The Word Which Should Not Be Spoken, The Subject That Angels Dare Not Speak Of...Part 5: Class or Not?

Norm the Gnome in the Know and Barney the Brainy Bruin are on Vacation (again ) this week. Since they aren't here to help me with Tipsy Tuesday as usual, I will continue with this copyright series.

And of course the usual disclaimer: I am not an attorney. The following are my interpretations and opinions on the Copyright Laws. If you need a definitive answer on any matter of the subject, please see a copyright attorney.

Scenario:

You want to learn how to create a website and you have no idea of where to start. You browsed though a few books and magazines on the subject but you just do not learn well from books and self-study.

You got a flier in the mail the other day that advertises adult classes in your community. You see that there is a web design class. You are thrilled. You sign up for the class and buy the required book.

You browse through the book before class. It looks like a good book. It has a lot of step-by-step lessons, but still, you don’t understand very much of what you need to do.

You show up in class, along with your other classmates. The teacher introduces himself. He is a web developer. He said that he likes the book he required for the class because it is clear and easy to understand, with lots of different styles of web designs to create. He feels it is a great book to learn from. If he could write a book, it would be like this one. He would love nothing more than to meet and talk to the author.

The class is a 4 day class with assignments. You listen to the teacher,  and ask questions when you get confused and need help. The teacher helps you through the lessons and you take notes to supplement the lessons in the book.

When the class ends, you are happy. Your money for the class is well spent. You still refer to the book long after the class ends, glad that now, you finally understand what to do, and have a reference for the future that you can refer to time and time again to try out different web designs if you like.

Do you see any problems with this scenario?

No??

I don’t either.

What if you substitute bead class for web design class, and bead magazine, book or pattern for the web design book?

Does that change anything?

Yes?

Why??

No?

Why not??

There is an on going debate as to whether or not someone other than the designer can teach a class that is published in a book or magazine. The problem with the bead world (as with embroidery and other crafts), is that it is a small world. Many of us know each other, either by having met or just by emails and forums. But the effort and involvement a designer has in her project is no less than an author of a web design book. It is just different.

A teacher in a class is simply a guide. The teacher is there to help students understand the project, to guide the students through some of the confusing aspects and to demonstrate. This is the same concept in teaching algebra, a foreign language or even beadwork.

If EVERY student has bought a LEGAL copy of the project such as the book or magazine that it is in, there has been no copyright violation as nothing has been copied. The only question regarding copyright might be the display of the beadwork in the beadstore or perhaps the photo used in the advertising of the class. But even that might be a source for debate.

What if the class were advertised by only displaying the book or magazine in the store? Then there would be no question about illegal copying of the material. On what grounds then would the bead class be illegal?

Ethics is a whole different ball of wax. Is it Ethical that Bertha Beader teach Debbie Designer’s project in Gnome Alaska to 3 students on a dark winter night? If you say yes, Why? If no, why not?

Debbie Designer cannot possibly go to every corner of the earth to teach her class. It would be impossible. It might not even be worth her effort to go to Gnome Alaska for 3 students for a single 4 hour class. Why would she want to prevent three bored, cold Alaskans the pleasure of learning a new project even if it is hers, and even if the teacher earns a couple of dollars in the process. Debbie Designer’s project has sold 4 copies (including the teacher's copy) that she will either get royalties on, or already has been paid for. She has earned her money for the publication on the design.

On the other side of the coin, what would happen if Debbie Designer’s design is offered to Big Shot Bead Convention by Sally Sleazy?  What if Sally Sleazy changes the design just a little, writes her own directions, but others still think it is Debbie Designer’s project?

Here the ethics come into play. It is unethical for someone to teach Debbie Designer’s project in a national convention. Everyone knows it is her design. It does not matter if everyone has bought the original publication.  Changing the design a little, and writing new directions could well be a copyright violation to boot.

Let’s just argue the point of someone teaching Debbie’s project (which is found in a book) at Big Shot Bead Convention. Ethically,  Debbie should be given first shot at teaching the class. And the ability to request that no one else teach it.  Debbie should have the opportunity to teach her class where it has the potential to be worth her while to risk gaining back her expenses and profiting. She should also have the chance to not allow anyone else to teach her class in a high profile setting. This to me, is the ethical thing to do.

Some designers do not want anyone teaching their class anywhere under any circumstances. Legally speaking, as long as EVERY student owns their own original publication that they bought, I do not believe that the designer will stand a chance preventing it.

More than a legal matter it is an ethical matter. For me, as a designer, I have always held the stance that as long as all the students buy an original book or pattern (and I am credited for the design), I don’t mind if it is taught . I earn my money from the sale of the pattern or book. If the students copy the pattern, or if the teacher copies and distributes the pattern, then certainly there is a copyright violation.

Designers who take the Never, Nowhere, Under No Circumstances view point of others teaching their projects perhaps want everyone to come to the big conventions to take their class, or the designer wants to travel all over the globe to teach their class. I can understand this to some degree. I too, would love to travel to England, Germany, Australia, or anywhere in the world and US, even Gnome Alaska to teach.

But is it possible?

Do I really want to be queried every time someone wants to teach my project? Frankly, I would be honored and amazed at the honesty and consideration. But do I really want 1000 emails requesting permission?

Not really.

Will I file a complaint if someone teaches one of my designs at Big Shot Beading Convention without first being offered that opportunity myself?

You bet.

What if a local bead store has Debbie Designer come in to teach her design, and an “employee” takes the class, only to teach the class herself 3 months later (even if everyone buys the publication it is in)? Since Debbie is “local”, I feel that the bead store is horribly unethical in this matter, unless she has granted them the permission.

