- This topic has 15 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Hello,
I usually hang on the colored pencil forum, so this is new territory for me.
I posted a question in my ‘home’ forum, about using fabric in artwork, and was advised by an admin to move it over here. She could tell the issue was bothering me a bit.
A colored pencil artist that I particularly admire uses fabric frequently in her artwork. I asked her if she had to get permission to use those fabrics.
She said that fabric patterns are copyrighted. However, she uses fabric for one of a kind images because she understands that is allowed under current copyright law. She did stress that she was not a lawyer and was only passing on what worked for her.
Does someone know the exact letter of the law on this? My exact question is:
If I have a beautiful piece of fabric, am I allowed to use that as a backdrop, a covering for a table, a base for a pretty teapot, in a piece of colored pencil artwork? The type of artwork I create would not be tagged ‘super-realistic,’ but it is fairly realistic.
Thank you,
Jan
The journey is as important as the destination.If I have a beautiful piece of fabric, am I allowed to use that as a backdrop, a covering for a table, a base for a pretty teapot, in a piece of colored pencil artwork? The type of artwork I create would not be tagged ‘super-realistic,’ but it is fairly realistic.
Thank you,
Jan
The pattern, if copyrighted is protected as a use right. You can paint it in, use it in a quilt, photograph it or snuggle in it while you work. What you can not do is produce a fabric of any kind that has this pattern.
Hope this helps,
Jerry Lipp
www.jerrylipp.com (my paintings)
www.mwlea.com (fine art etching)
Blogs: http://jerrylipp.blogspot.com/ (professional artsBless you, Jerry! :thumbsup:
If you’re absolutely sure about this, my problem is totally solved!
Thank you!
The journey is as important as the destination.Personal experience is good enough for me.
I’ll use my pretty fabric.However, I did email the company (there was a logo on the fabric that I thought I could make out as Waverly), just to see what they say.
I doubt they’ll respond. To officially give me permission might open doors they don’t want to open. But they probably don’t really give a rat’s behind if I do or don’t.
Thanks for the input! If ’tweren’t for you, I wouldn’t know any more than when I started!
Your answer made a lot of sense.
The journey is as important as the destination.I do not want to ‘sneak’ past copyright.
Getting caught is irrelevant. Whether I got caught or not, if using fabric patterns is against the ‘rules,’ I don’t want to do it.For practical reasons, if nothing else. If I ever got sued once, I’d be disgraced, whether I won or not.
And the AWS situation is fresh in my mind.
That’s why I emailed the Waverly company.
I imagine I should just consult a copyright lawyer, via Internet, but that cost $$$. I was hoping someone would be familiar with the ‘rules’ and I wouldn’t have to do that.
Jerry has said the same thing a popular cp artist said. However, the cp artist did say that one co. would not use her work because it contained fabric patterns.
I get the feeling it’s a gray area.
But yes, if someone used a 3D image I made, as a model for a painting, without asking me, I’d be ready to shoot ’em. With my BB gun, of course.
The journey is as important as the destination.If I have a beautiful piece of fabric, am I allowed to use that as a backdrop, a covering for a table, a base for a pretty teapot, in a piece of colored pencil artwork? The type of artwork I create would not be tagged ‘super-realistic,’ but it is fairly realistic.
Thank you,
The answer is yes. You don’t need permission from some fabric company to make a painting, you don’t need to be all creative with modifying the pattern of print or anything. This falls very comfortably within what is considered fair use of copyright materials. Because you are not competing in the same industry they are, you are not violating their copyright. (the complete answer is more complex, but eh, nut shell version is what Im dishing right now)
http://www.portraitartist.com/
Feel free to browse what the pros do and who make serious $$$ doing portraits. There are hundreds if not thousands of portraits there with accurate representations of what their client is wearing, and yes a pattern on a dress or shirt is the same thing and one on a drop clothe under a tea set.
