Re: pattern books was art books

> Received: From JOHN_MARSHALL/MAILQUEUE by law33.jmls.edu
> via Charon-4.0-VROOM with IPX id 102.930505185512.352;
> 05 May 93 18:56:13 +600
> Received: From a.cni.org by law33.jmls.edu
> via Charon-4.0-VROOM with SMTP id 102.930505185512.352;
> 05 May 93 18:55:34 +600
> Received: by a.cni.org id <AA13032[_at_]a.cni.org>; Wed, 5 May 93 17:50:12 -0400
> Date: Wed, 5 May 93 17:50:12 -0400
> Message-Id: <930503230907_72600.2026_EHA45-1[_at_]CompuServe.COM>
> Comment: CNI Copyright and Intellectual Property Forum
> Originator: cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org
> Errors-To: mjensen[_at_]charlie.usd.edu
> Reply-To: <cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org>
> Sender: cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org
> Version: 5.5 -- Copyright (c) 1991/92, Anastasios Kotsikonas
> From: "Charles B. Kramer, Esq." <72600.2026[_at_]CompuServe.COM>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org>
> Subject: 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
>
>Hello, Charles,

Thanks for your comments regarding copyright and the pattern book. I attended John Marshall Law School with a Charley Kramer who I was later told was practicing law in New York. Just curious, are you that Charles Kramer?

> Mike Reddy
Received on Thu May 06 1993 - 16:31:03 GMT