Crafting etiquette and intellectual property
January 18, 2016 8:36 AM Subscribe
It's often possible to look at hand-made items, figure out more or less how they were constructed, and make something similar. What's the consensus about where this crosses the line between inspiration and stealing?
I'll take knitting as an example. I'd say it's totally fine to see a sweater you like out in the wild and make yourself a similar one. And it's definitely wrong to leaf through a pattern book in a store, snap a picture of the page with a pattern you want, make the item, and sell it.
But what if you don't sell it? And what if you don't take a photo, but just remember the pictures and description? What if you figure out how a stitch motif must work and use it on a different item? How much inspiration can you take from a pattern before you really ought to buy it? Does it matter how complex the pattern is - are some things considered basic enough that you shouldn't have to pay for them? Is the sticking point the fact that you could have bought the pattern and chose not to? If you make something you consider simple, is it wrong to publish the pattern for free if others are selling similar patterns?
To sum up, my question is: is there a consensus in the crafting community about where to draw the line between inspiration and stealing, and if so, what is it?
I'll take knitting as an example. I'd say it's totally fine to see a sweater you like out in the wild and make yourself a similar one. And it's definitely wrong to leaf through a pattern book in a store, snap a picture of the page with a pattern you want, make the item, and sell it.
But what if you don't sell it? And what if you don't take a photo, but just remember the pictures and description? What if you figure out how a stitch motif must work and use it on a different item? How much inspiration can you take from a pattern before you really ought to buy it? Does it matter how complex the pattern is - are some things considered basic enough that you shouldn't have to pay for them? Is the sticking point the fact that you could have bought the pattern and chose not to? If you make something you consider simple, is it wrong to publish the pattern for free if others are selling similar patterns?
To sum up, my question is: is there a consensus in the crafting community about where to draw the line between inspiration and stealing, and if so, what is it?
Cooking is kind of a craft, right? Here's the Washington Post on "Can a Recipe Be Stolen?", and David Lebovitz on Recipe Attribution (check out the wealth of links at the bottom).
In short, copyright law is not very strong on recipes (so it's mostly legal) but I don't think there's really a consensus on where the ethical line is. Breaches, and the consequences of those breaches, depend on:
-how high-profile the original work and the derivative work are
-whether the original work and/or the derivative work are being sold
-attribution
-originality
-origins of the pattern (for instance, if it was a distinct pattern from some culture)
It's definitely wrong to leaf through a pattern book in a store, snap a picture of the page with a pattern you want, make the item, and sell it.
I'm not even sure there would be consensus on that. Not buying the book is a jerk move, but people probably sell sweaters from commercial patterns on Etsy all the time. Urban Outfitters selling that sweater would be a different story.
posted by R a c h e l at 8:56 AM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
In short, copyright law is not very strong on recipes (so it's mostly legal) but I don't think there's really a consensus on where the ethical line is. Breaches, and the consequences of those breaches, depend on:
-how high-profile the original work and the derivative work are
-whether the original work and/or the derivative work are being sold
-attribution
-originality
-origins of the pattern (for instance, if it was a distinct pattern from some culture)
It's definitely wrong to leaf through a pattern book in a store, snap a picture of the page with a pattern you want, make the item, and sell it.
I'm not even sure there would be consensus on that. Not buying the book is a jerk move, but people probably sell sweaters from commercial patterns on Etsy all the time. Urban Outfitters selling that sweater would be a different story.
posted by R a c h e l at 8:56 AM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
And it's definitely wrong to leaf through a pattern book in a store, snap a picture of the page with a pattern you want, make the item, and sell it.
I feel like finding the line might depend on understanding WHY this one would be wrong. I mean you could get the book at the library, photocopy the page and make the item and sell it, right? Copyright protects the pattern, not the item made from the pattern. So what's wrong with this exactly? Is it that you weren't entitled to access the book because you hadn't bought it yet? (after all, you could take a pic of that library book page instead of using a photocopier and that would be ok. You could borrow the book from a friend and copy or photograph the page). So what's the problem with your bookstore instance?
Also, you may be interested in this.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:56 AM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I feel like finding the line might depend on understanding WHY this one would be wrong. I mean you could get the book at the library, photocopy the page and make the item and sell it, right? Copyright protects the pattern, not the item made from the pattern. So what's wrong with this exactly? Is it that you weren't entitled to access the book because you hadn't bought it yet? (after all, you could take a pic of that library book page instead of using a photocopier and that would be ok. You could borrow the book from a friend and copy or photograph the page). So what's the problem with your bookstore instance?