The only scenario were I can imagine any issue at all, is if one is a shock type artists and uses a fabric that sports a recognizable trademark or logo. Other than something out of the ordinary, artists are good.
Just to play devil’s advocate for a second
, lets image a world where patterns and prints on fabric had an absolute protection in copyright law and where we can pretend fair use did not exist. What would this mean? For one it means that in order to take pictures at a wedding or party and to show them, we would need permission from all the fabric companies. Did you get a waiver from the maker of the bride’s dress? Is that why in the Oscars they say who designed their outfits, because it’s a copyright thing?!:lol: Does this mean we require some lable checkers at the door, “No shoes, no shirt, no service, and no levi brand jeans, they said we could not take pictures of thier fabric.”C&C always welcomed. Frank
www.MyDigitalWorkshop.com
Why, thank you, Frank!
I appreciate the time you put into your post. It’s well written, and clearly explained.
And, my God, is it ever nice to converse with you in a non-competitive way!!!
Because you are not competing in the same industry they are, you are not violating their copyright.
I understand the nutshell.
Well, now I’ve got two ‘yeas’ and one ‘semi-nay.’
Maybe I’ll do a test image and see if I get sued. On the image, I’ll put: Testing…one, two, three…here it is, so who wants to sue me?
No, seriously, I’m beginning to get the feeling that using fabric in images is acceptable, especially if it’s a ‘one of a kind.’ Should I ever get lucky enough to have prints of such an image made (ha!), I might be a bit nervous. Think I’d check with a lawyer in that case, due to the mass production thing.
But thanks again. I really do appreciate all three of you taking time to comment and offer advice.
Jan
The journey is as important as the destination.Should I ever get lucky enough to have prints of such an image made (ha!), I might be a bit nervous. Think I’d check with a lawyer in that case, due to the mass production thing.
Even if you made unlimited prints, it still falls comfortably within fair and legal use. I worked for film and TV in the art department & since this industry is a favorite target for frivolous lawsuits, they tend to be more cautious than they technically need to be (They do what Jerry does though maybe not as strictly). While they try to make sure they don’t use artwork without permission, always get model releases, make sure that trademarks aren’t being seen or if they are have permission, getting permission from the creator of a pattern of a fabric never enters the radar and has never been a concern for them. Nothing gets reproduced more and distributed as much as films and commercials. Set decorators only have to worry about getting the best looking fabric for a set, not one that can pass imaginary legal loop holes.
C&C always welcomed. Frank
www.MyDigitalWorkshop.com
Jan–
An easy, general rule of thumb for fair-use of copyrighted items is this: would the average person, when looking at the new work (that would be your cp piece) and the copyrighted work (that would be the fabric) consider your work a *direct replacement* in the market for the fabric. In other words (and using common sense), would the average person consider your work able to steal sales from the fabric people? If the answer is “no”, you’re fine.
Here’s the piece of the puzzle (pun intended!
) you’re missing… the cp artist you emailed was *licensing* her work to be reproduced as jigsaw puzzles– not straight art prints. So if the folks who held the copyright on the fabric she used decided to make jigsaw puzzles of their fabric design, its possible that the difference between some of the individual jigsaw puzzle pieces would be so slight, it wouldn’t pass the average person test. My bet is that the company that was going to produce and market the jigsaw puzzles didn’t want to run that risk.Hope that helps to put your mind at ease.
Rosemary[FONT="Palatino Linotype"]Rosemary (aka Tess) - [/color]
[FONT="Book Antiqua"]How does she do that??? Find out here:[/color] Celtic Art 101
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.[/left]Hey, I said it was the nutshell version……….sheesh.
But no, Because artist do use their work in other applications than on just a canvas to hang on a wall. Art work can go on a lunch box, pillows, in magazines, if it has a surface, chances are someone at some point thought it was a good idea to put artwork on it to help it sell. So for artists, all these forms of derivative reproductions are realistic, potential ways for the artist to make money that a copyright is designed to protect.
