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: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4378
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:14 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

lotos, to be fair to legba, i suppose that same thing should be said to mykal.

she was simply responding to an allegation made here about her site. it is understandable. if we're going to hold her to that, we need to hold everyone to that same standard. to talk to one about it, but not the other is unbalanced.


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3138
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:19 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

sakredchao wrote:
lotos, to be fair to legba, i suppose that same thing should be said to mykal.

she was simply responding to an allegation made here about her site. it is understandable. if we're going to hold her to that, we need to hold everyone to that same standard. to talk to one about it, but not the other is unbalanced.


Mykal had a post in response to that deleted, and was warned Smile
I'm the least one-sided person I know.



Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4378
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:22 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

k, thanks for being on top of it, lotos.


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: January 27, 2010
Posts: 154
Submissions: 3

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:42 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

The main, all-encompassing issue, to repeat and rephrase it in a way seems to be that copyrights, unlike patents, don't have very rigorous rules set down about what can and can't be copyrighted. I know for patents every tiny detail has to be included, but it seems that copyrights apply to pretty much anything that's physically created. So the system sucks...but frankly you're all artists, in some capacity. You should try and keep up an open, community-like atmosphere. Not pointing fingers at anyone specific. Keeping things open and freely available allows for the advancement of knowledge, whether someone just plays with a weave or modifies one to make a few bucks and maybe be able to buy more rings to possibly develop a new weave. Naive, yes, but whatever. I would raise the example of the openness of the science community, but sadly it's not true there anymore.

I don't plan on making much jewelry or anything of the sort from maille in the future (mostly stick to armour and inlays), so I guess this doesn't affect me too directly. But whatever happens here kind of sets down a precedent for the future, and that is important to me.

...anyway, that's my take.

Joined: August 31, 2010
Posts: 7
Submissions: 0
Location: Evansville, In

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:23 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

May I state, without stirring up this mess intentionally since 2 of the 3 main parties have resolved their issues that I use a variant of the same name on both pages, and do NOT wish to see anyone else using my innocent comments about joining this site to point things out FOR MY OWN clarification used against any other members of Sarah's site?

I "ran over here" hoping to understand why the fuss between Amy and Sarah. That has sense been answered to my satisfaction. The person that quoted my statement on the other site was nice enough to with hold the name, but not to read my honest questions here that were born out of my confusion.

Please, leave my comments on any site out of it from now on unless I say something really offensive, as I'm not an idiot, but act like one 90% of the time. I'm just trying to understand whats going on so as to avoid running into my own problems later.

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4378
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:09 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

nevar, my issues are not really about the parties who brought up this problem, but with the craft of chainmaille and how it is treated in the future.

personally, i find the idea that if i sell a bit of maille made out of "weave x" that is derived from weave 2, derived from weave A, that i should have to put, "weave X made by person3, derived from weave 2 made by person2, derived from weave A made by person1." it's just silly.

it's chainmaille. make it. sell it. don't be afraid that someone is going to come along and issue a takedown notice to you if you don't bow and scrape to their ego.


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: August 31, 2010
Posts: 7
Submissions: 0
Location: Evansville, In

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:38 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Very Happy thanks for the reply Sakre... I can see were you are coming from too. I predict that I will be driving everyone crazy in the future because I suffer fro C.M.A. itis. that is Cover my (expeletive). The recent threads have not helped.

Joined: August 11, 2010
Posts: 3
Submissions: 1

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:21 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

It's a simple rule, if you don't want your stuff copied by everyone, don't show it to everyone. No one was forced to put pictures up for the world to see, and there's no reason to get butthurt when people weave maille similar to yours. Saying it's yours and even implying that nobody else can make your simple weave and sell it is just a dick move. Instead of trying to own a weave, come up with new weaves that will make all your peers drool, then show them how it's done, and when they get good at that, show them something new. Innovation, not restriction.

