Ethics of copying someone's design and validity of IP
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Knitting Circle
   

Is it ok to knock off someone else's weave?
Yes - always
36%
 36%  [ 4 ]
Yes - if you feel that it doesn't meet your personally arbitrary definition for what is a "unique" design
9%
 9%  [ 1 ]
Yes - if you credit the original designer
9%
 9%  [ 1 ]
No - unless you purchased a plan for the design and maybe credit the designer too
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
No- Never without explicit permission
18%
 18%  [ 2 ]
Maybe - if I only saw the product intended for sale probably not, but if it was posted online or in some other public way intended to be seen and bragged about sure, that's fair game.
27%
 27%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 11

Author Message

Joined: August 26, 2019
Posts: 8
Submissions: 0
Location: Minnesota

Ethics of copying someone's design and validity of IP
Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:27 pm || Last edited by pearldrums on Mon Aug 26, 2019 6:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Link to Post: Link to Post

I'm not an advanced mailler, nor good at design. How does everyone feel about shamelessly knocking off someone else's weave. For personal use I'll re-create anyone's stuff for myself or family or a friend and not worry about it. But if I were to say make them and try to sell them - is that kind of uncool, or just part of the way things work? On one hand nobody owns the rights to euro 4-in-1 or even the idea of doing a box-chain wallet chaing. So to a certain degree I don't worry about this too much, but the more unique it is the more I wonder if I'm crossing a legal or ethical boundary. Beyond that, if I've purchased a pattern is is then suddenly ok to sell the work? Poll time.

Edit: This poll is assuming the knock off will be sold or otherwise distributed beyond personal use or learning use.
Edit2: I should have worded this "design" not "weave". oops.

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1943
Submissions: 581
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:41 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Hmm. This has certainly come up before. It’s not exactly easy to answer as there are implications. The title of this thread asks about designs, but the poll question is regarding weaves. These are not necessarily the same thing, depending on interpretation.

Basic weaves are public domain, but designs suggest intellectual property....

Anyone want to pick it up from here?


There is no such thing as weave ownership. If someone produces a weave sample, they own that physical piece of mail, but not rights to the weave pattern itself.
Chainmailbasket.com (2019-01-01) - 376 + 79

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 741
Submissions: 19

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:42 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Weaves are inherently unpatentable. You are free to use whatever weave you want.

When it leaves the realm of infinitely repeating, you should use diskretion, as you leave the realm of weaves and enter designs. Should you copy My BDSM gear, I’d say you should aknowledge that you stole my designs. If you copy a fanciful necklace that is non-trivial, ask permission from the original artist.

Be wary that purchasing a tutorial for a design makes you privy to private information, and using that information is per the license deal you entered. You might Be more free to produce and or sell things without buying a tutorial.

Tldr; don’t steal designs without asking. Don’t buy design tutorials If you intend to sell freely. Do what you want with any weave.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer.

Joined: August 26, 2019
Posts: 8
Submissions: 0
Location: Minnesota

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Aug 26, 2019 6:03 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Chainmailbasket_com wrote:
Hmm. This has certainly come up before. It’s not exactly easy to answer as there are implications. The title of this thread asks about designs, but the poll question is regarding weaves. These are not necessarily the same thing, depending on interpretation.

Basic weaves are public domain, but designs suggest intellectual property....

Anyone want to pick it up from here?


uh, yeah that was just bad wording on my part. I'm definitely talking about designs and not weaves. I don't think I can edit the poll at this point though, damn.


Karpeth wrote:
Weaves are inherently unpatentable. You are free to use whatever weave you want.

When it leaves the realm of infinitely repeating, you should use diskretion, as you leave the realm of weaves and enter designs. Should you copy My BDSM gear, I’d say you should aknowledge that you stole my designs. If you copy a fanciful necklace that is non-trivial, ask permission from the original artist.

Be wary that purchasing a tutorial for a design makes you privy to private information, and using that information is per the license deal you entered. You might Be more free to produce and or sell things without buying a tutorial.

Tldr; don’t steal designs without asking. Don’t buy design tutorials If you intend to sell freely. Do what you want with any weave.