On the flip side, if an pattern maker decided they really liked a combo of Sargents strokes of paint and decided, hey, I can use that to make an amazing pattern, that would be fair. There is no realistic market place for an artist to sell rights for a few strokes of paint out of their work.
A pattern on a fabric that an artist paints in a still life or portrait is hardly a derrivative of the pattern.;)
C&C always welcomed. Frank
www.MyDigitalWorkshop.com
I think the difference might be:
Kincaid’s work is meant to be decorative.
Fabric is meant to be useful. Like Frank said, the official law is probably ten pages long (well, he didn’t say that, but he said he’s giving us the nutshell).
Also, if you replicated Kincaid’s design in a quilt, your whole quilt would be Kincaid’s design — not yours.
The decorative fabric is only a part of a painting.
And I guess you’ll say — well, what if I took six famous artists and quilted a square with one painting of each? I doubt that’d be legal, because you still haven’t really designed anything. The artists did.
Look at it this way…if I bought a pretty piece of fabric, surrounded it with a lace border, added a few sequins, then framed it as is and sold it, that’d be okay, wouldn’t it? I positioned (designed) what’s in the frame. What’s the difference in painting the fabric design, and enhancing it with other elements? Wrapping a character’s upper body in it, for example, or putting the pattern on her skirt?
If, however, I tried to sell the cloth pattern to another fabric company, as my original design, that wouldn’t be allowed, and I can see why.
The situation is evidently not crystal clear to anyone. Barbara Edidin – the artist I asked the question of — is famous. And she uses fabric in her work. Jigsaw puzzles have been made of her work. And you know she’s got good lawyers.
She did say though, that one company objected to using her work because of the fabric question. So, who really knows?
I also do 3D, in addition to colored pencil. I buy fabric packages, set to texture size, for some of my models. I doubt those people who sell those fabric samples have gotten permission from the companies but the packages are sold by Renderosity, which is a company that’s very strict about copyright. That’s just a guess…who knows? Maybe they have an agreement with the fabric companies, but they give no company credit in their ‘read me’ file.
I will try to find the exact wording of the law on this subject and post it.
The journey is as important as the destination.Rosemary, I forgot to thank you for you input.
I do appreciate it.I found this:
[B]Tuesday, September 25, 2007[/B]
[B][URL=http://feingoldjewelry.blogspot.com/2007/09/not-all-fabric-is-created-equal.html]Not all fabric is created equal[/URL] [/B]
I have seen a lot of forum debate on the use of fabric in creations. I hope to shed a little light on this complicated topic.
*Not all Fabric is Created Equal:*
When discussing United States copyright and fabric, usually someone brings up the fact that if fabric is covered by copyright, then every piece of fabric clothing, and every fabric pillow, bag, and headband violates copyright. This argument is simply not true.
According to U.S. Copyright Law, in order for a fabric pattern to qualify for copyright protection it must “rise to the level of artistic design.” For example, a drawing or photograph printed on cloth would likely meet this test but a simple white sheet is probably not eligible for copyright protection.
However, where is the line? When is a piece of fabric just barely eligible for copyright protection and when does it fall short? There is little case law on this subject and both legal scholars and judges may disagree. Ultimately, this becomes a question for the court to decide.
In conclusion, not all fabric is created equal. Before you use of the fabric you must examine the fabric itself because not every fabric pattern is entitled to copyright protection. I will examine other issues associated with using fabric and creating art in subsequent articles. Please stay tuned. For more information on U.S. Copyright Law visit [URL=http://www.copyright.gov/][COLOR=#999999]www.copyright.gov[/COLOR][/URL].
Of course, the fabric I use would be considered ‘artistic,’ so I shall keep looking.
P.S. I went to the gov. site, but all I could find was what the gov. wanted in order to copyright your fabric design. Samples, etc.
The journey is as important as the destination.
- The topic ‘Using Fabric In Artwork’ is closed to new replies.