S/O "Misunderstanding" rules on purpose

[QuirkyKapers]

I think this is interesting because not only do I know people who don't follow rules that are clearly stated, but they don't follow rules that are just norms in society. For example, if you are eating at a restaurant, you don't get to take the silverware or whatever you want home. Or, if you stay in a hotel, the towels aren't yours too confiscate. I wonder what is behind the thinking when someone does this? Is it entitlement?

[sparrow]

I've often wondered the same thing. It wouldn't even cross my mind that if a rule is stated, or simply understood as a societal norm, that it somehow didn't apply to *me*.

 

We own a business that requires we have certain rules. When I have to go speak with someone about breaking a rule, especially one that is clearly stated on signage, etc., these folks always immediately stop and say something like, "Oh, right, right. You're right. I saw the sign." :001_huh:

[Amy in NH]

I don't think it's entitlement so much as poor impulse control and egocentrism that leads them to fulfill their desires when they believe 1) they won't get caught, or 2) the consequences for getting caught are not severe (to them). Essentially, it is more fun/fulfilling to do _ than it is bad to get caught doing it. The egocentrism includes a lack of empathy for those who have to deal with replacing items or whatever the result is of their misbehavior.

[Rebecca VA]

People are seeing this type of thing more and more in movies and on TV. The behavior is modeled in a way that's meant to get laughs and approval from the audience (have you ever noticed how many people chuckle at the most horrible behavior?), and it makes audience members think they're (smart, cute, just like a movie star) when they behave that way.

[LaxMom]

In many cases, I suspect it is narcissism. Perhaps not to the extent of having the actual PD, but that is one of the hallmarks.

[eternalknot]

We've become a culture of immediate gratification and "me, me, me" -- and this is one manifestation of that.

 

Here's an internal dialogue:

If I like the hotel towels, and want them, why can't I take them? The hotel overcharges for its rooms anyway. They account for theft and build it into the costs. They didn't give me the good view I deserved, so I'll make it up by helping myself to their towels. They have millions of towels. They're a major international corporation, what's a few towels to them? Seriously, Hilton's going to cry over 2 hand towels? I paid a lot of money for this room, and it's not as nice as I expected it to be; it'll sting less if I feel I've gotten the towels, too, as a bonus for my business.

 

Here's another:

I think it's unfair that the zoo expects me to pay full-price for my 3 year old who is just going to nap most of the day anyhow. I'll just lie and say she's under 3, so she can get in for half-price (or free). I don't like this rule and think it's unfair. She's not going to see a lot, she'll be napping in the stroller. If she costs full-price, I can't afford to bring my older two kids and also pay to park. It'll mean the whole day/field trip is cancelled. My kids deserve to go the zoo. We're citizens trying to support our local resources. Why should we miss out just because THEY want to charge a napping toddler full-price?

 

Or another:

Can you believe they want $5 for a soda pop and $3 for a Hershey's bar at the movie theater??! That's ridiculous. We're already paying $8 per person to get in. We're a family of four, a night at the movies shouldn't cost more than my first car did. Those movie stars make a ton of money, and those Hollywood producers rake it in. We'll sneak in our own food. I can bring in a $3 bag of Doritos, a $5 box of 12-Hershey bars, and bottled soda pop for the family to share and pass around during the movie. I have a big purse.

 

... and then these people's kids grow up also thinking that rules don't apply to them if they (a) don't like them, (b) find them unfair, or © can somehow or otherwise justify not following them. I see so many adults choosing to ignore rules, that it's no wonder their children follow suit. I saw it as a kid, and my peers then are the parents now; I'm not at all surprised by their continuing the pattern their parents set for them.

 

It's people living in their own little bubbles, unaware that the high hotel prices ARE inflated for theft; that the zoo loses money most years and HAS to charge full-price to keep its programs operating; that the movie theater owner is NOT a part of the Hollywood crowd. It's not thinking beyond one's self, because that's the cultural norm here. It's not the common good, it's the individual that matters. There's a positive side to that mentality, but this is the requisite downside -- some take it to an extreme, and make it an art form.

 

It's the problem with falsely inflating kids' self-esteem, and then these 'kids' grow up to walk around with inflated senses of entitlement and the validation they need for getting what they want - for no other reason than they want something. Some kids see through the smoke blown up their butts, but the ones that don't turn into people who always feel they are owed -or otherwise deserve- something, anything, or that they're otherwise above any rules they deem stupid or worthless.

