07.19.08
Posted in Anecdotes, Copyright at 12:23 pm by Administrator
In an antiques store this past week, I picked up a little booklet that contains a play that was published in 1924. I haven’t gotten beyond the lengthy copyright page. Since this was published before 1929, I can share it with you.
“The Patchwork Quilt”
Reprinted by permission of the author and the publisher, Charles Scribner’s Sons, from the volume, Six Plays.
COPYRIGHT, 1924, BY CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Especial notice should be taken that the possession of this book without a valid contract for production first having been obtained from the publisher, confers no right or license to professionals or amateurs to produce the play publicly or in private for gain or charity.
In its present form this play is dedicated to the reading public only, and no performance, representation, production, recitation, or public reading, or radio broadcasting may be given except by special arrangement with SAMUEL FRENCH, 25 West 45th Street, New York, one week before the date when the play is given.
Whenever the play is produced the following notice must appear on all programs, printing and advertising for the play: “Produced by special arrangement with SAMUEL FRENCH of New York.”
Attention is called to the penalty provided by law for any infringement of the author’s rights, as follows :
“SECTION 4966: - Any person publicly performing or representing any dramatic or musical composition for which copyright has been obtained, without the consent of the proprietor of said dramatic or musical composition, or his heirs and assigns, shall be liable for damages thereof, such damages, in all cases to be assessed at such sum, not less than one hundred dollars for the first and fifty dollars for every subsequent performance, as to the court shall appear to be just. If the unlawful performance and representation be wilful for profit, such person or persons shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be imprisoned for a period not exceeding one year.” - U.S. Revised Statutes : Title 60, Chap. 3.
Ed. Note: I was waiting to hear that said offenders would have one ear cut off and be put in the stocks for two weeks, followed by a jail term. I guess the people who decide such legalities were feeling particularly benevolent that day.
To tell you the truth, after reading the whole disclaimer, I have not had the time or energy to go back to this small pamphlet, to read the play. I’m sure many people today would be pleased, if only a fifty dollar penalty were required for violating copyright.
Patricia Cummings
Permalink
12.30.07
Posted in Copyright at 2:26 pm by Administrator
This blog is a continuation of an ongoing discussion about a quilt guild’s copyright problem. If you are just visiting the blog for the first time, please take the time to scroll back a few days to find out what is going on.
~~~~~~~
This morning, I visited some of the archived letters, online, of the Amador Quilt Guild, the California Guild that involved itself in a legal struggle with a designer over the use of her designs.
In January 2007, the president’s message stated, “The guild is confronted with a difficult situation … First, the artistic and creative capabilities of the guild are being challenged … We are reassembling all of the original artwork used to create the blocks.” She further states that a new quilt would be assembled by Linda Schmidt, and in the February 2007 newsletter she announced that a quilt called, “Water Music,’ had been prepared under Linda’s guidance.
An online list notes that the designer had given permission to use her designs but balked at them being used in the border. Yet another source states that there seems to have been no problem until the guild began offering patterns for the quilt at $65.00, or $70.00 for non-members, a pattern packet that apparently included copyrighted material. Reportedly, the guild has already earned back half of the $36,000. spent in legal fees.
What a sad and confusing situation! Of course, I have not heard directly from any of the parties involved. Why? Well, it seems that the court gave them a gag order not to discuss the case, as part of the settlement. The case was settled in October 2007.
That said, I suppose we will not know any more about this, and therefore, an opportunity to learn has been lost among dirty little secrets. No one whom I know has the full facts, and I suspect, never will have.
The only advice I can give to potential “opportunity quilt” makers in the future is to design your own quilt. There will be a lot more satisfaction in that process, at any rate. Perhaps the only way to totally avoid the mean spirited ways of designers is to boycott their products, and perhaps, even their classes and books, as some quilters have already suggested doing.
I can think of no other real solution other than to rely on your own creative and artistic impulses when designing and making any quilt. Alternately, you could find quilt blocks that are public domain material. For one, I’m disgusted that this whole sorry mess was ever brought to my attention. See what can happen when there are no clear communications (permissions) in place, in writing?
Misunderstandings can easily arise. In this legal case, the outcome seems to have been a lose-lose verdict, except for the benefit of alerting the rest of the quilt world to the kinds of issues that are currently arising. Those with the best of intentions can err in their eagerness to share creative works to bring a little beauty to the lives of others. On the other hand, the rights of designers should be respected, too. There has to be a happy balance somewhere in the mix.
Patricia Cummings
Permalink
Posted in Copyright at 3:15 am by Administrator
The person who originally reported about the copyright lawsuit in California has sent an update. Apparently, she is not a member of the guild in question.
Joanne writes:
Though I received the story directly from a member, it was I who concluded the problem came from an individual block. Since then I have read their archived newsletters and knowing the name of the plaintiff also viewed her website, I have concluded that the problem probably arose from the use of her quilting designs and then in an added layer of error the guild decided to sell patterns. They likely received permission to use the quilting designs but overstepped the permission when they wanted to sell the patterns. I have no proof of these conclusions, but that is likely why the quilt had to be withdrawn from any public viewing - it had overall Sashiko quilting.
My reaction to this note is one of surprise. I also wonder what is so special about any particular Sashiko quilting stitches. There are many traditional Japanese Sashiko stitching patterns, so why would these stitch units have been so unique that the quilt had to be confiscated?
I can see that this situation is probably more complicated than I had first thought.
As of just a few minutes ago, when I checked my e-mail, I had received no statement or answers to my questions from the plaintiff.
The only way any of us will “win,” in this situation, is if all the facts are put on the table so that quilters can learn vicariously from the mistake(s) surrounding what happened. It is unfortunate that this information was presented by the letter writer, before all the facts were known.
Joanne’s intention seems to have been to warn quilters to be aware that they do not infringe on the rights of copyright holders. She was using this lawsuit as an example of what can happen. I still would appreciate knowing the particulars from those “in the know.” If quilters can’t understand exactly what was done that is questionable, the lawsuit was an exercise in futility that simply appears odious and insufferable to those “not in the know.” Not understanding the problem may result in future, similar issues.
So, here we wait. I am ready and willing to correct the record at any time, and I always stand on the side of truth and justice. Your comments are always welcome.
Patricia Cummings
Permalink
« Previous entries
