[chuckwagon]

You've got to give credit where credit is due!!!

[matspud]

Top left corner
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/600-HALLOWEEN ... 694wt_1189

[nosferatu]

Copyright of Christine Palmer 2012. Me thinks not.

[pagemaster1993]

It is a shame that people do not know how to type a few simple words. Like the designs are not mine and that so and so are the rightful owners. I mean really give some credit.

[monstermash]

I noticed she was claiming she found them in the public domain. Whats that smell? Oh, its BS.

[sloaner]

lol, how much do you want to bet all those 18 viewings are from ZP members.

[ghostface]

lol, how much do you want to bet all those 18 viewings are from ZP members.

Wouldn't suprise me.

[SuperSonic]

You've got to give credit where credit is due!!!

Can't argue that statement. Justice must be SERVED!

[CorpseBride]

Ugh...the lines aren't even clean and they are charging 65.00!!! Yikers!

Killer Pumpkin Creations is your stop for completely original Halloween pumpkins! We create artistic carved pumpkins...

Not a single mention of ZP as the artistic source either...NOT COOL.

Ryan....shall we report them? I don't think it's right.

[matspud]

still going strong with several listings
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/600-HALLOWEEN ... 694wt_1189

[Gigatron]

Not to be the fly in the ointment, but there are two seperate things going on here.

First, ZombiPumpkins is the sole intellectual property owner of MOST of their stencils. I say most, because technically, Columbia/Tri-star could claim ownership of the GhostBusters logo and might not like anyone else profiting from it. But ZP is most likely safe, because of the amount of work involved in creating a stencil, from a photograph or digital design. It has to do with the change in medium, in as much as creating the stencil, is considered, in it's own right, as an origianl work of art. The GB logo, though, really does lend itself to being a stencil, of it's own design, so C/T-S could still have an argument.

Artistic law is a heck of a funny thing. Person A can draw a picture, and he owns the IP of that drawing. Person B can take a photograph of that drawing, and own the IP of the photograph. Despite what person A may think of person B, person B can do as they see fit with their photograph. The law is just loose enough, semantically, that the photographer can claim to be the original artist, in that they own the IP of the photograph. And by the same token, person A can draw a picture, and person B can make a wood carving of that same picture and sell hundreds of them. All because the woodcarving, like the photograph, is considered to be an original art piece.

Interestingly enough, unless you create a clause that states otherwise, you don't own the rights to your own likeness, so things like the Angus Young, Mike Myers (the "comedian", not the killer), Elvis, etc. fall into free domain (free domain as in "the artist can't sue you for using their likeness"not as in, anyone can steal the stencils for their own use - ZP still owns the IP for the stencil). As do the other generic designs (jack o'lanterns, night owl, patchmaster - things that aren't owned by another entitiy).

Second, the people that are selling completed pumpkins, can do so legally, only because they're selling an original product - a hand carved pumpkin. The law isn't going to be too concerend about the design, unless you can prove the design is yours, and yours alone - and you plan on paying restitution on every picture you ever took of a famous building that you didn't design.

I guess, at the end of the day, people felt that since they spent the money to get access to the stenclis, they can do with them as they see fit. If they're selling carved pumpkins, are they really selling the stencil, or the labor? The purchased carved pumpkin can't be used by the buyer, to create more pumpkins, so ZP isn't losing any additional revenue. People who are buying pre-carved pumpkins, lack either the time or the talent to do it themselves. That's why they're paying someone else to do it, for them.

Now if people were selling just the stencils for a profit, ZP would have every legal right to hit them with a C&D, as that would constitute IP theft.


I photograph airshows for a hobby, and while not a professional by any means, I am good at what I do. And I have seen some of my photos pop up in the darndest of places, without being given photo credit. So I've done a lot of researh into Art based law and IP ownership/theft.

-Fred

[Zombie Pumpkins!]

Thanks for the educated info and opinions, Fred. Some valid points in there. I wanted to comment on this bit...

If they're selling carved pumpkins, are they really selling the stencil, or the labor? The purchased carved pumpkin can't be used by the buyer, to create more pumpkins, so ZP isn't losing any additional revenue. People who are buying pre-carved pumpkins, lack either the time or the talent to do it themselves. That's why they're paying someone else to do it, for them.

True, if someone buys a pre-carved pumpkin, they likely don't have the time, skill, or desire to do it themselves. Although, one could argue that maybe they just don't know how. And if they were told about the Zombie Pumpkins site, and shown the patterns and instructions, maybe they'd give it a try. Who knows though. Probably not.

And maybe you could argue that such sales are a good thing because... maybe buying that first foam pumpkin (carved by someone else) would be enough to spark the buyer's curiosity to try it themselves eventually.

Aside from the legal complications, when people resell products made from ZP patterns, I think it brings up two other considerations...

1) The Terms & Conditions for members of this site. While a ZP member might think their actions are okay in the eyes of the law (and perhaps they are right), if they violate the terms of their membership, they've broken a rule which they agreed to when joining here. I may not be able to take them to court, but I do reserve the right to turn off their ZP account.

