I've been scalped...

[Amy]

Annmarie, it sounds like you came up with your afghan patterns all on your own without referencing anything else, so you should be confident they are your own design.

[RoseRed]

I'm sorry this has botherd you Rose, While i do not know what pattern your talking about. nor Do I want to know. as it's NOMB. but If it were me.. just for my pice of mind and sanity. without Pointing fingers n getting mad I'd just Simply email the "designer" and strike up the conve "where you come up with this" n see what they say. then when they say.. just explain "your friend" designed something similar a while ago and you were just currious to their insperation behind their design.

 

I couldn't do that - pretend to be my own friend just to see what's said.

 

I have contacted the designer to say "That looks familiar," and left my name. I haven't heard anything back. People are busy with the holidays. She may choose not to respond. Whatever happens from this point on or if nothing happens from this point on - I have to be fine with it.

 

Amy - I totally agree in hoping that this discussion doesn't discourage anyone from writing up their patterns. I do think that it's important to know what to expect or what can happen after the fact tho. We discuss copyright ad nauseum here. I really think that because of this I was much LESS upset over this than if it had just totally caught me by surprise.

 

Aside from illegally sharing patterns (which is NOT what this discussion is about) there really doesn't seem to be any copyright rights - especially if we're discussing 'useful items'. I really think that anyone considering getting into designing really needs to understand this. For a very long time I was under a mistaken idea of what copyrights are and what protections they afford. Because of these discussions I have learned so much. I'm really glad that I've been a part of them. If I didn't have the understanding of it that I do now I very well may have made a fool of myself by being overly upset and carrying on about something that I really didn't understand well.

[Amy]

Aside from illegally sharing patterns (which is NOT what this discussion is about) there really doesn't seem to be any copyright rights - especially if we're discussing 'useful items'.

 

I'm not sure this is a correct conclusion to draw and apply to all patterns, in all circumstances.

 

Our current discussion has been mainly focused on patterns that are composed of very basic shapes and stitch patterns and techniques. In this type of situation, there may not be any copyright protection as far as the idea or concept of the pattern.

 

If we were to switch gears and begin talking about a highly detailed, highly fitted, decidedly creative and unique garment or handbag, or a pictorial filet crochet pattern, there might indeed be more copyright protection available. Yes, there's the useful article exclusion, but attorneys disagree as to just how broadly or narrowly that exclusion should be applied. Until such time as a case were to ever go to trial, we may never have a definitive answer. (We've all seen how judges can come up with what some people believe to be pretty flaky and incredible decisions, and apply a law in a way nobody would ever have expected.)

 

It all comes down to the spirit of "inspiration" vs. "attempt to exactly duplicate." I believe the "useful article" exclusion was meant to foster inspiration, and was not meant to allow people to purposefully make an exact duplicate of somebody else's design, down to every tiny detail. It was meant to prevent someone from coming up with a basic silhouette and then claiming nobody else could ever make anything in that shape ever again. (We'd be in big trouble if only one company could ever make a raglan sweater or a hoodie, for example.) I think another intent may have been to make sure people who came up with similar ideas independently could each still claim rights to their own creations.

 

And here at Crochetville, our guidelines go a bit beyond copyright law anyway. If someone states publicly that they are creating a pattern that is intended to be a duplication or very close approximation of an existing pattern, we're not going to allow that pattern or a link to it to be posted here.

 

But on the other hand, if a new pattern bears similarities to an existing pattern, we aren't going to disallow posting of it or links to it, just because someone else thinks it looks too close to something else. As long as the designer of the new pattern promotes it as their own original creation, we're going to take them at their word and allow them to post or link to the pattern. If the designer of an existing pattern believes there to be copyright infringement, then we would take the new pattern down upon receiving an official Notice of Infringement as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And if the designer of the new pattern responded with an official Notice of Non-Infringement, we'd be legally required to restore the pattern. The next step would be for the original designer to file a lawsuit if they wanted to pursue having the pattern removed. Unless and until we were notified a lawsuit had been filed, we'd have to leave the pattern up.

[Amy]

I couldn't do that - pretend to be my own friend just to see what's said.

 

I agree---that would not be a good idea. And I know RoseRed would never consider doing something like that.

 

I've seen other business owners do something similar: pretend to be a friend, a customer, anybody other than themselves. They get found out in most cases, and the end result is never pretty. In fact, it usually gets quite ugly, with others jumping on a bandwagon to trash the character of the person who pretended to be someone else.

[darski]

I once had someone "sell" my copyrights to someone else. If you don't have thousands of dollars for attorneys you don't have any protection.

 

You can do what you can do but at the end of the day, it always comes down to money.

[Katie G]

This has been a very interesting and enlightening thread.

I have a question for the designers. I do not consider myself a designer, at all, however I rarely follow a pattern as it is written. I am very good at figuring out how something is made, if that makes any sense.

 

Usually, I combine several different designers' elements into a project.

For example, I recently made my granddaughter a hooded scarf which turned out really cute. Everyone who sees it wants one, but I do not have the time or inclination to make another one right now. I used a stitch pattern I had seen on another hat, and followed, more or less, the design I saw on another hooded scarf.

 

I also have been making potholders combining a couple of different patterns that I saw on Ravelry and here on the Ville. They look great and everyone who sees them loves them.

 

A few months ago I made a case for my camera, using my own design for the body but the flap was one that I saw on a coin purse posted on someone's blog.

 

Sometimes I will see something that inspires me and kind of kick the idea around for a few weeks until I come up with my own version. I am hesitant to post some of the things I have made because I can not always remember where I saw the original project that inspired me and cannot credit the original designer. I would never want to be accused of stealing someone's designs or work. Now I do not make anything for sale, only for my own personal use or for gifts.

 

My question to the designers is: Do you find it offensive when someone uses part of your design in their work, even if it is just for their own personal use?

 

Sorry this is so long & hope it makes sense. This is something I've been thinking about, even before I saw this thread.

[darski]

personally... it is my hope that others will see my patterns as the starting point. they learn something and they take that and just go with it.

 

I give permission for people to make items from my patterns and sell them and make as much money as they wish. I am not harmed by that it any way.

 

I have been crocheting for more than 55 years. over that time I have learned many techniques and I bring all of that to my designing. We do stand on the shoulders of giants.

[Katie G]

Thank you Darski for your input.

That is such a shame that someone sold your copyrights.

I just can't fathom how someone could do that.

All your work is so beautiful. I can't wait til my little granddaughter

gets a little bigger so I can start making clothes for her dollies.

[Amy]

I once had someone "sell" my copyrights to someone else. If you don't have thousands of dollars for attorneys you don't have any protection.

 

You can do what you can do but at the end of the day, it always comes down to money.

 

Darski, do you mean they sold your copyrighted patterns? That's different than someone selling your copyrights to another party.

 

If someone attempted to sell the actual rights to your patterns (which is what selling your copyrights would be), then you might have an actual case for theft of property. Not to mention, those copyrights would be useless to the person who purchased them, since the "seller" didn't actually own the rights. You'd be able to stop the purchaser from doing anything with them. And you and the purchaser would then be able to pursue a case of fraud against the seller.

 

If you mean the person sold you patterns without your permission, while there may be little you can do about an already completed transaction without going to court, there are things that can be done to stop the person from doing it again.

[Amy]

My question to the designers is: Do you find it offensive when someone uses part of your design in their work, even if it is just for their own personal use?

 

Katie, there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking something from one pattern and something from another and then making something for personal use from it. You can take pictures of your finished item and show it off all you like. Of course, it would be nice to give credit to your original sources.

 

The only time there might be an issue is if you then wanted to distribute your pattern (for sale or for free) or sell your finished item. Sometimes it might be okay; other times there might be issues with infringement.

[darski]

Darski, do you mean they sold your copyrighted patterns? That's different than someone selling your copyrights to another party.

 

If someone attempted to sell the actual rights to your patterns (which is what selling your copyrights would be), then you might have an actual case for theft of property. Not to mention, those copyrights would be useless to the person who purchased them, since the "seller" didn't actually own the rights. You'd be able to stop the purchaser from doing anything with them. And you and the purchaser would then be able to pursue a case of fraud against the seller.

 

If you mean the person sold your patterns without your permission, while there may be little you can do about an already completed transaction without going to court, there are things that can be done to stop the person from doing it again.

 

Yes she sold the copyrights themselves for more than $1,000. The buyer was a member of my Yahoo group and if she had just looked at the home page pic, she would have seen her purchases.

 

Being in Canada really limits what a person can do within American legal requirements and there was no way to trace the woman who did the selling. It would have cost a fortune in investigative fees and then legal suits. The transaction was completely non-functioning and the real person harmed was the lady to did the buying. she went on to make some money from making the clothes and selling them - as I permit - for free.

