Re: Reproduction of pattern v. finished work

From: Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 17:28:18 -0700

On 5/7/98, Ron Abramson <abramson[_at_]hugheshubbard.com> wrote:
>
> Absent some agreement or very conspicuous statement to the contrary,
> I'd say that it's implied in the sale of the pattern (or the package
> containing the pattern) that the purchaser will use the pattern to make
> one copy in the form of finished needlework. Otherwise, the original
> transaction would likely be pointless (or deceptive). As the lawful
> owner of that copy, the purchaser could publicly display it to "viewers
> present at the place where the copy is located." However, I don't see
> this logic extending so far as to imply a license for the purchaser to
> make ANOTHER copy in the form of a photographic or video image, and then
> to PUBLICLY DISPLAY that copy on a Web page. Any right to do this would
> have to flow from the doctrine of fair use, which would be a very fact
> driven inquiry.

I'm not sure that I agree, but I confess it's not a simple question. At the outset, we assume that the pattern itself is a copyrighted work and that some sort of implied license has been given the purchaser. Fine. But what is the finished product? If it is a reproduction of the pattern, then I think your logic is straightforward and we are done. Only one copy can be made and that copy has the same restrictions that any lawfully owned copy has. But what if, as I said in my first post responding to this question, it's a derivative work? Just as with the reproduction right, the pattern copyright owner can grant a license to the purchaser to prepare a derivative work, but then that derivative work, assuming it has sufficient originality, has its own copyrightability, in which case this same unwritten, implied license has to limit the scope of that copyright as well. Yet, the pattern copyright owner can't own the copyright of the end product because he isn't the author of it, so does this more-and-more complex license imply a transfer of ownership? But a transfer must be in writing, so where are we now?

---

Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
UCLA School of Law '98
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1206/

---

Received on Sat May 09 1998 - 00:27:14 GMT