2) And then, there's the simple issue of common courtesy. As you said, someone selling a pre-carved pumpkins isn't selling the patterns directly. They could argue that they're charging for the labor. But suppose they join the ZP site for a mere $2, and then sell 10 foam pumpkins for $60 each... wouldn't it be a reasonable courtesy for this seller to at least tell their buyer who the original pattern artist is?

If every crafter with an entrepreneurial spirit could be trusted to at least give me some credit, I'd be happy to allow them all to sell these items. But it's tough to police how and where the images are used. It's safer to use a blanket rule that says "no profiting from the designs without consent." Then I can grant permissions on a case-by-case basis, rather than have to chase down all those that wish to abuse the privilege.

There are some bad apples out there, unfortunately, just out to make a dirty buck or two. But... there are also a lot of good people too. Artsy, passionate people who are happy to work together for a win-win partnership. I've seen some great things done with my patterns, and when their intentions are good, I'm happy to give my blessing. All you have to do is get in touch and I'm pretty reasonable!

[St0ney]

This brings up some interesting thoughts...

The current Member Agreement here does say that the patterns are for "personal, non-commercial art/craft projects" and that "you may not sell products that make use of the pattern designs."

But this is mainly intended to stop people who want to make a business out of it. I often see people selling a whole line of products with my designs (decals, t-shirts) with no credit given to Zombie Pumpkins, whatsoever. These sort of items can even be made on-demand, so the seller can just continue to profit from my work. They are often selling competing products too, since I offer (or may soon offer) the same sort of shirts and decals.

But I realize that there are many loyal ZP members who like to sell their foam pumpkin carvings. Either to make room in their collection, or just to get the cool pumpkins into the hands of those who don't want to carve themselves. If they plug ZP as the source of the pattern, that's not a bad thing, right?

Perhaps I should revise the Member Agreement slightly. Maybe set up some guidelines for how a small quantity of certain items (like foam-kins) is okay, provided they give the proper credit to ZP? It would help spread the word, and be a win-win.

Funny I found this thread, I just updated my own terms of use:

I have always allowed folks to sell their pumpkins from the patterns on my site, The reason is, As you stated to get rid of older carvings, and maybe make some extra money for Christmas etc.... My thought was that a few would go on ebay, craigslist, etc....

I'm now seeing Custom carving sites popping up, that are selling many of the carves from patterns I created.
It's almost like another stoneykins Custom Carving Site.

Now my Pumpkin business is broken into many different parts #1 is a pattern site, Then there's Custom Patterns and Custom Carving, and I do sell some carving Tools.

So My intention for allowing carvings to be sold is now biting me in the butt,
I'm now competing with other Custom Carvings Sites - that are using my patterns.

How F'ed Up would it be - if I lost a sale to one of these other Custom Carving sites (due to price) and I'm the one who created the Pattern.
So I Updated my Terms of Use it is now Mandatory to sate the pattern came from my site, or they can not sell the kin.

If more of these type Sites pop up, I will be forced to go backwards, and Just have the patterns used for Personal Use ONLY.
I can't Help others, and Hurt my own Custom sales at the same time.

[Gigatron]

St0ney, you are absolutely right about the T&C violations, but I'd bet dollars to donuts, 99% of the people here, have never read them all the way through. And really, who does? It's all the standard stuff, for the most part - play nice, no cussin' an' swearin', an' no nekkid pictures . For the most part, if you've read one ToS aggreement, you've read them all. ZP has the added clause about not using his stencils for commercial gain. But I can tell you, lawyers would have a field day with the semantics. One side will nail you with arguments about having the right to selling your own creations (because a carved pumpkin, regardless of the design, is your own work of art), and the other side would counter with "no creation without the original stencil", and another side wil tell you that the right to sell your own poperty, supercedes everything else.

In highschool, I was slated to go into corporate law, after college. I almost knew, for certain, that was what I wanted to do. But after talking with a few, I couldn't stand the thought of spending days, writing one sentence, so that it couldn't be misinterpeted by other lawyers.



Now your site, on the hand, is in a different ballpark, all together. Simply because you actually do offer a carving service. So anyone who sells carved pumpkins with your designs, is in direct competition with your business. ZP has a little more leeway, because they don't offer that service, so people could claim that it isn't a loss of income for ZP. But if they (ZP) do plan on coming out with shirts/decals/stickers, or what have you, they had better lock it down, sooner, rather than later. It's easier to stop it before it starts, than it is to reel everything back in.

-Fred

[Zombie Pumpkins!]

I'd bet dollars to donuts, 99% of the people here, have never read them all the way through. And really, who does?

Oh, absolutely. I'm almost certain that nobody fully reads my Terms & Conditions when they join. But what matters is that they said they did and they agreed to it by clicking that "I accept the terms" button.

ZP has the added clause about not using his stencils for commercial gain. But I can tell you, lawyers would have a field day with the semantics.

Surely, if trying to make a case in a United States court of law. But what say does a lawyer have when it comes to how a webmaster operates his or her website? If someone abused my patterns, I may not sue, but I could surely cut off their access to the site/patterns, as stated in the Terms.

I suppose it's sort of like one of those "No shirt, no shoes, no service" signs. If a store has that sign posted on the door, and someone walks in barefoot.... well, they haven't broken any law. But they broke the "rule" of the establishment, so I would think the business has the right to deny them service.