In a message dated 22/08/2004 20:45:49 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Copyright laws vary greatly around the world. Keeping a copy as a backup
is
morally fair usage to me, but it is not legal everywhere. There are
countries that do not have a fair usage clause in their copyright laws.
And even in those that do, what each country considers fair usage varies a
lot, depending on local regulations or case law. If the person doing the
copying and the publisher are in different countries with different laws it
can get even more complicated.
This is quite long and if you can't be bothered to read it all then scroll
down the to bottom where I have another question to pose on this subject.
Here's a thought to add to this. I pulled out some patterns that I bought at
the National Xmas Fair, last year as I am looking to make a piece as a
wedding present for my neice. Anyway, these are from Lacewing Designs and
beautifully presented (and I have to say, worth every penny I spent on them).
But what is of interest is the copyright caveat at the end of the
instructions:
'No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic mechanical,
photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except for your own personal use,
without the express written permission of Lacewing Designs.'
Now this is interesting as it is the caveat often used in books.
I am making an assumption here but what I feel is my understanding of why
this type of statement is now needed is simply because so many of us now have
scanners for everyday use we just simply use them as home photocopiers - however,
not all scanners have a simple photocopy process where the image comes in and
goes out without storage -some need to store it as an image then print it
out.
Also with us all now so obsessed with not loosing things (own up - how many
of you have or are thinking of scanning in all your photos to burn to a CD Rom
just because you can!) so we think about how bad those 80s photocopies were
and how they stick to our plastic pockets that we store them in and how easy it
would be to just burn them all to CD Rom and be done with it - I know I
thought about it. However, being basically lazy, I couldn't be bothered to scan the
200 or so A4 sheets of patterns that I have bought over the years.
So, the reason I haven't broken copyright law is because I couldn't be
bothered? I'm going to have to give myself a strong talking to g!!
So I had a look in some of my other books and found some others which have
tickled or pleased me - here are some of my favourites:
(and by the way, please will the people who wrote these caveats forgive me if
I infrindge their copyrights by quoting them here but I'm trying share some
of the best ways of polietly telling people to not steal their work!!)
Christine Springett who has suffered badly from ripped off snake patterns (I
even saw at one lace fair in the passed year a kit for the snake; pricking,
thread, beads and cover and instructions clearly photocopied from Christine's
book!), Christine has addressed this beautifully in her 'Snakes Galore' booklet:
'You are welcome to photocopy these patterns to make your pricking and to
sell the snakes you make as fund-raisers for charity but i would ask you to
respect my copyright by not passing on these photocopies to other lacemakers, our
new address is given below and we would welcome the opportunity to send your
friends or students their own personal copy!'
What a nice way of saying - BUY YOUR OWN COPY!!!
Christine also tackles the same subject in her Bangle Bonaza booklet where
she says 'I would only consider that you would be infringing my copyright on
these designs if you photocopy these patterns to give (or sell!!) to your friends
or students.'
I found this one in Pamela Nottingham's Bobbin Lacemaking (the Batsford
paperback edition) which had the standard 'all rights reserved' but also this one;
'The Lace designs in the book may not be copied or adapted for commercial
purposes'
I know that some time ago Vivienne from Biggins was concerned about blatent
adaptations of her patterns (I'm being poliet - actually they should be
referred to rip offs) and I think this caveat above is the right one.
I am sure that we have been over this before but as we are discussing
copyright on this and another thread, I have another question. We know that after
the Mrs Channers Mat debate and clarification from Ruth Bean that their pattern
is in copyright and could, if they wished or needed to, be produced by them -
just at this time it isn't possible / feasible (please let's not go there
again) - but what about patterns from people who were producing patterns upto a
short while ago but who now, for whatever reason have stopped and we cannot
source their work from any supplier.
OK, the logical part of me says go make one of the 200 or
