# Shocking Letter re Copyright



## KnitNorth (Mar 7, 2013)

I saw this on Facebook today:
http://winkieflash.nl/2013/08/21/an-open-letter-to-garnstudio/


----------



## TinaBW (Nov 20, 2012)

What a shame that a big yarn company would use someone else's pattern without their consent or giving them the recognition they deserve.


----------



## grandmann (Feb 4, 2011)

She didn't have a copyright on her pattern but even so Garnstudio could have given her some credit. I actually thought her picture was a lot cuter for the pattern.


----------



## dlarkin (Jan 25, 2013)

This is really a shame. If it was just a mistake they could have talked to her. Sounds like they stole the pattern and her only recourse is to sue them which she can not do. How sad. Don't think I will buy from them because of this.


----------



## dlarkin (Jan 25, 2013)

Go to their facebook page and write your comments. I did.


----------



## kneonknitter (Feb 10, 2011)

KnitNorth said:


> I saw this on Facebook today:
> http://winkieflash.nl/2013/08/21/an-open-letter-to-garnstudio/


Don't try to do it to them tho! This is disgusting.


----------



## KnitNorth (Mar 7, 2013)

Ya, I think at a minimum Garnstudio should have responded to her emails. Maybe there are subtle differences they could point out. Like one of the Commenters said in the blog, there are many crocheted, round rugs, and they all have to start with some basic stitches in the middle.
But, they should respond to her concerns.


----------



## MzBarnz (Aug 15, 2011)

Anyone else have a hard time getting the page to load?

Finally got it to come up.


----------



## casey1952 (Jul 8, 2011)

grandmann said:


> She didn't have a copyright on her pattern but even so Garnstudio could have given her some credit. I actually thought her picture was a lot cuter for the pattern.


I thought if you put a pattern out there for use and or purchase it had an automatic copyright? In that case it belongs to Wink no matter what Garn says. Too bad it takes so much money to prove you are in the right.


----------



## galaxycraft (Feb 15, 2011)

I do not see the copyright violation.

1) "Her" pattern she speaks of is described as a "tutorial".
For which "she" may have had permission from a designer to put it on her page as a training aide.

2) I do not see anywhere on the page that she states it is her pattern, nor any copyright notification.

3) We do not know when the pattern from Drops was ready for print, but her page was put up on Apr 8, 2013 and Drops pattern is part of the DROPS Autumn & Winter 2013/14 line up.
For actual ownership...yes I agree with Drops...Seek an attorney and go the legal route to find out what is what.

4) Before making such a claim, you had better have the proof to back it up.
For which it appears she has no proof.
But if she is found in the wrong, she could (and probably will anyway) get sued for what she has started globally on the internet... bashing (to put it mildly).
I am sure Drops will have copies of all these postings from all over the world.

I am leaving the decisions of what is what up to the attorneys and the courts.
Right in the US copyright code it does state very plainly, that if you do not copyright your work, you run this very risk.

So *Please Do Not Make Judgement In This Matter Without Having All The Facts.*

*BTW ....When such a claim comes up for a possible ligation...all communication between both parties are stopped and everything goes through attorneys/legal representation.*
................................................................
Just a PS....
This is what she does claim as being her own design.
Though I am not going to buy it to find out.
http://winkieflash.nl/2013/04/24/i-love-holland/
http://www.ravelry.com/patterns/sources/marinke-slumps-ravelry-store
One pattern folks...one pattern; for which the one in question is not it.

Does this one look familiar?? -- http://winkieflash.nl/patterns/groovy-ghan-en/
I have not compared "hers" to the original that CAN be found on the net (which she said she couldn't find), and she openly admits to reverse-engineering it.


----------



## laurelarts (Jul 31, 2011)

I agree with galaxycraft! Don't judge without the facts. I hope this doesn't backfire on Wink then she may HAVE to hire an attorney. I worked in the courts for 30 years, I have seen cases such as this get very expensive and long drawn out.


----------



## galaxycraft (Feb 15, 2011)

It is best for everyone to review the copyright laws of your country before making judgement here.
US Copyright...
http://www.copyright.gov/
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/


----------



## tvarnas (Apr 18, 2013)

Did anyone notice the mistake of the shell (lower left) on the Garn Studio version? HAHAHA

Her 'design' is pretty standard for a crochet motif. Seems to me she is on shaky ground. It's too bad for both Garn and Wink that it has gone this far.


----------



## chris kelly (Nov 9, 2012)

It is so sad when something like this happens. It causes a lot of upset to so many people and it's a shame words are not spoken to remedy the problem. This sort of thing happens a lot and sometimes it's between friends, which can cause a wonderful friendship to end when it only needs a recognition of who the designer was in the first place. Most designers have a copyright comment on their patterns and it will explain what is allowed and what is not. I.e. Some designers are quite happy to have the knitted items given to charities but the pattern is not to be copied and handed out.