What if the bead store is 1000 miles away and the same thing happens? Again, I feel that because they had established a relationship with Debbie Designer as a teacher, to teach the class without her permission is unethical.

As with anything with ethical considerations, there are a lot of variables that can change things a little or a lot. When you teach a class, never ever let the copyright laws become an issue, it is a good policy to ask the designer if she minds you teaching her project in Timbuktu. Let good conscience and kindness be your guide on the ethics. Making the right decision will always be worthwhile.

As for the Designers who have the Never, Nowhere, Under No Circumstances policy, please lighten up. Especially if it is unlikely that you will never have the desire let alone opportunity to teach the class in some corner of the world. You wrote and published the design so that others can enjoy making it. If someone needs a guiding hand (teacher), allow them all the joy of creating your design even if some paid help is needed.

I think this might be the end of my Copyright series, unless someone has an issue they wish me to try to answer (understanding that I may not have a "answer" but an interpretation or opinion that is my own).

I hope this helped to some degree. I don't expect my writing to solve issues, but only to give you food for thought.

The Word Which Should Not Be Spoken, The Subject That Angels Dare Not Speak Of...Part 4: A Couple of Issues: Use of Image and Copying

I know I told you that my next topic would be “Teaching from Patterns”. I am sorry to disappoint you, if you were hanging on the cliff for this hot topic. It will have to wait just a bit because I received a question and a comment that deserve their own post. A mention in the comments section is just not enough.

First I will answer the question:

I've enjoyed reading the first 3 installments in your copyright saga and I hope that you can, in a subsequent installment, address a question regarding the following statement you quoted in the second installment:

"If someone who is not familiar with either the original design or the

“derivative” can see that one design came from another, in all

likelihood, the derivative cannot be called a unique pattern."

This statement makes a lot of sense and is a great rule of thumb, but what rule applies when two designers choose to make a beading pattern based on the same original artwork or clipart?  For example, two designers may be inspired to make a beading pattern of a painting by an old master or an image from one of Dover's clipart books. Clearly there would be stylistic & choice of colors differences between the two patterns that reflect each designer's style, but if they both want to create a recognizable image of the original artwork/clipart, the two patterns are likely to look similar enough to fail the test in the quoted statement - not because one was derived from the other but because both were legitimately derived from the same source image.

This is a great question. First off, I should have clarified something. The post was in reference to artwork that is under current copyright.

When we are talking about artwork or images that are in the public domain, either by age, or by permission, things do change a bit.

 What is asked happens a lot. Let’s use The Last Supper (TLS) as an example. I am sure you have seen TLS in many forms. Photos, T-Shirts, Coffee Mugs and even bead patterns. If the image is in the public domain, any one can use it for what ever purposes.

Narrowing it down to beading, because I have made a pattern of this image DOES NOT prohibit someone else from making a pattern. Someone's take on it, I am sure will be quite different from mine. Size, colors used and detail would be extraordinalry difficult if not impossible to duplicate by "chance". it is a complex pattern with a lot going on in it.

Going to the other extreme, using a permission free clip art image of a flower with a coloring book approach to create a pattern (just filling in the lines with beads) will be much easier to duplicate on chance. However, the same rules apply. Anyone can use the image. Yet if designer #2 has chosen the same exact colors and the same exact size and and everything else by chance or not (Which can plausibly happen) , Designer #1 will have the copyright on that pattern as she did it first. The problem is in proving who did it first.

This if nothing else is a great reason to take a clipart image and be creative with it. Work with it to make it YOUR design. Add elements, subtract elements. Don't just use it as it is. Those who use clip art as a coloring book approach to designing aren't really designers in my eye. They have done what a kindergartener can do. Its not designing, its coloring.

The ETHICAL consideration is when 2 designers use the same artwork to sell on the same site. For example, there is a Starry Night Tapestry pattern on bead-patterns.com done by another designer. I have a Starry Night Tapestry design that I worked out too. While my parameters are much different, and my pattern is quite different from hers, I respected her enough NOT to put my version on bead-patterns.com to compete DIRECTLY with her, but sell it only on my website. To me, I thought to sell it on b-p to be ETHICALLY wrong, even though legally, I would be within my rights.

I am not so sure every designer would honor that sort of choice.

From a lengthy (and great) comment on the third post in this series:

“I believe the law should (understanding the difference between should and does) only apply copyright to commercial infringement and not personal infringement. Especially not the type of cottage industry type stuff that usually applies to beading (less than 50 items). I think some designers do themselves a great disservice when they try to restrict their patterns. #1 - if you don't want your product copied - then don't make a pattern for people to follow to copy it! DUH. #2 - if you want to sell copies of your pattern - it behooves you to have people make things from your pattern and distribute them (either by selling or gifting) because it is advertising for someone else to purchase your pattern so they can copy it too! DUH. Why else make patterns? ??”

Be careful of the word “copy", it has some ugly connotations, especially when we are talking about "copyright" (the right to COPY).  I am sure that you mean create the beadwork from the pattern. In NO circumstances is the pattern to be copied. Under no circumstances is actual beadwork to be “copied” either.

The other thing that begs clarification is the word "commercial". At what point is someone selling "commercially". If you take the stance of most cities and towns who issue business licenses, and of course states who collect sales tax and the IRS, they want all income reported. If you sell, then you must be properly licensed. You are a business selling something. You are engaged in a form, albeit limited, commerce and by extension "commercial".