 

It's the lack of consequences, both at home and in society (generally speaking, for both). How many kids can push it? How many laws are in place to protect citizens, that allow us as adults to push it? We're pretty certain in most cases, the first offense will be a slap on the wrist -if anything. There's nothing real to lose by not at least trying. There's a gambler in each of us.

Edited February 2, 2012 by eternalknot

[Julie Smith]

People are seeing this type of thing more and more in movies and on TV. The behavior is modeled in a way that's meant to get laughs and approval from the audience (have you ever noticed how many people chuckle at the most horrible behavior?), and it makes audience members think they're (smart, cute, just like a movie star) when they behave that way.

 

My dh has a friend that will try to imitate tv sitcom humor and wonder why we don't find him funny and smart. I bet he is also wondering why there is no laugh track.

[angela in ohio]

I don't think it's entitlement so much as poor impulse control and egocentrism that leads them to fulfill their desires when they believe 1) they won't get caught, or 2) the consequences for getting caught are not severe (to them). Essentially, it is more fun/fulfilling to do _ than it is bad to get caught doing it. The egocentrism includes a lack of empathy for those who have to deal with replacing items or whatever the result is of their misbehavior.

 

Exactly.

 

It's the same people who drive up the right lane and then cut into traffic. They are more important - in their own minds - than all the other people in the line of traffic.

 

Sometimes, if you point out the logical conclusions of their actions, they get it. They just didn't think of it on their own (lack of logic skills or whatever.) But usually they still don't care.

[Ohdanigirl]

I don't think there is just one cause. Some people have a rebellious nature, others just don't care, but some times it is a cultural thing. For example, in Mexico there are many of the same laws and rules as you would find in the US, but it is rare to see someone wearing a seatbelt, for example. I have come to learn that most see these things as a suggestion, or a way for police to get money from people when they feel like it. This often becomes a big issue when people emigrate to other countries and need to get used to the way rules are followed there.

 

I don't think it's entitlement so much as poor impulse control and egocentrism that leads them to fulfill their desires when they believe 1) they won't get caught, or 2) the consequences for getting caught are not severe (to them). Essentially, it is more fun/fulfilling to do _ than it is bad to get caught doing it. The egocentrism includes a lack of empathy for those who have to deal with replacing items or whatever the result is of their misbehavior.

 

This too. And, as someone else mentioned, it's all about "me, me, me."

Danielle

Edited February 2, 2012 by USDGAL

[stripe]

I think some of it is growing up in poverty...they feel like they don't have enough, and want it, so they take it, excusing the behavior as 'I paid for it'. Do they really need that many little shampoo bottles and soap? Or how about the buffet plate emptied into the ziploc in the purse...

Frankly, those sorts of things don't bother me. I don't see the issue with taking a tiny soap with you; that's not at ALL the same as taking a towel or a cup! One is expected to use the soap, at which point it will be gone or not suitable for other guests. No one is going to eat your half-eaten muffin from the buffet! Towels, blankets, cups, and coffeemakers, on the other hand, are durable goods that should be left in the hotel.

 

The people I know who do this tend to be elderly. I have a relative who brings stuff from the hotel (sugar free yogurt, bruised red delicious apples, not delicious pastries) that no one wants to breakfasts I cook for them at my house, or they load up on them at the hotel because they are free and then are too full to eat at breakfasts at my house. My time and my food is presumably free!

 

I also think some rules were never clearly articulated to those people, so they honestly don't know them. Not everyone grew up in the same way, at the same time, in the same culture as you, just because they live in the same town, at this point in time. Norms are different in different places. And frankly, sometimes Americans make a big deal about everything, too. I am not keeping track if someone steals a hotel's towels -- it's not my business! But I hope the hotel charges them for the stolen items.

[Acorn]

I'll confess to my latest rule breaking.

 

 

The pool we go had multiple signs stating that children 6 and older must use the proper locker room. My son is now 6. I don't have many concerns over molestation (although it has happened in our area), but he is not tall enough to reach the soap for the sink or to turn on a shower. He is slightly below average height for his age, so this is clearly a design issue for the recreation center.