----------



## kiwiannie (Jul 30, 2011)

Shame garn,thers no need for that. :thumbdown: :thumbdown:


----------



## PaKnitter (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm confused...I see a tute on how to make the rug by Wink but I don't see a pattern or copyright mentioned anywhere. What do you see that I am missing?


----------



## SouthernGirl (Dec 28, 2011)

Don't judge too early.


----------



## babsbarb (Dec 23, 2012)

I agree. When you post something like this on the net, seems to me like it is fair game for anyone and everyone.



PaKnitter said:


> I'm confused...I see a tute on how to make the rug by Wink but I don't see a pattern or copyright mentioned anywhere. What do you see that I am missing?


----------



## wiremysoul (Dec 4, 2012)

All of her patterns are listed on her Patterns page here:
http://winkieflash.nl/patterns/
including her copyright claim to them.

I don't believe posting something online means its fair game for anyone to claim as their own. That said though, this pattern isn't new. Its not like she's invented the wheel this year... mandalas (and probably this very one) come out of peoples' imaginations all the time, independant of one another and without using a pattern. Most competant crocheters could come up with this having never seen a pattern before. It's simple and unoriginal. Beautiful, though hers is.

If Garn couldn't back their designer with documentation, they did the right thing by shutting their mouths. I don't think this is original enough to fight over, frankly, and there are enough differences that her claim will never be solved in her favour. It's unfortunate.


----------



## run4fittness (May 22, 2011)

It is not for me to judge, but at the very least the yarn company should have responded to her concerns.


----------



## Knitophile (Oct 22, 2012)

There is nothing particularly unique about either design. I am quite sure that Garn Studio's design was created without reference to the other design. In both cases, simple basic stitches are used. This is equivalent to claiming copyright in a basic raglan sweater. What a lot of nonsense!


----------



## courier770 (Jan 29, 2011)

I'll reserve judgement and call foul on neither side since all the information doesn't appear to be available.

Copyright is not automatic, at least not in the US, though in other countries it seems that is the case.

The process of obtaining copyright (in the US) is neither speedy nor free.

While going through the process, there are ways to "establish" when the design process began, when it was completed and when one applied for copyright. 

It's like getting a speeding ticket, the recipient of the ticket successfully fights the ticket in court..then it's found out they didn't have a drivers license!

I'll reserve judgement for now.


----------



## vjh1530 (Oct 8, 2011)

I don't see how she can even claim that pattern as hers. I have seen that motif many times over the years in many forms: rugs, doilies, blankets. It is so basic! I remember probably 30 years ago making a doily almost exactly like that from a pattern my Grandma gave me from her memory - and her mother had given it to her.

I am sure Garn gets letters like hers on a daily basis. Most of their patterns are pretty basic, and you can find the same ones over and over on Ravelry and elsewhere with slight variances. She might want to talk to a lawyer before she starts writing statements that could be considered slander. Then she WILL need a lawyer.


----------



## courier770 (Jan 29, 2011)

No doubt all publishers/copyright holders hear these claims. If the claim cannot be substantiated then it's simply an accusation and nothing more.

On the other hand there have been those who have been "wronged".

Each side gets to present their "case". Though in this case I just see accusations. Time will tell if they can be "substantiated". 

If one is truly wronged, when it comes to the subject of copyright, you seek the advice of a copyright attorney and make your case in court. There have been some pretty famous cases involving the music genre and some surprising outcomes.

One can use a well established stitch pattern but it must be applied in a novel way to seek and obtain copyright. 

Ribbing is a well known group of stitch patterns but can still be applied to copyright on new patterns....

I'm going to keep my ear to the ground on this one and see how it plays out...if if gets no further than the "nasty letter writing" stage, that will be a big clue.


----------



## suzy-kate (Jan 6, 2013)

The two patterns are slightly different and as others have pointed out very similar to other traditional patterns. I've a Coats pattern book from the 1960's which belonged to my Gran, with a pattern that combines elements of the two designs, that rug sat on my Gran's bathroom floor for most of the years I was growing up.

Whilst I feel a reply should have been made, it's probable that such a large company gets so many similar letters/emails that they just deal with those from legal representatives.

How many times have you seen a traditional pattern repeat put together in say a scarf, which is supposedly someone's design, at best all they've done is worked out how many repeats you need then counted the stitches. All things experienced knitter/crocheter's have been doing for years, and something copyright would be hard to proove.


----------



## PaKnitter (Mar 7, 2011)

When the tute can be obtained without going to her home pattern page where the copyright is how is anyone to know it is a copyright pattern?