Yet, I totally agree that people should be able to make beadwork and sell an item or two. As long as it remains small scale. The law does not define or specify in definitive terms if this can be done.  This a ground for legal debate as well as for clarification in the law. They need to define that this is allowable or not. At the present, it is at best vague and open to interpretation, or a judgement of ethics.

I doubt that there is even a case that has been heard in court since most cases of alleged infringement of this type never goes to court. It is too costly to stand on principle. If I had more money than God, and nothing better to do, I think it would be a “fun” exercise in legalities to challenge. But I don’t have the money nor the time.

A great misconception that I think is worth bringing up at this time, is money DOES NOT have to exchange hands in order for there to be an infringement. Those designers who think that creating a pattern of Tinkerbell or Betty Boop and offering it FREE can still be charged with infringement and  be FINED.

Unfortunately, I know of one designer and a few crafts persons who used a copyrighted image by a BIG  company (think mouse with big ears) and sold a pattern in one case, and painted ornaments on Ebay in the others. They were sent a $4,000 bill PER VIOLATION. It did not matter that one only made $70, and another other didn’t sell a thing. No cease and desist, no warning. Just pay up or show up in court with the potential of paying more, plus court costs. There is of course a bit more to the story that I won’t divulge, but that is the important lesson for all. Do YOU want to challenge this just to give away a dumb Tinkerbell pattern? 

Trademarks get even more stickier. Stay away from them!!

So….unless I get side tracked again…

Next time: Teaching From Patterns!!

(Hold on TIGHT for this one!!)

Bragging Rights: Gail Warren

This is from such a sweet painting called The Visitor by A. Hopkins.  The pattern is available ( click here)

I think Gail did a great job beading and having it framed!

Dragon Robe Progress 8/29/10

Week 8 of working on this. I am past the sleeves!! YIPPIE!!! The rows are going MUCH faster now!

 Here is the robe fully laid out:

And here it is with the top part folded over the back:

The Word Which Should Not Be Spoken, The Subject That Angels Dare Not Speak Of...Part 3: Selling Beadwork From Patterns

Again, my disclaimer (hate having to do this each time...but I must) I am NOT an attorney. I am NOT giving legal advice. If you need legal advice on the subject to follow, please consult with a copyright attorney.

The question of “May I sell beadwork made from a pattern I bought?” is a common question.

I will attempt to answer this question from the interpretation of the law that my copyright attorney gave me, from an opposing interpretation I have read in a forum from another attorney, and finally my own stance on this subject.

This is a hotly debated question. Both sides of the question tend to get really fired up and angry. I doubt there will ever truly be a resolution until it is tried in a courtroom and legal precedence is set. But who wants that?

Laws have a hard time keeping up with changes in technology, or other changes that might really have an effect on how the law is to be interpreted. In a large part, I think the Copyright laws have not kept up with some of the changes.

The internet has changed many things. Where once it was only possible for you to sell a pair of earrings to friends, coworkers and at the shows, stores and galleries you could drag yourself to, now with the click of a mouse and websites such as Ebay and Etsy, your work has the potential to be viewed by millions the world over.  This is a huge change, and a consideration that may not have entered the thoughts behind lawmaking and perhaps need to be spelled out.

Let’s first consider the interpretation that yes! you may sell beadwork from patterns you bought. This viewpoint comes from the “intended, predicted use” of a product (pattern). This (as far as I can see) is not spelled out in the copyright law, but it is an interpretation.

When you buy a pattern, magazine or book filled with patterns, the intention of the written instructions and patterns are that you will make the items. What will you do with those items? A crafter will typically keep the item for herself, gift them, and will very likely attempt to sell them. Isn’t that how many of us progress? We make something for ourselves. Then perhaps a sister will want the same pair of earrings so you make a pair for her to give her on her birthday. Next thing you know, your coworker offers you $20 for a pair. Before you know it, you are selling your work at a church bazaar.

Isn’t this fun? Your hobby is becoming a small cottage business that with some luck will earn you enough money to buy more beads, more books and more patterns. Especially the patterns from your favorite designer.

This is a predicted intended use of the pattern you bought. Someone selling a few items here and there is to be expected, and according to the attorney I asked, this is allowed on a small scale. Further more, he stated that even with the words “Intended for personal use only” does not carry any weight. It is like saying “You may not substitute red beads for the blue.” Anyone can put a condition on their product, but it may not be enforceable in a court of law, because the law does not prohibit it.

Now let’s consider the opposing viewpoint: No, you may not sell items made from patterns that you bought.

This perhaps comes from the interpretation that beadwork is derived from the pattern (a derivative work). And as in other items, permission is granted to the buyer to make one copy for the buyers use only (as in making a copy as a back up of a CD for yourself).

Some big time pattern makers (think: make your own clothing patterns) will also have restrictions printed on their patterns (“For personal use only) that will attempt to stop a dress maker from selling dresses at a craft fair that are made from the patterns.

The question I have, is has this ever been tried in a court of law? I have not seen (found) a case no matter how much time I spent. If anyone reading this knows of one, I am interested (as I am sure everyone else would be) in reading it.

Large companies with a stable of attorneys, such as might be found for the clothing pattern company,  can easily write a cease and desist letter or worse to the “infringer”.  The “infringer” probably a crafts person earning peanuts from her (or his) craft would not fight it, and consider that getting away without a fine or law suit a stroke of luck. Who amongst us would put up the thousands of dollars on principle or to test the legality of this?

