In October I was hired by a UK-based company to design a Christmas moose. I was given particular dimensions and a description for the moose. They wanted long legs that bent in the middle and they wanted him to be sorta goofy and hapless. Here are some early prototypes (from my Instagram feed):
This was the first one I showed the client:
We had several Skype meetings and I made some edits per their request. The hands got less bulbous and the eyes changed. He also got smaller, and I made a mini moose version, too. This was the end result:
To make the pattern for this moose I began with my Jeremy Giraffe body shape. I always like to have somewhere to begin.
While I was making this moose I thought of another iteration. He could become a reindeer if his legs and arms were like Jeremy Giraffe's, he had different ears and antlers, a bulbous red nose and different facial expression. So I redesigned him after the project was complete and created Ruby.
Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer is a copyrighted name, by the way. Ruby is a cute name for a reindeer anyway!
I'm Jewish and I've never celebrated Christmas. It always feels like it's guesswork to design things for Christmas. Am I getting this right? Is this the way it should look? Ruby sold well, though, and I was really happy with him.
Then I got an email from Pauline of Funky Friends Factory that changed everything. I love Pauline. I love her toys. I think she's an incredible designer. I've featured her on my blog and I've made her Sandy the Seagull, which was amazing. Pauline told me that Ruby the Reindeer was violating her copyright because it looked recognizably similar to her Reggie the Reindeer:
Reggie the Reindeer by Pauline McArthur of Funky Friends Factory.
I've been through every stage of emotion about this. Surprise, anger, embarrassment, shame, self-doubt. I wracked my brain. Are they too similar? I immediately pulled Ruby from my shops. And immediately got emails asking where he'd gone. I referred everyone to Pauline's pattern instead.
Questions filled my mind. Don't Ruby and Reggie look as much like one another as they do lots of other plush reindeers on the market? My pattern pieces are totally different! Reggie is a jointed toy. He's got boots. His antlers are all one piece. He has footpads. But maybe I'm wrong! Did I copy her? No, I know I didn't. Then what?
So I bought Pauline's pattern for Reggie and made them both in muslin with dark thread.
This was a good thing to do. It didn't answer my questions, but it just made me feel better. My reindeer is totally different from Pauline's in it's design, but I can see the ways in which they are similar in the appearance. I'll redesign Ruby to make her more different from Reggie, but I'm sad because I love her as she is.
The whole experience has been really terrible. And totally unintentional on my part. But there it is.
I hope you're okay with my honesty today. I don't like to hide. I'm guessing this sort of thing does happen to other people from time to time. Maybe not. But I wanted you to know about it.
Aoife says
So, I’ve no direct experience with stuff like this. Though I imagine it’s horrible to go through. Legally I don’t know what the standing would be. But I think you handled it really sensibly, even if that was the last thing you were feeling! These grey areas really are daunting to me even when I consider writing tutorials let alone a pattern for sale. But I’m really glad you shared, because you’ve shown me that even though it’s incredibly hard to navigate, it is possible to do so without the whole thing ending up with slander and legal action! And that gives me faith in people! So thank you, and I’m sorry it happened to you. Though I suspect this sort of thing might be inevitable given how few seasonal animals there are, and each one just having one bodyform in reality…
Sandra says
Thanks for sharing, copyright is such a tricky issue. I feel though that sometimes it is so easy (maybe too easy) to say copyrights have been violated. After all you DO want your reindeer to LOOK like a reindeer (brown, red nose, antlers…) It almost seems that ANY soft toy reindeer would now be violating this lady’s copyright, that can’t be right…!! The question is; how different does an item need to be, to be a distinct design?
As far as I can see your reindeer is very different, with different techniques needed to make her. So your pattern may suit different clients than the other pattern. I don’t know the legal situation in a case like this, but I feel you may have been bullied into taking a good pattern off the market, just because the colouring was similar.
Jenn says
That stinks. Like Sandra above said, I agree-a reindeer has to look like a reindeer, right? Yours doesn’t have boots, a scarf or joints. I think there is plenty of room in the marketplace for a variety of toy designs. I choose the one I think is cutest, fits my skill level and needs. I am sorry you are having to deal with this. I think yours is cuter, by the way! 🙂
TerriSue says
Ruby doesn’t look anything like Reggie. I hope you sent a picture of your muslins to Pauline. This makes me so mad. I hate it when people are petty. She had no right to question Ruby. If this is the kind of person she is I will not be buying anymore of her patterns. I have bought some and I had a number on my wish list which have just been struck off. I am also going to unsubscribe from her mailing list. I will not do business with people who don’t play fair!
smockerydolls@blogspot.com says
Abby, I don’t think the resemblence is too close. I didn’t think so even before you made the muslins. I wonder if Pauline, along with a few other people, is feeling extra sensitive after the amount of, mostly genuine concern, there has been lately over copyright issues.I have to agree that there are certain aspects of a reindeer that you just can’t copyright, in the same way as you could not copyright a box, square, rectangular or round!
mjb says
You did a good job of presenting your side fairly here. Hopefully this helps you move on to the next great design.
Vanessa says
I think you did make a unique variation on the reindeer theme. I was talking about this with Stacey from FreshStitches. At some point, most designs of animals are all just variations of the same shapes put together in a similar way (face = two eyes, nose, mouth and ears).
Scrapiana says
They are so different, Abby, that I can’t see how anyone would accuse you of copying. I’m sorry that you’ve had this knock to your confidence. PS As a cultural Christian, I can assure you that your moose and deer look just fine and Christmassy to me.