----------



## galaxycraft (Feb 15, 2011)

PaKnitter said:


> When the tute can be obtained without going to her home pattern page where the copyright is how is anyone to know it is a copyright pattern?


IMHO and in my eyes...
That is exactly what it is...a tutorial...and she states it is a tutorial.
Heaven forbid that our own workshops stake claim to the patterns they work on.

She states in her "letter" that the two are exactly the same...
They are not, I can see some differences.

If you have a Ravelry account with your actual copyrighted pattern for sale on record, wouldn't you also have the other "patterns" listed as well?
Not so with hers.
Between her Ravelry/Etsy/Craftsy and her site (don't know about the facebook, I don't do facebook), she only has that one pattern to actually stake claim to that I have referenced earlier.
Though I don't know for certain, because I will not buy it to find out if it is indeed hers.
Other pages on her site are listed as "tutorials".

But again, we shall see what happens...this should be in the hands of the attorneys.


----------



## Moondancermel (Nov 18, 2012)

KnitNorth said:


> I saw this on Facebook today:
> http://winkieflash.nl/2013/08/21/an-open-letter-to-garnstudio/


As a designer this is probably one of the biggest issues we get. Problem is that you are the little fish and do not have the money to go to court, especially against a corporate giant.

You do not need to "copyright" your work as your designs are automatically copyright. Many do not understand this. Some designers will allow you to sell items made from their patterns as long as you are not selling the pattern itself. Some of course won't, mainly because they are making the item to sell themselves. All very confusing. The biggest problem is proving you designed it, which is why I photograph and date all of mine.

I think the least the company could do is talk to the person. I can't see that they would get that many people saying they stole an idea. The attitude of the company certainly puts me off of them.


----------



## wjeanc (Nov 15, 2012)

Appears to me that this is a pretty basic crochet pattern. Reminds me of a very large doily. Any one of us with crochet/doily experience could have sat down and constructed this.

I agree with Galaxy that she's on very shaky ground here. It being in the DROPS winter 2013 catalog means it was probably produced and pattern written several months before that, which would make it appear she inadvertently came up with the same pattern after they did.


----------



## Chezl (Mar 12, 2012)

They actually aren't the same because the Garnstudio one has an extra crocheted ring.


----------



## dotcarp2000 (Sep 5, 2011)

galaxycraft said:


> I do not see the copyright violation.
> 
> 1) "Her" pattern she speaks of is described as a "tutorial".
> For which "she" may have had permission from a designer to put it on her page as a training aide.
> ...


I wonder how many of you who might have created a pattern, then saw someone else using it, would not feel the same way and w ould criticize the company who is using it. I don't think you're such an expert, Galaxy.


----------



## Knitophile (Oct 22, 2012)

Since the late 1980's, when the US became a member of the Berne Convention, copyright arises upon creation. No notice of copyright is required. However, it is still good practice to put a notice so that others know you expect your copyright to be respected. Accordingly, the information in the posting above is not correct.


----------



## Knitophile (Oct 22, 2012)

courier770 said:


> I'll reserve judgement and call foul on neither side since all the information doesn't appear to be available.
> 
> Copyright is not automatic, at least not in the US, though in other countries it seems that is the case.
> 
> ...


Since the late 1980's, when the US became a member of the Berne Convention, copyright arises upon creation. No notice of copyright is required. However, it is still good practice to put a notice so that others know you expect your copyright to be respected. Accordingly, the information in the posting above about copyright not being automatic is incorrect.


----------



## laurelarts (Jul 31, 2011)

Knitophile said:


> Since the late 1980's, when the US became a member of the Berne Convention, copyright arises upon creation. No notice of copyright is required. However, it is still good practice to put a notice so that others know you expect your copyright to be respected. Accordingly, the information in the posting above is not correct.


That has been my understanding as well, so I was confused when someone stated otherwise. The way things change, it's difficult to keep up


----------



## Knitophile (Oct 22, 2012)

laurelarts said:


> That has been my understanding as well, so I was confused when someone stated otherwise. The way things change, it's difficult to keep up


The US joined the Berne Convention in 1988. That's 25 years ago ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention


----------



## Knitophile (Oct 22, 2012)

Knitophile said:


> The US joined the Berne Convention in 1988. That's 25 years ago ....
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention


However, with respect to this particular claim against Garn Studio, there was clearly no copyright violation. As others have pointed out, there are earlier examples of this type of basic design.


----------



## maisey67 (Aug 30, 2011)

The pattern is such a basic crochet stitch combination. In my opinion, this hardly qualifies as a copywritable "design".


----------



## PaKnitter (Mar 7, 2011)

dotcarp2000 said:


> I wonder how many of you who might have created a pattern, then saw someone else using it, would not feel the same way and w ould criticize the company who is using it. I don't think you're such an expert, Galaxy.


Galaxy is stating her two cents on the subject as are the rest of us and there is no need to go there.

A few years ago I made and gave a wnter decoration to a friend who showed it to someone else and she copied it and made $. My friend told me and was embarassed about it and I was mad at the time but it was never my orginial idea to begin with so I just got over it. It happens...


----------



## tvarnas (Apr 18, 2013)

Last year I made a scarf in cream wool with eyelash yarn stripes and beading. A few months later it was in a fall issue of a mag..same yarns colors and beads, the only difference was an additional stripe of the eyelash yarn. Funny thong, I did the exact same but didn't like it so I removed it! I was certainly flattered but wasn't going to claim copyright infringement. Creative minds can work alike.


----------



## MtKnitter (Dec 10, 2011)

To me- they are really not the same. It looks like the garn version is using larger yarn and fewer rounds. Similar but different. I imagine that makes a difference in copyright


----------



## tricia488 (Jul 26, 2011)

Copyright automatically attaches even without a copyright notice under U.S. laws, but neither Wink nor Garnstudio are located in the U.S. ... international copyright laws are not the same as U.S. laws, so it may not be the same.


----------



## Sneezy62 (Nov 29, 2012)

While theoretically you may be right. Why does the company not answer her simple questions. 
To me it is a no brainer, they only had to respond to a customers question and that would have ended the whole fiasco!


----------



## JCF (Aug 3, 2012)

laurelarts said:


> I agree with galaxycraft! Don't judge without the facts. I hope this doesn't backfire on Wink then she may HAVE to hire an attorney. I worked in the courts for 30 years, I have seen cases such as this get very expensive and long drawn out.


Especially expensive!


----------



## Parrishththgt (Aug 20, 2012)

This is probably the most common pattern used for any rug. Anyone who crochets could easily come up with the same pattern I don't see the big deal. I've made the same or similar a dozen times with out a pattern.


----------



## Cassews (Apr 10, 2013)

Like I keep telling friends, family and co-workers.. KNOW the actual facts before you open your mouth about things that are unknown to us.


----------



## tbforest (Feb 25, 2012)

What a mess! I wonder if the company has a policy of not talking directly to a person if the subject of copyright has come up. That may be what they have been advised to do. Not that I agree with it, but may be a reason.


----------



## sockyarn (Jan 26, 2011)

Ya know I bet I have done that design years ago and would never have thought that it was mine. It is so simple that any one,who has crochet for a time, would have come up with. There is nothing about it that would make it something you would have to copyright. She needs to back down and re-think her position.


----------



## pmarch (Mar 18, 2012)

Groovy-Ghan can be found on Ravelry.


----------



## tricia488 (Jul 26, 2011)

Sneezy62 said:


> While theoretically you may be right. Why does the company not answer her simple questions.
> To me it is a no brainer, they only had to respond to a customers question and that would have ended the whole fiasco!


 Unfortunately, I believe they did answer her question, but their answer was "get a lawyer." Their customer service department needs retraining!


----------



## Vique (Oct 28, 2011)

I wrote to them and told them that since the little people are the reason they are where they are, the little people can bring them down. I for one will never buy their products again.


----------



## PaKnitter (Mar 7, 2011)

Cassews said:


> Like I keep telling friends, family and co-workers.. KNOW the actual facts before you open your mouth about things that are unknown to us.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## skkp (Feb 13, 2011)

laurelarts said:


> I agree with galaxycraft! Don't judge without the facts. I hope this doesn't backfire on Wink then she may HAVE to hire an attorney. I worked in the courts for 30 years, I have seen cases such as this get very expensive and long drawn out.


It looks to me that she put the pattern in the "public domain" -- by publishing without any restrictions on the web anyone can use it anyway they want. You can't assert copyright on public domain works.

She can't bring a case if she can't show monetary damages and frankly that pattern is so simple any crocheter who has much experience can look at it and reproduce it without buying a pattern...Big companies are hit every day with the old "you stole my stuff....!" argument.


----------



## ohmunner (Aug 21, 2013)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I don't see EITHER of those patterns as "NEW". My mom had a carpet that lay in front of our kitchen sink for years that looked exactly like both of the throws being discussed.


----------



## deshka (Apr 6, 2011)

This kind of stuff happens all the time, and to many different kinds of businesses. Music comes to mind. How do you think johnny $$$ had so many different subject lines in 'his' songs? yup, also many other big name singers. They got the big bucks to fight all the little guys over it, and they almost always win. I feel bad for Wink, but she's certainly not alone. Garn knows they can win because they have most likely already proved it to themselves and those they took advantage of. Sorry, it goes on all the time. We are a small business and it's been tried on us, but the only thing is, we have the BIG customer list of the aviation industry all over the world. That does not stop some from trying tho, even by trying to steal our name.