I have also read where this opinion comes from the use of printed fabric with characters such as Mickey Mouse, which cannot be used in making items for sale. But there is a huge difference. Mickey Mouse is a registered Trademark. The fabric manufacturer has the license to make use of the image to print on the fabric and sell the fabric. This license is not passed on to the buyer. Here the intended use is for the buyer of the fabric to be the end user.

Stepping away from both of these interpretations, there is a question of ethics. Is it ethically ok to make and sell or even display (such as at a fair) an item of beadwork you made from a pattern?

We could argue all day on this matter and not reach a resolution. What I will say, is if the designer does not want you to sell a bracelet made from her pattern, then leaving aside the question of legality,  ethically I think you should respect that wish.

My question is then…why would a designer offer patterns knowing full well that the likelihood and common desire for a beader is to sell a few items here and there to make a few dollars? How would anyone even attempt to enforce a beader from selling this beadwork?

Sure, the designer may ask Etsy to remove the items on a copyright violation charge, and the designer may be effective in this request. I wonder if standing hard on this issue would in the end help or hurt the designer. The buyer would likely never buy another pattern from this designer. We have a small community, word does get out. I would bet that the designer will lose a lot of sales of her patterns.

If the designer only sells patterns to a magazine or a book. Perhaps the goal isn’t in selling the individual patterns, but the “fame” of being a published designer. Perhaps this person won’t notice a drop in sales.

Going back to the explosion of the internet, where someone can sell multitudes of my designs all beaded up, to a world wide audience and undercut me in my attempts will of course give me as a seller mixed feelings.

I offer the designs knowing that beaders will want to use them. That is why I created the designs for sale. As a designer selling patterns, I don’t mind.

As a seller, I HATE seeing a beader sell a pair of earrings for $9.99 that I would sell for $40. And I hate having to compete with 40 other beaders selling the same pair of earrings to boot! But, perhaps that is a whole different issue.

I guess I am starting to ramble.

The bottom line, I think is if the designer places the restriction of “Personal Use Only” the ethical thing is to honor that. If you disagree with her/his terms, don’t buy the pattern. If you wish to test the legality of it and go forth, let me know the outcome.

And Designers: If you don't wish to have beaders use and enjoy your patterns, keep them to yourself, conditions spelled out or not. The "fame" and "recognition" you get for being a designer might not be what you want...or if it is, it might be as fleeting as the paper your design is on. Get over your ego.

Next time: Teaching from patterns

The Word Which Should Not Be Spoken, The Subject That Angels Dare Not Speak Of...Part 2: Percent Change?

Now that I opened Pandora’s box with my last post, I can’t very well back out can I?  Thank you for all the welcoming and interested responses to my previous post!  I once read a book called “How to Make Enemies and Alienate People” . I really hope I have forgotten those lessons. I hope that even if we disagree (while I cannot imagine such a thing, since you know I am right) , we can be friends! (just joking on being right…at least I am not all the time!)

You are all waiting with baited breath to see what I will say. Some of you who have known me for years know what I will say, since I have said it all before in groups and forums when this CR subject came up in passionate, heated debates (not to mention mud slinging).

And again, take heed of my disclaimer. I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY*. I am only providing my interpretations of a complex subject that is based in part on reading the Copyright law, discussing copyright issues with several attorneys, one in particular, and having read a few case studies (and even that was some time ago). If you are in need of a legal decision regarding a copyright issue ***SEE A COPYRIGHT ATTORNEY***.

Ok Kids…please stay seated for the ride, make sure you have your seat belts on and keep your ams and legs (not to mention heads) inside the boat. It could be a rough and stormy ride.

Before I tackle any of the issues that were presented, and in the same manner that laws are written, there are terms and concepts that must clearly be defined before we approach the “meat of the subject”.

Do you know the difference between law and ethics?

The simple distinction is Law is enforceable.  Ethics are may not be.

Law is promulgated by a governing entity such as city, state and of course the Federal Government as in the case of Copyright Law.

Law is defined as:

The principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

Ethics on the other hand is not necessarily law. Some ethical considerations such as: You shall not steal, or You shall not murder are not only laws but ethical considerations as well. Many laws are based just on these two points in ethics: possession and not harming life. But there are some actions that are ethical principles which are not governed by law. Perhaps the current argument of should the mosque be built on “Ground Zero” is an ethical consideration as it certainly is not against the law (Constitution) to do so.

Ethics is defined as:

A system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

Or

The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, cult

Law covers are things that MUST be done, MUST be adhered to and if they are not, certain sanctions can be made against someone who breaks the law (such as fines).

Ethics is something that SHOULD be done, governed perhaps by morals, conscience or just by doing "what is right".

One of the first things that is learned about reading law, is the difference between should/may and must/shall. The former is simply a good idea, either from a moral stand point or good judgment and common sense. The later is you better do it, otherwise you have broken the law.

What makes some laws difficult, is certain “laws” use the word “Should”. For instance, in one of the regulations I enforce under hand protection under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations  §3384  it says:

Wrist watches, rings, or other jewelry should not be worn while working with or around machinery with moving parts in which such objects may be caught, or around electrically energized equipment. (emphasis is mine).

Even if someone gets their fingers caught in a machine due to a ring they are wearing, and loses that finger (amputation), I cannot cite this section without expecting to lose in a hearing. I tried it, only to have my rear booted out the door (figuratively speaking).

So, if you ever read law, be sure to pay mind to the should/shall and may/must distinctions. Also pay attention to the definitions that every regulation sets forth at the beginning.

Phew….

Now, on to the first thrill… and this one is really not so bad (as for ruffling feathers anyways).

