Notice a lot of Lego on here for sale, made into all variety of things. However as most of us know Lego is very fiercely trade marked and should not be used without a licence. Why are these shops allowed to blatantly breach copyright. Lego themselves only have to search with their trademarked name to find all the defrauders.
2 Likes
Type Disney into the search and there are dozens of people illegally using the Disney copyright stuff on here. Disney are notoriously ruthless for suing people. One woman lost her home because of it.
So, I just don’t understand Folksy admin allowing this. All they need to do is put that search in to find the offenders and remove them. Don’t tell me that takes up too much time and effort?
3 Likes
Even E*** ban Lego so I was horrified to see a Lego item in favourites yesterday and a shop full of Lego too.
https://community.etsy.com/t5/Managing-Your-Shop/Copyright-infringement/td-p/132781400
1 Like
Hi All. This was a reply to a question I found about using Lego pieces to make things and then selling the items. ( Not my words, but this makes sense to me, there’s also the first sale doctrine or doctrine of exhaustion which also applies. See what you think. Jan
“I think you might be confusing the issue a little. The original question was regarding using LEGO elements as a material in a creation.
Using LEGO elements to make jewelry or book covers or portraits or furniture etc. is not an infringement of LEGO patents, trademarks or copyrights*. A disclaimer is a good idea to avoid any such claim but generally making something with LEGO elements and selling it is OK. Making the customer believe that they are buying a finished product created and sold by the LEGO Company is fraud.
*Note: Examples of infringement (keeping in mind I am not a lawyer - this is my understanding):
PATENT infringement would be to copy the stud and tube system if a legally valid patent is registered in your country.
TRADEMARK infringement would be to use the LEGO red-box with distinctive lettering on the item or it’s packaging.
COPYRIGHT infringement would be to photocopy instruction manuals and sell them.”
1 Like
Using the Word LEGO in a title is an obvious and blatant copyright violation. There is no getting round that.
2 Likes
It seems that Lego are quite flexible about who uses their product so long as you don’t use their logo to promote your work and don’t use the word Lego as an adjective only as a noun.
Disney, on the other hand, have a totally different attitude. If you’re planning on selling Disney products or characters, and this includes anything that remotely looks like Micky Mouse ears etc, you must obtain an official license from the Walt Disney Company.
This means that your product must be expressly authorized by the company to be sold legally; without this authorization, you may face hefty fines and other legal consequences.
The only Disney characters you can copy and sell are Winnie the Pooh, Piglet, Eeyore, and Owl, because they are now in the public domain. Micky Mouse is a big no no. But you can sell the very early Steamboat Willie version of MM as he’s now in the public domain. The iconic ears is still under copyright.
3 Likes
Quite clear the figures are copyrighted and should not be used but are and on Folksy.
One notification states to confirm they can be used with Lego but the word Lego is illegal to use as copyrighted.
1 Like
1 Like
Sorry Caroline, I thought we were having a discussion 
It’s the same with craft books with patterns and fabrics, although a lot of designers are now saying ‘Sell what you make just don’t copy and sell the patterns’ which is what copyright is.
Design is another thing, which means items can’t be made and sold from these books without a paid or unpaid agreement with the author.
Copyright, I’m in full agreement with. I’ve been blatantly plaguerised myself but here are my thoughts on selling what I make from things I have purchased.
I bought a book - the Author is paid, the publisher is paid, the printer is paid, the bookshop is paid.
I purchased fabrics and haberdashery - the fabric designer is paid, the manufacturer is paid, the distributor is paid, the shopkeeper is paid.
I make items from said book with said fabrics and haberdashery yet I can’t sell them - But I can give them away !
There’s something wrong somewhere.
It was not you Janet
1 Like
Very interesting discussion. I read somewhere recently @VioletFlameGlassArt that you couldn’t use the Pooh image with the jumper because that was a Disney creation and not an AA Milne creation that’s now out of copyright.
