The House of Tatterdemalion


Recent Posts



Copy Wrongs

September 30th, 2007 by tatterdemalion

I just got my first issue of Vogue Knitting. It’s hard to know what kind of a magazine it really is, because this is their 25th Anniversary issue, and all magazines are a “different” for their anniversary issues. Although in some ways it felt more like a really big source book (it’s the only magazine I’ve ever seen that has several state by state directories for various specific yarns), I actually had to read it. I mean, read it not give a brief skim, look over the pictures and be done with it in about 15 to 20 minutes. In some places, this magzine had text, and text that was on the small side at that. There was actually substance. I call that good place to start. I’m interested in seeing what the next issue looks like.

The most interesting thing (text-wise, to me) in this issue was the interviews with the “old gaurd knitters” and the “new gaurd knitters”. They covered a lot of ground, and there are many different things I could pick up on, but I guess what I feel like talking about today has to do with that hot-topic of copy rights and money and the internet (all three. In the same conversation). The hard part is knowing where to start and how to arrange my thoughts.

Trisha [Malcolm: Editorial Director, Vogue Knitting]: You know, I’ve witnessed a distinct disrespect for copy right in a lot of cases. . .I have a bit of a personal vendetta on the copyright issue. . .I always use Debbie Bliss as an example. They all know her, and I say, “You know, she has two children to support. If you give away her patterns or don’t buy her books, she can’t eat.

Ok, can somebody out there quickly and succintly describe copyright law? Your average lay person tends to understand copyright law as thus—“If I’m not taking credit for myself that someone else deserves, and if I’m not making money at it, I’m respecting copyright law.” But everything I’ve ever read basically boils down to “It isn’t as simple as you think, if you’re doing anything with anything that someone else has designed you can get your butt sued off; always consult your lawyer.” When it gets to the point where the average person doesn’t understand what counts as legal and what doesn’t, you know there is something wrong with the laws. Naturally, we can all understand the more extreme examples, like the one Meg Swansen offered.

Someone, qoute, “redesigned” the Baby Surprise Jacket in seed stitch and called it their own.

Everyone can easily see the offense in that. But did you know that, for instance, if you buy a sewing pattern from one of the major pattern companies, it’s against the law to sew that pattern for more than one person? If you’re a seamstress, and you are sewing bridesmaids dress for a client, and all of the bridesmaids can fit in the same size range of that pattern, you are still obligated by law to buy a seperate pattern for every dress you sew. Otherwise, you’re not respecting copyright, you’re not giving the pattern company the money they are due, and you’re using a pattern in a manner it was not meant to be used.

The more people try to find out about copyright law so they can be good law abiding citizens, the more resentful they get. The list of things you “cannot” do grows longer and longer and longer and longer. Nearly anything you want to do, which does not give you credit you don’t deserve and doesn’t make you any money, is still illegal. You find out you are not buying a product at all; you are merely buying very limited temporary rights that the company can revoke any old time it it wants to.

It’s a bit like gun control. If people want guns, and you want them controlled, you can out-law all semi-automatic guns. People might grumble and whine and complain, but generally speaking, it means that semi-automatic weapons are harder to get a hold of, and people give the law a bit grudging observance. But if you out-law all guns, then it doesn’t matter if they get a hold of semi-automatic or guns or not, they’re still breaking the law. Instead of enacting more restraint, it gives way to less. If they’re going to get in trouble regardless of what kind of gun they have, they’ll go for whatever one they want.

Or you can think of the time of the Prohibition. All alcohol was utterly banned; it was all agasint the law. The result wasn’t that everyone quit drinking; it was just that everyone became lawbreakers. Perhaps they might have had more success if they had tried to only limit alcohol and only banned the hardest, strongest stuff. But once you tell people that no matter what you do, you’re a lawbreaker, they feel no restraint to even follow even the least strict guidelines. If it’s all illegal anyway, they might as well do what they want. What’s the difference?

I feel that the same is happening toward copyright issues and intellectual property and the like. People are feeling increasingly more that “everything” is being outlawed—and if they’re going to have to be an outlaw anyway, they might as well do what they really want to do. People seem to think that if they just make copyright laws stricter and more serious, they’ll be able to crush this problem for once and for all. I think the opposite is true. Oh, you’ll always have those who are out to truly take what isn’t theirs, but for your average Joe Blow who isn’t trying to do any harm, I think it would be more profitable to simplify the copyright laws. It would do away with a lot of the grudges and bitter tastes in the mouths of the consumers which make them so loath to follow the fullness of the copyright laws to begin with.