Rebecca says
I’m happy to see you’ve gotten some good encouragement already, but I’ll throw my voice in too.
*Everything* is different between Ruby and Reggie except for what has to be the same for them both to represent a certain bulbous-nosed reindeer of fame: overall size, shape of head, shape of antlers, proportion of ears, placement of body seams, shape of body, and placement, attachment, and shape of limbs. And that doesn’t count clothes versus none, placement and style of eyes, and color of ears and belly.
I won’t discourage you from changing Ruby, but the only reason to do so is community harmony and potentially saving yourself future “cease and desist” headaches. Reindeer toys predate both of you, so the idea itself doesn’t belong to either of you, and the design and implementation are obviously distinct. Copyright law doesn’t forbid marketplace competition!
Daphne says
They look very different to me! Sorry you’ve had to go through this – so glad you shared it though!
Wendy says
Amen, I agree totally with the ladies who posted earlier. If you like Ruby like she is I would encourage you to respond to the letter with a certified letter of your own addressing Pauline’s concerns with some of the statements above. I would point out all of the differences. I have found that sometimes it’s best to stand up and disagree. You may still end up changing Ruby but don’t go down without even trying. These are two very different patterns both in look and construction. Oh, yes he’s very much a Christmas reindeer and very very cute.
Victoria says
I love your honesty. And your talent. And your willingness to share. You a fair, true and honest voice. I think the designs are completely different. I have made patterns from both of you and your styles and animals are very unique. I applaud you for handling this uncomfortable situation so graciously. Maybe another conversation is in order? I am sure Pauline will be able to see your point. Good luck. Sending you positive thoughts and best wishes!
Shirley says
This makes me so sad for you. I totally agree with TerriSue tho…I hope that Pauline at least sees the muslins because the two are obviously different–in both muslin and fleece! Copyright is tricky because the laws are so unclear–at least to the layman. If toys are considered a useful item, the law would lead you to believe that you can’t really copyright them and that you can sell anything you make with any pattern. Designer knock-offs are everywhere and nothing can be done about it, which is why some designers are incorporating their logo in some way, in the fabrics they use because trademark infringement is a whole other thing. There’s just so much confusion and controversy surrounding the entire copyright issue. I think you handled this the best way you could without causing conflict, which is never a fun thing to deal with. On the flip side tho, why should you have to be the one to back down–the designs are SO different. If you change Ruby enough to satisfy the requirement that he not look so much like Reggie (who incidentally looks pretty much like every other Christmas reindeer on the market), it won’t be Ruby anymore and that would be REALLY sad. I guess it comes down to handling things in the way that will leave your conscience clear and let you sleep at night.
Christine Guest says
Between the need for your reindeer to look like a reindeer, and for it to balance when it sits up, nature and physics are going to make it similar to all other reindeer.
Does this happen to other crafters? It comes up in the Ravelry design forums at least once a month. Sometimes the unintended clone lets their design stay private, sometimes it turns out they only look alike in finished objects, not in technique.
How the law actually works out, and how you want to used your gracious professionalism are up in the air, but if anyone thinks you purposely set out to imitate – well, they haven’t had the ill fortune to accidentally think of the same thing at the same time someone else did.
Emma says
Goodness. I know you havent written this post to create any bad feeling against the other designer (it doesnt read that way) but it certainly doesnt put them in a very good light. as all other posters have said, i really do struggle to understand how anyone can be precious about a design for a pre-existing concept that is synonimous with christmas. It clearly isnt the same, they just both happen to be reindeer. Protecting yourself against plagirism is one thing, trying to prevent competition is quite another
susan says
ive always had issues with copyright. im sorry but i do NOT see this as the same critter. basically they have the same shaped nose. if you were to make this critter with a different shaped nose, i wonder if she would have the same issues. i would not have pulled my critter from my shop based on this. i think its great that you made them both in muslin. it clearly shows all the basics are different. and isnt that what copyrights are about? does she have a copyright to the nose shape?
Jane says
So sorry to hear that you had to go through this. I don’t think they were sufficiently similar for this allegation against you to be made. I can understand why however you felt the need to pull your pattern and redesign, but I don’t think this was strictly necessary. As others have said all reindeer are going to look very superficially similar in order to look like a reindeer. Your design is great by the way, keep on going. A lot of people support you.
Debbie Grosskopf says
Copyright is really important. It is meant to protect your intellectual property. That said, I believe the designer of the other reindeer has created something very much like Hallmark’s Rodney Reindeer. Instead of worrying about your design, she should really be looking at how similar hers is to others currently on the market. There is nothing new under the sun – your design is quite different from the other reindeer, I think you have nothing to be concerned about. Your little Ruby is darling and should stay just as she is! I understand the self doubt, we tend to do that when we are accused of something, but your intents seem pure.
Haters gonna hate, girl! LOL!
jess @ fushmush says
I agree with most of the comemnters above.
I’m actually really disappointed that I didn’t get your reindeer while it was in your shop. I love it so much! What a shame….
Samantha says
Oh How wrong a situation this is!
I can appreciate the range of emotions you have undergone having been there myself but I believe the other designer is WAY out of line!
I honestly feel you have no need to redesign your pattern and just the picture of the two next to each other proves it to me. This designer should have done what you did before spouting off copyright rubbish.
Your pattern has a clear timeline of creation, your pattern is constructed differently and designed differently.
When it comes down to it, what this designer is upset with is the fact you have a reindeer pattern. At the end of the day they are both reindeer, they should LOOK similar.