 

We had stopped going for a while and I didn't sign him up for lessons partly because of the locker room rule. Last week, after being cooped up for days due to the weather, I gave in to the winter blues and took the kids swimming.

 

I have discussed the soap dispenser problem with an employee and her attitude was that I couldn't always expect my son to properly wash his hands.

 

So, we will continue to break the rules for a bit longer. I guess I would classify it as entitlement (if using soap when washing hands counts for that) and helicopter parenting. Oh well.

[Maus]

I don't think there is just one cause. Some people have a rebellious nature, others just don't care, but some times it is a cultural thing. ...

I think so, too, different causes for different people.

 

My parents did some things out of sheer poverty. For instance, we'd sometimes go to the "$1" movies (what are they really called -- second run theater, maybe), but to afford it, we'd go to the $0.50 matinee or Tuesday night showing. Mom would smuggle in a single Hershey bar or a little bag of M&M's, which we'd divide up for our "movie treat." We all felt guilty about it, but we literally couldn't afford to do anything else.

 

I went on a "field trip" to Mexico for one of my university classes (an interdisciplinary colloquium in which one of our topics was Spanish literature). I remember the professor driving the van I was riding in, who was the Spanish lit guy, explaining that bribes were viewed the same as we view tips, with an expected amount and everything. "This official gets $1 American, that official gets $5 American." You could do whatever it was without offering a bribe, but it would take all day. You were bribing for efficiency. In his mind, it was just the way it was.

 

And every time there's a big snowstorm here, the snow banks and meridians are packed with SUVs, which have slid off the road, because that reduced speed warning back there couldn't possibly have applied to them. (I always fight the urge to yell, "Four wheel drive doesn't help you stop, dummy! All cars have four wheel braking!")

[Pink Fairy]

There are rules, and then there are "rules." "Rules" are made up, and I feel free to ignore them if I choose. Like the "rule" that you don't take home the soap or shampoo from the hotel. It's not a real rule, it's just someone's opinion. Or the always return the shopping cart, don't wear shoes in the house, crock pots are unhealthy and you'll only use one if you want to kill your family rules. And on and on, ad nauseum.

[lionfamily1999]

I've known people who broke the rules because they could.

 

I know someone that has no compunction about breaking rules if they get between her and whatever is "fun." Thinking about it, I know a few women like that. If it's "fun," then the rules do not apply. They also huff and puff in righteous indignation if/when they are caught.

 

I believe their reasoning is... Do what feels good. If it's fun it must be alright. Or, the shorter, "Just Do It."

[Puma Mom]

I think sometimes it's wanting to make the most of the money that was spent--maybe a holdover from the depression.

 

My father once told me that he had come up with a great idea. He could rent DVDs for $1 at a place on Tuesdays, so he'd then copy the DVD and give a copy to my (disabled) sister so she could watch it whenever she wanted to. I pointed out that it was illegal. His response: "Well, I paid for it!" "No, you didn't. You rented the physical DVD. You didn't buy the rights to own the material. And don't you ever watch that FBI warning that comes up at the beginning??!!" He stopped copying them. It was like it didn't even occur to him that it was wrong.

 

My mom and stepdad regularly take baggies to take leftover food home for the dogs. While I think it's a great idea in most places, I don't agree when they do it in a buffet place. Especially when I know they took extra to have some for the dogs.

[Ibbygirl]

I wonder what is behind the thinking when someone does this? Is it entitlement?

 

 

I have no idea what is is, but if you figure it out PLEASE let me know. I'm on the roads with lots of people that could benefit from that information. :glare:

Edited February 2, 2012 by Ibbygirl

[Maus]

 

Frankly, those sorts of things don't bother me. I don't see the issue with taking a tiny soap with you; that's not at ALL the same as taking a towel or a cup! One is expected to use the soap, at which point it will be gone or not suitable for other guests. No one is going to eat your half-eaten muffin from the buffet! Towels, blankets, cups, and coffeemakers, on the other hand, are durable goods that should be left in the hotel.

FWIW, I knew someone who worked as a maid one summer to earn college money. She said the hotel she worked at expected the small items, like soap, shampoo, lotion, pens, notepads, etc. to be taken home, and branded them with the hotel name and sometimes phone number and considered it cheap advertising.