I am reminded of an article I saw once, written for entreprenuers. It was something like “The Five Hard Truths Of Entreprenuership”, or something like that. I unfortunatley didn’t save the aritcle and can’t find it, and I can’t even remember what all of them were. But if I remember right, the first one was something like:

Don’t try to sell your orginality. You don’t have any; there is no such thing as original. And even if, by some wild freak of nature, you do happen to have something orginal, everyone else can do the same thing and do it better to boot.

How hard! But how true. Everything can be and will be knocked-off. You can cry, kick, scream, bewail the unfairnes of the universe—or you accept it as fact, and sell something other than “orginiality”—like quality, promptness, courtesy. If you think you can have one brilliant idea, and be the sole porpritor for that brilliant idea, and live off that single idea—you are destinied for dissappointment. Generally speaking, if you have to resort to the line “But I have a family to support!” you are fighting a loosing battle, and you are out of touch with reality. It may not be nice, but capitalism is survival of the fittest. If you are running a business in such a way that you can’t live off it—that’s your problem.

I am not, by any means, encouraging copyright infringement; I am merely stating the situation as I see it. When people build skyscrapers, they don’t build them to resist and stand strong and rigid in the face of every breeze. Instead, they design them to move in the wind—to not fight so powerful a force, but rather to realize it is not a force to be fought with. They must learn to live with the ever-present reality of wind, however unpleasant they might find that fact.

You may very well find it very unfair that seamstresses accross the world are taking the one pattern they bought and using it to make clothes for more than one person—pants for their husband and their father, shirts for all three of their boys—but no matter how unfair or illegal you might find it, I can assure you it is being done. If you ask my opinion (and you shall get it wether you want it or not), it would be far more constructive, conductive to good customer relationships, and much more profitiable to stop fighting it and find profitable ways to co-exist with it—even gain from it.

A profitable business is one who realizes that thier customers are more valuable than their products. People can always find the same thing, or something similar, from someone else. And what makes a valuable customer is not making sure the costumer pays every last red cent that you so richly deserve, but a loyal customer—a customer who comes back time and time again for the pleasure of doing business with you, a customer who tells everyone about you. It does not take a business degree to figure this out—you need only be a consumer yourself. Where would you like to shop? How would you like to be treated? Why do you keep going back to the same place?

The indignant response is that it looks totally different from the other side of the fence, that of course the customer thinks it’s all about him, but really it’s not.

Naturally everyone thinks they are the center of the universe. But it is my desire to start my own independant pattern company someday, and my intention is to use Creative Common Liscences. Because I want people to swap my patterns, and have “pattern libraries” of my patterns. I want people to build on them and share them, and spread them around.

But then how will I make any money?

Because if you get a book out of the library and you like it enough, you buy your own copy so you always have it on hand when you want it.

Because copying patterns is a pain, and it’s easy to click on the “Download now!” button and a pay a little money.

Because it’s even more convinient to get a printed patterns shipped right to your door.

Because I want to do custom drafting, and if the pattern your borrowing fits your friend Mary perfectly, you’ll want a pattern that fits you perfectly, too.

Because sharing, using, changing and enjoying patterns is the best advertising in the world.

Because people are basically lazy, and they’d rather pay a little rather than go through the bother of doing it themselves.

And maybe, say, a major pattern company will knock-off one of my designs. . .but they’ll be following me, and I’ll be first. I’ll make other designs, and they’ll trail me. And my customer service will be better than theirs ever could be, because it’s a rather well known fact that the larger a company is, the worse their customer service is. And if I loose a little market share to them, that’s okay, because I’ll be a small company, and having all the world wanting my glorious product would be more than I could handle. A small bit of the pie is easier to savor. People have some how got it in their heads that the end goal of any business is to conquer the world, but I don’t want to. I want to serve a small niche market that values quality and custom work. Ruling the world is utterly un-appealing to me.

Urk. This has gotten quite far a field from the Vogue Knitting article. One thing I found amusing in the article was when Mari Lynn Patrick said:

. . .And I don’t care how good a knitter you are, you have to have something to work from, technically, to get it right. You can knit off the cuff and do all kinds of things, but there are so many factors that go into putting it out in the right way. And it has to be nurtured through all the stages of getting it out in the right way.

