Claiming an original pattern

[Mandys76]

Hi Everyone...I just wanted to mention something I've seen recently that has really irked me.

 

I both knit and crochet, and the other day, while reading a UK knitting publication, I came across a pattern for a beautiful knitted afghan. The magazine claimed this was a 'new and original pattern', raving about finding such a new and wonderful designer. The magazine was dated late 2006.

 

Now my problem is this. My sister has a blanket that was knitted for her husband when he was a baby, but his mother. This blanket is EXACTLY the same as the one photographed and featured in the magazine I had been reading.

 

What's the go there! Obviously this particular magazine isn't into their research. I asked my sister about the blanket, and it was knitted from a pattern. My sisters mother in law is sending me the pattern right now, I'm just waiting for it in the post.

 

My question is this, should I bring this blatant mis-information, and out right lie, to the attention of the magazine?

[Amy]

The problem is that there isn't a database out there of all crochet patterns ever published. So you can't really do research to make sure something has never been published before. The magazine and book publishers rely on the designers who submit patterns to be honest in their claims that something is an original pattern.

 

Now, it really is true that many people come up with similar ideas through the years. So it's possible that this new designer never saw the original pattern that was used for your BIL's blanket, especially if it was a pattern from so long ago.

 

On the other hand, it's also possible for somebody to think a design from so long ago is never going to be recognized, so they fraudulently claim it as their own.

 

I guess it would also be possible for the magazine itself to think the pattern won't be recognized, and recycle it themselves. You never know.

 

I would suggest contacting the magazine to let them know you're concerned. Don't accuse the designer of stealing this design. Just say you are aware of a pattern that seems very similar that was published so many years ago, and give them all the details they'll need to track down the pattern. Then they can compare both patterns and determine what they think has happened.

[darski]

That's good advice Amy. Discuss it but make no outright claims.

 

[RoseRed]

I wold wait until you get the pattern and check them against each other before you do any contacting.

 

If the pattern is not exactly the same but similair enough to look it from a pic then I would still point it out.

[snugsmontreal]

thats a grey area to me. make up patterns but sometimes things are in my opinion too basic to really be "original" even if i came up with it myself. like those knitted cable purses that have popped up everywhere... there are only so many ways to make a simple cable and really the only "original" part is the counts of sts and how it is attached to handles etc. if it was a simple pattern it may be a new & original design from this designer but that doesnt change that it is a seed st blanket or whatever it happens to be, if you know what i mean

[crazycrochet]

I have seen patterns that are exactly the same, except they are written different, and in a bigger size. The stitch pattern used is the same, words have been changed around. I have two of them in one of my binders, it is really weird to read them. Which one would be original?

 

Another question: I have written a couple of patterns. What do I do to safe guard them, other than not putting them out on the net? I worked my butt off on both of them, and don't want someone coming in and claiming them as theirs:angry .

[Mandys76]

Well I've now got a copy of the pattern from my sister's MIL and I'm sorry to say that it's even worded the same way. It is the exact same pattern. The original pattern even credits a designer who made it, which of course is different to the name of the person in the magazine.

 

I just find the whole thing disappointing. There's so much fuss over copyright's and not stealing/copying patterns, then a magazine (who uses this designer regularly) go ahead and do it.

 

Now it may also be that the copyright on this pattern from my sisters MIL has lapsed, as MIL got this pattern in the 1950s...I'm not sure how long copyright hangs around for. But even if it had lapsed, I would think that would only mean free distribution of the pattern...not someone going out there and re-copyrighting it as their own.

[darski]

Well I've now got a copy of the pattern from my sister's MIL and I'm sorry to say that it's even worded the same way. It is the exact same pattern. The original pattern even credits a designer who made it, which of course is different to the name of the person in the magazine.

 

I just find the whole thing disappointing. There's so much fuss over copyright's and not stealing/copying patterns, then a magazine (who uses this designer regularly) go ahead and do it.

 

Now it may also be that the copyright on this pattern from my sisters MIL has lapsed, as MIL got this pattern in the 1950s...I'm not sure how long copyright hangs around for. But even if it had lapsed, I would think that would only mean free distribution of the pattern...not someone going out there and re-copyrighting it as their own.

 

I would send the information you have on to the magazine. They will likely want to know what is going on and they have to be concerned with how this makes them look. They need to discuss the concerns around this with the "new" designer.

[RoseRed]

I tolatly agree with Darski. If may have been a blind error on the magazine's part. As far as I know copyrights from the 50's are still in force.

[trin]

It depends on what the particular item is for copyrights....

If it were my magazine, and I knew it was a "recycled" design, even if it's not still under copyright, I'd describe it as "Designer M, revives a vintage pattern for us..."

[Amy]

Here's a link to a site with information on when copyrighted items lose their copyright protection.

 

If the pattern was originally published in the 1950s, the original copyright may have expired and the pattern could be in the public domain.

 

It's possible that the magazine actually owned the original rights to the pattern, and is just recycling it. In that case, I would much prefer that they not claim it is the new work of a current designer. I would much prefer to see it labeled with full credit given to the original designer.

 

I suppose it could also be possible that the original designer wasn't really a "real" person, but just a "pen name" for a designer invented by the magazine. The magazine would purchase the full rights from the real designer, publish it giving credit to their fictional designer, and then be able to recyle it many years later using another designer's name, assuming everyone would have forgotten about the original.

 

If that's the case, they just didn't count on our wonderful Crochetville members being a virtual encyclopedia for every crochet pattern ever published on this planet!

[darski]

 

If that's the case, they just didn't count on our wonderful Crochetville members being a virtual encyclopedia for every crochet pattern ever published on this planet!

 

:rofl