Joined: March 20, 2008
Posts: 2009
Submissions: 57

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:55 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

All of this reading has given me a headache, doesn't anyone have anything better to do with their time, Rolling Eyes like make MAILLE
*puts down small bent nose pliers*
*picks up heavy flat nosed pliers*
Ummm I am going to make a shirt, after reading everything I did, here and at MWW, I have come to the conclusion that my time would have been better spent working on a shirt.
*edited to be less offensive in delivering the same message

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 1000
Submissions: 244

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:26 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Careful! I know of one mailler, who will remain unnamed, who has copyrighted the design of a byrnie. Rolling Eyes Seriously, he has.


www.mailletec.com

Y'know, that might just be crazy enough to work!

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

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:47 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

badhide wrote:
It's a simple rule, if you don't want your stuff copied by everyone, don't show it to everyone.


My earlier question was never answered (since I figure nobody knows), but this quote above is the bottom line. That and my camera sucks.

Joined: January 21, 2004
Posts: 1061
Submissions: 75

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:15 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

This will probably end up a long post, but hopefully that will mean that it’s thorough and well thought out. I might adapt it into an article if folks find it useful.

All pictures that aren’t mine are credited to their creators, and are used here for commentary/criticism/education purposes under the fair use doctrine.

Leaving aside the issues of ‘should weaves be copyrighted’ ‘what constitutes a design of sufficient complexity to merit copyright’ or ‘how should copyright disputes be resolved’, let’s take as read all that’s happened, and try to figure out what can be done in the future to not infringe copyrighted material, while still aiming for free creative expression. A common (and in this thread, undisputed) metric is that if you change 10 percent of a copyrighted design, that makes it a new (uninfringing) design. But what exactly constitutes 10 percent?

Taking from this most recent dispute, we can glean a few interesting tidbits. Rainestudios was accused of infringing on CorvusChainmaille’s pendant design that used the Stepping Stones weave. Raine’s version is


Corvus’ version is


You’ll notice that Raine’s pendant is hung 180° from Corvus’; however, Corvus states that “I have been assured by legal counsel that hanging the other way does not change the design enough.” (For the sake of this article we will assume that all parties are fully knowledgeable and honest) Other differences not mentioned include different metals used, a different number of vertical rings connecting the small rings around the large ring, and 1 extra small ring encircling the largest ring.

So these differences do change the design, but do not reach that magical 10 percent mark. We don’t know how many percentage points they do merit; just that it’s fewer than 10.

In an earlier correspondence, Corvus states “if you replaced the bottom ring with one the same size as the top it would not be one of the copyrighted designs”. Presumably she is referring to the large ring toward the bottom of Raine’s pendant, and not the actual bottommost rings. So changing the size of 1 ring, plus the 180° rotation, metals change, connector rings change and extra encircling ring, would allegedly make Raine’s design be equal to or greater than 10 percent different to Corvus’, and thereby not infringe.

Now it’s time for a bit of math. Raine’s pendant has a total of 70 rings. If the dimensions of just one of these rings need be changed, that represents a change of 1/70 of the entire pendant. If this miniscule change is all that’s needed to overcome the 10 percent mark, then Raine’s pendant must already be teetering on the cusp.

“Ah,” you might point out, “but that large ring is so much larger than all the others, it greatly influences the look and feel of the pendant, and must therefore have a greater significance attributed to it.” While this may be true from an artistic standpoint, from a legal standpoint we must operate on what the copyright specifically covers. While at the date of this writing I have not seen the specific copyrights in question (despite a search for them on the UK copyright site), it may be safely assumed that their language does not include the ‘feel’ of the pieces; only the specifics of their construction.

Let’s look at some other designs, and try to work out what would constitute a 10 percent change. This pendant (again, leaving aside the fact that it is simply a length of the base weave, with no discernable design aspects) consists of 94 rings (not counting the bail ring at the top).



By Corvus’ lawyer-approved logic, turning the pendant 180°, and changing the size of the large rings is enough to make a new pendant non-infringing. To be safe, one might also change the metals used and add an extra encircling ring at the bottom.

This pendant



is remarkably straightforward: 32 rings and a wolf dangly. Lead the small rings around the left side rather than the right, change the dangly (which must surely have a very large influence on the design of the piece being “Twilight-inspired” {we will overlook any Twilight-infringing toes the advertising rhetoric for this pendant might be dipping in the copyright water}) and we will, by Corvus’ own statements, have changed the design greater than 10 percent, and be free from any copyright infringement woes of our own.

