Those on the Knitting Stitchers group know that I occasionally throw up links there for interesting knitting patterns.One of the more recent I referred to was a site which had free designs for Dr Who creatures including the Adipose .....
Well I just saw this:
http://technollama.blogspot.com/2008/05/doctor-who-partnerts-in-copyright-crime.html
Apparently the BBC have threatened legal action against the knitter and she has removed her designs from her site.
Note: she was not selling the designs - she had put them out free to world. What does this mean for other knitters - or cross stitchers - or any other fan-based work?
A very interesting article even if I didn't quite follow all the legal details ....
10 comments:
That's a real pity. That Adipose is so cute. I'd almost be prepared to learn to knit to make one of those.
I know that copyright holders have to be seen to be working to keep their copyright or they lose it, but it still seems extreme.
Interesting article. What absolutely nags me is that there is not ONE word about the fact that the knitter in question didn't ask any money for her "design"...
I do think that it can be regarded as an infringement. He/she's not asked for any form of permission from the BBC, but I'd bet it never really came to his/her mind that it could be an infringement if he/she knitted this thing for fun and shared the pattern to do it for fun.
I used to knit cute little dwarfs some 30 odd years ago. If I did one and showed it on the internet these days, do you think I'd have to fear a lawsuit from the makers of German garden gnomes???
More than extreme, because how many knitters would actually do this pattern? Couple of hundred? At most. And they would still be in for the merchandise I'm sure.
Interesting case....does make you wonder about an awful lot of fanbased use of many items.
Once again, the BBC acts as a big brither organisation, not an unusual thing now.
Yes once again the greed of the large corporation gets in the way of simple enjoyment for the "little person".
I never watch bloody BBC and yet I'm still forced to pay a tv licence for a service I don't use because it's "law".
Bah, I'm too knackered to get on my soap box this morning, but it doesn't stop me from having bad thoughts....lol
Dat makes two of us....
Have to admit that I actually do watch BBC, well, the channels I get here, and I think compared to what the private tv stations offer I like their stuff a LOT better. That and no commercials. I also only watch German channels without any commercials (there's a good number of them luckily).
I expect their productions are pretty costly, so they need to get the money from somewhere. The question I usually do ask though is whether there's any PROFIT, and if there is, WHO gets it?
But give me my daily Bargain Hunt, LOL...
It's an interesting question. I wonder how "original" something has to be to have it's own copyright?!?
I loathe Bargain Hunt....The day they find a presenter who isn't a David Dickinson clone, I'll watch it.
The entire country pays a flipping fortune to get the BBC and if you have Sky, you pay another £45 per month. It's a scam.
I just hear the name mentioned, but I've never seen anything with Dickinson, so I can't compare... that's then the reason why I don't feel Wonnacott a clone. I can see why you don't like it then. To me it's more the experts that make it fun. I adore Philip Serrel and a number of them. The more quirky ones in any case.
I like the experts and I like the whole concept, just the presenter I can't stand...he ruins it for me:(
Post a Comment