Also, you may be interested in this.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:56 AM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Best answer: it's definitely wrong to leaf through a pattern book in a store, snap a picture of the page with a pattern you want, make the item, and sell it
i think a major reason why this feels so bad has nothing to do with copyright and a lot to do with how you behave as part of a community. a (small, local) store that you rely on needs to sell books to make money. using the store like a library, when it has no financial support from tax etc, feels wrong to most people: if you want to be part of a community that has small (commercial) shops, you need to spend money there and not freeride.
posted by andrewcooke at 9:05 AM on January 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
i think a major reason why this feels so bad has nothing to do with copyright and a lot to do with how you behave as part of a community. a (small, local) store that you rely on needs to sell books to make money. using the store like a library, when it has no financial support from tax etc, feels wrong to most people: if you want to be part of a community that has small (commercial) shops, you need to spend money there and not freeride.
posted by andrewcooke at 9:05 AM on January 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Response by poster: Yeah, I'm really asking about the "good crafting citizen" line, not so much the copyright infringement line - although the copyright information is definitely interesting!
posted by zeptoweasel at 9:14 AM on January 18, 2016
posted by zeptoweasel at 9:14 AM on January 18, 2016
Well from a good citizen perspective, you can use the same standard/rule of thumb you would use for any other kind of good citizenship. I'm fond of John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness, where fairness is defined as asking yourself "If everyone did what I did, would I still be able to do it (and benefit from it)?" So for example, if you don't pay your bus fare, that's not fair because if nobody paid their bus fare, the bus couldn't run.
By that measure, the bookstore thing is wrong for exactly the reason andrewcooke said: If everybody just took pictures of books in bookstores, the bookstore couldn't survive and you couldn't take a picture. It's ok in the library though because if everyone photocopied a page, that would just make it easier for you to access the book.
It seems like the same standard could be used for any of the examples.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:20 AM on January 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
By that measure, the bookstore thing is wrong for exactly the reason andrewcooke said: If everybody just took pictures of books in bookstores, the bookstore couldn't survive and you couldn't take a picture. It's ok in the library though because if everyone photocopied a page, that would just make it easier for you to access the book.
It seems like the same standard could be used for any of the examples.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:20 AM on January 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
Best answer: To me, it hinges on whether the thing that I see is the ultimate expression of the idea. When I see the existing item made by somebody else, do I (a) want to make one of those, or (b) want to make something like that but better. And I don't feel much guilt at all if I'm at option b. Even with option a, I kind of draw a line between "I want to make one exactly like that so I can have an item x at my house" and "I want to make one as exactly like that as I can manage to challenge my crafting ability". (and it's probably worth pointing out I've never sold a craft in my life and never will, it's all about the satisfaction of making things, and about christmas gifts for friends)
posted by aimedwander at 9:37 AM on January 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by aimedwander at 9:37 AM on January 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
In my opinion, it's all fair game unless you're selling it. If you're selling it in direct competition with your inspiration, and didn't substantially change the product from theirs, that's problematic.
posted by metasarah at 9:39 AM on January 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by metasarah at 9:39 AM on January 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
It really seems to me that the main issue arises if you would be a) selling the things for your own profit, or b) taking the credit for the thing in its entirety.
To use the cooking example: if I make an Ottolenghi recipe for my friends at my home, everyone would be very pleased and nobody would think less of me if I said "oh, it's an Ottolenghi recipe." Nobody would think I had unduly stolen Ottolenghi's work.
If on the other hand I pretend that it's MY recipe, well, I'm kind of being a jerk. This obviously wouldn't be actionable, but people would probably think less of me.
Finally, if I wanted to open a restaurant and serve Ottolenghi's dishes but not credit him or partner with him, that would be shitty indeed, and probably actionable if proven.
Obviously these things can get a lot more granularly complicated (what if I got my Ottolenghi recipe from a blog that was using it without permission? Well, a person should probably try to exercise due diligence, but I don't think my community as a whole would condemn me), but basically--don't try to claim credit you don't deserve, and don't try to profit off someone else's hard work, and you're good.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 9:41 AM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
To use the cooking example: if I make an Ottolenghi recipe for my friends at my home, everyone would be very pleased and nobody would think less of me if I said "oh, it's an Ottolenghi recipe." Nobody would think I had unduly stolen Ottolenghi's work.
If on the other hand I pretend that it's MY recipe, well, I'm kind of being a jerk. This obviously wouldn't be actionable, but people would probably think less of me.
Finally, if I wanted to open a restaurant and serve Ottolenghi's dishes but not credit him or partner with him, that would be shitty indeed, and probably actionable if proven.