Hmmm... that's interesting. Now on one hand I would assume that if someone had made a complicated design it's completely understandable to say they could own the IP to the design. However, the design is the knowledge of how to make the thing, not the thing itself. If they sell you a pattern I would assume I couldn't reproduce the pattern and transfer that knowledge but that I'd bought the rights to make that object and do whatever with it that I wanted. I suppose there's nothing stopping the sale of the design to include permissions and/or conditions, so I guess reading the fine print would be important, but in the absence of there being fine print I'm assuming the purchaser of the design would have pretty much free reign to do with the finished products what he/she wants.

But I'm taking your points to heart. Best to just play nice, be considerate, and when in doubt have a conversation and honor the original designer's wishes.

Sorry for bringing up something that might have already been debated to death. I'm contemplating selling some dice bags at a local game store and that led me to wondering if other products (read: jewelry) would sell well too, and this whole ethics topic. But I'm guessing if there is any interest that weaves that extend "to infinity" should be sufficient for this niche.

Joined: March 27, 2002
Posts: 3496
Submissions: 1

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:59 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

No worries; this has come up before, hasn't necessarily been beat to death, and furthermore, it's been a few years since the last time. Your careful propriety does you credit.

Joined: June 20, 2012
Posts: 330
Submissions: 22
Location: France

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:03 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I'm not quite sure what you mean by purchasing a pattern.
Is it just buying a tutorial? That won't change your rights to reproduce or not a pattern.
Is it buying a licence to reproduce a pattern? Then you should check if the license includes commercial use. You should also check if the pattern is actually subject to copyright.

In some cases it can be difficult to tell apart a specific design from just the basic application of a weave.
This hat decoration could be regarded as a pattern, but it's little more that two strips of Gridlock, and it have been done before.
On the other side mobius ball© is a basic weave, and as such can be used by anyone, but its particular use as a stress-ball is patented.

Joined: August 26, 2019
Posts: 8
Submissions: 0
Location: Minnesota

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:04 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I guess by a pattern I mean instructions on how to make something including a list of materials needed and steps for assembly. Call them instructions, tutorials, patterns, it's all semantics. I bought some kits with rings and instructions for doing my first captive piece from hyperlinks (apparently they only sell through resellers, not direct, so I purchased through weave got maille). I thought of that like I would a sewing pattern, so that's why I used the term.

I'm going to get side tracked and rant for a minute and say as far as the use of a mobìus ball being patented for a specific application - that's just pants on head crazy and is another example of how broken the US (presumably this was filed in the US?) patent system is. You can't patent anything basic/natural such as math, or linking two rings together to make a chain. I don't think anyone could patent math as use for XYZ task, such as "math isn't patented, but it's use to calculate your height is". That's stupid. I think the application of a mobìus ball as a stress reliever is the same "you can't patent this thing, but to use it to relieve stress is patented". I'd put money on it not even being valid if someone were to challenge it. I literally made my first one the other day because I had some spare rings with a ginormous AR and the first words out of my wife's mouth were literally "I could use this as a fidget spinner."

/rant - sorry about that - I'm SURE that's likely been debated into the ground before, just had to get it out of my system.

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 741
Submissions: 19

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:38 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

The terms used on This site are usually weave for a pattern that is infinitely repeating (or a unit*) that are by nature below the Threshold of originality, and design for patterns that are above the Threshold of originality.

When you purchase kits, tutorials, etc; If it’s For a weave, its probably safe to assume that you can reproduce and sell things made with the tutorial, but privy information** and text should not be spread without knowing it to be allowed.

For designs, such as necklace and bra kits, I’d say that personal use and non-competing ownership transfers*** can be assumed allowable, but nothing more, without an explicit license.

Not only is the mobius ball© patent, trademark and more lapsed; the patent is unenforceable. It’s easily proven that the concept is mathematically trivial.

*units are hard to instinctively classify; while Hour Glass Unit I’d say is by it’s Nature below the threshold, I’d argue that hadn’t Solstice been submitted as a weave, I’d call it a design and say that it’s Above the threshold.