First I have to say, I find it hard to believe ANY EDITOR would have printed dribble such as this…and I will quote it again:

“How much do you need to alter a design in order to make it your own? There's a common truism that if you alter 10% of a design, it's sufficiently different to sell as your own. I've heard this as 20% and 30% as well.”  (Emphasis is mine.)

To be fair (and complete), she goes on to say:

“As with many truisms, however, it's not exactly true. You'd be safer to estimate if only 10% of your design is the same as the original, then you can call the new design your own” (again, the emphasis is mine).

To make sure that I am not a complete idiot, and that there is not some obscure definition (#33b?) that I might not know about…I looked up the word truism on dictionairy.com. Truism is defined as:

A self-evident, obvious truth.

Call me confused. First she says that if you alter a design by 10% it is “…sufficiently different to sell as your own.”  Let’s ignore the other percentages. If a 10% change is a truism then of course the other percentages she offers as other truisms would be too as they are greater than 10%. But then she goes on to say :

“As with many truisms, however it’s not exactly true.” (again, emphasis is mine).

WTF????

Just substitute the word “truths” for truism if the word truism bothers you. Or if you really want to get a burr under your saddle, substitute law or copyright law since that is what she is inferring.

This from an editor? No wonder so many people get confused by copyright laws when someone in a position of respect and “trust”, and who should know better, gets it messed up!  Doesn’t anyone proof-read her writing? They better shut down the school where she learned her trade. It is either TRUE or it ISN’T. It is either a TRUISM or it’s NOT. What am I missing about her verbiage?

I better get back in the boat… strap me down, please…

To quote from Circular #14  from the Copyright Office, which is a digest of a portion of the law, it says:

“To be copyrightable, a derivative work must differ sufficiently from the original

to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new

material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting

work will not qualify a work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new

material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and

formatting are not copyrightable.”

A “derivative work” is defined in Title 17 (Copyright Law):

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such

as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion

picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or

any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work

consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications,

which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative

work”.

So…to change a pattern that you see in any fashion is making a “derivative work”.  To make a derivative, do you think that a 10% change is minor or major?

Here is an example. The original design has 900 patterns. A 10% change would mean to change 90 beads. Changing 180 beads would give a 20% change. I don’t think either change is “substantial” do you? 

Yet many people change a couple of colors while keeping the main design element as it was and call it theirs. Or they change the clasp, or make substitutions in the type of bead used and think that it is now their own pattern.

As it was told to me by someone I paid a lot of money to: If someone who is not familiar with either the original design or the “derivative” can see that one design came from another, in all likelihood, the derivative cannot be called a unique pattern.

The whole argument then becomes one of does it differ enough? Since there is no hard and fast guideline as the what “sufficient” is, the matter becomes one for the attorneys to argue about. This is just for the argument of what makes a derivative work, which would make it eligible for another copyright.

Derivative works are also under protection of the original author.

In order for your pattern to be your own, it really has to be very different from another. Who wants to be the first to try to define that matter in a legal arena? If you are copying someone else’s work, or using someone else’s pattern then give credit. Don’t pass it off as your own, even if you make changes along the way.

I think I have run out of space again. So….

To be continued!!

The Word Which Should Not Be Spoken, The Subject That Angels Dare Not Speak Of...

Dare I breathe it? Dare I open Pandora’s Box? Dare I place myself in the midst of circling assassins with machine guns? Dare I say the word that should not be uttered in polite, civil company? Dare I risk turning friends into foes? Dare I risk turning foes into armed persons with a desire to flog me and feed me to the lions?

Should I keep my trap zippered up?

Have I ever been afraid to stand up for what I am passionate (and very opinionated) about? Do I dare bring up this subject and my “Interpretations” on it?

I have boldly gone where angels do not tread before, I have held my banner high, I have stood on my soapbox many times. I have spoke my mind, armed with knowledge that I paid a lot for. I have been turned into a beaders’s  #1 enemy as a result (according to some). A whole Yahoo Group was once formed with the mission statement of putting designers like me (by NAME) in their place. Yes it’s true. On the threat of slander charges, Yahoo promptly removed the idiots. But that might be a story for another time.

So…I will boldly step into the danger zone, armed with my interpretations that come from a source better qualified than me. Interpretation? Or Opinion? There is a difference. Opinion is often not based on fact. It can be based on feelings, antidotal information, and a number of other things that don’t hold water. It is a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. Interpretation is based on digesting facts, figures and other considerations that have some sort of substance, or at least can be cited and backed up. To interpret means: to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate. Which implies some sort of first hand information or exposure to what is being interpreted. It may be a subtle difference, but it is an important one.

Perhaps I should qualify where my “interpretations” come from:

1. I read the documents that govern the word that should not be spoken, I have been trained to read and interpret legalese. I do it all day long in my day job. I have done so for 21+ years. Even though the legal documents I am required to read, interpret and enforce are not the subject of this post, the manner in which the legal documents of which I am about to take head on is written in the same style and manner as the laws I deal with daily (at least when I am not furloughed).
2. I have consulted with an attorney (or three) several times on various issues in this subject. I have asked very specific and pointed questions. Yes even on the EXACT points I will address later on. The attorney I have consulted with in depth specializes in the field in question. Not only that, he has written many books on the subject and is an advocate in this area.
3. I have read several cases that have appeared before the courts, and read the decisions of judges concerning this topic.

Unless you have done at least 2 of the above on the subject whose name should not be spoken, you can not offer up an “interpretation”, at best you might have an “opinion”. What is this “opinion” based on? Hearsay? Mythology? Your own personal wishes? Emotions? 