Obviously these things can get a lot more granularly complicated (what if I got my Ottolenghi recipe from a blog that was using it without permission? Well, a person should probably try to exercise due diligence, but I don't think my community as a whole would condemn me), but basically--don't try to claim credit you don't deserve, and don't try to profit off someone else's hard work, and you're good.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 9:41 AM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I'm a knitter, though I only speak for myself and not all knitters everywhere. There have been times when I've been able to reverse-engineer a pattern for sale just by looking at the finished garment. I'd never sell the new pattern, or any finished product using it.
Different pattern designers have different rules about selling finished objects made from their patterns. I've seen some designers say "go ahead, just credit me as the designer." Many crafts, especially handknits, have an abysmally low profit margin, so it's not worth going after someone who sells a $250 cabled sweater off a $5 pattern (using $50-100 of yarn and 20-40 hours of work). Mass production is different, of course; if Urban Outfitters steals your design you're kinda boned. (Which is why they steal indie designs all the time; they know you can't fight back.)
I have seen "piggyback" patterns and project notes on Ravelry that take a paid pattern and mention the modifications the knitter made, but require the original pattern to make sense. These are generally free, so the pattern modifier isn't profiting from the original designer's work. This seems like an elegant solution to me.
I have also seen patterns for sale that are basic enough for any knitter to figure out; for example, a rectangular scarf with a straightforward rib stitch pattern. I don't think people generally get up in arms about patterns like that being offered for sale, mostly because the market sorts it out: if it's easy enough, there will already be a bunch of identical free patterns available, or people will independently figure out how to create something similar with elementary knowledge.
I'll add that very few patterns reinvent the wheel: many use techniques, stitch patterns, and construction that have been available elsewhere for years. I regularly pay for patterns that I could mostly figure out myself; when I buy a pattern I'm paying for not only instructions, but some level of assurance that following the instructions will produce a finished product of decent quality. I may alter a sweater pattern a little by shortening the sleeves or making it seamless, but I expect the arms to meet the body in the right place and for things not to pucker or hang weirdly due to design flaws.
posted by Metroid Baby at 9:44 AM on January 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Different pattern designers have different rules about selling finished objects made from their patterns. I've seen some designers say "go ahead, just credit me as the designer." Many crafts, especially handknits, have an abysmally low profit margin, so it's not worth going after someone who sells a $250 cabled sweater off a $5 pattern (using $50-100 of yarn and 20-40 hours of work). Mass production is different, of course; if Urban Outfitters steals your design you're kinda boned. (Which is why they steal indie designs all the time; they know you can't fight back.)
I have seen "piggyback" patterns and project notes on Ravelry that take a paid pattern and mention the modifications the knitter made, but require the original pattern to make sense. These are generally free, so the pattern modifier isn't profiting from the original designer's work. This seems like an elegant solution to me.
I have also seen patterns for sale that are basic enough for any knitter to figure out; for example, a rectangular scarf with a straightforward rib stitch pattern. I don't think people generally get up in arms about patterns like that being offered for sale, mostly because the market sorts it out: if it's easy enough, there will already be a bunch of identical free patterns available, or people will independently figure out how to create something similar with elementary knowledge.
I'll add that very few patterns reinvent the wheel: many use techniques, stitch patterns, and construction that have been available elsewhere for years. I regularly pay for patterns that I could mostly figure out myself; when I buy a pattern I'm paying for not only instructions, but some level of assurance that following the instructions will produce a finished product of decent quality. I may alter a sweater pattern a little by shortening the sleeves or making it seamless, but I expect the arms to meet the body in the right place and for things not to pucker or hang weirdly due to design flaws.
posted by Metroid Baby at 9:44 AM on January 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
As a crafter, I use my buying power to keep the things I value on the shelves. I purchase patterns because I want patterns to continue to be available to me. I am loyal to a certain companies because I want them to continue to supply me with their products. That being said, if I see something simple that I know I could do on my own and possibly improve on, I go ahead and do it. If I improve on it, then I can share my pattern freely. I only sell original patterns, though.
Basically, if it feels wrong, then don't do it, and understand that your standards may not be shared by others.
posted by myselfasme at 9:58 AM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Basically, if it feels wrong, then don't do it, and understand that your standards may not be shared by others.
posted by myselfasme at 9:58 AM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I nth that where everyone gets upset is if you steal credit and/or try to make money off of it. Or really, if enough people/the designer find out about it. If you do it and then don't announce it online/to your entire knitting group, and don't try to make money, you could probably get away with it.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:02 AM on January 18, 2016
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:02 AM on January 18, 2016
I don't think there is a "consensus" -- different communities have different norms. They may reflect legal interpretations of copyright (i.e., fair use, profit motive, etc.) or something else entirely.