Abby there is no copyright here, return your work to sale with a clear conscience.
Wonderstrumpet.blogspot.com says
I can understanding running that whole gamut of emotions, but there is no reason for shame. YOU didn’t do anything wrong. We’re all sensitive about copyright for good reason, but the similarity stops at “reindeer”.
I hope no one will turn this into a witch hunt against the other designer, but I also hope she’s a little embarrassed. I also hope you will just keep the design up as it is.
Now I’m going to slink back into the shadows. 😉
Samantha says
Hey Abby, I’m assuming you’re in the US, but we’re a global village now so I’m sure this counts even if you’re not. I’m in the UK but I still consider this to apply to me.
Below is a quote from a site (link posted below) which I thought might be useful for you to note.
the US Copyright Office website, which has this to say:
Section 102(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
It seems to me that 102(b) describes exactly what a pattern does – it provides a procedure and process for making the garment which is depicted. Procedures cannot be copyrighted. So if this is indeed the case, you cannot copy and redistribute the actual pattern or the pictures (or maybe you can – see below), but anything you make using the process described is fair game for selling.
( http://sewhappygeek.co.uk/index.php/2011/03/31/selling-goods-made-from-patterns-copyright-infringement/ )
I write sewing patterns and I am of the understanding that the only thing that you can ‘copyright’ is the actual instructions & any photos. But there’s nothing to stop anyone reading my instructions and then duplicating them exactly. I know it doesn’t help much as a designer, because I hate the thought that someone thinks I might have copied. Whenever I come up with a new design I trawl the internet looking to see if anyone else has made something similar so that I don’t accidentally ‘copy’ although if something has a different construction then I consider it different enough. As long as I’ve had the idea independently I don’t see it being an issue.
Anyhoo, your design is obviously different so this is all moot!
Alli says
Especially after seeing the sample muslins (and even just after seeing the two finished softies), I really don’t think that Pauline has a case. Making those muslins was really smart of you, and Pauline should have done that before emailing you.
I don’t think you should have to redesign your Ruby. Pauline can’t claim that she came up with the idea of a goofy, red-nosed, be-hooved reindeer softie. 😛
Alli says
Wait a second! I took a look at the Funky Friends Factory blog, and she posted on November 11th that she had redesigned her Reggie reindeer without joints, and her *redesigned* version looks very much like Ruby. HOWEVER, you released Ruby for sale quite a while before her blog post and redesigned Reggie (I can’t remember when, but I found a review for your Ruby pattern in your Etsy shop on October 16, so at least a month before).
She can’t claim that you future-ripped-off her redesigned-version-of-her-pattern that didn’t exist till AFTER yours!
Katarina says
I can only imagine how you feel!
Your reindeer is really obviously quite different than hers and than it obviously has the reindeer look done in your unique style.
There are so many similar (or the same) patterns in the market for the same thing…(think peasant girl dress for example)…but yet there are different approaches and ways of doing something. And than it’s all in the details. And your details, beside the shapes and approach – are really making a huge difference.
I hope that she will realize that she was wrong and that she will find her way to apologize.
Sarah says
I started following your blog only very recently so I don’t think I’m biased, I haven’t got to “know” you yet. I cannot be fully objective as I have not heard the other designer’s case, but it seems very unlikely that there is any legal case for her to stand on. As others have said above there are many similar products on the market. Ruby doesn’t look like every other reindeer toy, there are many many styles out there, but also there are many other soft toys in this style. From even an untrained eye’s perspective (which I am, I have yet to buy a pattern, let alone make a toy yet) these two reindeers do not look the same, but rather are simply made in a similar style. I hope you don’t change your, already well received toy pattern, for all the wrong reasons.
lucykatecrafts says
I am confused with this! Abby, here is your Ruby, first posted on your FB page in September, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=448870405232493&set=pb.229095490543320.-2207520000.1384812157.&type=3&theater
but then, a matter of days ago, Pauline has posted on her blog this – http://networkedblogs.com/R9k2g instructions to make Reggie without the buttoned joints.
I may be totally getting this wrong, but your image from September and this latest image from Pauline in November are so similar I had to screen grab them both and put them side by side as I thought I was seeing things (my first thought was why has Abby’s photograph got a Funky Friends Factory watermark on it?), as the eyes are now the same on both Reindeer and both are sat on a pile of presents.
Ruby and original Reggie are both quite different which is highlighted beautifully with the muslin versions you have made, only similar by the fact they are both Reindeers in the same way an Owl is an Owl and a Fox is a Fox.
However, Reggie’s recent incarnation looks spookily similar to Ruby. I don’t get why Pauline is asking you to change Ruby to make the 2 patterns look more different, when she has put out suggested changes to her pattern which actually make them both look even more alike!
lucykatecrafts says
Meant to say, for the link to Pauline’s blog, scroll down the page and you’ll see which image I’m referring to : )
Michelle says
I have to add my agreement with the other comments. I also think that Debbie’s point about Hallmarks Rodney Reindeer is a very important one. You have very clearly outlined your design process and your thinking through of ideas in this post. Was Pauline able to do the same to you regarding how she produced her design?
What I am getting at is a fact that many other commentators have already made. It’s a seasonal design and a Reindeer is a Reindeer. If your representing Christmas it is an easily recognizable icon to go for. Why then is it a surprise to Pauline that you have a Reindeer design in your shop for Christmas?