I do find it amusing. It’s rather arrogant, I think. That there is “the right way”, that you must be “nurtured through all of the stages”, that you must get instruction from everyone else. It was even more amusing, because just a few pages before there had been an interview with Barbara Walker, who is apparently quite famous for her innovations and “discoveries” in the field of knitting. I wish I could qoute the entire interview, because I just loved it. Carla and Adina are VK editors.

Carla: How did you figure out a technique you’d never done before? Did other people help you?
Barbara: No, I’m entirely self-taught.
Carla: That’s amazing.
Barbara: I don’t know why that’s amazing. The directions are there to be read. The thing to do there, I found, was to try it a different way and see what it looked like. That way, you learn to do things differently.
Carla: That’s how you stared to invent your own stitch patterns, I assume—by doing somethign in a different way and saying “this looks great.”
Barbara: Sometimes. Or sometimes I just wanted a different-looking technique and I tried it various ways until I got what I was after.

Every little bit needs to be nurtured along to come out the right way, indeed. I also like this bit:

Carla: Tell us about other innovations of yours.
Barbara: I invented the slip-stitch color technique that I named mosaic knitting. Antoher thing was the SSK. Slip 1, knit 1, psso looked so cumbersome. I thought, There’s got to be an easier way to do that, so starting with the first treasury, I changed it to SSK. And then Elizabeth Zimmermann picked up on it and put it in her books, and from there it just spread everywhere. So now it’s the common use, right?
Carla: It is. So many people prefer it over the SKP. I didn’t realize you had introduced so many of these techniques.

Can you imagine what it would have been like if Barbara Walker had made a fuss over Elizabeth Zimmermann using “her” technique, if only certified Barbara Walker patterns could use SSK, if every desginer who wanted to use SSK in their designs had to pay Barbara Walker royalty money, if Barbara Walter spent the remainder of her time chasing down people “unlawfully mis-using” her work instead of spending her time on new knitting methods? Actually, she didn’t even spend “the remainder of her time” on new knitting methods. She moved to a warm place where sweaters were almost useless, and basically quit knitting. Her most recent obsession is mineral collecting, instead.

Adina: You’ve inspired so many designers. Do you follow the work of any in particular?
Barbara: Well, there you’re talking above my head because I have followed absolutely nothing for the past eleven years.
Adina: You’ve followed nothing! You must have been in Wal-Mart maybe? What do you think of all these crazy novelty yarns.
Barbara: I don’t even look at them.
[Everyone laughs]
Carla: You only knit with wool?
Barbara: No, I used all kinds of yarns, but I haven’t been buying yarn, so I haven’t bothered to look. So I’m passe, a dinosaur.
Adina:To us you’ll always be a rock star.

I love that being brilliant in knitting hasn’t made Barbara apathetic about trying new things or bitter about not getting the recognition she deserved, or being properly respected. And I think that Barbara pretty well illustrates the fact that the knowledge we have now is because of knowledge being freely taken and freely given. Times of learning and progress come in times of openess and sharing, not times of closely gaurded secrets and well-defended rights.

The “old gaurd” seemed more defensive of “getting what they were owed” than the “new gaurd”. I think the discussion of the “new gaurd” inadvertantly touched on that. In the “old days” you really had a lot of business overhead. It was mail order, you had to print your patterns, it was tough getting the word out about your business. Everyone photo-copying your designs could mean the difference between going out of and staying in business. But as Vickie Howell said, now “you can start a business with 100 bucks and a computer.” Debbie Stroller says “It’s interesting that it took the Internet to bring back the possibility of running a cottage industry again in an industrialized era. You don’t have to run from store to store to see who might be interested in buying your stuff; you can immediately make it availiable.”

The Internet does change a lot. The ones who will be successful will be the ones who understand the best way to use it, instead of fighting it or misusing it. The “new gaurd” got to talking about Local Yarn Stores.

Adina:. . .Yarn shops do have to adapt to the Internet, but the Internet has to respect from whence it came, which is the yarn shop.
Debbie: Adina, I don’t think that can actually happen. I think the LYS needs to think about what it can offer that the Internet can’t, and focus on that, for better or worse.

I think Debbie hit the nail on the head, though the others felt that “it’s our obligation to keep people going to the yarn stores,” and that “that’s an excellent point: keeping in mind that this is a profession for the owners.”

I’m sorry, guys, but capitalism is survival of the fittest. It doesn’t care what would be “nice”. If you’re trying to make money, it’s your responsibility to see to it you offer something people will buy. If no one is buying, that’s not the customers fault, it’s yours. Adapt or die. Nobody “owes” it to you to keep you in business.

