Court rules you can sell purchased designs

[jimrockford]

US Court of Appeals ruled that that Dakota as well as other companies, "Do not include the power to control a purchaser's subsequent disposition of the purchased copy". you can do what you want with the designs after you have purchased and they are just trying scare tactics with saying you will be sued. this person in the link fought them and WON. read the court decision in this link.

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053309P.pdf

[Don]

Your post is a perfect example of taking something out of context and making it say something that is not true.

First, the decision has nothing to do with Dakota.
Second the ruling has to do with RENTING design cards, not doing whatever you want.
Third, the decision was only that Great Notions was suing under a category of copyright that they had not registered the cards under prior to filing suit.
Fourth, the person WAS sued. That's hardly a scare tactic.
Fifth, the defendant won what? The opportunity to pay a legal team for not just one court case, but also for an appeal?
Sixth, the defendant LOST her request and appeal to have her legal fees paid by Great Notions.

The estimate that I have from a copyright attorney is for roughly $10,000 to represent us through a trial. You can be sure that representing through an appeal is at least that much and probably much more.

Whether you agree or disagree with copyright laws or how some companies use them, your assertions are dangerously off the mark and not supported by reality.

[jimrockford]

First, the decision has nothing to do with Dakota.
YES IT DOES, they sell designs just like the Great notions does, they must follow the courts rulings.

Second the ruling has to do with RENTING design cards, not doing whatever you want.

WRONG YOU forgot the court ruled rental ,leasing or lending. you can rent, lease or lend a design to anyone you like and they cannot stop you.

Third, the decision was only that Great Notions was suing under a category of copyright that they had not registered the cards under prior to filing suit.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MERITS OF THIS CASE THEY WERE TOLD BY THE COURT THAT THEY CANNOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS TO THE DESIGNS AFTER THEY SELL THEM, THEY DO NOT MEET THE COPYRIGHT PRESCRIBED CATEGORIES FOR REGISTRATION PURPOSES

Fourth, the person WAS sued. That's hardly a scare tactic.

SORRY THEY WON, IT WAS A SCARE TACTIC. SAY IT LIKE IT IS, JUST A SCARE TACTIC.

Fifth, the defendant won what? The opportunity to pay a legal team for not just one court case, but also for an appeal?

BOY TALK ABOUT A SORE LOSER. NO THEY WON THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THE ITEMS PURCHASED. THEY (AND EVERYONE ELSE) DON'T HAVE TO FEAR FROM SCARE TACTICS FROM THE BIG DESIGN COMPANIES.

Sixth, the defendant LOST her request and appeal to have her legal fees paid by Great Notions.

SORRY AGAIN THE DEFENDANT WON THE CASE, HEAR ME AGAIN THEY WON THE CASE GREAT NOTIONS LOST, DON'T YOU GET IT. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE LOST THEIR WAGES IF GREAT NOTIONS HADN'T RUN THEIR SCARE TACTICS AND TAKEN THIS WORTHLESS CASE TO COURT.

I SAY LET EVERYONE READ THE RULING OF THIS CASE AND THEY WILL SEE YOU ARE RUNNING THOSE SCARE TACTICS AGAIN

[Don]

Jim,
You apparently have little or no experience reading Court decisions and knowing how they are written so that you can pick out what is important and what is not.

"rental ,leasing or lending" is quoting from the statute that Great Notions was suing under. It is not a decision made by the Court.

The entire first page is background information, reviewing the previous case that the Court is hearing on appeal. The Court doesn't start commenting until the roman numeral I on the second page.

If the Court had ruled that Great Notions had registered a valid copyright for the designs as a computer program and had ruled that the defendant could "rent, lease, or lend" the designs anyway, then your conclusion might be valid. But that was not the ruling.

I said: "Third, the decision was only that Great Notions was suing under a category of copyright that they had not registered the cards under prior to filing suit."