If she had done some research or sat down and thought about the situation she would not have emailed you. Or rather should not have emailed you as there is obviously no theft going on direct or otherwise.
I don’t think you should be so quick to pull your design from your shop or to change it either. I would contact Pauline again and show her your muslin test. They make it very clear that if you remove the “Reindeer” elements from both they are two very different designs.
It is like one designer contacting another and saying ‘your doll design has two arms and legs and a head, it’s too similar to mine – your infringing on my copyright!’ Utter rubbish.
I have been reading your blog now for years and it seems to me that you are diligent, conscientious and talented. It also seems that you are intelligent and constantly busy doing many things that are all relevant to your softie business and all generated by your own hard work.
So the question Pauline should have asked herself is what reason would you have to want to copy her work when you have so much of your own to do? What benefit would it really have when you both know each other so well? Why would you ever risk doing something so silly?
If she had thought things through a bit better she would have realized that copying her work is just not something you would ever do and that seasonal/ animal similarities are going to occur.
I think the comfort that you can take from all this is the safe knowledge that you are a better designer for 3 reasons. 1. When you had doubt you checked by sewing both patterns. 2. Even though you know your right you checked again with your readers by making this post. 3. When you thought there was a problem you acted immediately and then you questioned. There are many people who would wait for a fight before they act even though they might be wrong.
Good Luck and Best Wishes!
Michelle says
I just posted my last long winded comment and then refreshed the page and saw lucykatecrafts comment. After seeing that I would say most certainly do not back down. She has changed her design and the end result now looks like your reindeer.
That is not your problem it is hers.
melissa says
Looking at the first pictures (completed critters), I was trying to see why there was a copyright issue. I could see they were both reindeer, but there were so many design differences. After seeing the muslins, I have to say there is not a copyright issue at all. None. Frankly I feel you were bullied/threatened simply to remove competition from another softie designer. I also believe that you should show Pauline the picture of the muslins and put Ruby back in your shop as is.
Best wishes and please don’t feel any guilt about this. The problem is not yours.
ann wood says
I don’t think you did anything wrong here Abby. I think your design was arrived at organically : the reindeer is not a departure from your style or techniques – it makes perfect sense in the context of your other work and your process is well documented – I think your response was incredibly generous.
Kim says
Hi Abby,
I just want to say you have been an inspiration to me and so many others with your unique talent, and comprehensive knowledge of construction of stuffed animals…..and your willingness to share that with a community to make everyone better I really appreciate it. Anyway, I just want to say I’m sorry this happened I love your reindeer interpretation very Christmas-y and I think there are too many different details to even be similar softies. Keep creating great softies 🙂
Jocelyn says
Whoa, I was in total agreement with everyone else before but now especially after seeing how her new reindeer looks insanely similar to yours. And she posted it after yours. If anyone has an issue with copying it would be her now.
I do think it was a brilliant idea to do the muslin comparisons. I would put Ruby back in the shop and keep on selling her.
Angela says
Hi, Abby
I first saw this post many hours ago and there were only two comments. I got busy, but I have been stewing about this all day long. Now, everything I wanted to say has been said, and I am so glad to see such a unanimous response to this outrageous situation. I’m so sorry you’re having to deal with this and I’m fascinated by your openness. I hope you’ll put your original pattern back up, but in case you don’t, let me be the first to say this: I’m very glad I bought this pattern more than a month ago! ; )
Amanda says
THANK YOU for writing this, it is full of food for thought! I think you have written it well.
TerriSue says
Abby, This is TerriSue again. I came back to read the other responses. Please send your muslin picture to Pauline and put Ruby back where she belongs. She hasn’t got a leg to stand on. Ruby is perfect just as she is. Don’t let Pauline bully you. Maybe she has insecurities because of your book and how popular you are. Those are her problems, not yours. You are a wonderful person and incredibly talented. Don’t let this throw you for a loop. She could never win a court case and no lawyer would ever take her case. They are just too different!
Caroline B says
They are only similar in the way one reindeer will look like another – you can’t alter the basic looks of an animal. I agree that you have been incredibly generous here. It would be worth seeing if you can re-negotiate this and put your pattern back where it belongs. I can understand totally how you must be feeling – stop it, you did nothing wrong!
Esther says
Abby, this is only an issue if you let it become one.
Do the world a favor and put Ruby back in your shop as it is, don’t be a softie yourself, girl.
Last, by chance, I saw a blog author accusing an other publicly of plagiarism of her spool doll. Well, they were both spool dolls, period. You can use and misuse the copyright at both sides.
Sara @ Sew Sweetness says
When I first looked at the brown reindeer, I didn’t think that they looked anything alike (besides being reindeer).
I went to a class at Quilt Market in which an accountant and lawyer were present, and they answered our questions. Someone in the audience asked about copyright (basically, a similar situation). The lawyer said (obviously) that if we are designing something, we should start from scratch, but that two things could be alike, be slightly different, and still be okay. He made it sound like it was objective.
Now, obviously, as designers, we don’t want something to be only “slightly” different from someone else’s design; we want it to be totally different.
In the past few months, my blog readers have pointed out two other designers’ bags that have been very very very similar to mine. I didn’t do anything about it. They were not exactly the same. I’m not inside their head, and so I could not say if they had ever seen my bags. Maybe they hadn’t. What I told those two blog readers was this, “Thank you so much for showing me this. I honestly don’t know how to handle it in a way that wouldn’t be mean, and so I’m not going to do anything. When I see something like this, it just reminds me that I need to work faster and better, and promote my work better, so that customers would buy my patterns over others.”