Clara [Parkes]:That’s what we’re fighting against—that all-for-one, one-for-all, free-patterns, we-should-be-helping-each-other, it’s-women-after-all. That it’s almost crude to introduce filthy lucre into it.

Kinda sad, I think, to live in a day in age where it’s virtous to fight against that “all-for-one, one-for-all” mentality. I think the yarn shops just have to get with it. They have to decide if they’re a warm and fuzzy community or a business. If they’re trying to be warm and fuzzy, well, I don’t think they do have much place to be charging money for teaching. It’s a called a knitting guild, it’s a community, and people help each other. Maybe they should just turn it into a coffe shop and sell coffee instead.

If they’re a business, then they should charge—it’s called “classes” or “one-on-one tutoring”, and there’s nothing nasty about it, as long as they don’t treat their students in a nasty manner.

I suppose that shall have to be all for today, though there’s lots more I could say, and I’m sure it’s all in desperate need of editing and proof-checking. My mind is frizzled, my eyes are sick of the computer, my back is tired of this lousy computer set-up, and it’s utterly glorious outside. Hopefully it has been good enough to inspire a little thought, regardless.

Posted in Articles, Contemplations, Magazines | 8 Comments »

8 Responses

  1. Laura Says:

    Ok, here I am obsessively commenting on your blog again. Did you read the fairly recent discussion on about IP in craft? Weeks Ringle, who runs a quilting design business, was complaining about all the people who wanted to purchase a pattern for custom designs she’d done for a client. Many of the comments are very well-put.

    Personally, I think the creative commons-type stuff will have more legs than a crack-down, and ultimately the people who take that approach will be more successful and make more money.

  2. Tatterdemalion Says:

    Thanks, Laura, hadn’t seen that site or that discussion. It was an interesting read.

    One thing I think really complicates this issue is people getting “art” and “business” mixed up. (E.g. trying to compare artists to plumbers, etc.)

    Yes, artist do work, and yes, if someone buys it, they should be paid for it.

    But an arist is concerned about “origniallity”. An artist gets no joy out of “copying” because the joy of an artist is to create, even if by building off of others.

    So an artist can get very upset when people “don’t get it” and want exact copies of what is supposed to be unique.

    But your average person is not interested in “art”. Your average person is a consumer, not an artist. What they want, they buy. If they admire your set of dining room chairs, they ask you where you got them, so they too can have them. If they like the color of paint you used in your living room, they ask you what color it is. To the consumer, things exist to be bought. If you see something you like in a cataloge, and you’re willing to pay the price, it doesn’t matter who else has it or if there are thousands of exact copies. A consumer does not pause when buying a pair of earrings to think of how many thousands and thousand of them may have been produced. She liked them, she bought them, end of story.

    In the olden days, artist did not largely sell a lot of stuff. They were either comissioned—work that was specific to a person, place or event, meant to serve a certain puprose—or they starved, so to speak. A lot of artist didn’t live off their work.

    Now, in this modern age, artist tend to think they’re owed the best of both worlds. They think they’re owed the right to live off their work, and the right to be exclusive. They have to give up one or the other.

    They must either realize they are an artist, and rise above the copies because they are driven to say what they will say. Once it’s said, it is enough and they move onto the next thing that must be said.

    Or else they must realize they are only out to make money, and never mind perfect exclusiveness. If more than one person wishes to buy the same design, is that a detrement to them? The more they sell, the more they make.

    I think a big problem with a lot of people is trying to hold on too long. You get one crack at it, and then you have to move on. I think rule number two from the “5 Hard Facts” article was that you have to remember the only advantage you have over the competion is 6 weeks. (I suppose that number would vary from feild to field, but the basic point remains.)

    Anyway, I think I’m repeating myself, and I have to get going. Thanks for your comment!