[lionfamily1999]

FWIW, I knew someone who worked as a maid one summer to earn college money. She said the hotel she worked at expected the small items, like soap, shampoo, lotion, pens, notepads, etc. to be taken home, and branded them with the hotel name and sometimes phone number and considered it cheap advertising.

I never considered taking those things as stealing (aren't they there to be used?). The last time we stayed at a hotel I gave my youngest ds the notepad so he'd sit still while we waited for transit :lol: I sort of assumed it was free advertising :lol:

[Maus]

 

My father once told me that he had come up with a great idea. He could rent DVDs for $1 at a place on Tuesdays, so he'd then copy the DVD and give a copy to my (disabled) sister so she could watch it whenever she wanted to. I pointed out that it was illegal. His response: "Well, I paid for it!" "No, you didn't. You rented the physical DVD. You didn't buy the rights to own the material. And don't you ever watch that FBI warning that comes up at the beginning??!!" He stopped copying them. It was like it didn't even occur to him that it was wrong.

There are tons of people who buy crochet/knitting/other craft patterns that use that reasoning, too. They "bought" it, so it should be okay to photocopy/scan it and share/post it with everyone. No! You bought the right for one person/household to use it. That's it. It's *probably* ok to give/sell your one copy to one other person, as you are then giving up your right to use it, but it isn't ok to "share" it.

[5forMe]

I'll confess to my latest rule breaking.

 

 

The pool we go had multiple signs stating that children 6 and older must use the proper locker room. My son is now 6. I don't have many concerns over molestation (although it has happened in our area), but he is not tall enough to reach the soap for the sink or to turn on a shower. He is slightly below average height for his age, so this is clearly a design issue for the recreation center.

 

We had stopped going for a while and I didn't sign him up for lessons partly because of the locker room rule. Last week, after being cooped up for days due to the weather, I gave in to the winter blues and took the kids swimming.

 

I have discussed the soap dispenser problem with an employee and her attitude was that I couldn't always expect my son to properly wash his hands.

 

So, we will continue to break the rules for a bit longer. I guess I would classify it as entitlement (if using soap when washing hands counts for that) and helicopter parenting. Oh well.

 

If the management says anything to you again, I would suggest a "family changing room" where mother's with young sons or father's with young daughters can change privately.

[kathymuggle]

It sometimes comes down to moral relativism versus absolutism.

 

Absolutists would follow all rules - no matter how arbitrary - because they believe in following rules.

 

Moral relativists would look at the situation and make a decision.

 

In many areas I am a absolutist, but in rule following I am relativist. I almost always follow rules, but occasionally do not. Example - I Jay Walked on my quiet street a few hours ago to cross the road. Another example: airplane is delayed. We have been told not to leave the gate "because the plane can leave anytime" ("anytime" turned out to be over 2 hours). DC were starving and there was no food at the gate. We left the gate, were as quick as possible, but got food. Had the plane started to board and they announced it we would have abandoned our food quest to get back to the gate.

 

I think most people are capable of making these sort of decisions (are we all sheep and will only behave properly if there is a rule?) - yet sadly some are not. I am thinking of horrible drivers here.

 

Lastly, I work in a library. I know we have several policies/rules because a few selfish people do selfish things so. A number of our rules are for the bad apples - normal patrons have their activities curtailed because of a few people. I might be making excuses here :tongue_smilie: but I do resent rules that are made that affect me because a few people (not me!) cannot behave with common sense and integrity.

[Bluegoat]

There are tons of people who buy crochet/knitting/other craft patterns that use that reasoning, too. They "bought" it, so it should be okay to photocopy/scan it and share/post it with everyone. No! You bought the right for one person/household to use it. That's it. It's *probably* ok to give/sell your one copy to one other person, as you are then giving up your right to use it, but it isn't ok to "share" it.

 

The same is true for selling the items you knit with the bought pattern - it isn't necessarily legal. I think that most people honestly don't realize that though.

 

As for the people who realize and do it anyway, in most ases it is a kind of self-important delusion. Though I think that when places have what people consider unjust prices or policies, it is more a matter of a kind of subconscious effort to make things more equitable.

[silliness7]

civil disobedience, baby. :D

 

I think that rule is stupid too.

 

I will confess to being overly rebellious.