Sara/creativejewishmom says
Yes indeed things like this happen to us all, though not to anyone who never puts their creations out there, so be proud and hold your head high. Also, whether indeed you infringed on the copyright needs more than the copyright owner telling you its an infringement, it really depends on the legal wording I believe.
I’ve been selling a nesting dreidel mobile for a few years from my Etsy shop and just saw that The Land of Nod is selling decorations that are too similar to be coincidental, but as just little me, trying to press charges or get to the bottom of it is way over my head. A few years ago Matthew Mead (or rather one his staff, directly ripped off a dreidel garland design I had shared on my blog, and used for their project on HGTV website. And those are just two examples I know about, I’m sure there are many more, but the good news is that for those of us who are creative, there’s no end to ideas. And my husband pointed out, just look what happens in the fashion industry….photos from runway shows are send directly for factories in China to make knock offs, now that would be much more annoying than anything I’ve experienced certainly.
all the best, and have an amazing Chanukah!
RLC says
Someone mentioned this already, but I wanted to repeat it. There is no copyright protection for patterns. Someone already cited 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), but it pretty clearly states that patterns aren’t copyrightable since they are a procedure. Recipes fall into the same category, by the way. This is why toys are usually trademarked, not copyrighted. I guess you could copyright the specific wording on the instructions… but even that’s debatable.
Having said that, if you makes you more comfortable to pull the pattern than you should pull the pattern, but don’t pull it out of fear of copyright violation. I really hate the idea of anyone getting bullied over copyright on patterns and it happens all the time.
I should also note that I am not a lawyer and nothing I have said should be construed as legal advice.
Abby Glassenberg says
I just wanted to say thank you to everyone. Thank you for your support, your wisdom, and your kinds words. I truly appreciate it and have been reading them all day. It feels really good to write about this. Thank you.
kiri says
hi, years ago I studied design and I had a teacher who said that the wheel has already been designed/invented, all we can do from here now is improve, modify and interpret in a way that is fresh and true to us. the reindeer idea is not new its bee n done many times, someone mentioned a similar hallmark reindeer. to me both reindeer are a variation on the same theme, which most probably was inspired by a similar thing, like Rudolph the red nose reindeer. you did not copy her and she did not copy you, its just you have similar ideas of what a Christmas reindeer should look like.
Heather says
Holy wow… I went and checked out that link of her new “non-button jointed” Reggie… uhm, not only does it not look like the original, it looks almost exactly like yours.
Your reindeers *didn’t* look anything alike, but boy they sure do now.
I feel like she was just clearing the way to steal your design… which was probably much more successful than hers.
I think you have a strong case against her, not the other way around.
Larissa says
Wow, Abby. First of all, I want to say that the way you handled this whole thing is not a surprise to me — you are a gracious, conscientious, honest and forthright person. You took the high road. That is surely the worst feeling — getting a letter like that from a person you admire and consider a friend. However, I can clearly see that you did not copy her reindeer. They are similar, but it’s obvious to me that you arrived there from your own journey.
Gerry says
Hi Abby, I’m not a designer but I am a consumer. As such, I would when shopping consider both of these reindeer to be very different. Enough so that I would have to decide which style I liked best.
As far as the ‘similar’ issue goes….the only way you can make a reindeer look different than another reindeer is to make it a goose!
Seriously, if it is not the ‘same’ and is only ‘similar’ can there really be a copyright issue? Just take a stroll through the toy department at any major retailer and you’ll have your answer.
Deanna says
Okay, guess I’ll put in my 2 cents worth: In my opinion these reindeer do NOT look enough alike for there to be a “copy cat”. I’m just disappointed that Ruby is no longer available because it was on my “want” list. I will not be purchasing the reindeer pattern from Pauline. Please put Ruby back in the shop for those of us who love her! Thank you.
Lizette says
Hey Abby. I’ve been just reviewing your Stuffed Animals book and I think you are a very thorough designer. The two reindeer designs don’t look so much alike to reach copyright issues. From one toy designer to another, you have my support and hang in there. Please keep sharing your process. It’s inspiring.
Sarah @ Berry Barn Designs says
Regardless of the legal rules and ramifications, this post is a nice insight into the design process, copyright infringement, defending copyright, and thoughtful contemplation about it all by a small business owner and designer. Great job letting us in to see that! You handled it well : )
Sarah says
OH MY GOD! She’s turned her Reggie into your Ruby now!!! Look at that! She even changed the eyes to the ones Ruby has! and she even made the picture look the same by placing Reggie on a red present and having a light green one on top of another next to the reindeer. Now THAT is what I’d call copying.
This is rediculous!
They weren’t similar to start off with (jointed vs. unjointed…The eyes…the pattern…the antlers…etc.). In terms of copyright she had no case here, whatsoever. So they both have a red nose – was that it?!
Honestly: Put Ruby back in your shop!! do it now. And if she wants to argue about copying, ask her what she’d call that new version of Reggie…
Sara says
I think the overall look of the two toys are superficially similar in a couple of ways but yes, I really can see that the design is totally different. Significantly so in fact. The muslins really do show up how totally different the designs and pattern pieces are in fact. I don’t believe you used someone’s idea either. I can totally see your thought processes in how the deer came about for you.
Frankly I don’t think it was necessary for the other designer to make this fuss. I think you should put your popular design back in the shop and let customers choose to buy it from you. Many things we do are similar, we are all humans and there are limited ways of construction (yet you still came up with different construction) and limited ways of seeing. Incidentally, if it was a naturalistic deer would you still be in trouble, even if the design was evidently different like yours is? Can someone ‘own’ the deer form?
