Legalities of selling your cross stitch

[Lainey89]

Hey guys, long time no post!

I'm wondering does anybody know of any legal/copyright issues regarding selling patterns and finished pieces of cross stitch? I take my sprites from the various sites that are around and even have some zelda patterns done from the official Nintendo art. So if I take a sprite that I havent designed, then make it into a pattern, then stitch it and sell it, is that copyright infringment?

[blackmageheart]

So if I take a sprite that I havent designed, then make it into a pattern, then stitch it and sell it, is that copyright infringment?

Yes, in a nutshell. But mostly people just crack on and do it until somebody says stop
Generally nobody does anything about the small-time people, for want of a better word. Occasionally I have heard about people being asked to stop selling products or items but I think its pretty rare, and from what I know it's usually the likes of Nintendo and Namco (they get real shirty about it sometimes).

Long story short, if you're wanting to sell some pieces then I'd say just go ahead and do it!

[kuja.girl]

Here's some clarification. I am not an expert but this is what I've learned about US copyright recently.

• Using 10% (or less) of a work falls under fair use.
• Parts of a published product cannot be copyrighted, only the final product (aka the game not the art).

This is not including Trademark law, I have no idea about that.

[Lainey89]

Thanks for the replies guy. A retro video game shop in Dublin is actually selling my pieces for me, along with some large paintings I did, and they never mentioned anything about copyright. Was just wondering more out of curiosity seeing as I've already managed to sell a fair amount

[kuja.girl]

As soon as a piece becomes "art" it becomes a lot harder to take action against. I don't know UK law that well but in the US, as long as it's not an "exact" reproduction/making tons of money off it, you are usually fine.
Often times companies view this kind of thing as free marking, "any news is good news" amiright?

[Eliste]

Irish law is really fuzzy about this, and the answer is still really up in the air.

The designs and the finished pieces will be separate things- legally speaking anyway. I kinda looked at the idea of the finished piece (it comes down to collaborative effort to some degree) when I gave a quick rundown on things for some quilters that you might find interesting-

This is Irish law, which is very similar to English law, and very different from the US. If you're talking about a US company's IP, you could face a lot worse and the situation could be very different.

Also- I'm not officially a lawyer, although I'm doing a masters in UCD atm in IP issues, so my official advice is to ask a lawyer cause you're treading on very uncertain ground.

Two quick cases that I think are relevant particularly to the quilt
discussion are the following:

Burke & Margot Burke Ltd v Spicers Dress Designs [1936] Ch 400
Sheldon v Metrokane [2004]
George Hensher Ltd v Restawhile Ltd [1974]

The interesting part that kinda relates to quilting is it discusses
whether a "work of art" for the purpose of copyright can be done in
collaboration- like if X designs and Y makes. Burke said no, but more
recent stuff like Spyrou v Radley Gowns in 1975 suggested that if the
designer employed the stitcher/whatnot that they could still hold the
copyright, but Sheldon suggests something different- that a work of
artistic craftmanship can be created by two or more people operating
at different times with different skills. It almost sounds like the
work the person does would be part covered as both their own and the
designer's. Not sure though, would have to read more.

This is something I think is worth looking more at because it seems to
go straight to the heart of the quilt design/creation issue.

Also, something to look at is what CAN be copyrighted. Not everything
can. Not everything we put on our blogs can be. Not everything you
design will be! A lot of people think "well I designed it, I can
copyright it" but that's not always the case.

An interesting version of this is the LucasFilm Ltd v Ainsworth case
in 2008 in England/Wales. The moulds used to create stormtrooper
armour and helmets were considered "not works of artistic
craftsmanship" (what you have to prove to go with copyright) because
the intention was not to appeal to the aesthetic but give a particular
impression in a film. So they couldnt be protected via copyright.

Especially when you cross international boundaries its important to
know what can and cannot be copyrighted. While many countries have a
mutual recognition with the US, not all do, and if you're selling your
designs overseas, you may have no comeback if it ends up being used
and sold.

[Lainey89]

Thanks for the very comprehensive answer Eliste, From a few other articles 've been reading it might be possible to get around the issue by stating that I do not actually own the sprites and they are the property of Nintendo etc. I can't see it as being a problem tho because if it was the likes of Etsy etc wouldn't be able to sell most of their crafts

[Eliste]

Always remember, just because you don't SEE people getting into trouble, doesn't mean they don't. If a seller just drops off the face of the earth, and if they're small, its unlikely you'll hear about their litigation, especially if it was just settled out of court, or its possible they've been made to cough up a licensing fee.

[RMDC]

I'm not a lawyer - though I'm married to one - and this is not legal advice from me or from my in-house counsel, but:

this...

Here's some clarification. I am not an expert but this is what I've learned about US copyright recently.

• Using 10% (or less) of a work falls under fair use.
• Parts of a published product cannot be copyrighted, only the final product (aka the game not the art).

... is not actually true.

When referencing a work, such as reviewing a book, generally up to 10% of it may be reproduced or quoted in order to establish a common point of reference. It's fair use because without having that kind of leeway, you couldn't really converse about literature or art - only those who had been fully exposed to the work could discuss it. It's not a rule of thumb for how much of a work you can convert for your own profit.

I'm not sure precisely what you mean on this second point, kuja, but for the specific example of a video game, generally the art - concept art, storyboards, final art, models, sprites, environments, etc. - is work-for-hire copyrighted material, subject to the same sort of copyright laws as any other IP.

Further, stating that you do not own the copyright to the original work does not indemnify you. It is simply an acknowledgement by you that you don't have a right to profit off someone else's IP. Which is fine if you're posting fanart or a fanfic for free distribution, I suppose, but it doesn't fly that well if you're selling pokermanz in your shop under your name.

The general consensus here is correct, at least in the United States. You're welcome to do what you want as a fan, and most companies are happy to get free press, but don't be too surprised if a C&D letter comes your way eventually. Companies are more likely to look the other way if you're selling one-of-a-kind or limited-run items; if you're instead selling electronic copies (unlimited run fanart, pattern PDFs, etc.), the eye of Sauron may turn your way more readily.

[Eliste]

This is an interesting example of when rights holders and crafters collide.

http://generationqmagazine.com/2012/03/ ... nd-rights/

Read through the links in the article and remember that the book author had the publisher in their corner, but if it was one of us, we'd likely be on our own. The author was also lucky that the designer was a small business and not an international powerhouse like those we get our sprites from.