 

ETA: In certain situations you have to use your common sense and then deal with the consequences. This weekend my van broke down in the median. I do not have a cell phone, I was within walking distance of my house, and it was cold out and nearing dark. You are not supposed to abandon a vehicle. That's the rule. However, I was not going to sit in my van or stand by the side of the road flagging down a cell phone. I started to walk home with my girls. Yes, I broke a rule. If my car had been towed I would have had to face the consequences. That's life.

 

I'll confess to my latest rule breaking.

 

 

The pool we go had multiple signs stating that children 6 and older must use the proper locker room. My son is now 6. I don't have many concerns over molestation (although it has happened in our area), but he is not tall enough to reach the soap for the sink or to turn on a shower. He is slightly below average height for his age, so this is clearly a design issue for the recreation center.

 

We had stopped going for a while and I didn't sign him up for lessons partly because of the locker room rule. Last week, after being cooped up for days due to the weather, I gave in to the winter blues and took the kids swimming.

 

I have discussed the soap dispenser problem with an employee and her attitude was that I couldn't always expect my son to properly wash his hands.

 

So, we will continue to break the rules for a bit longer. I guess I would classify it as entitlement (if using soap when washing hands counts for that) and helicopter parenting. Oh well.

Edited February 2, 2012 by silliness7

[silliness7]

The same is true for selling the items you knit with the bought pattern - it isn't necessarily legal. I think that most people honestly don't realize that though.

 

As for the people who realize and do it anyway, in most ases it is a kind of self-important delusion. Though I think that when places have what people consider unjust prices or policies, it is more a matter of a kind of subconscious effort to make things more equitable.

 

I have been wondering this forever. I've never made anything good enough to sell but eventually I would like to. So if I buy a pattern and make something up from it, I can't sell it? I have to come up with an original pattern? Holy cow. I once had a dietician friend tell me the rules for changing a recipe so that it could be considered yours. I think you had to change 3 things about it, but they could be really miniscule. I wonder if that would hold true for the pattern. How many miniscule changes would make it legal to sell. I wonder?

[Jenny in GA]

I think this is interesting because not only do I know people who don't follow rules that are clearly stated, but they don't follow rules that are just norms in society. For example, if you are eating at a restaurant, you don't get to take the silverware or whatever you want home. Or, if you stay in a hotel, the towels aren't yours too confiscate. I wonder what is behind the thinking when someone does this? Is it entitlement?

 

 

I have heard people calmly rationalize their stealing, in different forms, because "they charge too much."

 

One example was in the college dining hall, which was a one-price buffet style: I knew a couple people who would come in with tupperwares and backpacks and load up food to eat at later meals. They were careful not to get caught; but otherwise had no problem with this, since -- they said -- the admission price or a meal was so high.

 

I have heard people say it's okay to duplicate CDs because "I know it's illegal, but musicians already have enough money. They don't need mine."

 

And my father told a story of his office putting out candy bars on the "honor system" that you leave a dollar, or whatever, in the jar. Many (or all) of them were stolen, and a note was left saying, "Whoever took this candy - that's called stealing!"

 

The next day a note was left replying, "Charging a dollar for a candy bar is also stealing!"

[Ibbygirl]

And my father told a story of his office putting out candy bars on the "honor system" that you leave a dollar, or whatever, in the jar. Many (or all) of them were stolen, and a note was left saying, "Whoever took this candy - that's called stealing!"

 

The next day a note was left replying, "Charging a dollar for a candy bar is also stealing!"

 

:lol::lol::lol: That thief is so brazen! That was a good comeback though. :p

Edited February 2, 2012 by Ibbygirl

[silliness7]

I've been googling the knitting pattern question and can't find a legal certainty anywhere. Just a bunch of people's opinions that, of course, run the gamut. :glare:

[*********]

I think this is interesting because not only do I know people who don't follow rules that are clearly stated, but they don't follow rules that are just norms in society. For example, if you are eating at a restaurant, you don't get to take the silverware or whatever you want home. Or, if you stay in a hotel, the towels aren't yours too confiscate. I wonder what is behind the thinking when someone does this? Is it entitlement?

 

It's stealing, is what it is. People do it because they're selfish, they want whatever it is, and they assume (usually rightly) they won't be caught and/or called out on it.