Other designs copyrighted are slightly more complex, but it should be relatively easy to make sufficient alteration to them to create a 10 percent difference. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to explore and create such variations.

-phong



-- CGMaille tutorials now hosted here at MAIL! --

Joined: July 27, 2009
Posts: 28
Submissions: 0
Location: Ontario, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:26 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

suulia:
Here is a US government pamphlet:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf
Basically it varies by country.
"There is no such thing as an “international copyright” that will automatically protect an author’s writings throughout the world. Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country depends on the national laws of that country. However, most countries offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions that have been greatly simplified by international copyright treaties and conventions."

lorenzo:
I, personally, am extremely doubtful that such a copyright would hold up in court. Useful items such as articles of clothing, for example a shirt, are not protectable by copyright (in the US at least, Europe does apparently have some limited protection for "fashion" http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v6/n1/7/ ). Only elements that can exist independently of the useful item and are protectable themselves can be copyrighted. So you couldn't copyright a t-shirt but a picture on that shirt *may* be protected.

Then add the fact that mail byrnies have been around a long time:
US Copyright Office
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap13.html
"1302. Designs not subject to protection:
Protection under this chapter shall not be available for a design that is —
(1) not original;
(2) staple or commonplace, such as a standard geometric figure, a familiar symbol, an emblem, or a motif, or another shape, pattern, or configuration which has become standard, common, prevalent, or ordinary;
(3) different from a design excluded by paragraph (2) only in insignificant details or in elements which are variants commonly used in the relevant trades;
(4) dictated solely by a utilitarian function of the article that embodies it; or
(5) embodied in a useful article that was made public by the designer or owner in the United States or a foreign country more than 2 years before the date of the application for registration under this chapter.

-------

Here are two interesting cases I came across which I believe have elements that are similar to the issues of chainmaille and copyright:
SATAVA v. LOWRY, 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/323_F3d_805.htm
I particularly found the last paragraph in the Satava case interesting (in the footnotes):
"Our analysis above suggests that the “merger doctrine” might apply in this case. Under the merger doctrine, courts will not protect a copyrighted work from infringement if the idea underlying the copyrighted work can be expressed in only one way, lest there be a monopoly on the underlying idea. CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256, 1261 (9th Cir. 1999). In light of our holding that Satava cannot prevent other artists from using the standard and stereotyped elements in his sculptures, or the combination of those elements, we find it unnecessary to consider the application of the merger doctrine. "


Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp v. Kalpakian
http://openjurist.org/446/f2d/738/herbert-rosenthal-jewelry-corp-v-kalpakian

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4378
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:56 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

2 very interesting posts...
thank you, phong and pauline


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 149
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:55 pm || Last edited by ZiLi on Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:11 pm; edited 2 times in total
Link to Post: Link to Post

Phong, please compare the two pendants again. You will maybe notice, that Sara arranged ring pairs around the two core rings, while Amy used single rings - so in fact both even used different weaves, as for Japanese family weaves it's usually differenciated, whether single or doubled rings are used, more than in other weave families. Combined with the sheer number of other differences you already mentioned yourself (but imho belittled a bit by bluntly stating that a 'magic' 10% rule wouldn't have been fulfilled, sorry), I would quantify the differences between the both pieces in question as significant enough to seem being independent designs. The pieces are doubtless very similar to the untrained eye, but I simply cannot see that one piece looks like an attempted copy of the other one - maybe, inspired by, IF Amy had knowledge of Sara's concrete piece when she made hers, but surely no attempted copy. And THAT's what copyrights are for, disallowing commercial COPIES of particular pieces of artwork. I assume that Amy took the basic WEAVE, and made her design - like sara did. So I see this more as an inevitable independent discovery leading to a similar design. Allow me to mention, that I usually tend to defend Sara, but in this case I have a problem with doing so...

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper MAl Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Ps Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hip

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

Post new topic This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Jump to:  
Page 11 of 13. Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:25 pm
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Knitting Circle
Display posts from previous: