On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:24:23 -0700, Weronika wrote:
>> >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 'd
> >>>But can putting a "boasting" picture, with proper credits to book and
> designer, on a non-commercial "boasting" website, really be described as
> *publishing* except in the very widest sense of the word, ie make generally
> known. Surely it's the modern equivalent of having it hanging on you
> >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 jus
In a message dated 25/08/2004 16:39:36 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> So yes, giving credit is very important, but it's the least we can do. To
> be truly on the up-and-up, we need to ask permission to display, especially
> in such a public forum as the web.
>
> Robin P.
In the
Lynn, I can put your mind at rest on one point - I.L.Soft (the author of the
lace programme) does not own the copyright on your pattern!! The computer
programme was only the tool you used to draw the pattern - from what you've
said to me privately, I would say the ownership of the design and ther
>>>But can putting a "boasting" picture, with proper credits to book and
designer, on a non-commercial "boasting" website, really be described as
*publishing* except in the very widest sense of the word, ie make generally
known. Surely it's the modern equivalent of having it hanging on your wall
w
In a message dated 25/08/2004 14:49:44 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> However, the case can probably be made
> that they intended the patterns and their derivatives (the finished lace or
> bookcase or whatever) to be "for personal use" and not for publishing by the
> people who ma
>>>Steph wrote: 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.<<<
>>>Bev added: if a pricking is published with the intent that a reader would
use it to produce a piece of lace, then the
I also have the quandry that in making lace for the great niece/nephew's
Christening gown, I am using my grandmother torchon lace, made over 80 years
ago, as a guide to design mine. I have looked through several books to find
similar designs incorporating spiders with fans and then had help plotti
My youngest son, Alex, who is 20, just informed me the other day that Jimi
Hendrix(for all familiar with 1960's music) did not, nor does his estate,
own any of his works, and they cannot afford a proper burial site for him
because the record company owns all his music and anything Jimi Hendrix. So
While still on this subject, but not about lace, I have a book of quilting
blocks that I wanted to print off and use for a master copy. The book
handily came with a cd of all the blocks to print(and adjust size if you
like). Since I knew the author, I emailed her and asked permission to make
a ma
Hi everyone
Steph wrote:
>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
>
Fun with copyright. I see it this way: if a pricking
> It's my understanding that Read considers her *diagrams* of the braids to be
> copyrighted but not the braids themselves. In Sandi Woods' class, she said
> she specifically got Pat's permission to do diagrams like Pat's for her own
> book. If you publish diagrams, I believe you need to develop
> > you raised a couple of interesting questions. Copyright law recognizes
> > that there is a process by which a copyright image or creation becomes
> > changed, changed again, and further changed, and eventually is no
> > longer the original image or creation at all. Unfortunately there is no
Message -
From: "Steph Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: [lace] pattern copyright and adaptations
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:55:06 -0700, Weronika wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:29:12PM
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.
In a message dated 24/08/2004 19:54:03 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >Less it is written that this book is for eduction, you are alowed to make
> a
> >copy to thouse you a teaching to lace.
> >Hope that can be to some help
> >Dorte
> >
Dorte,
I like that caveat - that you can
Here's another thought, we are allowed under british copyright law to
photocopy a percentage of a book (which can't exceed certain qualifications, in the
uk it's no more than about a third of the book or x number of articles).
So, I get my book 'A visual introduction to Bucks Point Lace' by Ge
And don't forget that each country has their own copyright rules, meaning
that whatever US copyright rules apply to the US, doesn't necessarily apply
to your country. You may have a copy of a book produced in the US, and
copyrighted there, but in your country it might be quite allright for you to
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?
> If you had looked at a photo of a finished piece and said to yourself
> "g
>>>For example, in the Milanese books by Read and Kincaid there are lots of
Milanese braid designsCan I use these braids in my patterns (including
"patterns" that are just a straight piece of braid for a bookmark )
without copyright infringement? If I draw diagrams by myself, can I put
them on
In a message dated 24/08/2004 05:58:41 GMT Standard Time, Adele writes:
> Hi Weronika -
>
> you raised a couple of interesting questions. Copyright law recognizes
> that there is a process by which a copyright image or creation becomes
> changed, changed again, and further changed, and eventual
Hi Weronika -
you raised a couple of interesting questions. Copyright law recognizes
that there is a process by which a copyright image or creation becomes
changed, changed again, and further changed, and eventually is no
longer the original image or creation at all. Unfortunately there is no
h
23 matches
Mail list logo