[Mrs Mungo]

The same is true for selling the items you knit with the bought pattern - it isn't necessarily legal. I think that most people honestly don't realize that though.

 

This gets bandied about a lot, but I think it's wrong information, legally. According to the "first sale doctrine," once you buy something you can do what you want with it. Copyright isn't there to restrict you from selling a quilt made with Disney fabric, it's there to prevent you from making your own Disney fabric. Some designers might like people to think the law forbids this, but it doesn't. (eta: Copyright law prevents you from making copies of a paper pattern, but it does NOT stop you from selling an item you produced using a pattern.)

 

Amy Butler's FAQ:

http://www.amybutlerdesign.com/faqs/

Can I use Amy's fabrics to make projects to sell or use in manufacturing finished goods?

YES.

 

This is because fabric is a "for use" product. The design on the fabric is copyrighted, the fabric cannot be copyrighted from a legal standpoint.

 

Now, it also says:

Can I buy the patterns and make the projects to sell?

No. Here's how our new copyright reads on our patterns. . .

 

But, the truth is, there is no legal standing for this. In fact, the opposite is true. Patterns are *also* a "for use" item.

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4214534134982518981&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

 

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CopyrightLaw/Patterns/docs/RegisterOfCopyrightsLetter.shtml

" In your second appeal you note that dress patterns are copyrightable. For your information, the board notes that the aspects of dress patterns that are copyrightable are the textual directions included with the paper patterns as well as the illustration showing the finished product generally shown on the pattern's outer package. The pattern pieces themselves are not protected by copyright."

 

More court back-up:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm

In this case someone was buying prints, mounting them on tiles and reselling them. Court decided: no infringement.

 

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=3&xmldoc=1960443188FSupp255_1385.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985&SizeDisp=7

In this case someone was buying fancy embroidered towels and making them into handbags. Court decided: no infringement, but the maker did have to start adding a tag that there was no connection between the original manufacturer and the handbag maker.

 

eta:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf

 

edited again to add:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl103.html

 

A “useful article” is an object that has an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. Examples are clothing; automobile bodies; furniture; machinery, including household appliances; dinnerware; and lighting fixtures. An article that is part of a useful article, such as an ornamental wheel cover on a vehicle, can itself be a useful article.

Copyright does not protect the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of such works of craftsmanship. Copyright may, however, protect any pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of an object. Thus a useful article can have both copyrightable and uncopyrightable features. For example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware can be protected by copyright, but the design of the chair or the flatware itself cannot, even though it may be aesthetically pleasing.

Some designs of useful articles may qualify for protection under federal patent law. For details, contact the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. tel: (800) 786-9199 or (571) 272-1000. web: www.uspto.gov.

Copyright in a work that portrays a useful article extends only to the artistic expression of the author of the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. It does not extend to the design of the article that is portrayed. For example, a drawing or photograph of an automobile or a dress design can be copyrighted, but that does not give the artist or photographer the exclusive right to make automobiles or dresses of the same design.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[Amy in NH]

It sometimes comes down to moral relativism versus absolutism.

 

Absolutists would follow all rules - no matter how arbitrary - because they believe in following rules.

 

Moral relativists would look at the situation and make a decision.

 

In many areas I am a absolutist, but in rule following I am relativist. I almost always follow rules, but occasionally do not. ...

 

I think most people are capable of making these sort of decisions (are we all sheep and will only behave properly if there is a rule?) - yet sadly some are not. I am thinking of horrible drivers here.

 

... but I do resent rules that are made that affect me because a few people (not me!) cannot behave with common sense and integrity.

 

:iagree:

[Maus]

I have been wondering this forever. I've never made anything good enough to sell but eventually I would like to. So if I buy a pattern and make something up from it, I can't sell it? I have to come up with an original pattern? Holy cow. I once had a dietician friend tell me the rules for changing a recipe so that it could be considered yours. I think you had to change 3 things about it, but they could be really miniscule. I wonder if that would hold true for the pattern. How many miniscule changes would make it legal to sell. I wonder?

I've seen some patterns that specifically grant you the right to sell the finished product, usually with some kind of limit of number or type of sale (like, "You may make up to 10 finished items, which may not be sold commercially, but which may be sold at bazaars, fund-raisers, etc.") The best course of action would be to contact the copyright holder and ask.