**privy information is the information that by it’s nature ”secret”; the reason Why you buy the tutorial; such as ring data.

***non-competing ownership transfers are as they say, not infringing on the copyright owners ability to control their product, such as selling to your best friend at cost or a gift to your mother.

(Not a copyright lawyer)


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer.

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3125
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:58 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

pearldrums wrote:
I guess by a pattern I mean instructions on how to make something including a list of materials needed and steps for assembly. Call them instructions, tutorials, patterns, it's all semantics. I bought some kits with rings and instructions for doing my first captive piece from hyperlinks (apparently they only sell through resellers, not direct, so I purchased through weave got maille). I thought of that like I would a sewing pattern, so that's why I used the term.

I'm going to get side tracked and rant for a minute and say as far as the use of a mobìus ball being patented for a specific application - that's just pants on head crazy and is another example of how broken the US (presumably this was filed in the US?) patent system is. You can't patent anything basic/natural such as math, or linking two rings together to make a chain. I don't think anyone could patent math as use for XYZ task, such as "math isn't patented, but it's use to calculate your height is". That's stupid. I think the application of a mobìus ball as a stress reliever is the same "you can't patent this thing, but to use it to relieve stress is patented". I'd put money on it not even being valid if someone were to challenge it. I literally made my first one the other day because I had some spare rings with a ginormous AR and the first words out of my wife's mouth were literally "I could use this as a fidget spinner."

/rant - sorry about that - I'm SURE that's likely been debated into the ground before, just had to get it out of my system.


It should be clarified that the patent covers a specific application and ring size (or size range, memory fails me), and was (I'm fairly certain) initially enacted to prevent a larger broader patent from being placed on same.
In this case, while US Patents are the problem, this particular patent was a solution.



Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 741
Submissions: 19

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Nov 09, 2019 10:20 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Daemon_Lotos wrote:
pearldrums wrote:
I guess by a pattern I mean instructions on how to make something including a list of materials needed and steps for assembly. Call them instructions, tutorials, patterns, it's all semantics. I bought some kits with rings and instructions for doing my first captive piece from hyperlinks (apparently they only sell through resellers, not direct, so I purchased through weave got maille). I thought of that like I would a sewing pattern, so that's why I used the term.

I'm going to get side tracked and rant for a minute and say as far as the use of a mobìus ball being patented for a specific application - that's just pants on head crazy and is another example of how broken the US (presumably this was filed in the US?) patent system is. You can't patent anything basic/natural such as math, or linking two rings together to make a chain. I don't think anyone could patent math as use for XYZ task, such as "math isn't patented, but it's use to calculate your height is". That's stupid. I think the application of a mobìus ball as a stress reliever is the same "you can't patent this thing, but to use it to relieve stress is patented". I'd put money on it not even being valid if someone were to challenge it. I literally made my first one the other day because I had some spare rings with a ginormous AR and the first words out of my wife's mouth were literally "I could use this as a fidget spinner."

/rant - sorry about that - I'm SURE that's likely been debated into the ground before, just had to get it out of my system.


It should be clarified that the patent covers a specific application and ring size (or size range, memory fails me), and was (I'm fairly certain) initially enacted to prevent a larger broader patent from being placed on same.
In this case, while US Patents are the problem, this particular patent was a solution.


Furthermore, both the patent and trademark have lapsed.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer.

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 992
Submissions: 244

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:43 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

In my experience copyright law is very subjective in practice. Copying something for non-commercial purposes is generally fine. If you create something based someone else's original design without making an exact copy it is probably considered what would be called a "derivative work" as long as it is "substantially different".

The line between a copy and a "derivative work" is usually determined in court on a case by case basis, but intent to deceive or defraud makes a big difference. If the case isn't very clear cut then usually the party with the most time and money prevails.

In the specific instance of buying a pattern though you do have a licence to make copies of it and if it wasn't specified to be for personal use only then you can rightfully sell those copies. Considering the amount of work that goes into making a copy in our field it shouldn't be much of an issue.


www.mailletec.com

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

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT. The time now is Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:13 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Knitting Circle
Display posts from previous: