Copyrights, Granny Squares & Double Crochets

[seedstitch13]

I've seen a few post since I've joined where folks are claiming their patterns are being copied or plagiarized. So it had me thinking about the good ole' granny square or the stitches (sc, hdc & dc) and why can we copy/paste those?

 

I guess I don't get who owns what when we're talking a simple pattern or stitch that's been around for ages.

 

Or even a ripple for example. You only have valleys and peeks with a few stitch variables. Am I missing something???

 

Not trying to be facetious! Just curious!

[seedstitch13]

Ok I take it this is a taboo subject....

 

:oops :oops

[chrissyf]

not so much a taboo subjet...just sticky, full of legal stuff, subjective and discussions can get very ugly, confrontational and accusatory. That said the simple designs that there are just so many ways to make, what i beleive is that becasue of the simplicity the "design" is not necessarily copyright but the method of use could be. Like Amy would say when in doubt consult an intellectual property or copyright lawyer or ask the designer of said pattern.

[CroJulee]

The granny square it self can't be copyrighted but the pattern a person writes for the granny square can be copyrighted. At least that's what I've seen. I think that'd also apply to other simple designs that have been around for a long time. Just my opinion though. What Chrissy said Amy would say is right? It's better to talk to an expert and get a definite answer. :-D

 

Julee

 

p.s. Hello Neighbor!!

[Amy]

No, it's not taboo. I just didn't see it yesterday! Just to make things clear, I'm going to speak from a US perspective here. Some things may be different in other countries. I'm not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice. Just my personal opinion.

 

Basically, stitch patterns cannot be copyrighted. Basic designs and concepts cannot be copyrighted: the concept of a blanket made with granny squares, the generic shape of a raglan sweater. (We don't want only one person in the world to be able to make raglan sweaters.)

 

In the US, the more detailed design of useful articles (generally construed as fashionable things like clothing, accessories, etc.) is not copyrighted. This is what allows "knockoffs" and "interpretations" of fashions created by the big fashion designers, so that the clothes we all wear actually make it into the marketplace.

 

Let's say that DESIGNER A, DESIGNER B, and DESIGNER C all come up with an idea to make a batwing shawl from a basic pineapple stitch pattern. As long as they each came up with their idea independently, wrote up their own instructions, took their own pictures, etc. and wrote up their own patterns, there wouldn't be any copyright infringement involved.

 

If DESIGNER D came along, saw a picture of DESIGNER A's shawl, and wrote up their own pattern for it, then sold that pattern, that is probably allowable by law. In our world of indie designers, that wouldn't be considered very ethical or very nice, but that's totally separate from the law. While copying like that happens all the time in the big fashion industry, it generally doesn't go over very well in the crochet/craft worlds.

 

Now, if DESIGNER D actually used the written pattern to basically rewrite the original pattern in different words, there could be a basis for infringement there, because the written directions are subject to copyright. But just duplicating by seeing a picture of someone's work: generally not a legal problem. (Unless the fashion item contains some kind of separable artwork, like a chart for a Santa face or something on a sweater. The art/picture is protectable.)

 

For many things, the problem is going to be how do you PROVE somebody did something? We've seen many cases of people coming up with similar ideas completely independently, so how do you PROVE they took your design and actually infringed upon it? Now, it's pretty clear if they make a xerox or scanned copy of a pattern and start distributing that, because it's obviously your work. It's even pretty clear if they just retype your instructions as-is and put their own photos in. But if they rewrite your words and put all their own graphics in, it becomes more difficult to prove, especially if they deny ever having seen your design.

 

Does this help explain anything, or did I just make things more confusing?

[Amy]

Oh, and most professional designers don't really have to worry about copyright issues, because they don't sit down and look at another person's pattern and then decide to make something based off of that while using that pattern as close reference. They usually prefer to sit down with nothing but yarn, hook, paper, and pencil (or computer) and make up something completely on their own, sometimes with the assistance of a stitch dictionary (which is created for that purpose).

 

That doesn't mean they haven't been inspired by the designs of others they've seen in passing, it just means that they aren't out there actively studying others' designs for ideas and inspiration.

 

Edit to add: If they come up with something all on their own, even if does look similar to something someone else has done, it's still all their own original work.

[CroJulee]

Basically, stitch patterns cannot be copyrighted. Basic designs and concepts cannot be copyrighted: the concept of a blanket made with granny squares, the generic shape of a raglan sweater. (We don't want only one person in the world to be able to make raglan sweaters.)

Exactly. That's what I was trying to say in my post. Thanks Amy!!

[seedstitch13]

Thank You! I see the fine line which gets us closer to debates. I avoid those...

 

Since I'm such a beginner, I'll just stick to using other people's patterns and posting links; and try not to think so hard!

[RoseRed]

We've recently had several huge discussions on copyrights, trademarks and what is and isn't infringement. That may be one of the reasons that there aren't many replies. You'll get a huge list of posts if you use the Search function and type Copyright Infringement.

 

A basic run-down is that stitches and stitch combination cannot be copyrighted. Only the specific wording used in the pattern. Stitch dictionaries and reference books are created for you to create your designs based on the combination of stitches. You must use your words but you can use the stitch combination.

 

Pictures are copyrighted to whoever took them. If I put a picture on my blog and someone saves it to their computer and uses it somewhere else then it's a copyright violation because I didn't give permission to use my picture.

 

Just a plain simple ripple with peaks and valleys truly has infinite combinations of stitch counts, stitches, borders, color combinations - there is so much involved in even a simple design.

 

So - no. No one actually owns the copyright to a granny square BUT when I put up my Granny Square Tutorial on my blog I will own the copyrights to my pictures and my wording on how to create it.

 

The standard 'don't believe everything you read on the internet' and 'I'm not a lawyer so it's not legal advice' are good things to remember. A lot of what's being said on other forums is technically inaccurate or just plain and flat out wrong.

 

At this point in time advice and copyright information is coming from intellectual property attorneys because as far as I know, no one has taken crochet pattern copyrights to court to have a ruling from a judge.

 

In all the years that they've been producing sewing patterns with copyrights and Terms of Use printed on the envelope they come in - there still hasn't been a court case against someone violating those terms.