[Mrs Mungo]

I've seen some patterns that specifically grant you the right to sell the finished product, usually with some kind of limit of number or type of sale (like, "You may make up to 10 finished items, which may not be sold commercially, but which may be sold at bazaars, fund-raisers, etc.") The best course of action would be to contact the copyright holder and ask.

 

This is irrelevant and misleading information that people/companies put on patterns. You DO *legally* have the right to sell whatever you make from a pattern.

 

Pasting from my earlier post:

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/...tsLetter.shtml

" In your second appeal you note that dress patterns are copyrightable. For your information, the board notes that the aspects of dress patterns that are copyrightable are the textual directions included with the paper patterns as well as the illustration showing the finished product generally shown on the pattern's outer package. The pattern pieces themselves are not protected by copyright."

 

eta more info:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/99/case.html

A treatise on the composition and use of medicines, be they old or new; on the construction and use of ploughs, or watches, or churns; or on the mixture and application of colors for painting or dyeing; or on the mode of drawing lines to produce the effect of perspective, would be the subject of copyright; but no one would contend that the copyright of the treatise would give the exclusive right to the art or manufacture described therein.

<snip>

it is similar ruled lines and headings of accounts which, in the application of the art, the bookkeeper makes with his pen, or the stationer with his press, whilst in most other cases the diagrams and illustrations can only be represented in concrete forms of wood, metal, stone, or some other physical embodiment. But the principle is the same in all. The description of the art in a book, though entitled to the benefit of copyright, lays no foundation for an exclusive claim to the art itself. The object of the one is explanation; the object of the other is use. The former may be secured by copyright. The latter can only be secured, if it can be secured at all, by letters patent.

<snip>

In Drury v. Ewing, 1 Bond, 540, which is much relied on by the complainant, a copyright was claimed in a chart of patterns for cutting dresses and basques for ladies, and coats, jackets, &c., for boys. It is obvious that such designs could only be printed and published for information, and not for use in themselves. Their practical use could only be exemplified in cloth on the tailor's board and under his shears -- in other words, by the application of a mechanical operation to the cutting of cloth in certain patterns and forms. Surely the exclusive right to this practical use was not reserved to the publisher by his copyright of the chart. Without undertaking to say whether we should or should not concur in the decision in that case, we think it cannot control the present.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[silliness7]

You are my hero. :hurray:

 

Thank you for sharing this info. I was getting completely befuddled. Off to knit. :D

 

This is irrelevant and misleading information that people/companies put on patterns. You DO *legally* have the right to sell whatever you make from a pattern.

 

Pasting from my earlier post:

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/...tsLetter.shtml

 

" In your second appeal you note that dress patterns are copyrightable. For your information, the board notes that the aspects of dress patterns that are copyrightable are the textual directions included with the paper patterns as well as the illustration showing the finished product generally shown on the pattern's outer package. The pattern pieces themselves are not protected by copyright."

 

eta more info:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/99/case.html

A treatise on the composition and use of medicines, be they old or new; on the construction and use of ploughs, or watches, or churns; or on the mixture and application of colors for painting or dyeing; or on the mode of drawing lines to produce the effect of perspective, would be the subject of copyright; but no one would contend that the copyright of the treatise would give the exclusive right to the art or manufacture described therein.

<snip>

it is similar ruled lines and headings of accounts which, in the application of the art, the bookkeeper makes with his pen, or the stationer with his press, whilst in most other cases the diagrams and illustrations can only be represented in concrete forms of wood, metal, stone, or some other physical embodiment. But the principle is the same in all. The description of the art in a book, though entitled to the benefit of copyright, lays no foundation for an exclusive claim to the art itself. The object of the one is explanation; the object of the other is use. The former may be secured by copyright. The latter can only be secured, if it can be secured at all, by letters patent.

<snip>

In Drury v. Ewing, 1 Bond, 540, which is much relied on by the complainant, a copyright was claimed in a chart of patterns for cutting dresses and basques for ladies, and coats, jackets, &c., for boys. It is obvious that such designs could only be printed and published for information, and not for use in themselves. Their practical use could only be exemplified in cloth on the tailor's board and under his shears -- in other words, by the application of a mechanical operation to the cutting of cloth in certain patterns and forms. Surely the exclusive right to this practical use was not reserved to the publisher by his copyright of the chart. Without undertaking to say whether we should or should not concur in the decision in that case, we think it cannot control the present.