Opinions aren’t worth anything unless they are based on one of the three points listed above, which would then render the opinion as an interpretation.

Now, my disclaimer:

I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. Although my viewpoints and statements are based on the above 3 points, and I feel I can back them up, the statements I make here are for thought and not for absolutes. I need to say this for obvious reasons. If you want absolutes, talk to an attorney.

Ok here we go! 

Gargoyles, Goddesses, Moses, Buddha, Mary, Joseph ,Jesus and all that is good in this world, save me…I will say the word that should not be uttered…

Deep breath...

Oh dear....

Should I back out?

COPYRIGHT!!!!

There!! I uttered it!

I know for a fact that many of you will not like what I have to say. You will argue that I am wrong. Argue with my copyright attorney. He is the one who gave me the information, the interpretation of the law. I don’t even like some of what I will say. Remember that I am a designer and want my work protected just as much as any designer out there. There are some things that are permitted (to some degree) that I do wish were otherwise.  But it is what it is. If I am going to be in this business, then I have to accept what the law is, or make waves to try to change it.

For the hobbyist, you too may not like what I have to say. As I have written before over numerous occasions, you do not have the right to designer’s hard work, especially for free. And “Free” comes with all sorts of mutations, perhaps some you might not have thought of. Every single one of us, myself included, have violated the “free” aspect at one time or another. Admit it.

What brings me to this volatile discussion besides idiocy on my part? Perhaps my life does not have enough turmoil at the present? (oh if you only knew!!) Perhaps I have a death wish? Perhaps on my mandated furlough days, and being kicked around like a dog in the gutter by my dear Governor, I feel what’s a little more bashing going to do? What the hell…this might take my mind off of my other multitude of  troubles. Or maybe I just want to see who/how many of you REALLY read what I write.

No…just kidding… what brings me to this topic is a friend who brought a current article in a national publication to my attention. Reading between the lines, I could tell she was hoping, if not daring me to address it. The article perpetuates to some degree the MYTH, the FALLACY, the LIE of  how much one only need change a pattern so that someone can call it their own. I quote from the article:

“How much do you need to alter a design in order to make it your own? There's a common truism that if you alter 10% of a design, it's sufficiently different to sell as your own.”

The Editor poses and attempts to answer other common questions:

“Can they sell the pieces they make? Once they've learned the technique, can they teach a class in that technique?”

Now that I set this up…and this post is already getting long. I will leave you to ponder the issues above.   Gather your thoughts, perhaps even your arsenal because as with ANY CR discussion, I am sure that feathers will be ruffled and this won’t be pretty.

I will take a deep breath. I will continue to wonder why I am doing this, because I have said it all before.

And as for my friend who set me up for this…do you believe in Karma???  (Just joking with you! I needed something to write about anyways!  J )

TO BE CONTINUED…..

Bragging Rights: Linda Murray

Linda worked up these panels of which I have several in a series called "Windows of the World" which are inspired by either places I have visited, or hope to visit soon.

Linda made  Windows of the World: India for her son. And Windows of the World: Paris was made for a friend.

I think they make wonderful gifts for a traveler!

Dragon Robe Progress 8/22/10

This is now my 6th week working on this project! Only 15 more rows left for the sleeve! I timed myself on the sleeve. It takes me about 20 min to do one row. (17 inches or 163 beads per row). I will be happy to get past the sleeves to shorter rows.



This first picture shows the whole robe laid out.

This picture shows the front section folded over the back. (I beaded the back first, I am now working on the front.

New Patterns!

I have a couple new patterns on my website. (scroll to the bottom of the page after you click on the link!)

           Naichez, Chiricahua Apache

        Curley Bear, Blackfoot

He Furloughs Me, He Furloughs Me Not, He Furloughs Me....

Ha!! If I thought I was "Dizzy" last week, this week I am so dizzy I could puke. Yesterday, the Supreme Court has stayed the temporary restraining order that kept us from being furloughed.

So, we are off AGAIN! 3 days this month.

I guess I will have more time for beading, but less money to buy beads. Good thing I have a stash.

Oh...how I hate my job. To be a political pawn is no fun.  To see the smirk on GAS's face was enough to make me ill.

Yet, he is hiring a second law firm to represent him in the law suits against him (state tax payer money) and is "borrowing" 65 million from the general fund to build an new death row prison.

And why is he not spending time working on the budget?

If only I could find full time employment in a bead related field! Anyone need an editor? I am all but ready to leave California.

I will go bead, have a nice big glass of herbal iced tea (or a ZOMBIE) and try to be happy.

Please don't tell me others have it worse. That does not help me pay my bills.

The Inconvenience of Convenience

We are hurtling towards a cashless society. No, I don’t mean that we are all broke with empty cashless pockets, although I think most of us are. Cash itself is becoming obsolete.

More and more, we are being coerced into using a cashless method of paying. There was a commercial on TV where a line at a coffee shop was held up by someone who wanted to use cash and not a card to pay for his coffee. Pay and Go. If you use cash, you are just not with it.

What price are we paying for this convenience?

How many of you pay bills on line? Or worse yet, have automatic withdrawals from your bank account, or charges to your credit card to pay for monthly services? Save a stamp. Never be late and incur late fees. Your monthly payment will be $2 less than if you have an automated withdrawal from you account. You are being strong armed into something that is made to look like a wonderful thing.

Here is the obvious dirty secret. It’s the companies, not you, who are the ones that benefit greatly from this ease of payment. They sugar coat it to make you think that they have your best interests in mind.

If you get into this loop of automatic payment, how easy is it to discontinue the service?

