Copyrights and found fabrics.

[8080a]

I need to create an image that is sort of like a patchwork quilt, utilizing scraps of printed fabrics. This will be used in a portion of the background of a poster. All colors will be colorized to a specific range of hues.

So, I got to thinking -- cloth is a printed material. In scanning or photographing scraps of old printed fabrics, colorizing them, and *** into a collage like a quilt, would I violate copyright laws? And even if I wanted to make good on it all, how in the world would one about tracking down all of the designers of all of the scraps of cloth? And further, if this is a copyright violation, is it any different if the scraps are *** into a quilt and then photographed and/or scanned?

I see scanned or photographed fabrics used in print materials all the time and I've always wondered how far people go to ensure that copyrights are handled correctly -- or if there are different rules for things like fabrics and wall paper. I supposed I could create all my own patterns and Photoshop onto blank fabrics -- but, although it might be more original, I've tried such things before and the piece lacked that genuine "found object" hip-hop mixed up feeling.

I never thought I'd use the words "patchwork quilt" and "hip-hop" in the same posting, but it makes sense in my head.

Thanks.

[Pete Michaud]

Not a lawyer, but it sounds a whole lot like a derivative work to me.  Anyone else?

[Aibrean]

was reading my GAG book and you are going to need to get a license unless the author has been dead for 70 years. You could possibly find a representative for textile designers and see if you can get anything close.

[8080a]

Screw all that! Makes me want to jump out a window head first and . . . if I survive, find a new line of work. I'll find a different concept or a different way. I'll probably end up drawing all the stuff myself and it'll be a bit sterile and/or inbred -- but better than trying to track down the designers of 50 different pieces of old rotten cloth.

But I still wonder if there is a difference between my scanning fabrics directly and *** a montage, and photographing a patchwork quilt that has already been *** from lots of different fabrics already. Whose work is it that I'm photographing? Who is going to sue me? The fabric people or Aunt Edith?

[sock monkey]

if it's vintage...say 30's feed sacks you would most like be fine...also i think you would be fine with generic patterns like ginghams & dots & houndstoooth, etc...

[Aibrean]

Why even post the question if you never planned on doing anything anyway?

[8080a]

> Why even post the question if you never planned on doing anything anyway?

What did I say to make you think I never planned on doing anything anyway? Quite the contrary -- I had ideas (if you call that planning) and, being the cautious sort of person that I am, I thought I better ask around before I proceeded to get my heart or budget set on the idea. You posted some good information to consider and I decided that getting licenses and textile designer representatives to help me sort out the usage rights for 50 scraps of cloth would be severely time and cost prohibitive. Therefore, for the sake of the project, my career, my budget and the sanity of everyone involved, I damn well better figure out something else. I don't have a staff of people to find the original designers of all of the bits of cloth and I don't have a budget to pay them or their companies for the usage rights. And more to the point, I don't have time for all of that. So -- change of plans.

Isn't that what soliciting information and advice is all about? I used the information in conjunction with other pieces of information and observations in order to make a decision. The decision was to go a different direction.

I appreciate the information you offered up in the forum. I found it helpful. Thank you. However, the tone of your last post makes me feel like I'm being accused of wasting the forum's time. I would think that for me to disregard the advice and information in the responses would be much more of a waste.

Maybe by "never planned on doing anything anyway" you were referring to the idea of using the scraps without getting permissions or usage rights. If that's the case, then please let me *** you that I never had any intention of doing that unless it was an ok thing to do. That is precisely why I asked the question in the first place. I see pieces designed all the time that incorporate found items such as cloth and I always wonder how usage rights were handled in each circumstance. I've gotten permissions for photos and other things before -- and just for the handful I have done it has been an absolute ordeal and time suckage. I wondered if using little scraps of seemingly anonymous cloth in a printed piece without dealing with permissions might be a little different given that in some cases the fabric might just be a solid color or a very generic stripped pattern. If that was considered a truly acceptable practice -- then yes, I would have gone ahead. But I never had plans to not get permissions regardless of whether or not they were needed. It sounds like it is not an acceptable practice and I'm a law abiding ethical designer so I am not going to use the cloth without getting proper permission. However, I am also a designer with limited budgets and deadlines so I'm not going to use the cloth at all.

Wow -- what a long post. Again, I value the information I find in these forums enough to write this much clarification. Please don't call me out as wasting people's time. Wasting my own time -- maybe, but not yours. I consider your time and input valuable. Lord knows I don't get much valuable input here where I work.

[Maria]

I love this person's fabrics, but I was shocked when I read her licensing terms. I've sewed things all my life, and it never crossed my mind that someone could put terms on fabric. It seems weird, like saying if you use Gold Medal flour, you can't sell cookies. I know, her fabrics are a creative and artistic work, but it's not a finished product and it's mean to be made into derivative work. It's almost as if there was a copyright notice on scrapbooking paper.
 
http://www.amybutlerdesign.com/faqs/
 

[8080a]

Wow, Amy Butler's fabrics are awesome. But wow, DO NOT SCREW WITH AMY BUTLER'S FABRIC.

I understand why I, as a designer, can't just goof around with her patterns -- but telling people that they can't sell products that incorporate physical pieces of her fabric that have been paid for is kind of heavy-handed. It's not even like a person would be making copies of the fabric.

I like your analogy of the Gold Medal flour. I thought about musical instruments. To me, that's sort of like if Fender Guitars were to say, "you may not sell songs you recorded using Fender Guitars. People buy the song because it has the sound of a Fender Guitar. You may sit in your room alone and enjoy the sound of your Fender Guitar in privacy, but do not attempt to sell a song featuring a Fender Guitar. The sound of the Fender Guitar is angelic. Your songwriting is worthless crap. Do not mess with Fender Guitars. Thanks and have a super day."

Well, don't worry Amy Butler -- I'll steer clear and far away from your fabrics.

[magartdir]

Now that I'm thinking about your post, of course, many fabric designs/patterns probably are copyright-protected. Think of Emilio Pucci designs, Louis Vuitton patterns, any decorator fabrics from Scalamandre, Waverly, Lee Jofa...the list goes on. Wedgewood china/porcelain patterns are certainly protected. I think that you are right to consider the ramifications of using distinctly-recognizable fabrics in your images.