Even within communities - people can sometimes vary wildly. In ceramics, for example, most people will share their glaze recipes freely...but there are a few specialists who've worked a long time to come up with particular combination of ingredients, and they are loathe to even discuss it.
A colleague of mine is a computer scientist/crafter/IP attorney who writes about these things on her blog. She talks about it more related to digital creations and "remix culture" - but a lot of the conversations speak to your question I think.
posted by pantarei70 at 10:31 AM on January 18, 2016
Even within communities - people can sometimes vary wildly. In ceramics, for example, most people will share their glaze recipes freely...but there are a few specialists who've worked a long time to come up with particular combination of ingredients, and they are loathe to even discuss it.
A colleague of mine is a computer scientist/crafter/IP attorney who writes about these things on her blog. She talks about it more related to digital creations and "remix culture" - but a lot of the conversations speak to your question I think.
posted by pantarei70 at 10:31 AM on January 18, 2016
I don't think there is a consensus, but I think it's universally fairly difficult to disparage someone who genuinely brings something to the table, ie they have taken a concept and improved on it in some way (even if only an "improvement" in that one specific context). Basically, their copy isn't mindless. For best results, the amount you added ought to scale with the amount you took.
posted by anonymisc at 10:32 AM on January 18, 2016
posted by anonymisc at 10:32 AM on January 18, 2016
My personal rules - if I didn't do *most* of the design work myself, I would consider it douchey to sell the items commercially. This means: while I might get a stitch or a border out of a stitch dictionary, and riff off of a traditional construction, such as raglan, if the specific combination of most design elements came from somewhere else, I shouldn't profit off that.
However, I don't sell crafts for a whole number of other reasons (mostly, the time/resource cost is generally way higher than what the public is willing to pay), so take that for what you will. However, even when it comes to taking credit, if most of my knitting design comes from a particular pattern and I only altered a few elements, it seems ethical to credit the original designer. I mean, if I write an essay and a great deal of my thinking is influenced from a particular source, you can be damn sure I'd credit that source - why should I act any differently when it's a creative/crafty pursuit?
posted by Kurichina at 11:46 AM on January 18, 2016
However, I don't sell crafts for a whole number of other reasons (mostly, the time/resource cost is generally way higher than what the public is willing to pay), so take that for what you will. However, even when it comes to taking credit, if most of my knitting design comes from a particular pattern and I only altered a few elements, it seems ethical to credit the original designer. I mean, if I write an essay and a great deal of my thinking is influenced from a particular source, you can be damn sure I'd credit that source - why should I act any differently when it's a creative/crafty pursuit?
posted by Kurichina at 11:46 AM on January 18, 2016
Best answer: Speaking as someone who owns a knitting publishing company with a back catalog of almost 60 titles and who attends many major knitting events, including the National Needlearts Association one (where yarn shop owners go to find new products for their stores): this is the reason stores have stopped stocking books, and subsequently stopped ordering from publishers like me.
It started with Amazon -- "I can't compete on price anymore, they're selling at less than my wholesale cost."
It got worse with the "I don't stock books now because people just come take photos with their smartphones and don't buy anything."
And then this year the industry's largest distributor of knitting books to yarn stores went out of business altogether.
(We had to stop doing TNNA because a booth that cost us $750+ netted us about $200 in orders the last year we bothered).
You can, of course, do what you want as a consumer of media. As a knitting designer I look at all kinds of sources for inspiration, everything from stitch pattern pins on Pinterest to runway fashion shapes and garment types. There is no hard and fast line between "this is too much copying, and this isn't," the "if you change 30% of it the pattern is yours now!" myth has been debunked far and wide.
But the reason I bring up the knit publishing industry's woes above is this: if you see something you like and it's already been done, why wouldn't you just buy that pattern? So much work has gone into it already in order to ensure you'll have a good experience knitting it that I guess I'm not understanding why you wouldn't just make it easier on yourself as a knitter.
Your last sentence is another key point. If you make something you consider simple, should you give it away for free when others are selling similar patterns? Again, you're free to do what you want, but I question the motivation. It seems like a lot of people who do this don't come close to meeting the quality standards of the original and what ends up happening is that the pros end up fielding the questions their copycat patterns cause.