Let me tell you first hand, that it is not always easy. It is not always pleasant. It can be down right UGLY.

A few years back, I signed up for an alarm service that I thought would be useful. It was a 3 year contract.  Near the end of the contract, I dutifully sent an email requesting that my account be cancelled. Why an email? Because each time I tried to call, the wait was 45 minutes or more. There is no local office to visit since the local company I had contracted with sold the business to another company in the Midwest.

I thought it was all well and good. I sent it in time (I had to send the request 30 days before the “anniversary” or I would have to continue for another 12 months. Fine print I did not notice until I wanted to cancel. I thought it would go month to month at the end of the contract.)

Then the trouble started. I never got a confirmation. I sent a letter via regular mail. Again no confirmation.

By now the anniversary date had passed (this past April). I was still being charged. I called. I waited the 40 minutes. I was cut off. It was 5:00 their time.

I called the next day. I waited 50 minutes. I got a live body finally. But boy did he give me a ration of shit. Because it was past the anniversary date, and they did not have my request 30 days before the anniversary, I would have to continue for another 12 months. I told him to cancel my account anyways.

He said no, he could not do it without a signature. I told him of the letter I sent. He ignored my claim. He told me to send the letter.

I sent them an email with an attached letter outlining my attempts to close the account and signature, with a request for confirmation. I did this twice in the span of 7 days.

Not one confirmation.

The credit card they billed me under had now expired. I thought this would be finally it. Especially since they started calling me with their automated system asking me to update my credit card information.

No such luck. I guess credit cards will accept the charges for something that has been in the system for a while. A convenience for customers.

Having discovered this, I called the credit card company to put a block on their charges.  I sent the company a certified letter. I also told them that I called the credit card company and that their charges would be blocked. I have a signature that they received the letter during the first week of August. I have yet to receive a confirmation even though I asked for one.

But I am now getting daily automated calls:

“We have been unsuccessful in charging your credit card for the payment of your account. Please call XXXXX to update your account. We will attempt to charge your card again in 2 days.”

No I am not going to call. It is an automated system to update the number. You do not get a live person. To speak to a live person, the wait is still 45 min.

One side note. When I signed up for the service, I REFUSED to give them my social security number. I was not told that I would have to provide it until they installed the system and gave me the paperwork. Since they had a credit card number and my driver’s license number, I told them that was enough. In consideration of identity theft, I do not give out my social security number when I find it unnecessary. I deemed this unnecessary. After much arguement, they relented.

So…I am sure some sort of battle will continue. I have records of most of the attempts of communication. But unfortunately I do not have records of the first couple of attempts to try to close the account. I was too trusting. I should have known better. I do think that their lack of confirmation that has been ongoing shows their track record.

When I called my credit card number to block the charges, I was told that this is a growing problem. They are getting more and more requests to block charges for automatic charges because companies are ignoring requests to close accounts.

I know I am getting older, and I know “Old Folks” like me do get set in their ways, especially for things as they used to be. I refuse to bank on line. I refuse to pay my monthly bills on line. I will pay cash (or check) when I can.

I do not like the “ease” of paying by debit card. I do not like the fact that everywhere I go, they have a customer card. I do not like everyone knowing what I buy and when. There is just something too creepy about it.

I may be one of the few who recognizes AND tries to remain a hold out on the “convenience” of paying by card and paying my monthly bills on line. I think in the end, it will be a major detriment to all of us.

Just try to get out of the system like I am presently with this particular alarm company. You will understand.

Oh...and just call me Old Fuddy Duddy...because I prefer cash, and I prefer my bills to arrive by mail, and to pay by mail. It's worth the cost of a stamp to me.

Tipsy Tuesday, 8/17/10: My #1 Beading Tip!

Today’s Tipsy Tuesday Question is another question by Gill Clarence.
Be sure to keep sending in your questions so that Norm and Barney remain employed!

What's your # 1 beading tip? The "Everyone who beads should know this!"/"I wish I'd known this when I started!" tip?

My Response:

I really had to think hard on this question. I could have given you an answer about buying beads, storing beads or what thread to use. I could have suggested  some cool trick in beading. But everything I thought of, while a good tip, was not something that I thought was something that really would have impacted my beading in a significant way.

Then, finally I thought of something that I think is a worthwhile tip that every beader should use.

“LOSE YOUR FEAR!”

Lose your fear of learning a new stitch. The fear will get in the way of your learning.

Lose your fear of combining and playing with colors. You will never know what wonderful color combinations you might come up with and what a fabulous piece you might create as a result unless you lose the fear of playing with color. Ignore the color theories!!

Lose your fear of stepping outside of the directions for a project. How else do you think new techniques are discovered?

Lose your fear of being different and unique. That is what defines an artist.

Lose your fear just to be you. Who cares what others think. Let this loss of fear carry into every aspect of your life. You will be happier!

Norm the Gnome in the Know’s Response:

My #1 advice?

Keep your spouse happy, and have many friends. That is what makes you happy!

And of course, take time to enjoy the pretty flowers.

Barney the Brainy Bruin’s Response:

Don’t miss a meal. You will never be able to have that meal again. You might have a snack in it’s place, but the moment of the meal is gone! That would be very sad.

If It Is Legal, Does It Make it Right?

I find Religion endlessly fascinating. I have studied it for most of my life time to one degree or another. I have taken Comparative Religion classes, Religious history, and personal exploration of more than one major faith. I have my views as to what God is, and what spin history, culture and man has put on religion and why. As a result, I find that I am very tolerant of most faiths, except for Fundamentalism of any flavor.