 

 

[kalanamak]

For example, if you are eating at a restaurant, you don't get to take the silverware or whatever you want home. Or, if you stay in a hotel, the towels aren't yours too confiscate. I wonder what is behind the thinking when someone does this? Is it entitlement?

 

I know someone who did it for keepsakes. His vacations via the best salt shakers.

 

Some get a thrill as if they are "getting away with something". Makes them feel more powerful or effective or whatever. They think of it positively. I see it at work: people who wiggle and whine to get the "best schedule", as in best by 10 whole bucks in a paycheck. Some nationalities of male doctors are infamous about this.

[Hwin]

I sneak food into the movies with no remorse.

 

What is the rule about taking stuff from the hospital? :confused: (Like diapers.)

[Cammie]

Very interesting topic!

 

I am a rule follower. It generally causes me great anxiety to break rules...the shame of being caught would be too much!

 

However, I live in a place where the overwhelming cultural norm seems to be break whatever rules you can get away with breaking. People here, in general, will not follow rules unless there is very strict enforcement. However, when they move to countries with strict enforcement they follow the rules just fine. I think it stems in part from the culture of corruption. If you can break a rule and then bribe someone to get out of the punishement...then people don't mind being caught. Rules here feel less rigid...more flexible. "They won't apply to that guy because he is important, and they won't apply to that guy because he is rich, and they won't apply to that guy because his father is a police officer...so why should they apply to me" is the thinking.

 

As a result of living here I think I have moved from an absolutist standpoint to a view of rules being actually open to negotiation and discussion! Often times this is because the rules are ridiculous and without any basis in reality. Some times it is because following the "rule" makes you out to be a chump in everyone else's eyes!

[herkey6]

My FIL is a rule breaker. I am not sure if it is a power thing, a selfish thing...or what.

I feel like when I am abiding by rules, whether posted in a public place, or understood (like not walking through the neighbors yard without consent), it is a show of respect.

[Maus]

I sneak food into the movies with no remorse.

 

What is the rule about taking stuff from the hospital? :confused: (Like diapers.)

I asked one of the nurses what I could take when I was checking out after my last baby. She said I might as well take everything, because it was added to my bill before it came into my room.:001_huh:

[AndyJoy]

I asked one of the nurses what I could take when I was checking out after my last baby. She said I might as well take everything, because it was added to my bill before it came into my room.:001_huh:

The nurses at our hospital encouraged me to take stuff that had been paid for or wouldn't be reused (diapers, thermometer, basins, etc.) When I was close to leaving, a nurse noticed the stuff still in my room and actually loaded everything up in a box for me!

[Pamela H in Texas]

It's the lack of consequences, both at home and in society (generally speaking, for both). How many kids can push it? How many laws are in place to protect citizens, that allow us as adults to push it? We're pretty certain in most cases, the first offense will be a slap on the wrist -if anything. There's nothing real to lose by not at least trying. There's a gambler in each of us.

 

*i* would gather that it is more likely BECAUSE of "consequences" at home and in society for the very reason you said. There is a high probability that there will be a slap on the wrist the first time someone is caught. Add to that, they aren't all that likely to be caught anyway. So you get away with it so many times that you figure you WILL get away with it.

 

This is a large part of the reason we chose to discipline differently than typical people do. I wanted my kids to learn to do right BECAUSE it was right or refrain from something BECAUSE it was wrong. And I wanted real life consequences to be those that factored in if they were still waffling for whatever reason. I didn't WANT them to have to rely on punishment to keep them straight since punishment cannot be consistently applied and it encourages selfish thinking, thinking about one's own rear (literally in the case of most children).

 

Though punishment is pretty frequent and has been used in parenting for ages, I think the main issue in the family is that there is a lot less discipline (teaching and guidance). Parents probably punish just as much, maybe more. They just don't seem to have the time and ability to discipline appropriately. They are missing out on a good bit of the proactive opportunities as well as corrective ones thinking that threats, bribes, rewards, and punishment are sufficient. They aren't! Kids NEED the good stuff. The rest can be minimized, even eliminated. The result is a child, then adult, who can think through choices and think of more than what they want or protecting their rear.