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

This copyright thing is getting ridiculous! The Garns pattern was published in 2010, and Wink's tutorial was published in 2013. Honestly!


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

dotcarp2000 said:


> I wonder how many of you who might have created a pattern, then saw someone else using it, would not feel the same way and w ould criticize the company who is using it. I don't think you're such an expert, Galaxy.


This pattern was NOT created by Wink, please take a look at the facts.


----------



## Condia (Jul 24, 2012)

It looks like a very common pattern to me that anyone could just make up as they go. I have seen the same pattern MANY MANY years ago. I don't know who it was credited to at that time, but still looks very common to me. Just my opinion.


----------



## k2p3-knit-on (Oct 24, 2012)

Doesn't a copyrighted pattern have to have something original and unique? 

Has anyone copyrighted a basic stockinette square? If so we could be in hot water making gauge swatches or having stockinette sections in whatever we knit. If thousands of people could (and likely did) happen to make the same basic item on their own why should a copyright be granted to just one person? Sometimes I think the legal profession has lost sight of common sense. Shouldn't a copyright be reserved for something original and unique instead of a trap to benefit opportunistic persons? The I-want-to-sue-for-anything-and-everything fever could bring the whole craft of knitting and crochet to a screeching halt along with the industries relating to our craft.


----------



## missylam (Aug 27, 2011)

We were told by an attorney to make a copy of our designs, place in a sealed envelope and send it by certified mail to our attorney. This would show the date it was mailed. It should never be opened unless a question arrives. I don't t know about this but it was advised.


----------



## laurelarts (Jul 31, 2011)

missylam said:


> We were told by an attorney to make a copy of our designs, place in a sealed envelope and send it by certified mail to our attorney. This would show the date it was mailed. It should never be opened unless a question arrives. I don't t know about this but it was advised.


The "poor man's copyright" is to do exactly that, but mail it to himself and leave it sealed.


----------



## Knitophile (Oct 22, 2012)

k2p3-knit-on said:


> Doesn't a copyrighted pattern have to have something original and unique?
> 
> Has anyone copyrighted a basic stockinette square? If so we could be in hot water making gauge swatches or having stockinette sections in whatever we knit. If thousands of people could (and likely did) happen to make the same basic item on their own why should a copyright be granted to just one person? Sometimes I think the legal profession has lost sight of common sense. Shouldn't a copyright be reserved for something original and unique instead of a trap to benefit opportunistic persons? The I-want-to-sue-for-anything-and-everything fever could bring the whole craft of knitting and crochet to a screeching halt along with the industries relating to our craft.


How do you come to the conclusion that the legal profession has lost sight of common sense? The reason Garn Studio advised the woman who is claiming copyright in the crocheted matt to retain an attorney was to refer this woman to an independent person knowledgeable in copyright who would no doubt point out to her that she didn't have any grounds for alleging copyright infringement against Garn Studio. Remember Garn Studio took the time to talk to this woman. Advising her to retain her own attorney was appropriate advice.


----------



## Lillyhooch (Sep 27, 2012)

The real issue is Garnstudio's failure to respond to emails, or to take a phone call. It may just be extremely poor public relations. Or perhaps they thought they may be in the wrong... or was it simply that they couldn't be bothered. Whichever, it does not reflect well on the business.


----------



## eneurian (May 4, 2011)

this is the reason i am opposed to coppyrite for this kind of work. actually if you look closely it is NOT exactly the same pattern at the center. there are only so many basic stitches and only so many combinations. there is no way to combine any number of stitches in a completely new arrangement after all these years of needlework. 
get over yourself. no pattern copyright is valid!!!!
i have seen patterns for sale that are EXACT duplicates of old patterns i was taught by my grandmother. i have also made up things stitch by stitch that have never been seen by anyone but my son and found them later for sale almost stitch for stitch somewhere on line.
unless you can prove you have invented a new way to tie a knot in string your "PATTERN" is NOT original!!!!!!!


----------



## courier770 (Jan 29, 2011)

Copyright offers protection to the designer and while many have pointed out why there is no need for "real" copyright, this is an excellent example of why it is always wise to got the extra step to establish "formal" copyright. At this point we are dealing with not one but two foreign countries...no "international copyright" exists but establishing copyright in one's home country is always a good idea.

If you are going to design, if you are going to offer patterns for sale, then establishing copyright (formally) is a wise idea.

I've looked at both photographs, read the pattern and truly, I don't see that this is a copyright issue.

I also don't think that Garn's owes any explanations. 

Some are talking about when the "claimant" established her pattern...I was a free lance writer for over 25 years, generally it takes more than a few months to put together a "catalog"...quite a bit longer in fact. As we hash this out there are issues of magazines/catalogs being planned for January of 2014 and further into the future. 

