Maybe it’s just me, but it seems way too many people are building websites based around “vintage” patterns without regard to copyrights and other niceties.
Too many crafters are simply assuming that the original copyright holder did not renew their copyright. Patterns published in the 1940s and 50s are not necessarily out of copyright. It all depends upon whether or not the original copyright holder filed for an extension.
Posting a disclaimer like, “As far as I know this pattern is out of copyright but if you know differently please let me know.” at least shows the website owner has considered the pattern may still be protected. Problem is that disclaimer offers zip, zero, nada protection for the site owner or anyone else who might wish to sell items made from that pattern. Having a disclaimer is not a free pass for copyright infringement. Site owners can still be forced to remove the infringing content or even be sued by the true copyright holder.
A recent submitter to Crafty Tips seems to have employed a hybrid approach where they are placing usage restrictions on patterns that are either fully in the public domain or might have been renewed. Normally I would have happily added their site as it does have a nice selection of different patterns. The whole maybe it’s still in copyright issue didn’t bug me as much as the strange attempt to restrict usage. Some of the vintage patterns are identified as “free for personal use” while others are identified as being free for both personal and commercial use.
Granted, had the site owner used her own picture or made a number of rewrites to a pattern truly in the public domain, they could claim some level of copyright on the work. The pictures look like they were originally published with the pattern and there is no indication that the site owner made any changes to the original pattern.
When I post vintage patterns on The Crafty Tipster like the vintage sweater shown in this article, I always give credit to the original designer (if known) and the original publication information. Technically, if a vintage pattern is truly in the public domain, such attribution is not required. I do it to both honor the original designer as well as to ensure that anyone outside of the US has the information needed to ensure that the pattern is also in the public domain in their own country or any country they may sell the finished item in.
Only if I include a picture of an item I made or if I have made a number of changes to the pattern itself, am I creating something new that I can copyright – even then I provide the original designer’s info. The collection of patterns as a whole can be copyrighted but an individual pattern that has not been changed remains in the public domain.
The vintage pattern site, for now, is lingering in my submission queue. Part of me wonders if I am simply being too picky. The pattern designer in me doesn’t like the attempt at adding usage restrictions to something the site owner does not own.
What are your thoughts? Do you care if someone posts a public domain, vintage pattern and claims some level of ownership? Do you think the original designer should always be credited regardless of copyright status?
Usage restrictions on direct reproductions of vintage items (no changes made) really bug me. It is basically taking someone else’s art work for profit and then saying no one else can take it and profit from it. What gives them the right to do this? It is very shady.
One the other hand, I do often think about the legal and moral issues involved when you take elements from vintage designs for use in new designs. I love vintage stuff and often use old patterns for inspiration. How much do you need to change something to be o.k. legally and morally? I do like the idea of old forgotten patterns getting new life by being reprinted…sort of the creative spirit of the original artist living on in newish artwork. But even in this case I’m not a big fan of usage restrictions.
You bring up a number of issues.
I too love the idea that these wonderful old patterns are being dug out of attics, libraries and all sorts of hidden places. To some extent I don’t even mind people are trying to figure out a way to make a bit of a profit from them – after all, that is something I’m doing myself.
But, I think folks are crossing the line, at least morally, when they republish a vintage pattern and claim ownership without having added anything. My understanding, which could be incorrect, is that copyright law does not include usage restrictions or licensing of patterns. Which means this whole, “may not be used for commercial purposes” is not something a designer can actually prohibit – again presuming my reading of the law is correct and things haven’t changed.
What percentage of change is required to make a pattern “new” is often debated and there seems to be no “true” or “legally defined” number, I employ the strategy of giving both parties credit. I do however, take credit for the revised pattern (if I’ve made more than just a few corrections) and any pictures of items I have made from it.
I see a lot of online shops, websites and craft fair booths; no matter how clever and creative the pieces might be, if you look around long enough and hard enough there’s almost always something similar made earlier.
A fellow I spoke to at the American copyright office explained to me that the spirit of copyright law was to never protect a work in perpetuity. The hope was to let the creator enjoy the fruits of their labor during their lifetime and then when they were gone the copyright would expire allowing others to build upon the work to make it better.
Most people are just too lazy to conduct copyright research. Or they aren’t actually aware of the whole public domain genre.
I’m not sure it’s a matter of laziness as a matter of not understanding the laws or simply thinking that they would never get caught. My favorites are the folks, who when caught, defend themselves by saying “How could I possibly know that something was copyrighted or not, I put a disclaimer up saying if anyone objected that I would take it down.” Oh, yes, you didn’t know when you copy and pasted an entire article from another website that the original site owner might object to you stealing their work and calling it your own.
Thanks for visiting and leaving a comment!
I certainly agree with you, even when a pattern is copywrited and or in public domain credit should always go to the creator. Its a mark of respect of what they have contributed, we credit Picasso, Debussey and Monet why not our more modern artists and designers
Regards
Margaret