I use a lot of Liberty fabric for my work and in the past I’ve also used Liberty Japan fabric featuring Hello Kitty. Sanrio Japan own the Hello Kitty character and had Etsy take my pieces down from my shop due to licence infringement, although they’re happy for Etsy sellers to sell the actual fabric and market the hell out of the Hello Kitty connection. I didn’t understand it at the time and had no clue that I was doing anything naughty - I’d bought and made a cute purse with a fabric that featured an image of theirs, but it was made and sold by Liberty Japan who did have a licence to make the fabric and to sell it.
I’m now really careful about avoiding licensed fabrics like the plague but I still don’t really understand the logic of it as they license the fabric makers to make and sell the fabric with the characters featured - a bit of having your cake and eating it too!
I understand that Disney are even more rabid about going after anyone using anything with their characters featured and have a department dedicated to doing it.
2 Likes
Here’s an interesting read, Google Copyright Aid, Fabric Copyright.
I know of charities that won’t even take donations of quilts for fear of getting into hot water. It all needs clarifying and spelling out to all the ‘little’ people that the ‘big’ people are using scare tactics - because people believe them. Have a look, Jan
1 Like
I’m not sure if you are complaining that the big people are scaring when they should not be.
But if they own the copyright and people contravene that copyright then those people should be scared that the big people may come down on them with a ton of bricks aka big financial loss.
I for one object to people, big ir small, contravening my own small business artistic copyright.
2 Likes
I own a huge collection of craft books that I have bought or have been gifted over the years, things like Tilda, Luna lapin, felted animals, embroidery et etc and I see a lot of animals/toys/collectables for sale with the description ‘Tilda Rabbit’ 'Luna Lapins friend" etc…all infringing copyright. Most of the designs in books I own are for personal use only yet there are hundreds of sellers online and at craft fairs using the patterns. Personal use means you can use the designs for yourself or to make as gifts but not for profit. Online platforms need to make it clear that it is unacceptable to sell them on their platform BUT if you ignore the advice you do so at your own risk, maybe then it would make people check before they copy designs.
As for fabrics, ‘only to be used for personal use’ or similar is often printed on the selvedge of those fabrics that cannot be used to sell but people stil use them.
I think if admin see items for sale that are not allowed a little reminder to take them off might work as there are people who don’t have a clue however there will always be those that don’t care, ignore the advice and make what they want to make.
I’m saying, that using fabric to make something out of it to sell does not contravene copyright laws - nothing has been copied, the clue is in the word. The design part of Copyright And Design laws gives the designer the right to decide what happens to their designs. Once they have published a craft book or patterns they have put it in the public domain and shouldn’t expect people not to use the patterns to make and sell.That’s not the same as copyright infringement, the patterns aren’t being replicated and sold as patterns.
Your glass, Joy, is beautiful and I’m sure you want them to be heirlooms of the future, maybe on The Antiques Roadshow, but you don’t tell your buyers that they can’t sell the piece of glass in the future or incorporate it into something bigger like a church window as it won’t have any value as an antique if it could never be sold.
That’s my point of view for what it’s worth and I’m not arguing, just discussing. Jan
2 Likes
Is this aimed at me?
In the unlikely event someone started incorporating my suncatchers into windows and then advertising them for sale with Joysofglass in the title and without asking my permission first I would sue 
So much interesting stuff out there! This is from a US point of view but still relevant, I think: Sewing Pattern Copyright Law - Myths Debunked! | So Sew Easy and this about the whole fabric license issue: Copyright Law - Licensed Fabric. I do now wonder if I’d have included a disclaimer on my Hello Kitty listings, there wouldn’t have been an issue, although maybe not - I think Etsy’s policies are not to argue with the likes of Sanrio, and I can’t blame them for that!
1 Like
This is what I’m saying. Misunderstanding, Misinformation and Myths being repeated as fact. Jan
1 Like
This topic though was not about the complicated issue if fabric designs though but about the specific in your face use if the Lego name and product which is a fat more clearcut example of a copyright issue .
Maybe one of us should ask Lego their opinion