Comments on: About “Licensed” Fabrics

By: sewberkeley

sewberkeley — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 00:37:33 +0000

I think our concern is mostly for the vast grey areas… Is it okay to make the potholder, to name the potholder, to identify the fabrics in the potholder, to credit the designer and manufacturer of the fabric (should I also hat-tip the maker for batting inside?). Is it alright to make one potholder for personal use, five to give to family, ten to sell at a church bazaar, or to sell that same ten on Etsy? If my pattern is published in a magazine, should I ask permission — or only if the fabric is identifiable? With written/published materials most of these kind of questions have been answered, but here we have a design element that is also a raw material to make something else out of. I think New Pieces takes the appropriate action in wait-and-seeing, and (for now) avoiding to the extent we can any labeled fabrics that “red-flag” the situation.

For now you can be sure that using those fabrics in a quilt for yourself or a family member is not meant to be a problem. I do have to admit that the term “personal consumption” concerns me. I have no plans to eat my stash!

By: Judy Smith

Judy Smith — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 23:51:12 +0000

Thanks for bringing this up. I agree that it is confusing and probably not enforceable. But I can imagine what might be behind it.

The first thing to pop into my mind — when reading this article — was the prevalent use, on Etsy, of fabric print themes when naming an article for sale. For example, a pot-holder (that’s what I researched because that’s what I sell on Etsy) might be called by the artist “autumn leaves pot-holder” NOT because the artist cut leaf shapes out of fabric and appliquéd them onto a plain background, but rather because he/she simply cut a print fabric with an autumn leaf design into two squares, bound them together with some batting and a solid border, and called it a day. Under those circumstances I believe the fabric design might have sold the pot-holder moreso than the artistry of the seller. What do you all think about this angle?

By: Hilary Metcalf

Hilary Metcalf — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:48:02 +0000

Interesting topic – I have done a lot of research on this – check out this website http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CopyrightLaw/LicensedFabric.shtml
for a round up of case law on the subject. Bottom line – those statements aren’t worth the fabric they are printed on. You can do whatever you like with the fabric once you buy it.

By: sharona

sharona — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:12:44 +0000

Groan to it all.

By: Gail Shea

Gail Shea — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:40:35 +0000

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I have NEVER heard of this before and am appalled. Fabrics are MADE to be used for commercial as well as personal purposes. So all the people who make handbags and quilts and skirts from this fabric would be subject to penalties. This is the stupidest thing the industry has thought up! How would they possibly enforce it? See a woman on the street with the forbidden, unlicensed fabric and take away her skirt? Arrest her? Ludicrous! My opinion is that this has been thought up by fabric designers that are far, FAR too impressed with their output. My guess is that nothing will ever come of this (because it’s so stupid), but I am glad that New Pieces is taking a stand and not carrying these products. I hope fabric stores around the world will follow your lead–because that’s pretty much all it will take for this foolishness to go away. Once their profits are affected, it will all quietly disappear is my guess.

By: Dan Rouse

Dan Rouse — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:56:17 +0000

I agree with Sharona’s position. It’s even more galling to see the warnings printed on unoriginal derivative prints.

The True Up author is Kimberly Kight, author of “A Field Guide to Fabric Design”