an Ethical question concerning diapers - Page 4

[SEEPAE]

Originally Posted by Butterflymom

I see where you're coming from. Luckily, most of us mamas don't sew or can't sew nearly as well as you and the other coveted diaper artists, and there will always be demand for beautiful diapers.

... sewing illiterate over here, :LOL

[DreamingMama]

Originally Posted by Butterflymom

I see where you're coming from. Luckily, most of us mamas don't sew or can't sew nearly as well as you and the other coveted diaper artists, and there will always be demand for beautiful diapers.

Thank you, Sometimes I feel so alone. :LOL

[meco]

Originally Posted by thefeasetree

What an interesting discussion. I haven't read past this post, but I wanted to comment on it. First of all, if you're going to call diaper making "art," then you have to be prepared for those impressed with your art to mimic it. All great artists started off in apprenticeships copying the original. It is one of the first steps in creating great art.

ITA WITH THIS and norcalmommy.

I also agree with ButterflyMom/DreamingMama But ButterflyMom made a good point, most people cannot do what the original artist can do so they will not bother.

But if I could not afford it or get it, and it was the thing that worked you better believe I will try. But no matter what there will always be consumers who need/want/desire the original.

All made good points.

I agree with Dreamingmama that you are in essence taking away business from a WAHM by copying the diaper and not buying the original.

This is not always true. Some diapers are not affordable or attainable for some. Some people are never going to be able to spend $20-$30 on a fitted diaper.

There will always be a market for these diapers. But in reality, every good idea has been copied but that has not always eliminated the original right?

[meco]

Originally Posted by LizaBear

I don't think it's too bad - though I wouldn't want to be passing them off to others.

LizaBear, why not? I am curious why you would not pass it along.

IMO Fairying a diaper no matter what is fairying a diaper. There is no money being made off of it at all, which is where part of the law focuses on (financial gain from copying).

Homemade diapers, no longer being used, will not sell for much anyway so why not fairy them?

ITA with a PP who said a cloth bum is a cloth bum, pass the around.



I wish it had not been so long since law classes in college, we talked about patterns and I was surprised at the liberal perspective about them. Maybe I can google it...

But definitely all patterns are evolving from somewhere right?

[meco]

Ok, last post

While copyright law protects the design as it was originally written, it also gives the designer the exclusive right to create a new design based on the original one.

http://www.geocities.com/jbtocker/co...copyrfaq4.html

There is fair use, which I believe applies here.

The fair use statute: The doctrine of fair use developed over the years as courts tried to balance the rights of copyright owners with society's interest in allowing copying in certain, limited circumstances. This doctrine has at its core a fundamental belief that not all copying should be banned, particularly in socially important endeavors such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research.

Although the doctrine of fair use was originally created by the judiciary, it is now set forth in the Copyright Act. Under the Act, four factors are to be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to be considered a "fair use." These factors are as follows:

1.the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2.the nature of the copyrighted work;
3.the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html

The copying of designs is customary in the fashion industry. The high-fashion designers create original designs which, over time, other manufacturers copy to create less expensive "knock-offs". Supposedly, the "knock-offs" sell at a much lower price than the originals and sell to a different market. It seems unfair that fashion design is not protected in the same way that copyright law protects other forms of artistic expression. Most artists have the right to sell licenses to others for the use of their artwork in various markets, but the fashion designer has had no such right.

This is in the UK, but similar ideas prevail here I believe. I can find nothing specific to diapering, but clothing is close.

In the context of computer technologies, the fair use doctrine is often used in the context of reverse engineering. Under trade secret principles, it is generally accepted to "reverse engineer" a product to determine how the product works. Reverse engineering may involve analyzing circuit board layouts, "peeling" back a integrated circuit chip, or decompiling computer software. However, it is impossible to decompile software and then analyze the results without making a copy (or a derivative work) of the software. Courts have sometimes held that the making of these copies in the context of reverse engineering is a fair use and is not copyright infringement.

This is computers but also could apply in general.

[ustasmom]

So if it is deemed appropriate for someone to knock off a pattern for home use, what happens when said mama decides that she can go into business with her new found diaper-sewing skill and her "borrowed" pattern?

Is it fair to the original WAHM(s) that now there pattern has been knocked-off?

[Alstrameria]

Originally Posted by DreamingMama

I understand your point of view but then what about the wahm in question? Does it mean she loses a sale and possibly a few others if the poster makes these diapers for herself. I do not know but it would bother me to lose a sale to someone making copies. Gosh, do you think I am being defensive? A copy is a copy right?

I suppose if a person had no money and they were not obtainable for that reason then they could make something similar to said wahms diaper but to make a complete exact copy still seems wrong to me. I went away for awhile and really thought about this from every stand point I could imagine. I just do not think it is right unless you change several things about the wahms diaper to make it something completely different.

Well, I agree a copy is a copy. And if I were to sew a copy I would never claim otherwise. BUT, if I was capable of sewing what I wanted, AND couldn't buy them, I would do it. For example, I would be sooo willing to buy many LC and FCB AIOs, but I can't get them! I don't have the time to put in to searching and stalking, especially when I could be making something for myself.

IMHO everytime I look and find a product unavailable for whatever reason, the wahm is losing a sale. When I find something that I like and it's available, I buy it.

Does that make sense?

[becky0999]

I think making them for yourself is fine.

Let's take an Elbee for instance. I would to try one. Probably will never ever get one. My son will be potty trained before I would be able to get one. So If I knew how to make one I would. I would not be taking any money from the WAHM because I would never be able to order it anyway.

Does that make sense?

[meco]

Originally Posted by ustasmom

So if it is deemed appropriate for someone to knock off a pattern for home use, what happens when said mama decides that she can go into business with her new found diaper-sewing skill and her "borrowed" pattern?

Is it fair to the original WAHM(s) that now there pattern has been knocked-off?

Utasmom, copyright law says it is ok to do as long as you are not making money from it (even a charity auction is making money so that is out too).

Again "While copyright law protects the design as it was originally written, it also gives the designer the exclusive right to create a new design based on the original one." So essentially every pattern is a spin on a new pattern (how many different ways can you sew pants? knit a soaker?), and it is the means and words of going about it that cannot be the same even if the finished product looks similar.

This is the law, not an opinion. Same with fair use. And that entails not benefiting financially from the said "copying." What you have described is finanacial gain, which is illegal and wrong.

"The doctrine of fair use developed over the years as courts tried to balance the rights of copyright owners with society's interest in allowing copying in certain, limited circumstances. This doctrine has at its core a fundamental belief that not all copying should be banned..." This is also the law, and not my opinion.

But no one is talking about selling these diapers, which would be illegal. Just using them for their own use, which is perfectly legal.