Tuesday, September 30, 2008

tuesday = xmas

****EDITED TO ADD: I've decided to pull the entire post to fully address the copyright issue...better safe than sorry.


Anonymous said...

So cute. I love the little reindeer but I'm printing out the instructions and pattern for the hippo as we speak. Yup, a Christmas hippo.

Brook said...

Love the santa !!!

* elizabeth * said...

Thank you! i'm loving that cute giraffe picture.

Jodie said...

Thank so much for sharing this!
Too cute!

Anonymous said...

This November 1961 issue is still under copyright. Scanning and posting it is illegal!

Anonymous said...

Ahh! Love it. What a lucky find!

Anonymous said...

If posting the images is illegal then about 70% of the content on the internet needs to be taken down as well. Please continue to post the images!

Ms. L said...

I personally don't think the copy right would much matter in this situation, especially if you specified it was for personal use.

I am not a lawyer, however. Sorry.

Ros said...

If the images are under copyright then you are quite right to have taken them down.

Dawn, the fact that many other bloggers freely use copyright images without permission doesn't make it either morally or legally acceptable.

And unless the original copyright specifies that it is acceptable to reproduce the images for personal use, then that is no defence either, j. lange. Besides which, posting them as a freely available download on the internet can hardly be called personal use.

Good decision. The rights of the original artist/crafter should be respected.

Anonymous said...

Why is it legal for the thrift store to sell it, then? If that's legal, then it seems it should be legal for doe-c-doe to resell it as well, no? And if that is the case, then why wouldn't it be legal for doe-c-doe to also give it away for free?

Katie Aaberg said...

jxn, it is legal for the thrift store to sell it because they are not copying it. By scanning and posting materials, doe-c-doe is effectively copying them (or making copies available to whoever wants them). The issue is one of copying/distributing, not reselling an original. Think of it this way, if you buy a painting from the artist, you can sell it to someone else, but you are not allowed to make reproductions of the painting unless you have permission from the artist (or copyright holder).

Maize Hutton said...

People who troll the internet stalking bloggers about copyright issues really need to get a life. That this elitist person signs in as Anonymous and fails to identify herself is even more annoying and quite telling.

Here's info direct from the US Gov. Copyright Office. Since it was published in 1961, it doesn't appear there are any provisions that would prevent you from sharing it. Claiming it as your own is another matter. Besides, the actual artist or company would need to see your particular post, then hire an attorney to send you a cease and desist letter. Highly unlikely.
How long does a copyright last?
The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.

Do I have to renew my copyright?
No. Works created on or after January 1, 1978, are not subject to renewal registration. As to works published or registered prior to January 1, 1978, renewal registration is optional after 28 years but does provide certain legal advantages. For information on how to file a renewal application as well as the legal benefit for doing so, see Circular 15, Renewal of Copyright, and Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright.

Anonymous said...

Wish I could've downloaded some patterns before the post was taken down...bummer.

Hey, maybe some of you peeps that downloaded PDFs already and don't have "issues" with copyrights will post this info on your blogs!

If you do, let us know!

Kat Atonic said...

I'm not sure (as in, yeah, I'm not sure... LOL) there would be a copyright issue involved in going, "Hey, aren't these photos from this vintage magazine fantastic??" and sharing those, but the patterns are a definite copyright no-no.

I'm wondering why Craft mag didn't catch this when they linked to it. Looks like it turned into a pretty stressful situation for you. But I think you're awesome for trying to share neat stuff with everyone in the first place :)

Rachel@oneprettything.com said...

Bummer, I linked to this too. Thanks so much for letting us know why you took them down and giving us a chance to update our links. Sorry this turned out to be so stressful-no fun!

Anonymous said...

sorry you got deluged with fear mongering, or people suggesting what you were doing was amoral, in addition to illegal.

if we followed the letter of the law in the US- not even second hand stores would be allow to RESELL books. read the inside cover of your books, DVDs, and videos.

obviously that sounds ludicrous, but it's true. the law is there to protect the copyright holders, but it doesn't reflect actual practice.

posting old and inaccessible content, correctly identifying the ISBN, author and publisher information can breathe new life into lost published works.

in some cases, the publishers are still selling similar books, the authors may still be alive and writing other books, and would appreciate the free advertisement.

do a little digging, and you might find the author is still around, and may have written something that is still in print.

i personally feel limiting this enthusiast's publicity is a complete mistake.

but my opinion doesn't matter really. shame on the nay sayers who "blew the whistle" on you. a publisher who had rights could have contacted you, or made a decision themselves.

it's interesting how people LOVE to point the finger.

Despair said...

"Scanning and posting it is illegal!" What are you, the copyright police? Leave her alone. The patterns *were* wonderful though.