Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-09-2007, 08:31 PM   #11
Knitting the Flap
willowangel's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 455
Thanks: 224
Thanked 111 Times in 86 Posts
Some interesting excerpts from Knitty's article on copyright protection that seem applicable :

[b] Whether a work is sufficiently original is also a subjective assessment. Original, in this context, does not mean 'unique' or 'new.' Original means that the work must have originated from the author. Certainly, the author will have been inspired by, or may have based her work on, someone else's. That doesn't mean that the work is unoriginal.

Is there a minimum threshold of effort that must be added? Yes. What is it? I can't tell you. There's no hard-and-fast rule defining originality. Sometimes originality is defined as 'not a copy,' but that's not a very clear answer either. Asking 'how much must not be copied?' is like asking 'how much has to be original?
Copyright doesn't cover ideas or techniques. Nifty concepts, like how to knit reversible cables, or a neckwarmer worked in intarsia giraffe spots, may be fantastic new ideas. But these are simply techniques and concepts, and are not protected by copyright.

What is copyrightable is an author's expression of these techniques and concepts, in the form of written instructions, photographs, diagrams, patterns, or even knitted objects. If the creators of these techniques wished to protect the techniques themselves, they would have to treat them as trade secrets or obtain patent protection. However, trade secret protection requires that the technique be kept confidential and shared only under strict secrecy provisions -- not very easy in the knitting context, and not very useful if another knitter can figure out the technique for himself without access to the 'secret.' Patenting involves an examination and registration process that takes time and money.
New blog!
willowangel is offline   Reply With Quote


This advertising will not be shown to registered members. Join our free online community today!

Old 08-09-2007, 08:42 PM   #12
Knitting the Flap
willowangel's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 455
Thanks: 224
Thanked 111 Times in 86 Posts
I can, unfortunately, see both sides of the argument. I do, completely and without reservation, believe that artists who create should be protected from other people taking credit for their work. I think it takes a lot of work to write patterns, to come up with something new and work out all the bugs in it.

But I also think that the way things are at the moment, without any real set in stone copyright 'here's what you can and can't do' laws, we're handcuffed. From this perspective, how the hell do new introductory knitting books get written? How are there so many patterns available for similar objects just with different patterns? What is copyrighted? Are stars copyrighted? Or just stars of a certain gauge in a certain pattern? I agree that people should be protected for the work that they've done, and I'm ok cause I can work stuff out without patterns and can take ideas and make stuff for myself without needing to follow a pattern word for word, but what happens to people who can't? What if someone wanted, for example, a binary ds case pattern? Why am I not allowed to write that for them? Why are green ones and zeroes on a black background, in a different yarn, with a different graph structure, for a different purpose, totally banned because someone once made a scarf with green ones and zeroes on a black background?

That's why I have a problem with this, not because I want to rip off someone else's work, or because I think artists don't deserve protection or recognition, but because it cripples our ability to do new and exciting things and *share* them with other people. It's great that I can sit at home and think 'I have a nice new ds case for my bloke, yay' but I want to be able to share that with other people, and if I put in the work to write the pattern, as different as it is, why is that wrong?
New blog!
willowangel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 09:04 PM   #13
Grafting the Toe
Knitting_Guy's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Following the white rabbit
Posts: 4,992
Thanks: 2,318
Thanked 1,130 Times in 832 Posts
The easy answer has already been mentioned. You simply get the copyright holder's permission to create an "inspired by" pattern. I don't think asking permission is exactly crippling.

What do you mean guys don't knit?

Linux: because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.

Perfection is overrated. Knitting is meant to relieve stress, not cause it. Relax and enjoy it.

My boring blog

My knitting blog

My New Home Page (work in progress)