This is a simple crochet pattern..and I don't mean to insult anyone..but it just isn't all that "special".

You can search the internet for very simple patterns and come up with a lot of patterns that are very similar for knitted garments.

Let's take the stockinette stitch "hoody". You can find the same pattern for an adult Hoody as you can for a child's hoody...about the only difference is the stitch count! In fact I used an adult Hoody pattern from one company..and a child's Hoody pattern from another company to make Hoody's for several generations of one family. I certainly wasn't going to seek copyright or claim copyright...simple pattern.

Wink isn't on just shaky ground, she's on one of the upper levels of a high rise building during an earthquake in San Francisco.

I had to read for a few days on this subject and really inspect the photographs to realize.."there's nothing here to see, move along".


----------



## JuneS (Nov 3, 2011)

You know, that pattern that she claims is hers is a very basic design that I used to make as a kid when I was learning to crochet with #10 thread to make doilies. In fact I think I still have one in my cedar chest. I would not be surprised if you found it published as a vintage pattern maybe in Workbasket.


----------



## suzy-kate (Jan 6, 2013)

courier770 said:


> Copyright offers protection to the designer and while many have pointed out why there is no need for "real" copyright, this is an excellent example of why it is always wise to got the extra step to establish "formal" copyright. At this point we are dealing with not one but two foreign countries...no "international copyright" exists but establishing copyright in one's home country is always a good idea.
> 
> If you are going to design, if you are going to offer patterns for sale, then establishing copyright (formally) is a wise idea.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## PaKnitter (Mar 7, 2011)

Lillyhooch said:


> The real issue is Garnstudio's failure to respond to emails, or to take a phone call. It may just be extremely poor public relations. Or perhaps they thought they may be in the wrong... or was it simply that they couldn't be bothered. Whichever, it does not reflect well on the business.


My guess would be because they publish so many patterns they are probably contacted 24/7 with people claiming the same as Wink.


----------



## Mireillebc (Apr 7, 2013)

I agree with you and all the others with similar opinion.


----------



## Mireillebc (Apr 7, 2013)

courier770 said:


> Copyright offers protection to the designer and while many have pointed out why there is no need for "real" copyright, this is an excellent example of why it is always wise to got the extra step to establish "formal" copyright. At this point we are dealing with not one but two foreign countries...no "international copyright" exists but establishing copyright in one's home country is always a good idea.
> 
> If you are going to design, if you are going to offer patterns for sale, then establishing copyright (formally) is a wise idea.
> 
> ...


Sorry, had omitted to quote.
I agree with you and all other members with similar opinions.


----------



## KnitterNatalie (Feb 20, 2011)

I think that Wink has handled this very professionally. What a shame, and how absurd for a large company to do this!!


----------



## Linday (Jan 22, 2012)

PaKnitter said:


> My guess would be because they publish so many patterns they are probably contacted 24/7 with people claiming the same as Wink.


This was my first thought. Garn would likely have to hire several employees to respond to complaints of this kind. And they would likely have to be lawyers. I believe they did the right thing in advising Wink to obtain a lawyer. As well, I bet Garn has a different recollection of the conversation.

Remember - There are three sides to every story - yours, mine and somewhere in the middle lies the truth. Please Wink don't take this to mean I think you are lying but we tend to remember things the way we want it to have been or be.

I don't know how many times I have seen people make minor changes to the Bowknot Scarf and claim copyright. I first knitted this scarf from a Paton's book 35 years ago and almost on a weekly basis it is published on Ravelry as on original design. Just today I saw a sweater that is identical to one I am currently knitting, by two different designers both claiming copyright. There are only so many ways to combine knitting and crocheting stitches and that two people would come up with the same idea is not that far a stretch.


----------



## momforthree (Nov 10, 2011)

Honestly, there is a problem proving that a design belongs to you. I saw a design on internet claimed by some young ladies, each of them telling that they are the designers
( It was posted even here on KP, but here was not said anything about the origin of the pattern, it could be bought from some store/ site).
Hmmm, I knit that design for many -many years before they were even born, and I am the designer! I dont use any pattern, I do all my knitting/ crocheting & designing by myself There is no way I can prove that 30-35 years ago I made for my child the same design of closing the collar of a sweater, and since then many scarfs with the same type of closing( I think it is called key hole, basically 2  tree leafs  are closing, in each other). hope my expl has sense to you?
I expressed my frustration to some of the knitter from my knitting group in San Pedro...


----------



## tbforest (Feb 25, 2012)

I'm watching this topic on a few boards. Someone just posted a link to this Ted Talks Lesson which is on YouTube. Very interesting discussion on how copyright relates to fashion. Not sure how that extends to knitting and crochet patterns or home décor but still interesting.