It’s a shame this happened to you as you are a very sharing person and it is a shame other people want to own everything because they made it. They don’t even know that they made their deer before you did yours, just that theirs was out there first. Chances are there is another similar deer out there too – which was made even earlier; someone has suggested in fact that the other design is similar to another (which I haven’t seen). Can anyone check out all the deer plushes made on the planet? Should that even be considered as a possibility? I don’t think so.
I knit and crochet and see designs in books described as original. How would they even know? And how would that even be likely given the finite ways of doing things and the fact that fibre arts have such a long history. I think original is used to describe things on the one hand that really aren’t and on the other hand we are told we need to aspire to that when it is pretty impossible to do so. I do see why copyright exists, but it is also often a complete mess and a nonsense too.
I certainly don’t doubt your integrity one little bit and I am really sorry you have been hauled over the coals for this, it sounds a rather traumatic thing to go through. Good for you for giving it such a good hearing on your blog, you have done yourself justice for sure. By the way Ruby Reindeer is totally Christmassy! You definitely got that right. You have every right to sell your pattern as far as I can see. x
Pauline - Funky Friends Factory says
Hi Abby,
I tried my best to resolve this amicably so it is really sad that you want to drag this issue into public like this. I wonder if you are feeling good having all these people say such horrible things about me when we both know I do not deserve this? 🙁
I hope that you will respect my right to reply and tell people the rest of the story? I wrote my email to you after months of considering what to do about a situation that has been really worrying me. I decided to write to you because I have seen a number of my customers tweaking my patterns and ‘releasing’ them as their own.
I wanted to let you know that I was worried because you blog about basing your patterns on others designer’s patterns and because I saw you telling people on your forum to buy my patterns as “market research”. I have tried my utmost for the last 12 years to design patterns that do not look like other designer’s toys so it is really awful to hear people referring to me as petty and a bully, when I take such care to avoid creating something similar to other designer’s toys!
You also didn’t mention that this is not the first time I have had to ask you to change a pattern because you have infringed my copyright, and knowing this, perhaps it will explain why I was so shocked when you released Ruby and had people emailing me to tell me they thought you copied my pattern.
It can’t feel good withdrawing a pattern and I really appreciate you offering to do this, but it feels horrible for me that you say you are angry at me. I feel terrible and I did not choose to be in this horrible situation … it is something I try my utmost to avoid whenever I design!
I know you say you love me and respect me as a designer, but it truly doesn’t feel that way at all… I only hope that you will see it in your heart to let your readers know that I do not deserve to be vilified like this?
Thank you so much,
Pauline
Kylie says
So I’ve had a look at both patterns, I have owned the Reggie pattern for many years and believe that it was released sometime around 2006. I have also taken the time to read Pauline’s post about sewing Reggie without button joints.
Considering the pattern pieces are exactly the same and all that has changed is that the arms are sewn into the seams instead of being button jointed, this does not class as a redesign. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if many people have sewn him up this way over the years anyway. The fact that it demonstrates how similar the patterns are is proof enough that you did the right thing in pulling your design Abby. Congratulations on doing the right thing and I look forward to seeing your new reindeer design.
Nadya says
You’re so honest and so brave! I understand what you felt when she sent you Pauline’s letter. I would be full of emotions if I were you. Your cooler head prevailed, so to say.
I support you. Will you inform Pauline about this post?
Sara says
The pattern pieces are far from being exactly the same! The shapes are entirely different as is the method of construction and number of pieces. That much can be easily seen from the muslins.
As far as I am aware, since reading this blog, Abby has never suggested nor said she recommended using other people’s patterns to base ones own upon. Nor does she say she does this herself. Rather, the market research is for people who want to sell patterns (not how to design the pattern pieces). It is about buying other people’s patterns and looking at how the pattern is written up, what is included in the instructions – are there too many words, or not enough information? the calibre of the photos etc. The market research is not about replicating anything and is nothing to do with the actual design at all. There is nothing whatsoever underhand about this. I worked for someone once who did all the minutiae of the office, as well as marketing his product based on what other people did. I remember looking at the post to see what side most people put their company logo on. He would always go with the general consensus as being the ‘right way’. If marketing emails signed off ‘Yours sincerely’ then so would his, but if they said ‘Kind regards’ he would change his own. No stealing went on though, as he was a very artistically creative person. Why on earth would Abby need to steal designs?! Where is any evidence at all to suggest that is what happened?
I’m sure both parties feel uncomfortable but why wouldn’t Abby wish to defend herself from accusations against her integrity? I think her innocence is proven and she has no case to answer. I don’t see any evidence presented anywhere to show different, just some indignation. Just because it is annoying to have a competitor come up with a reindeer design does not mean there was anything underhand in the processes of its production.
Aoife says
Having come back and read through all of the comments, I think it’s all been said. Though I would say that I think the most sensible sum up I’ve read is in the final comment from Sara (Nov 20 @ 10:10am). I would place most store in that, Abby!
Tiffany Harvey says
What in the world is going on with Reggie’s new version here? ~
http://www.funkyfriendsfactory.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Reggie-Reindeer-vs-Ruby-Reindeer-Abby-Glassenberg-While-she-naps-similar-patterns1.jpg
(From the post http://networkedblogs.com/R9k2g )
I can’t say when the different reindeer & photos were created, but someone is obviously copying the other for it to be that similar.