Knitting_Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 09:29 PM   #14
Grafting the Toe
rebecca's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Follow the Yellow Brick Road...
Posts: 7,620
Thanks: 189
Thanked 92 Times in 66 Posts
Okay, answer me i wrong when i designed the Flower Power Washcloths (3 versions and the Flower Power hand towel/placemat (3 versions) after seeing a cloth online shaped like a flower that someone had knit from a book (I don't know the name of it)? I sat down and played with yarn and needles and sketches for a couple of weeks for the 1st washcloth, then decided to do several versions of them...same with the hand towel/placemats. Was i wrong in creating something that I saw? FYI, I've still not seen the pattern, but have been told they are designed much differently. It's a very, very gray area! Same thing happens in fashion when designers do their 'versions' of couture (sp?) designs.
In knitting (as in all fashion, I'm sure) items repeat themselves over and over in different ways.
Sorry, I never thought of asking permission of (I don't know who it is) the person that designed the 1st cloth that looks like a flower (lol, probably not the 1st, i see all sorts of floral cloths everwhere!), I never gave it a thought after I sat down and did it all myself. I do so hope it's not wrong, I've since read here and there and didn't see where I was in the wrong. Most of you know me and know I would be MORTIFIED if I did or were accused of wrong doing because it's never been my intention! Just to let everyone know!
My goodness, as you think about it, you see all sorts of designs repeated over and over in different ways....raglan tops like the Anthropology capelet I just saw in either a magazine or book. You can go on and on. Knitting, as in fashion will now and forever repeat itself, don't you agree?! (fyi .... I in no way mean that one should steal copyright, I've had this done, not fun...just that fashion repeats itself).
My conscience is clear, I do so hope ya'll feel the same wayLike I said, I'll die if you disagree, but that's me!
Addicted to the Knit is Becka

"I can do everything through Him who gives me strength."

Whimsical Knitting
Whimsical Knitting Designs

I'm Becka on Ravelry!

Last edited by rebecca : 08-09-2007 at 09:50 PM. Reason: clarification
rebecca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 09:41 PM   #15
Susan P.
Working the Gusset
Susan P.'s Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,754
Thanks: 137
Thanked 191 Times in 180 Posts
I notice on here quite a lot people coming and saying.. I 'saw' this and want to make it can someone help me figure out how. Technically, doing this breaks copyright yes.

Re the binary scenario. The fact is that if someone, prior to you, has copyright on that pattern then, in the technical eye of the law, you are breaking the copyright by reproducing the pattern (without permission). Now, of course one can arrive at ideas and diagrams without knowing that information is out there and if pressed in a court you can claim ignorance. *However* an analogy is you saying to a police officer.."I did not know that rule or law" and the officer saying..too bad..that isn't my issue..ignorance is not an excuse.

Can I simply suggest two things. If you come up with a design idea or set about to create one, do some research. Google "binary patterns" and "binary knit patterns" and ask around. Keep a record (diary) of attempts to locate if anyone already has a copyright design. If you've made fairly exhaustive attempts then, if legal action is ever threatened, you have an excellent case. Revelry will be an excellent resource for this type of issue I think.

In terms of being 'inspired'. A design is more that the stitches. It is the shape, the way it is put together, the stitches, the seaming and so on. You need to remember this and that changing one aspect or two..does not necessarily alter the fundamental prior design.

We generally know when we see really innovative work because it IS so different. New shapes, new design elements, new patterns and so on.
Susan P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 09:51 PM   #16
Turning the Heel
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 572
Thanks: 117
Thanked 51 Times in 41 Posts
My husband is in law school for intellectual property, so I was just talking to him about this issue. He does biosciences stuff, so no copyright issues (which is VERY different from any other type of law), so he is no expert. However, he pointed out that someone likely owns the copyright to the binary pattern, so the designer of the original scarf could have been unknowingly infringing on that. Wouldn't that be a twist?
bip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 10:38 PM   #17
Susan P.
Working the Gusset
Susan P.'s Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,754
Thanks: 137
Thanked 191 Times in 180 Posts
bip.. Binary numbers and code patterns are of course not new and applying two numbers to a graph is probably not copyrightable per se. In this instance it would be the application to an item that is the copyright issue. The application and then description of 'how to make/achieve'. As others have pointed out here...basic stitches are not copyright; its how they are used and drawing in various design issues/elements that's key.

One of the copyright success stories is the smiley face. The guy who originally designed that has done very very nicely thank you

In terms of design moderation Target took a law suit against a company that had a bullseye design. The second company altered the bullseye (number of circles and width) and did not have red however Target argued, and successfully I might add, that the bullseye basic design was associated with them. The second company had to pay compensation and costs and alter their design.
Susan P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 10:42 PM   #18
Working the Gusset
redheadrachel's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ohio(home)/ Tennessee(school)
Posts: 1,144
Thanks: 306
Thanked 233 Times in 198 Posts
Send a message via AIM to redheadrachel
Knitty's Center Square Hat reminds me of the Target sign. Oooh, scandal.