There's a whole back channel of non-public communication in the designer community and I hear examples of this all the time. It's maddening. People won't buy a $5 pattern but when their free pattern is hopelessly unworkable they'll seek out help from the people they didn't want to pay in the first place. It's leading to massive, massive industry-wide burnout.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 3:48 PM on January 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
It started with Amazon -- "I can't compete on price anymore, they're selling at less than my wholesale cost."
It got worse with the "I don't stock books now because people just come take photos with their smartphones and don't buy anything."
And then this year the industry's largest distributor of knitting books to yarn stores went out of business altogether.
(We had to stop doing TNNA because a booth that cost us $750+ netted us about $200 in orders the last year we bothered).
You can, of course, do what you want as a consumer of media. As a knitting designer I look at all kinds of sources for inspiration, everything from stitch pattern pins on Pinterest to runway fashion shapes and garment types. There is no hard and fast line between "this is too much copying, and this isn't," the "if you change 30% of it the pattern is yours now!" myth has been debunked far and wide.
But the reason I bring up the knit publishing industry's woes above is this: if you see something you like and it's already been done, why wouldn't you just buy that pattern? So much work has gone into it already in order to ensure you'll have a good experience knitting it that I guess I'm not understanding why you wouldn't just make it easier on yourself as a knitter.
Your last sentence is another key point. If you make something you consider simple, should you give it away for free when others are selling similar patterns? Again, you're free to do what you want, but I question the motivation. It seems like a lot of people who do this don't come close to meeting the quality standards of the original and what ends up happening is that the pros end up fielding the questions their copycat patterns cause.
There's a whole back channel of non-public communication in the designer community and I hear examples of this all the time. It's maddening. People won't buy a $5 pattern but when their free pattern is hopelessly unworkable they'll seek out help from the people they didn't want to pay in the first place. It's leading to massive, massive industry-wide burnout.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 3:48 PM on January 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
An interesting sidenote about the bookstore vs. library thing: aside from library binding (some books come in this, but not all), libraries generally pay more (are charged more) for books because the assumption is that lots of people will read and use them, and all those people who get it from the library are less likely to buy their own copy.
When you do get something from the library, make sure you a) check the book out or b) leave the book out to be re-shelved by library staff. I was taught (in library school) to scan books left out before re-shelving them because the system can track which books are being looked at! They use these stats (check-outs, re-shelving) to decide what the interest level is, and how to build the collection.
Several crocheting blogs I follow have a statement up saying that they don't "share patterns". They provide links where available, but apparently there are whole online communities (on FB, from the sound of it) of folks "sharing" purchased copyright-protected patterns. Part of the problem is access. Before The Internet I could borrow a pattern book from my mom; I could make photocopies or write something down, but the ability of that single book to reach - well, any audience at all, really - was limited. But if I join one of these groups on FB and "share" I'm instantly reaching an audience of hundreds, possibly thousands of people. Much more likely to have a financial impact on the author!
Of course, when my toddler ran through the library and pulled out a whole shelf of large-print romance novels I put them back!
posted by jrobin276 at 5:21 PM on January 18, 2016
When you do get something from the library, make sure you a) check the book out or b) leave the book out to be re-shelved by library staff. I was taught (in library school) to scan books left out before re-shelving them because the system can track which books are being looked at! They use these stats (check-outs, re-shelving) to decide what the interest level is, and how to build the collection.
Several crocheting blogs I follow have a statement up saying that they don't "share patterns". They provide links where available, but apparently there are whole online communities (on FB, from the sound of it) of folks "sharing" purchased copyright-protected patterns. Part of the problem is access. Before The Internet I could borrow a pattern book from my mom; I could make photocopies or write something down, but the ability of that single book to reach - well, any audience at all, really - was limited. But if I join one of these groups on FB and "share" I'm instantly reaching an audience of hundreds, possibly thousands of people. Much more likely to have a financial impact on the author!
Of course, when my toddler ran through the library and pulled out a whole shelf of large-print romance novels I put them back!
posted by jrobin276 at 5:21 PM on January 18, 2016
I also don't "sign" designs that aren't truly my own; this includes no tags in garments if I didn't draft the pattern (even if I did alter the pattern), no initialing needlepoint/cross stitch/quilts if I'm using a pattern or even a template, even if it's a gift.
If someone wants me to make them something AND I'm willing to for whatever reason (not common), I let them buy materials and that's it.
posted by mchorn at 12:47 PM on January 19, 2016
If someone wants me to make them something AND I'm willing to for whatever reason (not common), I let them buy materials and that's it.
posted by mchorn at 12:47 PM on January 19, 2016
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by tinymegalo at 8:55 AM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]