  3. Laura Says:

    I think the slippery interface between art and craft is key here too – there’s plenty of originality, and if you want to call it, art, and then there’s adapting and modifying which is maybe more craft-like. But where’s the difference and when should one be worth more than the other, etc. I was going to say that artists tend to make one-offs of something, while artisans/crafters make several, but that’s not always true either – the best way to sell as a visual artist is to make prints, and plenty of crafters make original pieces. (That’s what I like to call the clothes I sew – unique originals. The flaws are simply demonstrations of my artistic vision. 😛 )

    Just to keep myself sane, I try to keep “how I may or may not make money at something” and “what intrinsic value does this activity have for me” separated in my head. It’s not easy in our culture, of course, since money = success – and we all have to put food on the table somehow, too. There’s a Marlon Brando quote that’s “never confuse the size of your paycheck with the size of your talent.” I think some of these people that are overly zealous about ‘mine mine mine’ are confused in that sense, and they feel like if they don’t squeeze every last possible $ from their brainstorms then they and their work are somehow inferior or unsuccessful.

  4. Tatterdemalion Says:

    I guess what I was trying to get at last night (though between being tired and supposed to be tucking a kid into bed, wasn’t accomplishing too well), is that to my mind “artists” making a living off being “artists” is a relatively new phenonmenon. There were craftsmen, certainly, who made many beautiful, breath-takeing awe-inspiring things.

    But to my mind, an artist is one attempts to make his/her art “say” something, and is driven to say it regardless of what popular opinion (or “the market”) is interested in. There have been an awfully lot of artists who were wildly famous after they died, but when they were alive, their works were hardly ever recognized and even more rarely recognized with money. Occasionally they were commissioned to say something—to compose a piece of music for a certain cause, for example, or the painting of the Sistine Chapel, for another well-known example. But largerly, “artists” are driven from within and not appreciated by the paying public. An artist is not concerned with “pleasing” the customer.

    A craftsman, on the other hand, although his/her work is beautiful and unachieavable by others, is usually making things for paying customers, and must always “please the customer”. It is assumed that of course all the other craftsmen will be making the same sort of items; it is the skill and experience that a craftsman has that makes him/her valuable.

    Regardless of whether it is considered art or craft, everyone always borrows from the things they see. Always.

    The difference is that a craftsman may at times feel obliged to try to copy in totality—the customer has seen something they want, and has hired the craftsperson to duplicate it for them, much as the same way nowadays many people can buy the exact same item from a department store.

    An artist is not interested in repeating what someone else has said. They may be inspired by the themes, taken with the colors, struck by the composistion—but a mere copy line by line is worthless to them. They may admire how one artist has used their tools to so great affect, and learn from it, but they will wish to use their tools to say their own words.

    As a more concrete example, I would say that I feel that sometimes I am an artist and sometimes a craftperson. I would say the dress I just finished is action of a craftsperson. Although one might say that I used “artistic talent” in the proportions and colors of that dress, the design does not “mean” anything to me. It’s a good thing, too, because otherwise I should have to throw quite a fit that there are so many other dresses out there that have fitted bodices, and a-line pleated skirts. Needless to say, I don’t care if anyone “knocks-off” my “design”; the value of that dress, to me, lies in the skill of my work—the construction and the fit, and the colors and such calibrated to my taste.

    I would consider the cross-stitch I completed and quilt I am still working on to be pieces of art. In those pieces, I am trying to convey something to the viewer. In the case of the cross-stitch, I did start out with someone else’s design, and whenever I show pictures of my cross-stitch, I try to credit the orginal designer (but of course I can’t remember her name right now). However, her intent and my intent were different. In her orginal design, a scene of a lady doing needle point was the main focus of the work. In mine, the main focus of the work was a psalm. Although anyone who looks at her design and mine can easily see I was working off of her work, it is also readily apparent I am not trying to accomplish or say the things she was trying to accomplish or say, and I make no effort to claim that those borders were purely my own. I built off her work, and I recognize it as her work.

    In the case of the quilt, I deliberately built that quilt to convey a message. I wanted it to look old, to indicate the longevity of their marriage. I quilted the inscription that they had wanted to have on their wedding bands (they were told it was too long) on one of the borders.

    Yet even though I consider it a piece of art, I would not be offended if someone copied it, bit by bit. For one thing, it would mean that I had been successful in saying what I wanted to say; for another, once I have said my piece, I feel as though my job is done. I would certainly be offended if someone else claimed that the design was their original, which makes it look like I am merely a copiest, not an artist, and doesn’t give credit where it is due. But if someone wanted sell the “pattern”, or even mass-produce the quilt—well, to be perfectly honest I don’t have the inclination to do either. I would like a little credit, but I really don’t want to go through that kind of fuss and bother for “marketing it”. And I am utterly confident that no one will be able to mistake my hand-made quilt with a mass-produced one. But in either case, my work would be done with the gift to my parents. That was the purpose of the quilt, and no one can take away from that.

