The Mystery of the Purloined Embroidery Art
ATTORNEYSCOTT COMMENTARY:
When you post something on the internet, you never know where it might turn up. In the below case, an artist's original embroidery design was apparently borrowed for the cover art on a book entitled, appropriately, "The Long Stitch Good Night: An Embroidery Mystery." The embroidery piece was apparently reproduced in graphic art form, but this, still would violate the original artist's exclusive rights to create derivative works from her original embroidery piece. See 17 U.S.C. 106 (2).
Maybe the "embroidery mystery" is how this usage made its way through Penguin's legal clearance process?
- Scott A. Burroughs, Esq. ( [email protected] )
***
Dear YTWWN:
I am an artist, designer and owner of a small business called SeptemberHouse. My business focuses mostly on needlecraft, specifically embroidery. I design and sell embroidery patterns and recently found out that one of them showed up on the cover of a mass market paperback without my permission.
The pattern was one that I had posted on my blog as a free promotional pattern. Pattern designers often do this to generate views as well as interest and buzz about their work. I always clearly indicate that they are for personal use and copyrighted. This particular pattern is called "She Scatters Shamrocks" and was released in February 2010 just before St. Patrick's Day.
A few months ago, a reader who is familiar with this pattern contacted me to tell me that she saw it on a book cover and wanted to let me know because she wasn't sure it was supposed to be there. I'm so glad she did this because it was NOT supposed to be there and had she not told me, I would have never known. The book is called "The Long Stitch Good Night" and is written by Amanda Lee a.k.a Gayle Trent published by Penguin/Signet books. It is part of a series of mystery books with a needlework theme. This particular one also had an Irish theme.
- Book cover containing artwork stolen from embroidery pattern designer
My embroidery pattern appears in the lower right side of the image. It's small but it is definitely there. I was never contacted by the publisher or illustrator, asked permission to use the image or given any credit or compensation.
I have distributed a number of DMCA notifications and the image has been removed from some sites. I am still waiting to receive responses on others. At this point I am still deciding on what other action to take.
I also wrote recently wrote a post about this situation on my blog, so september.
November 14th, 2012 - 20:10
The theft aside, I’m amazed that there is a series of mystery books with a needlework theme.
November 15th, 2012 - 17:41
it’s actually really hard to tell from that jpg but the idea of someone walking along, spreading things from a bag isn’t particularly new. an it wasn’t until i read what this was about, that i assumed it was johnny appleseed. but even then, i can still see differences between the pattern and the image on the book. i dunno. even if it WAS a rip, (which i’m not entirely sure that it is), i don’t think it would be the time or effort to pursue.
November 16th, 2012 - 20:09
Well, hotlinking the book cover image from the publisher’s site wasn’t smart, because now it seems they’ve replaced the ripped element.
November 17th, 2012 - 01:39
I think this may fall in the realm of fair use. If I take a photo and there’s a famous picture on the wall in the background, it’s not a copyright violation to sell my photo without the permission of the other photographer because my use A) does not diminish the value of their work and B) it is a small element in a much larger new work. I’m pretty sure the same applies here, where the needlepoint was a small element in a much larger illustration.
November 17th, 2012 - 10:55
Is it your photo of the needlepoint design or is it the cover artist’s impression of your photo?
November 17th, 2012 - 15:38
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FW5k1wpvS4o/T6QIsnkMI3I/AAAAAAAAAVk/yg57QmGYlp8/s1600/Scan+Long+Stitch+Good+Night.jpg
November 18th, 2012 - 04:55
Tabby, fair use refers primarily to art that is non-commercial or for-profit, such as criticism, news, research, or parody (as long it is transformative enough to not be confused with the original.) I don’t think this is the case.
November 19th, 2012 - 18:08
I see they have changed the cover so that my artwork is no longer there. It appears in the original as seen here: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12253856-the-long-stitch-good-night [unless the publisher changes it on the goodreads site as well]. Seeing as someone contacted me because they recognized this particular pattern as my design I think it’s safe to say that is is not very transformative.
November 29th, 2012 - 16:10
:/
December 3rd, 2012 - 21:17
That is absolutely shameless of them. Who are they trying to fool?
January 7th, 2013 - 13:16
Absolutely abominable. I think you should get together with the furniture designer who designed the table and the one who designed the chair; the person who designed the fireplace, and the architect of the house that was so blatantly stolen by this illustrator and ALL sue the pants off her. Hey, isn’t that a white Airedale? Surely someone has thought to copyright them as well?
Tabby Caat, I agree with you.
January 15th, 2013 - 15:12
Since this was sold for profit, it does not constitute fair use. It’s hard to see in the small image, but click on the larger image four comments back and you can see it was clearly the same pattern. Glad to see they’ve taken some action and removed your work!
February 21st, 2013 - 14:38
I was very confused about WHAT exactly was boosted until I did some googling myself. The image that YTWWN is linking to has been UPDATED to show a different cover. Apparently, they wanted to make good.
If you’re going to use the story, I would mention that they’ve changed the err of their ways and also link to the proper misuse of the image. Then people like me wouldn’t be saying “HUH?” so much.
http://www.gayletrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Long-Stitch-Goodnight1.jpg
March 8th, 2013 - 19:51
In fact, hot linking images is kinda bad form. The HuffPo did this to me earlier this week and it’s kinda annoying. At least, Penguin isn’t doing a redirect to something inappropriate like I would.