----------



## tbforest (Feb 25, 2012)

annacovasa said:


> There is no way I can prove that 30-35 years ago I made for my child the same design of closing the collar of a sweater, and since then many scarfs with the same type of closing( I think it is called key hole, basically 2  tree leafs  are closing, in each other). hope my expl has sense to you?
> I expressed my frustration to some of the knitter from my knitting group in San Pedro...


I've seen that quite often too. Lotus is another pattern like this.
Interesting that so many patterns are out there and someone claims to have copyrighted it.


----------



## deshka (Apr 6, 2011)

JuneS said:


> You know, that pattern that she claims is hers is a very basic design that I used to make as a kid when I was learning to crochet with #10 thread to make doilies. In fact I think I still have one in my cedar chest. I would not be surprised if you found it published as a vintage pattern maybe in Workbasket.


My first crochet looked about like this too, and I bet a ton of others' has also. It's just a simple design and probably been done for centuries.


----------



## AmyClaire (Jun 3, 2011)

Copyright protects how she wrote out the directions and the photos she published. Garnstudio did not republish her words or use her photos. Copyright is not going to help her.

Garnstudio, bless them, writes very poor directions. Surely she doesn't claim that she wrote their directions?

This can't be a patent issue in the USA because utilitarian items like this rug are not patentable. 

That leaves trademark. She didn't trademark the design but even if she did ... look at all the Chanel style suits we can buy knitting patterns for.

Copyright, patent and trademark laws do nothing to protect the ideas of clothing designers. If we don't like it we should change the law.


----------



## courier770 (Jan 29, 2011)

You are very correct AmyClaire! Would Garns (which is headquartered in Norway) even know about her blog? I suspect not. 

Many seem to think that Garns owes Wink a "conversation"...well they are not in business for conversation. I personally think that their response regarding hiring an attorney is good advice. If she feels she was legally "wronged" then she should speak to an attorney. Most attorneys in the US (though I don't think she is in the US) will offer an initial "free" consultation. "Damage suits" usually result in the attorney taking a percentage of the settlement...so she'd be well advised to find out that her case has no merit from an expert in law.


----------



## AmyClaire (Jun 3, 2011)

ty  .... these copyright discussions get so heated, I was fully prepared to be flamed. Thanks for your support and kind words!


----------



## courier770 (Jan 29, 2011)

Copyright is a sensitive issue and yes, sometimes things get "heated". That's O.K., adults should be able to engage in lively debate or decide the discussion is something they don't want to get into. Though what you said is spot on and you made some really excellent points. 

I'm not going to fault Garns for failing to engage in conversation when it's clear that Wink is trying to exercise "copyright"..and that has yet to be established.

The problem with copyright is that it's is not like property lines that can be defined by a fence. Even when property lines are clear and there IS a fence..there's always that pesky tree...the one that drops apples on the property next door...or a nasty limb, that falls and causes damage. 

Wink was looking for "recognition" on a pattern she felt she had designed. Her "open" letter to Garns makes that very clear...then she got upset at their response. They did respond but not in the fashion she had hoped for.


----------



## wink (Jan 27, 2013)

http://winkieflash.nl/2013/08/24/thank/

Wow. That was quite the roller coaster, wasnt it?
After I posted my open letter to Garnstudio, reactions started pouring in. Most of them were very positive towards me, which I really, really appreciate! Some comments were a little more sceptic; and then there were people who were just plain rude. Not to mention the bashing that happened on a couple of online forums. That really shook me, reading all those negative comments. Its very hard to remain positive about yourself when it seems like the entire internet is out to get you.
So apparently, the whole who did it first question is up in the air. Let me be clear: I totally get that my design isnt ground breaking, or extremely original, or amazing. Its a simple design, and it has been done before, many many times. Im with you guys on that one, and Im sorry if I made it seem like I overlooked that fact.
Now some people pointed out to me that the dates that both patterns were published were off. Apparently, the Drops pattern was released either in 2010, or 2011 (their site is still a bit fuzzy on the exact date). Mine was released in 2013. Whoah. Yeah, I know. I first learned about the Drops pattern after they posted it as new on their Facebook page, a couple of months ago. Possibly they just reposted an old pattern for inspiration, and that is how I came to believe they copied the rug idea from me.
That is my mistake, and believe me, I have paid for it.
The point of my open letter to Garnstudio however wasnt to claim rights to the pattern, it was to point out to them and you that the way they treated me was not okay. I have since learned that several others have received the same treatment, and those stories make mine pale in comparison. I wont share the details here because it wouldnt be right. Because believe it or not, I still believe in the kindness of Garnstudio and all its employees.
I just wanted to let them know that they were losing a fan. That it might be better to just say, hey, we think its the other way around, or this pattern has been around for centuries!, instead of ignoring me and others. Now I also get that ignoring people like me is probably the smart thing for them to do, legally speaking.
So whatever side you are or were on, I get where you are coming from. Im very happy with all of you that supported me, and Im supportive of all of you that questioned me and were investigative into the matter. I respect and love all of you!
But its time to close this chapter. The discussion is still going on in some places and I dont believe my blog is the place to do it. The original post is still online, but I closed the comments. Not because I dont want to let your voices be heard, but because I believe everything has been said.
So thank you, for informing me, for keeping me honest, for standing by me, and for speaking out.
xo,
wink