[Amy]

Darski, that's really bizarre! I think that's the first time I've heard of anything like that happening.

[RoseRed]

I'm not sure this is a correct conclusion to draw and apply to all patterns, in all circumstances.

 

Our current discussion has been mainly focused on patterns that are composed of very basic shapes and stitch patterns and techniques. In this type of situation, there may not be any copyright protection as far as the idea or concept of the pattern.

 

One can never apply anything to all circumstances. In THIS discussion we're talking about pretty basic patterns - not intricate designs.

 

 

Yes, there's the useful article exclusion, but attorneys disagree as to just how broadly or narrowly that exclusion should be applied. Until such time as a case were to ever go to trial, we may never have a definitive answer. (We've all seen how judges can come up with what some people believe to be pretty flaky and incredible decisions, and apply a law in a way nobody would ever have expected.)

 

Ain't that the truth!

 

 

But on the other hand, if a new pattern bears similarities to an existing pattern, we aren't going to disallow posting of it or links to it, just because someone else thinks it looks too close to something else. As long as the designer of the new pattern promotes it as their own original creation, we're going to take them at their word and allow them to post or link to the pattern. If the designer of an existing pattern believes there to be copyright infringement, then we would take the new pattern down upon receiving an official Notice of Infringement as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And if the designer of the new pattern responded with an official Notice of Non-Infringement, we'd be legally required to restore the pattern. The next step would be for the original designer to file a lawsuit if they wanted to pursue having the pattern removed. Unless and until we were notified a lawsuit had been filed, we'd have to leave the pattern up.

 

Another perfect example of the uselessness of copyright protection. I'm really beginning to think (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the only real protection a person can have is IF the pattern is registered and a large company violated the copyrights. The problem with that is the large company has lawyers on staff and us 'little guys' still couldn't afford to fight them.

 

I once had someone "sell" my copyrights to someone else. If you don't have thousands of dollars for attorneys you don't have any protection.

 

You can do what you can do but at the end of the day, it always comes down to money.

 

I remember that disaster.

 

It's a sad state of the world today but that's the way it's become.

 

Usually, I combine several different designers' elements into a project.

For example, I recently made my granddaughter a hooded scarf which turned out really cute. Everyone who sees it wants one, but I do not have the time or inclination to make another one right now. I used a stitch pattern I had seen on another hat, and followed, more or less, the design I saw on another hooded scarf.

 

Stitches and stitch patterns cannot be copyrighted. There's only so many ways to make a hooded scarf - (separate hat and scarf sewn together, hat made 1st and scarf worked into it, scarf made first and hat worked into it or wide scarf with the center sewn together).

 

I would LOVE to see your hooded scarf. I do hope that you took pics. If you didn't follow the pattern but just the way it was put together then you should be just fine.

 

 

A few months ago I made a case for my camera, using my own design for the body but the flap was one that I saw on a coin purse posted on someone's blog.

 

Sometimes I will see something that inspires me and kind of kick the idea around for a few weeks until I come up with my own version. I am hesitant to post some of the things I have made because I can not always remember where I saw the original project that inspired me and cannot credit the original designer. I would never want to be accused of stealing someone's designs or work. Now I do not make anything for sale, only for my own personal use or for gifts.

 

In this case I try to always state 'inspired by' or 'my version of'. If I do post a pattern and use someone else's edging I'll add a link to the edging instead of re-writing it for my own use. By clearly stating 'inspired by' you're telling everyone that it wasn't your idea. You're not required to remember who made what. There's lots of times that I don't remember where I've seen something.

 

I make a lot of things based on things that I've simply seen. For some of the more intricate things I may study pictures and reverse engineer it for myself or as a gift. I normally do not post pics of these things here - it's Amy's house so I follow her rules. I got tired of getting pms asking for my version of other's patterns.

 

There are a lot of people that feel they should have credit. Much more so than they deserve in many cases. I've seen people (ok - one instance but I still saw it) that wanted a tag with her name on it as designer on a baby ghan that was being made as a gift. Please. I simply chose another pattern. That's just getting outta control.

 

 

My question to the designers is: Do you find it offensive when someone uses part of your design in their work, even if it is just for their own personal use?

