Last edited by CShake on Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Link to Post: Link to Post

Legba3 wrote:
One thing you are NOT telling Amy is that my piece does predate yours and I posted the photo on Flickr to prove it. I know you think this doesn't prove anything but if that's the case then your posted pics don't prove anything either. So it goes round and round.....


I feel I can clarify this particular issue to anyone who may be confused:

She is saying that the date attached to the piece by the website itself is accepted in both cases as the publication date of the piece. This date exists for your published picture of the final piece and hers too.
Your proof photo is using a file creation date embedded in the EXIF info of the image, but uploaded months after both of your original posts. The issue is that EXIF can easily be faked by changing the date on the camera itself or through software on a user's computer, while the date attached to an upload by Flickr, dA, MAIL*, or any other large site cannot be faked by the user.

There is no "going round and round", she's just stating that she will only take certified dates from a neutral 3rd party instead of user-provided dates that can be (though may not have been) changed or faked by the user. She's not directly accusing you of faking the data, just covering her own ass from the possibility of it.

I could take a picture of a piece of maille I just made after accidentally taking the batteries out of my camera for a while, and if uploaded directly to Flickr it would say it was taken in January of 2001. That's the problem.



(*) There was a problem in the past where MAIL lost some dates, so anything before February 15th, 2002 is instead listed as that date, but it has not happened since. Any post or submission since then has a date attached that would be acceptable proof of submission or publication.


Maille Code V2.0 T5.9 R5.1 En.o Fcir MFe.s Wgm$ Cab$w G0.2-2.0 I1.2-14.1 N(many).~25 Pdjs Dacdejst Xg(many)t1w5 S03
deviantArt

Joined: December 24, 2009
Posts: 68
Submissions: 0
Location: Folsom, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:38 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Does holding a copyright in the UK mean that copyright can be enforced worldwide or just in the UK?

Joined: August 01, 2008
Posts: 227
Submissions: 1
Location: NY

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:41 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Legba3 wrote:
The weave itself was copyrighted with the other 7 designs but I already negotiated with the publisher (at the time of registering) that the weave was part of the community and so had to be left alone.


If this is the case, then why all the fuss? If the weave has been left as part of the community then why are we still debating this?

Just to be clear I don't want any chainmaille copyrighted, but it seams as though we are crucifying legba even though we know that she does not want to keep her designs from the community. I'm a bit surprised that she hasn't pulled all her submissions by now for the uproar.

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 2785
Submissions: 20
Location: Cambridge, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:01 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

CShake wrote:
(*) There was a problem in the past where MAIL lost some dates, so anything before February 15th, 2002 is instead listed as that date, but it has not happened since. Any post or submission since then has a date attached that would be acceptable proof of submission or publication.


Almost.

There's a nice database 'bug' in the old version of MAIL, whereby any edits made to a database submission, overwrote the 'date_uploaded' with the current date... Due to an iffy SQL setting.

I can, however, pull the original upload date off any image hosted on MAIL since 2002... Whether the original submission is still in the database, or not... (As the images are not deleted from the fileserver pre-3.0, merely rendered 'unviewable' to the public.)


Useful Links
Site Help: [ BBCode Help | Weave AR/Ring Size Popup | Login Issues ]
Weave AR Search is back: Try it out!

Post new topic This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Jump to:  
Page 7 of 13. Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:22 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Knitting Circle
Display posts from previous: