NERDSTACKULAR
Can the lovely people of tumblr please, PLEASE help me?

righterwriter:

I am out of a job and my bills are coming due, and I can’t pay them off this month.

HERE’S WHAT YOU CAN DO:

I have a shop on etsy, and I take custom orders.

image

image

image

PLEASE CAN YOU GUYS HELP ME BY BUYING MY STUFF OR SPREADING THE WORD?

castielsfear:

Bruce Wayne watched both of his parents die.

Tony Stark has heart problems and anxiety.

Peter Parker saw his uncle being murdered.

Steve Rogers lost his best friend.

Bruce Banner attempted suicide.

If they can save the world, you can get through this day.

Never stop fighting.

gentlemanbones:

THERE’S BEEN A TERRIBLE ACCIDENT

gentlemanbones:

THERE’S BEEN A TERRIBLE ACCIDENT

bubblesarebeautiful:

ultrafacts:

For more facts, Visit / Follow Ultrafacts!

Women wear heels now so we don’t have to step in the blood of our enemies

Reblogging for that comment

brainflossandmindfrills:

snowscrafts:

brainflossandmindfrills:

snowscrafts:

brainflossandmindfrills:

brainflossandmindfrills:

So I saw yet another pattern listing that had a disclaimer at the bottom saying the final product could not be sold, so I decided to do some research.

Basically what I found is based on US copyright law, but I doubt that Canadian/European laws are much different….

Sorry, but publishing has to do with the selling of rights. When someone publishes a pattern, free or not, they relinquish their exclusive right to monopolize the creation of that item. It is quite arrogant and greedy to think that the creator has a right to profit from someone else’s labour. For example: Imagine buying a jewelry book at the store. You create a necklace using the pattern. Based on your idea of fairness, taking it to the farmer’s market and selling it will violate the designer’s copyright, and you should send them a portion of your profits — even though you bought the beads, the wire, the pliers, all the necessary equipment, and you are the one who spent the time making it. This is not practical nor fair. Should you give the author of the book a shout out and tell people where you found the pattern? Sure! That’s good business practice. Are you forced to share your profits with them? No. Your work is yours to do with what you will. Should you modify the pattern and sell the
pattern as your own? NO. That is violating the author/designers rights. Can you modify the pattern and sell the item as your own? YES. That is what copyright means for patterns, people. It does not mean you get to hold a monopoly on things that you make available for public use. If you don’t want that to happen, don’t publish your patterns because the law is not on the side of the greedy. And side note: pattern copyright is very different from media copyright laws. You cannot compare the two since media lacks the principle of utility.

You’re missing my point. John Green wrote a book and a girl in a different country drew a drawing based off of that book, then a guy in another country turned that drawing into a movie poster. John Green loved that poster, and wanted to sell it to all the fans. Everyone involved got a cut of the sales and continues to get a cut.

Now, if you have permission to sell something without discussion of finances, and you give credit, then that’s perfectly fine. I sell toothless plushes from someone else’s pattern who has given permission to use it to make goods to sell. I give her credit for the pattern, so it’s all good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHp3c9ziIq0 This better explains what I’m trying to say.

Basically, if you’re using someone’s pattern without their permission you’re terrible and you’re encouraging artists to keep their patterns to themselves, greatly reducing the amount of happy crafters and awesome crafts. Because why would anyone publish a pattern when there are disrespectful, rude people out there who will take advantage of them? 

Furthermore it has more to do with fair use than you think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Keg6it0g2wY

Really I’m leaving it to youtube videos, because why ruin something that’s already perfect.

I think the one who is missing the point is you. Seeing as you did not bother to read any of the information that I have linked, but instead chose to use opinion videos as a counter argument, let me outline it for you here.

Again, you can do more reading about why your opinion contradicts copyright law here: http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CopyrightLaw/Patterns.shtml which is where I will be quoting from at the end of this post! :)

1. Media and patterns have different copyright laws, and for good reason. And even if they were the same, the designer of a pattern could not tell you how many times you could use it just Disney can’t tell you how many times you can watch your Frozen DVD.

2. Just because John Green is a good person and chose to give credit to the collaborators, he could just have easily been sent cease and desist letters to make the artists take down as much of the images as possible. Why? Because he owns the story. Now, like he said in the video, international copyright laws are not ready for that kind of thing, but the issue is more complicated than simply he is a good person wanting to give credit where it’s due. This post is already too long to go into that. 

3. Fair use doesn’t apply to patterns. They cannot be copyrighted. They are made to be used. All use is fair use. If a person wishes to hold the monopoly on the creation of their item they should not publish their pattern.

4. If someone pulls their pattern because other people are selling the stuff they made from it, they are the ones being disrespectful and rude to the people who they gave permission to use their pattern by publishing or selling it. Selling an item is not claiming the pattern as your own. Selling an item is selling an item. If they sell the pattern and keep a copy, that is bad and they can legally get into trouble for that. But you own the work that you make and can do what you want with it. If not, the designer can dictate what you do with your patterns, and even if you can use them at all - which is very far from fair use.

Actually, let me leave it to quotes from the website above, because why ruin something that’s already perfect.

From the site above:

'Kemp & Beatley v. Hirsch, 34 F. 2d 291 - Dist. Court, ED New York 1929:

Toys, games, dolls, advertising novelties, instruments or tools of any kind, glassware, embroideries, garments, laces, woven fabrics, or similar articles are examples. The exclusive right to make and sell such articles should not be sought by copyright registration.

Congress incorporated the above rule into copyright law in 1976:

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." 17 U.S.C. § 102(b)

Adelman v Sonners & Gordon, 112 F.Supp. 187 (SD New York 1934), the lawsuit claimed the defendants infringed plaintiff’s copyright of a drawing of a dress.

"This seems clear if it be kept in mind that it is the drawing which is assumed to be a work of art and not the dress. It follows that plaintiff’s copyright gives it the exclusive right to make copies or reprints of the drawing only, and that it gives the copyright owner no monopoly of the article illustrated. [emphasis added] “

"…Imagine if Simplicity had a registered copyright on the pattern for an apron. Simplicity could then prevent all others from designing and selling patterns for making aprons. Because, really, how many different ways are there to make an apron? To allow such copyright registrations would be to grant virtual federal monopolies to companies." [my emphasis added]

"In Baker v Selden, the Supreme Court also specifically addressed the "practical application" of patterns and rejecting the notion that a copyright would cover the dress made from the pattern:
In Drury v. Ewing (1 Bond, 540), …, [Pattern’s] practical use could only be exemplified in cloth on the tailor’s board and under his shears; in other words, by the application of a mechanical operation to the cutting of cloth in certain patterns and forms. Surely the exclusive right to this practical use was not reserved to the publisher by his copyright of the chart. [emphasis added]”

"Pattern manufacturers and designers do not have the statutory right to control items are made from their patterns or what is done with these items. See the Supreme Court quote above from Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. Lanza Research Int. Imagine purchasing a book on how to build a shed in your back yard from your local hardware store. The book certainly has plans (patterns) and instructions and is copyrighted. Do you expect to have to get permission from the hardware store, the lumberyard, the paint store and the book publisher before you build the shed? Of course not. And then ask for permission to post a picture of this shed on Facebook? Of course not. It is YOUR shed.

Then, after building the shed, since you no longer require the services of this book, you sell it at a yard sale. Do you need permission to sell this book? Of course not. It is YOUR book. And the purchaser of this yard sale book? Does the purchaser need to ask the same permissions as well to build the same shed? Of course not. Sound silly? But this is what pattern designers expect everyone else to do.”

" From the US Copyright Office, Circular 40, Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts [in PDF format], page 2, Useful Articles:
Copyright in a work that portrays a useful article extends only to the artistic expression of the author of the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. It does not extend to the design of the article that is portrayed. For example, a drawing or photograph of an automobile or a dress design may be copyrighted, but that does not give the artist or photographer the exclusive right to make automobiles or dresses of the same design." [my own emphasis added]

My mistake. I don’t argue law because law =/= what is right all the time. Sorry, I forget that I have to say that.

To clear it up it is WRONG not ILLEGAL to take a person’s pattern and to sell things made from it without the creator’s permission. It is disrespectful and rude and it gives the craft community a bad name and I do not blame any creator for not wanting to sell their patterns with entitled people out there. 

A friend had someone boldly and rudely tell her that they had every right to make and sell stuff from the patterns that she thoughtfully made available, but asked people not to sell products made from it. That is entitlement.

That person had
every right to do so. It is not entitlement when it is your right. That is what having a right means. Your friend does not have the right to ask that of buyers. Yes. Designers have NO RIGHT to ask or tell their buyers not to sell items made from their patterns regardless if someone likes it or not. That is the point. It is unfortunate that the buyer was rude, but in this case legal = right action = just = fair. When your rights infringe upon another person’s rights you do not just get to ignore theirs. This attitude that the person is doing something wrong by reselling is hurting designers too, because people will then exert their legal right to sell the item and instead of linking or referencing the designer, they will say nothing because of the unfair and uneducated backlash. Trying to take away buyer rights hurts the designer most in the end. I’m sorry this is a difficult concept for many designers. To make it a cliche, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If after all the examples listed in the previous posts, you can’t see why it would be awful for society for designers to control products made by their patterns, then there really isn’t more I can say. Thanks for the talk!

whimmy-bam:

missespeon:

outofcontextarthur:

Can we talk about how this fucking PBS show aimed at little kids easily talked about how anxiety is stressful but normal?

They also debunked ignorant stereotypes of foreign countries and gave an accurate and positive depiction and explanation of Asperger’s syndrome.

illeg-al:

tip of the day don’t vacuum with ear phones in because i just finished vacuuming the whole house only to realise it wasn’t even on

everything-fuckable:

kendallslogiebear:

mishasminions:

thepassionofthefruit:

abetterfatethanwisdom:

a-black-car-pulled-up-and:

every black crayon should be named void of existential anguish black

only reblogging this for the purple one omg

pREGNANCY TEST BLUE

MORAL AMBIGUITY GRAY

why are we not discussing court ordered urine sample yellow

BONG WATER BROWN HHAHAHAHA


I have a need.

everything-fuckable:

kendallslogiebear:

mishasminions:

thepassionofthefruit:

abetterfatethanwisdom:

a-black-car-pulled-up-and:

every black crayon should be named void of existential anguish black

only reblogging this for the purple one omg

pREGNANCY TEST BLUE

MORAL AMBIGUITY GRAY

why are we not discussing court ordered urine sample yellow

BONG WATER BROWN HHAHAHAHA

I have a need.

heyfunniest:

OH MY GOD HAHAHAHAHAHA

heyfunniest:

OH MY GOD HAHAHAHAHAHA

Satan: [appears]
Satan: You can have anything you wan--
Me: LANGUAGE.
Satan: What?
Me: GIVE ME EVERY LANGUAGE.
Satan: What the--?
Me: YOU SAID ANYTHING. GIVE ME EVERY LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD.
Satan: Wouldn't you rather have love or money?
Me: EVERY. LANGUAGE. MASTERY OF EVERY LANGUAGE. NOW.
tastefullyoffensive:

[us3rnam]

lego-minifigures:

LEGO Marvel Super Heroes: X-Men vs. The Sentinel (76022)

ifipressthisbuttonwhathappens:

It is complete! 3 months of Netflix binging and imaginative cursing, The Hobbit cross stitch is finally done. So happy beyond words with how this turned out.

ifipressthisbuttonwhathappens:

It is complete! 3 months of Netflix binging and imaginative cursing, The Hobbit cross stitch is finally done. So happy beyond words with how this turned out.