The controversy of whether or not a mosque/Islamic center should be built within a couple blocks of the 9-11 “ground zero” has me quite interested. The Constitution does grant our citizens religious freedom. With over 100 mosques in NYC, I think that shows that religious freedom is doing well.

But does religious freedom give the right for impropriety? Does religious freedom mean self centered inconsideration should go without a challenge?

The right to do something should not be confused with whether or not doing something is proper. Just because you can do something does not always mean that that right should be exercised. Sometimes the consideration of others should trump the legal ability to carry the action out.

I believe that this issue is not so much a legal or Constitutional issue as it is one of doing the right thing, having respect for others involved and giving way to the bigger issues. Many Americans were killed at the hands of Islamic Terrorists. To build a mosque, led by a “moderate” Imam so near ground zero is not the right thing to do.

I do not believe that ALL Islam is fanatical. I do not believe that ALL Islam is out to commit jihad any more than I believe that all Christians felt it was right to slay non converting Native Peoples in the early days of settling this continent.  We must not forget that there are those who use Religion as a means to carry out their political goals. So the danger is in criticizing Islam as a whole instead of the parts.

I believe that religion is a faith, not a truth. Sure, religion is a truth to the believers of a particular religion. But WHICH religion is the truth? Even a single religion such as Christianity cannot agree on the details of what truths there are. Our Constitution grants us the right to follow the faith we wish. We can believe it to be true, but someone else has just as much of a right to believe their faith to be the truth too.

I hope that in the end, if for no other reason than humanity and good will, the mosque will not be built near ground zero. Kindness, consideration and love should be the deciding factor, not legalities.

May God will it,

Inshallah,

Namaste,

Shalom

And it harms none, do what thy will

And above all…peace and love.

Can You Believe It? It's Been a Whole Year!!

Wow!! I can hardly believe it, can you? I have been writing this blog for a full year!! What started as a folly, and as an “experiment” is still on going. I never thought that I would be at this for this long.

I never thought that I could write as much as I have. True, sometimes when I sat at the keyboard, I really had no idea as to what I would write about until I started typing. Funny how that happens.

Since this is my blogging anniversary, I think it is time for me to look at what I have done, and chart out a course for the future.

And the big question, Why the Hell am I doing this?

Well, of course...I am waiting to be "discovered". Where are the publishing agents? Isn't "my story" good enough for you movie mogul types?

Nah...I never had those kind of thoughts. That is why I called this blog "Nonsense and Complete Waste of Time". Most blogs are just that. Mine is no different.

But still, I have to ask: What worked? What didn’t?

I have covered a whole variety of topics. I never intended this to be a Bead-Only blog (boring). I wanted the freedom to cover whatever came into my mind. This past year, I wrote about beads, wrote a couple of “beading songs”, told you my life story, and some **Very** personal things, some quite painful. I talked about my daughter, my job, politics, a bit about my travels, I warned you about scammers and I held my first ever contest. I hired Norm and Barney to help out on Tipsy Tuesdays, and I told you about the story of Norm’s disappearance and how Barney finally found him.

My personal favorite posts were:  Six Legged Terrorists (Oct 14, 2009), Oh Boogers (Aug 29, 2009), My Morning Shopping Needs (Sept 3 2009), Porn (Sept 16, 2009),  Fantasy Island Music Challenge (May 17, 2010), Bead Personal Ads (Jan 20, 2010). There are others I was especially happy with, but I think I had the most fun with these.

I tried to coax your input, I have tried to engage you and pike your interest (Just what will she write about next?) so that you would join as a follower, or at least visit frequently. I tried to inform, help, encourage, inspire and most of all, entertain you. I hope I have been successful in all of these.

Where to next?

I don’t know.

I just hope I don't run out of steam and fall flat on my face. It's not easy to keep writing away, post after post. Just what will I write about next?

I would like YOUR input. What did you like? What didn’t you like? What would you like to see more of? What makes you keep coming back?

I am working on ideas for the next challenge. I am wavering…(an easy) 3D fish or bee theme? Pine cone theme? Or something totally different, perhaps tassels? Again, I am open to input. I am thinking of making kits available in October/November with project due date in Jan/Feb. Ideas? Thoughts?

What do you really think of Barney and Norm? Should they continue? Do you like them? I have someone else waiting in the wings who is wanting to add her 2 cents to my blog. I have to work out the details before I dare to bring in Miserable Mabel. I think she will be a handful.

Although I am the one writing this blog,  I want it to be your place too. I would love you to participate as much as you see fit. The more the better! I love the 2-way interaction so that I don’t feel like I am just spouting off to myself.

How about a guest post? Anyone interested in writing something?

I hope to hear from YOU. Throw ideas and thoughts at me. There is always room for improvement in this blogging-hobby I started!

Any Publishing Agents or Movie-Moguls out there? Don't be shy in contacting me!!  I am easy to deal with! :)

Oh...and everyone, please go and have a fruity drink rum drink (or 2) to celebrate my 1 year anniversary with me!

Mai Tai

• Garnish: pineapple and cherry
• 2 oz. dark rum
• 1oz. orgeat syrup
• 2 oz. light rum
• 1 oz. grenadine
• 2 oz. triple sec
• 1 oz. lime juice

Zombie


1.0 oz Apricot Brandy
0.5 oz Grenadine
1.0 cup crushed Ice
2.0 each cubes Ice
1.0 each slice Lemon
1.0 dashes Lime juice
2.0 oz Orange Juice 
1.0 oz 151 Rum
1.0 oz dark Rum
2.0 oz Sour mix
0.5 oz Triple sec