    And that is the discinction I see between artists and craftspeople. I personally don’t think, as seems to be so often brought into it, that it has anything to do with “women not valuing other women’s work”, as though if it were men making the quilting designs people would be acting any differently.

    In general I think that most people think there is a lot more “exclusiveness” in the world than there really is.

  5. Laura Says:

    There’s such a thin line between copying and reinterpreting, though – I’m not sure that all artists “never want to copy” because they certainly work in a particular context and respond to previous work and the accepted norms of whatever their medium is. I dunno. Your point that an artist making their living off their art is a new and unusual thing is a good one, though, certainly.

    I thought you might like this blog entry and the associated links, if you haven’t seen it already:

  6. Tatterdemalion Says:

    Don’t have much time today, so I didn’t read the associated links, but I agree with a lot of what the first link said, like—

    “My first thought was that her piece was so plainly stupid as to be below response;”


    “On the whole I think most of us with craft blogs focus on our creative endeavors while allowing natural intrusions of work and family life to filter into the text.”


    “I’ve read some vitriolic words from both craft bloggers and the uninitiated (like the Telegraph writer) about how some bloggers post about their perfect life. None of us live in Lake Wobegon (where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average) and I’ve yet to read a blogger who claims that as home. I think most of us post about our passions in the hopes of connecting with those who understand and appreciate our creations. All those gaps between posts are when we’re busy with real life – the good, bad and in between. Personally, I write my blog to maintain adult connections regarding subjects that interest me and to entertain both you and myself.”

    I admit that someone saying “The author of that review tries to equate one’s enjoying the domestic arts – baking, sewing, knitting and gardening – to being anti-feminist. She also implies that these interests are the realm of the wealthy and pampered.”no clothes) than I have for those who look down their nose at something that I don’t think deserves such a low opinion. I guess I rather think it’s just typical for people to look down their nose at me. Although I suppose one might say I’m no different than them, in that I take my shots at the things I look down upon; that’s a posistion I’m not inclined to argue with.

    In my early morning trance, I can’t quite make sense of your statement that you’re not sure that “artists ‘never want to copy’ because they certainly work in a particular context and respond to prvious work and the accepted norms of whatever their medium is.” I think, maybe, that you might have taken what I was trying to say a little too far. Certainly artists borrow from one another. Da Vinci might have been the ‘first’ one to paint eyes in the posistion of Mona Lisa’s, but certainly other artists followed suit after him. An artist can certainly see they eyes of the Mona Lisa and think of how they might use them to a differing/similar effect. But quite honestly, I can’t see any artist getting personal thrills out of trying to recreate the Mona Lisa exactly and in it’s entirity. Unless maybe just for kicks and giggles to see how well they measure up against “The Master”. (I can see how someone who thought they could get a lot of money for selling a Mona Lisa copy would try to exactly duplicate the Mona Lisa. . .but I wouldn’t call that person an artist, except perhaps in the phrase “scam artist”.)

  7. Jesse Says:

    One of the differences with artists in times passed, regarding having things commissioned, is that the economy worked much differently then. Being an agrarian economy, those who had land had money, and simply asked for things to be made according to their desires (ie. bought what they wanted).

    Today, obviously for better or for worse, with our current western capitalist economy wealth is shared more and people can purchase what they want, as you say. This has given rise to commerialism, obviously. And, when an artist finds a market for their goods (or, as some like to say, sells out) then their work may become popular and a large demand comes of it. Then, you have artists’ creations being massed produced (think the Eames Lounge Chair), and all those with money who want it can buy it.

    What you want to do with a pattern company is a great idea. It reminds me a lot of open source software programs like Linux. It’s a great idea, because when people can be involved in the creative process, then they become craftsmen, too. So, in a way, in selling patterns that way, you’re selling a way for people to be involved in the craftsmaking process or the chance to become craftsmen/craftspeople themselves.

    All the best wishes for that.

  8. Sandra Says:

    “But did you know that, for instance, if you buy a sewing pattern from one of the major pattern companies, it’s against the law to sew that pattern for more than one person?”

    Well, then I guess I should be locked up. My kids are grown, but when they were little I sewed almost all their clothes and used the same patterns for all of them. I always bought the multiple size patterns and re-used them as kids grew into them. And I often made more than one of the same item at a time.

    And then I might even have used the same patterns to make an item for a niece of nephew or friend’s child! I was truly out fo control!

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.