Hi everyone, I am making a Peter Rabbit Quilt and I am wondering if I will get into trouble if I put it into my shop. I would be greatful for your thoughts on this.
Peter Rabbit falls out side copyright (death of author + 70 years) however his image has been trademarked by Frederick Warne and Co so yes I suspect you will get into trouble if you use it. I’m assuming that you are using fabric with peter rabbit printed on it if so what does it have printed on the selvedge? That often has if fabric is for personal (non commercial) use.
Beatrix Potter items are in fact all back under copyright as an unpublished book was discovered and published.
Oh! That’s very interesting. Thanks Sara,
I did not know that, any ideas how long the copy right will run for? Will it be 70 years from date of publishing since Beatrix Potter is already dead?
Here is an article explaining all.
Interesting read, Beatrix Potter’s characters are a big no no for several decades to come. (I wonder how many people won’t have realised about the new story and copy right and find themselves getting into trouble?)
Indeed. It seems that looking at Folksy’s own copyright page they don’t realise either. There are a number of questionable items listed if you search for certain terms.
Peter Rabbit items have been sold on Create and Craft recently so it must have a new licence holder, therefore new rules on usage. Best to steer clear.
My understanding is that the original books are out of copyright but are all trademarked, which is a completely different ball game. I had an original book (borrowed) and was about to write an article on how to paint Peter in miniature (for the dolls house and miniature scene magazine), when the whole trademark issue raised it’s head. I didn’t have time to go into the complexities of it all, and Warner wouldn’t grant me a licence without me paying a small fortune, so I painted something completely different - which was a shame. Most image owners (usually museums) grant me free use since my articles are educational, which is lucky since the magazine don’t pay me enough to cover licensing.
The article above is an interesting read. It’s not clear to me whether it’s just the new book, or all of the books, that have extended copyrights. Either way, the trademark issue probably means it’s a no go.