Allison Dey Malacaria says
First I would want to say I have nothing bad to say about either Pauline or Abigail. Pauline had a very fair concern that a design was remarkably similar to hers and she stated it. Abigail was disheartened by that because she values integrity and her friendships and business relationships with other doll designers.
This isn’t a soap opera, ladies. There should be none of this fourth grade – oh she’s being mean or who do they think they are – kind of nonsense. These are two professional women with valid concerns. Grow up! I despise this sort of behavior in adults.
HOWEVER, there are only so many ways to make a reindeer. I mean really. Every time I sew a muslin dummy of a new idea, I eventually find something remarkably similar out there. Maybe it’s a drawing or something not sold anymore. But I’ll be darned if that’s not MY doll. That’s just the way it goes.
Seriously? There’s no fight here. The muslins that Abigail sewed are pretty much proof these dolls are not the same. Pauline, you are not the owner of the soft smooshy reindeer that can sit up. I had a reindeer in the 60s that was extremely similar to both of these. Neither one of you is unique in that respect. This overall design has been around for a LONG time. You both simply found a way to make one that is of your own geometry.
When you find something too close for comfort, you have to speak up as Pauline did. And I think Abigail did admirably well to analyze whether or not her pattern was indeed too close a match to another designers, regardless of copyright infringement OR lack thereof.
I’m really glad for this post because I’ve been coming up against this question for the last two weeks as I struggle to create new patterns that are dancing in my head like crazy. Some I’ve found something similar to already. I ‘m over it. I love that Abigail provided proof of process and if that’s not enough for Pauline, they can work it out amongst themselves, but in the meantime, it’s a valuable conversation we, as designers and doll makers, need to be able to discuss without comments from the grammar school bathroom.
Allison Dey Malacaria says
Shirley, I would like to add that I have discovered that in Australia, unlike the US, you can stipulate whether or not the maker of your craft pattern can sell or not. If you ask people not to sell what they make from your pattern and they do, it is indeed copyright violation in Australia. Luckily, folks here are pretty laid back and I don’t think anyone would really care one way or the other. I’ve never seen an Aussie pattern that restricts the maker.
Allison Dey Malacaria says
Also this:
http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html
Pauline - Funky Friends Factory says
Thank you Tiffany, I appreciate your honesty! My Reggie pattern has remained unchanged since I released it in 2006, all I did for that blog post was to make him up without the button joints because Abby was insisting Ruby was completely different because she wasn’t jointed. Abby released her pattern last month so I can’t be the one ‘copying’ and its a relief to have someone agree that there is definitely reason to be concerned about our patterns being so similar. Thank you again, Pauline Funky Friends Factory
Mignon says
Great link Allison, thank you for sharing.
I think as designers, we need to find out what’s truth & what’s fiction with copyright. It’s become a major drama in the indie stamp design industry, it would be sad to see the indie soft toy design industry go the same way.
Allison Dey Malacaria says
I agree. Just because some big companies will sue small guys (and gals) doesn’t mean they are correct in assuming their products are covered by copyright law. It’s a very slippery slope. You can’t copyright a recipe or else no one would be allowed to make something from it. But you can copyright the book the recipe is in. Copyright does not protect the process used in creating the thing, nor the instructions for making it, but copyright does protect the actual piece of paper of written instructions. You can copyright your special alien teddy bear pattern, but you can’t copyright teddy bears. How YOU make a teddy bear may be special to you, and the piece of paper on which you write the instructions is yours, but someone can tweak your teddy bear and now it’s theirs.
Patent keeps people from reproducing your invention. “Stuffed animal” was patented in the 1960s. Some guy figured out polyester fiberfill was lighter and more washable than horsehair and kapok. But everyone makes stuffed animals. He may have let his patent lapse, or we may be in gross violation of his patent. Who knows?
It IS illegal to resell copyrighted patterns and books at thrift stores and yard sales. It IS illegal to hand your copy to your sister to use. But everyone does it. It’s part of the culture. It ISN’T illegal to pull apart someone’s doll and copy it precisely as long as that doll is intended as a utilitarian plaything and not art.
It’s a highly charged but fascinating conversation. Ownership and copyright are not the same thing and that’s the tricky part. My idea and the written instructions for that idea may be covered by copyright (and only if it has actually been registered), but the process for making it and what people do with the thing once made is not covered in the US. It is somewhat covered here in Australia. You can state no one is to sell what they make from your pattern according to AU craft pattern copyright law.
Gwen Bortner says
I recently had this happen to me and posted about it on my blog – http://www.thesamestitch.com/2013/11/wip-something-different.html
The situation was different than Abby’s so not all the hurt etc. But copyright is about specific words, pictures and graphics. Obviously Abby’s can’t be the same as Pauline’s. Trademarks and patents are different, but that is not what is being discussed!
D A Nelson says
Hi. I don’t think your reindeer is so like the other one to merit the other designer thinking you’d breached her copyright. The designs are very different. Don’t worry about it. Dawn x
Jody Herbert says
Ruby is quite different to Pauline’s Reggie. She has used button joints – and you haven’t – Reggie has larger ears and an extra pieced head by the looks plus footpads and a different shaped head. I can’t see any breach of copyright here. I would be keeping your Ruby design just the way it is. I love both designs but I would see your design as an easier pattern to make (due to the fact that it doesn’t have footpads/button joints) and so depending on who I would be making it for would determine which one I would choose. Your design is something I would make for a child to play with (as the arms/legs would be stronger sewn in like that). Reggie I would make if I were to give it to someone to display on their mantelpiece/sideboard for Christmas. So I think the designs are totally different in that regard. I’m sorry that you have had to deal with this issue. I can see that her design has in no way influenced yours as you can prove your design process (as you have in your post). I hope she reads your post and can see that you have not breached any copyright here.
susan says
Well put Pauline 🙂
I must admit that i have had the Reggie Pattern for years. I recently thought “i wonder if i could make him without button joints” I looked around and found Ruby… and i truly thought she was Reggie tweaked. It’s impossible not to see the similarities.
