Copyright laws for selling homemade clothes Basically, when you buy a pattern, you are technically buying a license to make one of the item the pattern is for.You are, in theory, supposed to buy additional copies of the pattern if you make additional pieces.The item of clothing made from it is not.The only exception is if the clothing is a work of art in its own right, but the law on that one is pretty murky. With patterned fabric, you’re definitely okay as long as you buy all of the fabric you’re using rather than trying to make your own fabric in the same pattern.You own the fabric, so you’re allowed to sell it to someone else, and if they want to buy it from you all cut up and sewn back together in a dress shape, instead of in a nice, neat roll the way you bought it, that’s between you and them.For example, if you bought a bunch of leather printed with the louis vuitton logo, made handbags out of them, and then sold the handbags, you’d be guilty of trademark infringement. Posted by amy phillips at 11:02 PM on September 20, 2006 Actually, i think you might be wrong on the patterned fabric, amy.My mom recently made me a quilt using commercially printed star wars fabric.Apparently the fabric actually came with a license agreement that stated that she wasn’t allowed to make something and then resell it.We’ve discussed this issue somewhere on mefi before with regards to decoupage.I’m trying to find the discussion now. Posted by web goddess at ralph lauren sale uk 11:50 PM on September 20, 2006 I found it!Here it is.The relevant bit of information someone gave me: Web goddess, to clarify:You could certainly resell the fabric itself.Nothing wrong with that.I know there are issues around, for example, using amy butler’s fabrics to make items to sell.In reality, no fabric designer is really going to care too much if you sell a couple of items at a local craft fair, but if you’re making, say, bags with a particular fabric designer’s fabric, they may have licensing fees. It’s louboutin sale worth checking with the manufacturer or designer. Posted by girlgeeknz at 12:03 ralph lauren pas cher homme AM on September 21, 2006 Most sewing patterns will have a note somewhere saying”Not for commercial use. “It’s a no no to make up a bunch of, say, simplicity dresses for sale. Fabric varies;As mentioned, amy butler recently changed her previous have at it policy to a more restricted licensing policy.It may still be possible to get permission to sell products using her fabric, but you’d need to jump through some hoops. If you’re buying yardage from the fabric store, there is usually information about the maker, and if you’re lucky, contact information, louis vuitton outlet printed along the selvedge.If in doubt, it’s probably a good idea to contact the company. Posted by hilatron at 4:58 AM on September 21, 2006 I do remember discussions in fashion magazines and other ralph lauren outlet places about this law.You should be able to find some kind of statement on the patterns that you can buy from fabric shops or even in the catalogs of patterns that are made available.You are buying a license to use that pattern for personal use.The same goes for wood patterns or any other plans you buy.They are for personal use only.You technically can’t sell designs you’ve bought from another source. This rule also goes for quilt patterns.Not that i know of too many quiltmakers suing each other over ip debates, but this is somethign to keep in mind when developing a quilt. For patterned fabric, as long as you are using it in a transformative manner, there’s no issue.You can make a quilt from the fabric if you mix it up with other fabrics.They ar erequired by law to protect their brand or lose it. Posted by rodz at 6:31 AM on September 21, 2006 Rodz writes”They ar erequired by law to protect their brand or lose it. ” No they aren’t, only trademarks must be actively protected. Posted by mitheral at 6:55 AM on September 21, 2006 I’m a little confused by the answers here.So making clothing from a commercial pattern should be fine.Clothing design is considered utilitarian. (There has been some movement recently to protect clothing design, but legislation has not yet been enacted. )It’s thus traditionally unprotected.Contrast costumes, which can in some circumstances be protected. Now, printed fabrics are perhaps a more interesting story.The historical rule was that the design of the fabric was one of the things that inherently gave the fabric utilitarian use, and so that design could not be protected.A good case discussing some of this is folio impressions, inc.V.Byer california, 937 f.2d 759(2d Cir.1991).But that implied license can be unimplied i guess this is why companies have started including licensing agreements.
Leave a Reply