----------



## Chezl (Mar 12, 2012)

Thank you for coming to KP and explaining things to us. I have read all the comments but this is the first post of mine on this subject. All I really want to say is that regardless of anything, you need to give respect to your customers and Garnstudio should have acknowledged you and at least said that they are sorry but they believe that you are wrong and if you have any issues regarding copyright, you should contact your lawyer. That would have been the right and polite thing to do.


----------



## PaKnitter (Mar 7, 2011)

I think misunderstandings are going to happen whenever anyone post their unhappiness with a certain situation on an open forum and other people get involved. 

Five pages of everyone's thoughts on copyright when you were talking about Garnstudio ignoring you.

How sad for everyone involved. So yes, it's time to move on...life is to short to be unhappy for very long.


----------



## grandmann (Feb 4, 2011)

Lillyhooch said:


> The real issue is Garnstudio's failure to respond to emails, or to take a phone call. It may just be extremely poor public relations. Or perhaps they thought they may be in the wrong... or was it simply that they couldn't be bothered. Whichever, it does not reflect well on the business.


I agree with you there :thumbup:

If I have a problem with yarn or needles I will contact the company and they will answer my questions or fix the problem if needed. Sometimes I won't always agree with them but they will answer my e-mails or phone calls.


----------



## PaKnitter (Mar 7, 2011)

grandmann said:


> I agree with you there :thumbup:
> 
> If I have a problem with yarn or needles I will contact the company and they will answer my questions or fix the problem if needed. Sometimes I won't always agree with them but they will answer my e-mails or phone calls.


But they did respond to her.


----------



## Chezl (Mar 12, 2012)

PaKnitter said:


> But they did respond to her.[/qu
> 
> Not to her emails.


----------



## vjh1530 (Oct 8, 2011)

Before everyone gets emotional and jumps on Garn, please remember - she contacted Customer Service and basically accused them of stealing (taking her pattern.) That is a legal issue, not a Customer Service issue. A serious designer who thinks she has had a design taken illegally will contact the company through a lawyer, not post a statement on a forum, blog, or send it to customer service. Copyright violation is a serious legal issue. This is not what a company would want a customer service rep to deal with, and more than likely have instructed them not to respond to claims like this. I am sure they get hundreds of these complaints a year because their patterns are really pretty basic, so practically every designer who ever put out a sweater pattern, etc, can probably find one like theirs on the Garn website. Why waste $$ on man-hours responding to false claims. Keeping the price of yarn as low as possible means using company resources wisely. What would the customer service rep tell her? No we didn't steal your pattern? Go get a lawyer? When she called, she was told to seek legal advice. Just because she didn't like that answer doesn't make it wrong.

This designer never checked basic facts before she made this accusation. She never even looked to see who had published the pattern first - Garn had by 3 years. So Garn could legally accuse HER of Copyright Infringement - and win! She also defamed the company by accusing them of a crime, an accusation that is false. So she could also be sued for slander. If anything, I think she owes Garn an apology. This is also a designer who on her blog shows an afghan she created - by reverse engineering a design she saw elsewhere. So how is what she did with that design different from what she accused Garn of doing?

No offense to anyone who posted. I just hate to see people jump on an emotional bandwagon without considering the facts of the situation.
Vicki


----------



## PaKnitter (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm still rolling my eyes about not answering Wink's e-mail.
Well...it is a business with business hours. When the computers come on line maybe there were other e-mails before her's. And just maybe the business is in a different time zone than she lives in. There are many possibilities to think about before leaping on the bandwagon and badmouthing the business's poor customer service. And just maybe there customer service is poor. But don't you think you should know and not assume.


----------



## Celt Knitter (Jul 13, 2011)

Ditto...and I find it very hard to believe that Garn Studio would do this since they give away all their patterns for free(thousands of them in different languages, with many video tutorials!). It would be no benefit to them whatsoever, and it would not be worth the legal hassle. In my experience, they have excellent customer service. Norway also has stricter business ethical codes than we have!


laurelarts said:


> I agree with galaxycraft! Don't judge without the facts. I hope this doesn't backfire on Wink then she may HAVE to hire an attorney. I worked in the courts for 30 years, I have seen cases such as this get very expensive and long drawn out.


----------



## AriaZ50 (Nov 5, 2019)

[No message]


----------