I must also agree with Pauline that this could be resolved privately… With such a small plushie community why drag situations like this out in the open. I’m sure had you employed Skype or Facetime this matter may have been resolved with no one the wiser. The community would not be taking sides or be upset with either one of you… emails back and forth will never convey your true emotion or understanding of the matter.
I truly hope that both of can put aside your emotions and, communicate fairly and honestly with each other. That being said, I for one would like to see this blog post removed so no more harm can come to either of you.
all the best.
susan
Claire says
I agree. I would be ignoring the other designer and keep selling your pattern. I thought with copyright the work had to be a certain percentage different from the other design. They look very different to me. Don’t let such negativity get to you.
Hayley says
Well Pauline, that’s not all you did. You also made him in identical fabrics, left off his defining characteristics such as the boots, scarf, and different colored tummy, COMPLETELY changed the placement and look of his eyes to mimic Abby’s, and on top of all that created an idential photo shoot. You my friend are the one copying. I can take two different designers horse patterns, and it I make them in identical fabrics, guess what… they’ll look pretty similar. To be perfectly honest I actually prefer the look of Reggie, unfortunately I will never be purchasing him from you. It’s people like you who make me want to shut down my Etsy shop. Everywhere you turn there’s copyright this, infringement that. We’re all artists in our own way just trying to share our passion with the world. Why can’t we support and praise one another instead of trying to take out the competition. I sincerely hope you apologize to Abby, her pattern is clearly different and you have caused a lot of headache and emotions that were never necessary to begin with. Thank you for your time.
Abby Glassenberg says
I just wanted to add a quick update. Yesterday Pauline reported my image of Ruby the Reindeer, pinned to my “Patterns” Pinterest board, to Pinterest as a copyright violation.
lucykatecrafts says
..but the pattern has been removed from sale, is the goal to now wipe out it’s existence completely??
I still don’t get the issue.
2 patterns, both soft toys, both reindeer, both with antlers, and both with red noses.
2 patterns with different shaped heads, different eyes, different proportions, different legs, different antlers, one is jointed with buttons, one is not.
1 pattern is changed, becomes unjointed, the eyes are changed, the fabric is changed, the legs and feet are changed, then it’s photographed in exactly the same set up as the other pattern (an attempt to highlight the apparent similarities?)
2 patterns becoming deemed as similar only AFTER 1 has had a lot of changes made to it does not make a copyright infringement.
if this really is the case, then this infringes too surely?, http://www.craftsy.com/pattern/crocheting/toy/rudolph-reindeer/38508 sure, it’s crochet, but ‘change’ it to fabric and it’s the same as Reggie. And this one, https://www.etsy.com/listing/112702624/christmas-reindeers-pattern-pdf-sewing?ref=shop_home_active with a few changes this one would also be the same.
LM says
Although I read you blog, I have never commented before. Today, though, I will.
That woman does not personally own the traditional soft toy reindeer image. She merely owns her version of a reindeer. Looking at the two toys, it’s clear they are not the same toy and therefore, not a copyright infringement.
Gweny says
You have already received alot of support but let me say that this whole thing is so ridiculous. I would also contact pinterest about her saying that about your pattern because its not a copy right infringement unless she became judge and jury and no one told you.. lol.. BUT clearly its not in any way. I love Ruby I hope and pray she comes back. Good luck and I know God has blessed you for your honesty and integrity.
Blessings, Gweny
Christine Goodness says
yours is DEFINITELY cuter plus no joints! I would LOVE to make yours for my 17 MO grandson because it seems more kid friendlt and just so darn cute!!!! Please don’t change Ruby! I even like the name better! But let me know when you do have the pattern available.
GL says
Copyright protects the EXPRESSION, not the idea itself. It does not matter who first produced a stuffed toy reindeer: the IDEA of the stuffed toy is NOT protected by copyright.
As I understand it, you made a leap from a completely different idea: stuffed toy moose. From your comments, at no point did you refer to any representation of the other work and, in fact were completely unaware of that other work of art. Clearly you were not making a copy of the other expression.
What we have here is another example of copyright terrorism. It’s the sad state of the world. I can understand each victim surrendering. But, I hope, some day, someone will finally take a stand and shout “ENOUGH!” when faced with another false claim of copyright violation by yet another cyber terrorist.
Sue Deffler says
I’m looking to get the pattern also for Ruby, let me know……
thanks
Christine Goodness says
I will want Ruby LOL. I contacted you last year and you were very professional and said nothing bad about anyone. This makes me only want to buy YOUR patterns and have nothing to do with someone who acts in such a childish unjustified way.
PS I begged to buy Ruby but, being honorable, you said no. 🙂 If you ever do release her I will be first in line.
Abby says
Hi Christine,
Good news! I’ve redesigned her and Ruby will be available as a pattern on Black Friday! Be sure you’re signed up for my newsletter and you’ll be the first to know. Thank you for your patience!