On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:55:06 -0700, Weronika wrote: >On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:29:12PM -0700, Adele Shaak wrote: >> Your bookmark sounds like an adaptation to me. > >Which means: I can put a picture on my website, but not the pricking, and I >should name the source - correct?
Not in my opinion. Many people do this, but I believe it is a breach of copyright. A completed piece of lace is a 'derivative work' from the pricking, and is subject to just the same copyright limitations as a straight copy of the pricking. So you should ask the copyright holder for permission to display the picture of the finished lace. I've asked quite a lot of designers for permission for pieces on my website, and so far no-one has said no. Most look on it as good publicity I think. To help understand why this is so, consider a similar situation. I bought an oil painting by E B Watts of a teapot shaped like a cauliflower in a field of carrots. The painting I bought is the one and only oil original. However, I didn't buy the copyright to the image, only the physical painting itself. So E B Watts can (and I believe has) sell prints of the painting I own. She can produce Christmas cards with that image on, I can't. The image still belongs to her, unless she chooses to sell it. This is important because obviously it enables her to continue to earn money from her idea. -- I love children, especially when they cry, for then someone takes them away. Nancy Mitford Steph Peters, Manchester, England [EMAIL PROTECTED] Scanned by WinProxy http://www.Ositis.com/ - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