 

I don't but there are many people that take offense if they're not directly pointed out. I tend to stay away from those patterns. Please don't get me wrong - it's not that I have any problems giving credit (like I said- I try to include links whenever possible)

 

The best thing you can do if you want to sell the pattern or the item is to come up with your own thing.

[RoseRed]

As an example of a more intricate pattern for this discussion we can use the Seraphina Shawl. It's a gorgeous shawl that recently went thru a fashion craze. It seemed like almost everyone was either making one or trying to. The way it's written it's a very complicated pattern to follow.

 

(Amy - close your eyes - you can't read this part) Many of us (myself included) have rewritten it and come up with tutorials for ourselves. Yes, there was a lot of behind the scenes helping each other out and sharing of the re-written patterns and tutorials. Like I said - it's a very complicated pattern to follow because of the way it's written.

 

I did something that not many others did. I came up with my own version of it. The beginning is very different and flows directly into the pattern, there are 4dcs together instead of 3, I use hdc shells instead of dcs simply because it's the only way to make the fabric lay flat and it's written in an easy to follow format.

 

But - to look at it, especially at first glance - it looks just about exactly the same.

 

Based on this conversation it seems as if it would fall within copyrights to post my version of the Seraphina. After all - you can't copyright a st, there are many batwing shawls that are worked off of a center shell and it's entirely written in my own words.

 

This is the part that stopped me from posting it. It was reverse engineered from the actual pattern. Yes - it was changed (not drastically but enough - about as much as my pattern was that started this thread. I think at this point Amy and I can agree to disagree as to how much the 2 patterns are similar, k?).

 

At first I worked from the original tut pictures. Then it clicked and I made my own. Then I worked off of the item sitting in front of me. I could claim anything I wanted to. I could stomp my feet and say it was my own and I just casually glanced at the pattern (when it fact it took about a month to finally get it). I could post my version of it and play the 'Notice of' games. It was written by a normal everyday person like we are - if I remember correctly the designer has health problems and wouldn't be able to fight a court battle over it.

 

So, what all this comes down to is that my version of it is based on a derivative work of the actual pattern. To me - that IS copyright infringement as I understand the law of it. That's why I've never offered the pattern. Yes, I could put it up on my blog but I didn't. Instead I posted tuts. Simple things like using hdc's for the shells instead of dcs. http://inspiredcrochetdesign.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-to-make-flat-serafina.html and the link is directly beneath the link to the pattern as it's hosted here at the ville.

 

(Amy - it needs a pic. When you switched to the new picture software it didn't get updated -just saw that.)

 

I haven't posted close ups of how I start them. It's not my pattern. Yes, I believe that I improved on it - especially the read-ability of the pattern - and even tho it's in MY own words it's not mine to post or to share. I do wish that I was able to because it's such a gorgeous pattern and so hard to understand the way that it's written.

[RoseRed]

Can you guys tell that I've really been thinking heavily on the topic of copyrights and the future of my designing?

[Hello Again]

I have a related question that's been in my head lately.

 

Let's say you learn a technique from a book. The technique is not well known, in fact the author went to considerable effort to develop it. Because the technique is somewhat obscure, the book is virtually the only source for excellent knowledge of the technique. The book does contain patterns but at its heart it is about the fundamental methods. Poking around the internet you see that people are making somewhat similar items to what is found in the book, but their homegrown technique is visibly inferior.

 

Is there anything wrong with making items to sell based on the technique but not on any of the patterns in the book?

 

Normally I would say there is no problem (like if you buy "crochet for dummies" and then invent your own patterns using stitches you learned you're fine), except that the knowledge is so specialized it basically could only come from this one book.

 

Thoughts?

[RoseRed]

I wonder if you're talking about the Elmore Method.

 

No - techniques cannot be copyrighted the same as stitches cannot be copyrighted. If you were to design your own whatever using a technique that you've learned it's still your design.

 

That's not much different than asking if you can use an edging from an edging book. There are a lot of resource or encyclopedia type books that are meant to be used in designing your own patterns. You just can't use their wording in your pattern.

[Amy]

I make a lot of things based on things that I've simply seen. For some of the more intricate things I may study pictures and reverse engineer it for myself or as a gift. I normally do not post pics of these things here - it's Amy's house so I follow her rules. I got tired of getting pms asking for my version of other's patterns.

 

 

The above statement could be a little confusing to some people, so I want to clarify what Crochetville's guidelines say.

