Re: Reproduction of pattern v. finished work

On Tue, May 05, 1998, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> (US law answer)
>
> I would conclude that the people who have bought the pattern purchased,
> along with the pattern, an implied, nonexclusive license to create a
> derivative work *and*, as a logical and legal consequence, to own any
> copyright in that derivative work (I'm assuming enough creativity in the
> finished product to satisfy the threshold of originality demanded by
> copyright). Of course, assuming that there is no writing to this effect
> or even an express oral agreement, one has to hop the implied road just
> to get there.

I'm not sure that the finished product will always have enough creativity to satisfy the originality threshold. Sometimes the work will be made exactly to the specifications in the pattern; sometimes not and even then at varying degrees of departure from the original pattern.

Why is display on the web different than display elsewhere? Is it only because of the potential for copying of the design? What is the authority for the distinction? The designer makes money from the purchase of a pattern knowing that it is purchased with the intention of creating the finished piece. Unquestionably, copying the pattern itself is a violation. But, once the finished piece is created, does the designer really have that much control over its use? Is there a difference between where I give the finished piece as a gift to someone who copies it without my knowledge and where I display a photograph of the piece of the web and someone copies it (also without my knowledge)? Am I making a "copy" if I put it on the web? Where does copyright law end and personal property law begin?

--Karin Blue
<bluewr[_at_]iquest.net> Received on Wed May 06 1998 - 19:12:22 GMT