"An excellent woman, who can find? She is far more precious than jewels . . . She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." - Proverbs 31:10;13
I'm a knitter for Jesus!
redheadrachel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 11:34 PM   #19
2nd Sock, I Rock
Stiney's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In the office with the lavapit
Posts: 9,895
Thanks: 17
Thanked 100 Times in 97 Posts
Send a message via AIM to Stiney
Originally Posted by Knitting_Guy View Post
Copyright infringement is not dependent upon your having seen the original copyrighted item. The copyright exists and the holder of the copyright has a right, even an obligation under the law, to enforce it or risk losing it much like a patent.

Whether you purposely copied the item or came up with the same thing on your own actually makes no difference under the law.

And yes, in some ways one could argue that it's somewhat oppressive, but it's the best theft protection currently available.

It has been a long time since I took Literary Editing, when we discussed copyright and plagiarism, but I am SURE this is not right.

I feel that people are taking a stricter view of knit-copyright than actually exists, and while I do agree with "better safe than sorry" when it comes to lawsuits, I don't think that the law is as black and white as it is being painted to be.

I need to think more on this issue, though, to come up with coherent arguments. (It's late, and 3 beers doesn't help my case. )

Am famoos!

Stiney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 11:38 PM   #20
Ribbing the Cuff
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 79
Thanks: 1
Thanked 22 Times in 18 Posts
Originally Posted by bip View Post
My husband is in law school for intellectual property, so I was just talking to him about this issue. He does biosciences stuff, so no copyright issues (which is VERY different from any other type of law), so he is no expert. However, he pointed out that someone likely owns the copyright to the binary pattern, so the designer of the original scarf could have been unknowingly infringing on that. Wouldn't that be a twist?
I highly doubt it. Binary is just 1s and 0s used to represent on/off states - it's a convention, not a design.

(Likewise, the dots and dashes of the Morse code aren't copyright, even though Morse has a lifetime credit in its name. The ACTGs of DNA are also not copyright, just a convention on how to represent the nucleotides.)

In the original question, it's probably best to look at the situation of what is the same versus what has been changed.

The technique? Different. The stitch pattern? Different.

It is a scarf - but no one holds copyright on "the scarf", or we'd all be broke paying the royalties.

So what's the same? The colour? Not really part of the pattern. You can do a derivation in black and amber to look like the other common cga monitor type easily enough. And colour combinations aren't copyrightable either.

So, it comes down to knitting a representation of binary code in a different technique, using different stitches. In my opinion, the idea of knitting binary is just not copyrightable, any more than the idea of knitting a stripe, or an intarsia flower, or adding Fair Isle snowflakes are copyright infringements. Stripes, flowers, snowflakes - and the 1s and 0s of binary - are representations of items that are not themselves copyright.

It would be entirely different if you were copying a design, or a logo that was identifiable and had its own copyright, but you can buy a thousand types of fabric, coffee mugs, t-shirts, posters, etc. all with binary designs (and some with actual binary messages). The idea of the binary 1s and 0s is firmly in the public domain (and the Matrix, apparently).

And the truth is that ideas cannot be copyright, only implementations can. And if the only similarity is that the item uses 1s and 0s, that's just not enough to claim a copyright violation (especially given that binary representations are public domain).

To take this to extremes, what if I were to knit a binary hat, or sweater or afghan? What if I were to change the size of the motifs, or the colour, or the font? All these items would still be knitted, and still use binary - and all could be inspired by the initial scarf - but, IMO, none of them would represent an infringement of copyright.


Last edited by Jacklad : 08-09-2007 at 11:42 PM. Reason: Grammar police.
Jacklad is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jacklad For This Useful Post:
Stiney (08-10-2007), willowangel (08-10-2007)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Copyright question... RuthieinMaryland General Knitting 13 09-26-2010 04:18 PM
Copyright question KnitClickChick General Knitting 5 07-01-2009 04:06 PM
copyright question KatyKoolkat General Knitting 24 02-23-2006 06:26 PM
Copyright question.... ChroniclesofYarnia General Knitting 6 01-24-2005 10:29 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:52 AM.