 

RoseRed is right that it would be a violation of our guidelines for her to distribute patterns of things she's made by reverse-engineering someone else's pattern. That's what she means by following our guidelines: she does not give out this type of pattern through PM (or email) when people contact her behind-the-scenes with such a request.

 

However, it would not be a violation of our guidelines for her to post pictures of something she made by reverse-engineering another pattern. Posting a picture of your finished item made for personal use is perfectly okay. (In most cases, it wouldn't be okay to pictures of an item you were selling that you made by reverse engineering another pattern.)

 

But for anyone who does post a picture of something you made by reverse-engineering a pattern, you need to be prepared that people are going to ask you about availability of the pattern, and you need to be prepared to respond that you are unable to share the pattern with them (via post, private message, and/or email). For those who don't want to deal with such requests, then it's best to do as RoseRed has done and choose not to share pictures of things made by reverse-engineering other patterns. That's a personal choice, though, and doesn't mean that our guidelines say you can't show your pictures.

[Amy]

But on the other hand, if a new pattern bears similarities to an existing pattern, we aren't going to disallow posting of it or links to it, just because someone else thinks it looks too close to something else. As long as the designer of the new pattern promotes it as their own original creation, we're going to take them at their word and allow them to post or link to the pattern. If the designer of an existing pattern believes there to be copyright infringement, then we would take the new pattern down upon receiving an official Notice of Infringement as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And if the designer of the new pattern responded with an official Notice of Non-Infringement, we'd be legally required to restore the pattern. The next step would be for the original designer to file a lawsuit if they wanted to pursue having the pattern removed. Unless and until we were notified a lawsuit had been filed, we'd have to leave the pattern up.

 

 

Another perfect example of the uselessness of copyright protection. I'm really beginning to think (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the only real protection a person can have is IF the pattern is registered and a large company violated the copyrights. The problem with that is the large company has lawyers on staff and us 'little guys' still couldn't afford to fight them.

 

I don't agree at all that copyright protection is useless. The reason the DMCA works as I described above is to prevent fraudulent claims of infringement. Imagine how awful it would if someone could claim you were infringing on their copyright, force your material to be removed, and the only way you could get it back up was to file a lawsuit and prove you were NOT infringing. We'd have all sorts of people claiming fraudulent infringement, where there really was none, just because they didn't like what someone else had done.

 

The official DMCA notices make it very clear that the person filing either notice is making a legal statement that they are telling the truth, under penalty of perjury. It's actually sort of scary language that makes people think twice or three times or more about whether they really do have the rights they're claiming, before they submit the paperwork. Those who are confident they are correct shouldn't have any trouble submitting the paperwork.

 

However, reporting something under the DMCA is often not the first solution someone should jump to. Frequently, if infringement is really occurring, you can open up a dialogue with the infringer, and come up with an agreeable solution. In some cases, you may even be surprised to learn that the other person has never even seen your work, so there's no infringement at all.

 

A lawsuit isn't even necessarily the next step under the DMCA. That's just the next step for what the website where someone has posted a pattern has to do. The original designer wouldn't jump straight to lawsuit in most cases. The first step would usually be to have an attorney write a cease and desist letter to the person who posted the allegedly-infringing material. In many cases, especially with most other "little guys," that would be enough to get the other party to take down the material on their own, because they don't want to run the risk of actually having to fight a lawsuit. Only if they refused to follow the cease-and-desist order would the lawsuit become necessary.

 

As far as fighting the big companies with lots of money behind them, if you really had a valid and supportable case, and had registered your copyright before the infringement occurred, you could find a lawyer willing to work on retainer, and sue for recovery of all your legal fees.

 

So no, copyright protection is not worthless at all. But there is a point to considering how much expense and time and effort you're willing to expend to protect your copyright. Is what you've created so unique and original and valuable that you should vigorously protect those copyrights? That's a question to which the answer may be different for each designer, and even answered differently by the same designer in regards to their different patterns.

[Amy]

I haven't posted close ups of how I start them. It's not my pattern. Yes, I believe that I improved on it - especially the read-ability of the pattern - and even tho it's in MY own words it's not mine to post or to share. I do wish that I was able to because it's such a gorgeous pattern and so hard to understand the way that it's written.

 

I haven't seen your version of a modified Seraphina to make any kind of interpretation as to whether or not your version would be considered copyright infringement as defined by law. Even then, that would only be my personal opinion and not any kind of legal opinion.