You screamed:
"THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MERITS OF THIS CASE THEY WERE TOLD BY THE COURT THAT THEY CANNOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS TO THE DESIGNS AFTER THEY SELL THEM, THEY DO NOT MEET THE COPYRIGHT PRESCRIBED CATEGORIES FOR REGISTRATION PURPOSES"

You may be screaming, but what you are screaming is showing a lack of understand of how to read and interpret Court documents. I can see how you may have misunderstood that page 1 is only background, not comments or a ruling. You have to go to roman numerals I and II for those. But, nowhere is there anything stating that "they do not meet the Copyright prescribed categories for registration purposes"

Granted, reading the ruling under roman numeral I, may be difficult and tedious, but, that is where you'll learn just how narrow the ruling is, what they specifically declined to rule on and why they did not reverse the summary judgement. You'll also need to read the case cited at the very end of roman numeral I. (Great Notions lawyers were trying to use that case as a reason why they didn't need to register the designs as computer programs to sue under the Rental Ammendments Act.) They were trying to make that case say something that it didn't. The Court didn't buy it. (that should be a caution against trying to make laws and rulings say something they don't.) If lawyers can get it wrong, I sure wouldn't rely on someone who doesn't practice copyright and trademark law to convince me that I have nothing to worry about.

You must have more money to throw around than I do, if you think that spending $20,000 or so to Dewey, Cheatam, and Howe for legal representation is winning. They may not have had to pay the damages that Great Notions was seeking, but spending the cost of a court case and appeal is a loss to my way of thinking and checkbook.

I said: "...the defendant LOST her request and appeal to have her legal fees paid by Great Notions."

You screamed:"SORRY AGAIN THE DEFENDANT WON THE CASE, HEAR ME AGAIN THEY WON THE CASE GREAT NOTIONS LOST, DON'T YOU GET IT. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE LOST THEIR WAGES IF GREAT NOTIONS HADN'T RUN THEIR SCARE TACTICS AND TAKEN THIS WORTHLESS CASE TO COURT."

Rather than screaming, read roman numeral II. I'll quote it below so you and everyone else can see that the Court directly disagrees with your conclusion that the case was worthless.

"In her cross appeal, Mattson argues that the district court abused its discretion when it denied her motion for an award of attorneys’ fees authorized by 17 U.S.C.§ 505. The decision to award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party under § 505 is a matter for the district court’s “equitable discretion,” to be exercised in an evenhanded manner by considering factors such as whether the lawsuit was frivolous or
unreasonable, the losing litigant’s motivations, the need in a particular case tocompensate or deter, and the purposes of the Copyright Act. See Fogerty v. Fantasy,Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 534 & n.19 (1994). We review the district court’s ruling for abuse of discretion. See Hartman v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 833 F.2d 117, 122 (8th Cir. 1987). Here, Action Tapes raised important and novel issues under the seldom-litigated
Rental Amendments Act. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an
attorneys’ fee award."

Both the District Court and the Appeals Court ruled against Mattson in her claim for Attorney's fees.

You can scream and rant all you want, but your conclusions don't agree with what the Court wrote.

Scare tactics? I have nothing to gain or lose by scaring anyone. I agree with you, read the ruling, but don't just skim it. Understand the structure of how Court documents are written. And don't ignore things that are written that you either don't understand or don't like.

BTW, does screaming ever convince people that you are right?

[Mr. Sew & Sew]

Don and others -

You are correct. Jim is 100% wrong in his interpretation of this court case. Great Notions did not win mainly because of the way the case was filed. It's as if a murder suspect was let free because the police had done an illegal search and seizure. Nothing based on the merits, just the way the case was filed.

However, this thread has gone on too long already and it seems no matter what anybody says, Jim will SCREAM back at us that he is correct.

Thus I have two suggestions -

1) Jim, I suggest you copy every design you have and resell them. My guess is you would be hit with a lawsuit within a week.

2) To the moderators - can we kill this thread so there are no hard feelings thrown around?

Just my two cents.

Tom

[The Embroidery Authority - OLD]

I don't know about court cases,.. but...
I'm experiencing thread breaks. What's wrong with my machine?

-If this question doesn't swing the tempo in another direction, I don't know what would.

Ed

[GF]

Hi Ed . . . funny you should ask. I've been working on this for days, or at least on something that might help. Check your actifeed thread limits. If it's at 1, change to 3. What are you sewing on? What are your thread feed settings?