pattern books was art books

> The copyright was on the pattern book itself; thus,
> the copyright owner has the right to reproduce, distri-
> bute the work, etc. What a ridiculous idea to publish
> a book of patterns and then try to say no one can sell
> stained glass objects from that pattern. Why produce
> the book?

Mary's point, I believe, went to the heart of what can be protected by copyright. The relationship between patterns and the object the patterns result in is broadly analogous to that between architectural drawings and buldings -- except that in the architectural area buldings, now have some protection too. If the glass objects themselves are copyright protected (which is by no means a given in this discussion), then why should anyone be able to copy them whether they use the drawings or not?

Lolly's point (quoted in part above) is different, however. Her argument is one that I've seen also applied to clip art -- if the publisher didn't expect it to be clipped and copied, what is the point of selling it? This is, in effect, an implied license argument -- that copying that would otherwise be an infringement is implicitly authorized by the nature of the work. I wouln't rely on this argument very far, however. Explicit terms over ride implicit ones every time. Some clip art and like works do give explicit permission to copy, as long as you don't copy the work as a whole (among other things). Where permission isn't explicitly given, I suggest treading carefully.

• Charles

Charles B. Kramer

• Attorney - New York, New York

   CompuServe: 72600,2026
>From Internet: 72600.2026[_at_]compuserve.com

          TEL: 212-254-5093
          FAX: 212-254-0214