 

There is more to the design of the Seraphina shawl than just a stitch pattern, so it's not a simple cut-and-dried answer. Only you know how closely you were attempting to duplicate her design and how much of your creation was using her pattern as a source of inspiration. If you'd like to publish your version, the simple answer would be to just contact Doni and ask if she had any problems with it. If you'd like to do that, just let me know, and I'll send your email address to her (at the last working email address I had for her) and ask her to contact you.

 

I can say that due to the process of creation you've described, under our guidelines, we wouldn't be able to allow the pattern to be posted or linked to from Crochetville. (And you seem to agree with that interpretation, since you've chosen never to make your full version available.) However, if you'd put her pattern away, and sat down with paper, pencil, yarn, and hook and worked out another way to make a bat-wing shawl, that would most likely have been okay.

[Amy]

Is there anything wrong with making items to sell based on the technique but not on any of the patterns in the book?

 

I agree that techniques cannot be copyrighted, and anybody is free to make use of any technique they learn. They just have to write instructions in their own words.

 

If somebody wanted to protect a new, very innovative technique, they would need to PATENT the technique. Then nobody else could use it without permission.

 

As far as I know, no patented crochet techniques exist.

 

However, it's possible that contract/licensing law could come into play in certain circumstances. For example, if you took a class from an instructor who developed a particular technique, and signed a document stating that you agreed never to sell items made using the technique, never to publish patterns using the technique, or whatever. Depending on the wording of the document, that might be enforceable in a court of law.

[RoseRed]

Amy - if you can get permission from Doni to host the pattern here as an inspired by - that would be awesome.

 

I love to take a great pattern and add my own tweaks and changes to it. I really believe that that is the beginning of designing. The problem with doing this is that the pattern I end up with is, I believe, a derivative work that I'm unable to share. That's ok with me because I enjoy doing it. It would be even better if I could share them tho.

 

Maybe useless isn't the right word. I think part of it is that we put so much emphasis on copyrights that we (and least I) feel very disappointed in the reality of it.

[Hello Again]

I wonder if you're talking about the Elmore Method.

No, it's not that. What I'm talking about is a technique for making a certain type of item, a once-popular folk craft that is now not that popular. Elmore method is a technique of crochet, what I'm talking about is a technique of increases, joining, etc, to make a certain type of item. Once you understand how the item is made, you can design your own very easily -- however without knowing the underlying technique in this book, you basically will fail at making the item unless you are both very adept and lucky.

 

Picture something like a cornstalk doll. The book tells you how to select cornstalks, how to prepare them, and how to use various crochet stitches to form the cornstalk into the doll. Without these instructions, you'de be guessing, and it wouldn't come out well. With the instructions, it's pretty simple. There is not any instructions of similar quality anywhere.

 

Edited to add: I have never taken a class with this person. However I believe the book (which at the time I bought it was self-published) had a "no items sold unless with permission of [book author]" in it. However, I do not know if newer versions of the book have that statement.

 

Ironically, I AM a a lawyer, I just know nothing about this stuff!!!

[Amy]

Maybe useless isn't the right word. I think part of it is that we put so much emphasis on copyrights that we (and least I) feel very disappointed in the reality of it.

 

I think some people get disappointed by copyright law because they originally thought the law gave them more rights and protection to exclusivity of a design than it really does.

[cat3crazy]

So, what all this comes down to is that my version of it is based on a derivative work of the actual pattern. To me - that IS copyright infringement as I understand the law of it. That's why I've never offered the pattern.

 

A few years back I made a potholder from a picture that I found on the internet. I only did this because I couldn't find the pattern (for sale or free nor could I find a similar pattern) and I really wanted a pattern like it, for a potholder of the month gift.

 

RoseRed is right that it would be a violation of our guidelines for her to distribute patterns of things she's made by reverse-engineering someone else's pattern. That's what she means by following our guidelines: she does not give out this type of pattern through PM (or email) when people contact her behind-the-scenes with such a request.

 

However, it would not be a violation of our guidelines for her to post pictures of something she made by reverse-engineering another pattern. Posting a picture of your finished item made for personal use is perfectly okay.

 

I posted a picture of the potholder and did get a lot of inquires for the pattern. Some people were pretty persistent but I followed the rules and never gave the instructions out. I just stated that I had given the potholder away and my notes weren't all that great. I didn't know at that time, how else to refuse giving the instruction out.