Copyright laws for selling homemade clothes?

Oh, there also may be issues if there's a trademarked image involved. For example, if you bought a bunch of leather printed with the Louis Vuitton logo, made handbags out of them, and then sold the handbags, you'd be guilty of trademark infringement.

Actually, I think you might be wrong on the patterned fabric, Amy. My Mom recently made me a http://www.web-goddess.org/archive.php/postID/5651using commercially-printed Star Wars fabric. Apparently the fabric actually came with a http://www.web-goddess.org/archive.php/postID/5653 that stated that she wasn't allowed to make something and then resell it. We've discussed this issue somewhere on MeFi before with regards to decoupage. I'm trying to find the discussion now...

I don't think it's always as clear cut as that. I know there are issues around, for example, using Amy Butler's fabrics to make items to sell. In reality, no fabric designer is really going to care too much if you sell a couple of items at a local craft fair, but if you're making, say, bags with a particular fabric designer's fabric, they may have licensing fees. It's worth checking with the manufacturer or designer.

Most sewing patterns will have a note somewhere saying "not for commercial use." It's a no-no to make up a bunch of, say, Simplicity dresses for sale. Fabric varies; as mentioned, Amy Butler recently changed her previous have-at-it policy to a more restricted licensing policy. It may still be possible to get permission to sell products using her fabric, but you'd need to jump through some hoops. If you're buying yardage from the fabric store, there is usually information about the maker, and if you're lucky, contact information, printed along the selvedge. If in doubt, it's probably a good idea to contact the company.

I do remember discussions in fashion magazines and other places about this law. You should be able to find some kind of statement on the patterns that you can buy from Fabric shops or even in the catalogs of patterns that are made available. If you buy a dress or clothing pattern and use it to make clothes and then sel lthem, you are breaking copyright on those patterns. You are buying a license to use that pattern for personal use. The same goes for wood patterns or any other plans you buy. They are for personal use only. You technically can't sell designs you've bought from another source. I know there are some copyright free designs out there that you can use to creat items to sell. This rule also goes for quilt patterns. Most are generic enough or even so old that there is no copyright on them, but there are a few designs that are copyrighted by the creator. Not that I know of too many quiltmakers suing each other over IP debates, but this is somethign to keep in mind when developing a quilt. For patterned fabric, as long as you are using it in a transformative manner, there's no issue. You can make a quilt from the fabric if you mix it up with other fabrics. What you can not do is create a product meant to showcase only that fabric (purse with only one set fabric, quilt/ sheet set of only copyrighted fabric). Of course you can't really stop copyright owners from suing if they wanted to. They ar erequired by law to protect their brand or lose it.

rodz http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/46943#715248 "They ar erequired by law to protect their brand or lose it." No they aren't, only trademarks must be actively protected.

I'm a little confused by the answers here. Per my understanding, designs of clothing are not protected by copyright. So making clothing from a commercial pattern should be fine. Likewise, the designs of fabrics are not generally protected by copyright. Copyright law distinguishes between creative works that are functional or utilitarian and ones that are simply expressive works. Patent law is intended to protect the utilitarian works; copyright law the works of expression. Clothing design is considered utilitarian. (There has been some movement recently to protect clothing design, but legislation has not yet been enacted.) It's thus traditionally unprotected. Contrast costumes, which can in some circumstances be protected. There's a good discussion of some of these issues http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2005/07/clothing-and-costumes-redux.html by Bill Patry, probably the leading copyright lawyer in the country. Now, printed fabrics are perhaps a more interesting story. The historical rule was that the design of the fabric was one of the things that inherently gave the fabric utilitarian use, and so that design could not be protected. (Ie, when you buy fabric, one of the uses you aim to get out of it is to look a certain way.) That rule has changed in the last few decades, to the point where courts will generally recognize a copyright in a fabric design if that design is sufficiently original. And even then the copyright protection over the design goes only to the expression in that design, not to the idea of the design itself. Overall it's hard to establish infringement of a copyright in a fabric unless you, say, wholesale copy another fabric company's print and sell your own. A good case discussing some of this is Folio Impressions, Inc. v. Byer California, 937 F.2d 759 (2d Cir. 1991). But infringement of the copyright in the fabric doesn't come from using that fabric in a work; it comes from copying that fabric and selling your own. The only possible method of infringement in making something from a copyrighted fabric is in making a derivative work, and in the normal case where you buy a commercially sold fabric, I am confident a court would find an implied license to sell a resulting derivative work. But that implied license can be unimplied — I guess this is why companies have started including licensing agreements. If there's an indisputably protected element of the design, like the incorporation of a copyrighted character, then the copyright to that character would definitely carry through to the produced clothing, and if the company doesn't expressly remove any implied license, they could be giving up some rights to that character. So in general I would say (1) you can't get in trouble for using patterns to make clothing, unless those patterns have a design patent or similar; and (2) you can't get in trouble for using patterned cloth to make clothing, unless that cloth is very distinctive and the seller makes clear you can't sell resulting products. (I am a lawyer who has practiced copyright law, but I am probably not licensed in your jurisdiction, and I do not represent you. Do not rely on any of this. Consult competent counsel.)

I'm a little confused by the answers here. Per my understanding, designs of clothing are not protected by copyright. So making clothing from a commercial pattern should be fine. All major pattern companies publish their patterns with a warning such as "for personal, non-commercial use only." I wonder if it is possible that there is a distinction between a clothing design, which a sewer could copy by creating their own pattern, and using the published pattern itself to create commercial goods? It turns out, however, that we were all wrong about Amy Butler: http://www.amybutlerdesign.com/faqs/ ... 1. FOR INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE WHO BUY AMY'S FABRIC AT RETAIL COST (FROM A SHOP OR ONLINE): You can make items for sale. Since you are buying the fabric at retail, the non-commercial use does not apply to you. WHY DOES IT SAY "FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE" ON AMY'S FABRICS? This only applies to manufacturers. Our goal is to work in conjunction with manufacturers who have entered into a licensing agreement with us. We want to keep the fabrics as exclusive as we can so your designs are unique and fresh! So only people looking for wholesale prices on Amy Butler fabric need to worry about the non-commercial use clause. (Butler recently announced changes to her licensing policy, and I think this is a revision/clarification of the original announcement, which caused consternation in the crafting world.)

raf: I am confident a court would find an implied license to sell a resulting derivative work. But that implied license can be unimplied — I guess this is why companies have started including licensing agreements. hilatron: All major pattern companies publish their patterns with a warning such as "for personal, non-commercial use only." Lots of terms in license agreements turn out to be unenforcable when tested in court. There were cases surrounding used record/tape/CD stores in the 80s, where the producers wanted to stop re-sale of their works. Basically the same issue came along with oem software installed on computers. For years, if you wanted to resell a Dell, the windows license said you couldn't include the software. That has now changed. FOR INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE WHO BUY AMY'S FABRIC AT RETAIL COST (FROM A SHOP OR ONLINE): You can make items for sale. Since you are buying the fabric at retail, the non-commercial use does not apply to you. I wondered if this is 'legal', but on consideration, it doesn't matter. Amy Butler can just stop selling wholesale goods to you, if you don't accept their terms. They can't stop you buying at retail though, hence the answer in their FAQ..