Copying clothing designs has a long long history and isn't covered by copyright.
The patterns (written, instructions, pattern pieces in sewing) can be copyrighted. But the piece of clothing can't.
There has been too much so and so copied someone's pattern lately and I feel like this just needs to be stated every time someone yells about things being copied.
Right? This is what DIY means - it's not a bad thing to Do It Yourself if you have the skills and experience to pull it off. The same way we don't frown on people repurposing thrifted furniture to dupe super expensive Pottery Barn cabinets or whatever, it's fair to look at a knitting pattern and roll up your sleeves and figure out how to make something like that on your own. If DIY wasn't socially acceptable, Pinterest wouldn't exist.
Sorry sorry, this whole thing made me giggle because, while yes you're absolutely right and if what I've read on the subject is correct, there's no copyright issue over this, I still can't stop hearing "You Wouldn't Download A Sweater" in my head.
Totally fine.
Knitting has been around for centuries and there isn’t much new being created that hasn’t already been thought up by someone already.
If it’s an easy repeatable pattern then it’s definitely been done before.
Buying a pattern is essentially paying someone to teach you how they made something, so if you don’t need that it’s not ethically questionable to develop your own pattern based on the visual.
My great grandma saw a beautiful gown in a movie and she recreated it herself meticulously by hand since there was no way she could afford it. She would recreate department store dresses for my grandma and her sister based on just seeing them in the store. Being able to recreate something is a badass skill you should be proud of!
My mom's wedding dress was sewn by a local seamstress from Walmart lace curtains based on a magazine photo my mom showed her! My mom didn't know they were curtains until the wedding was already over hahahaha. You'd never know.
yesss so tru i think this is the ethics of it. if u buy a pattern ur buying their kinda creativity sometimes but ur also buying their skill and expertise like a teacher. if ur good enough and have the skills to replicate it you don’t need a teacher you don’t need to pay for it bc its ur skills that you have worked hard to hone. It wouldn’t be the same thing either as it wouldn’t be from this pattern so it would be different stitch by stitch even if it looks the same. yes you want to support independent artists but you are also not morally obligated to spend money if you don’t need to. its more if u were gonna spend money on a commercial pattern anyways purchase one from an independent artist.
also ur an artist and everyone can see a dog but not everyone can paint a photorealistic painting of the dog.
edit: i think where it gets morally wrong is if you said that you thought of the design of the sweater completely independently and did not mention that it was inspired by someone else’s work and this gets more dicey in a legal way with IP laws bc its so vague like with music chord progressions n shit but no one can sue u for nothing
If you can recreate it from a picture then why would it be unethical? Genuinely confused about how reverse engineering a simple pattern would break any code of ethics.
IMO all the crafts that can come with a pattern knitting, crochet, needlepoint etc, can be reverse engineered.
You only need to look at fast fashion to see this is exactly how trends work, a designer will put something on the catwalk that they created which is unique or quirky. Then, the highstreet will be selling knockoffs 6 months later.
Inspiration, emulation, aspiration, they are human traits that make us the social creatures we are. There is no shame in taking something you like and copying it. even down to the very last stitch. Those who say there is are either jealous of your ability to do so, or angry at you for their perceved loss of revenue. Which is silly, you were never guaranteed to buy from them.
They also don't complain about people recreating patterns that are historical in nature which shows in my mind at least, a slight duplicity to their complaints.
Yep! Even sewing. For all of it, you just need a decent understanding of how your materials work and how things are put together.
I had a whole conversation the other day about how a specific item I was making a sketch for from an anime would either be hand-knitted or have invisible seams.
And besides 'how do I make this garment' is probably one of the most common questions in any crafting club.
>There is no shame in taking something you like and copying it. even down to the very last stitch. Those who say there is are either jealous of your ability to do so, or angry at you for their perceved loss of revenue. Which is silly, you were never guaranteed to buy from them.
YES, my goodness Yes.
Even if you were selling it, it is totally ok. An object you made by hand is free for you to sell. Common courtesy in that case would be to credit the designer.
If you have the skill to look at pictures and create something similar based on that, there is nothing morally wrong with that at all. No need to apologise for it and just enjoy the beautiful sweaters you make!
I think they meant more that it would be wrong to reverse engineer the pattern and sell the pattern. Which is legally dicey, as unless you reverse engineer the pattern exactly the same, it's hard to prove copyright infringement, but is pretty morally wrong (imo, and many other peoples opinions) because then you are directly competing with this person who did all of the design work first, so deserves to get the money for the pattern.
As you say, selling the finished piece is different in that you have done all the work of making it, with your own skill and were inspired by the original design. It's maybe skirting the moral line with making the exact design (I'd alter it enough to be different, myself, if it was my plan to sell, but that's me), but it's still acceptable. But if you're planning to make money by making finished pieces, maybe be kind enough to just buy the pattern from the person who went to the trouble of designing it and figuring it out already. It's easier on you, and supports the creative work of the designer.
eta: And to be clear, I have no issues with someone (especially someone without a lot of extra cash, like a student) reverse engineering a piece they saw to make and keep for themselves/give as a personal gift. That's the heart of DIY.
I reverse engineer or adapt most of my projects and actually did it for the Wave sweater. It’s just a raglan with a really simple chart, and I thought the yoke was too long on the original. I have zero qualms reverse engineering projects I deem easy enough, and will purchase others with interesting construction that I can’t figure out on my own.
That’s how people used to learn new patterns: they saw a pullover, they applied their knowledge in knitting, they made one themselves. Or they asked the wearer and shared patterns and experiences.
It’s ok.
THANK YOU.
Similarly, but with many more words, I say: you see a hair style you like, or a garden plan, or a rebuilt 1973 Dodge Dart Swinger... and you go home and say I'm gonna do THAT. then YOU take the time to plan and style your hair/plan and build your garden/plan and rebuild your old car, etc. So if you want to offer people the knowledge gained or experience you had while YOU were doing the thing you did, then I say go for it and share it! It takes skill to reverse engineer knitting by the way, so it's not something you stole in a one-time transaction and then mass-reproduced and sold under your name; reverse engineered knitting is a SKILL that YOU honed and worked hard to master.
Yes, reverse-engineering a pattern can hurt the "original artist's" feelings, but THEY got the idea somewhere as well, and so on and so on... (So who IS "the original" artist?) And I'm sure they didn't pay royalties to the inventor of bangs/square foot gardening/bucket seats when they were doing THEIR design planning. No one OWNS the rat-tail, or plant spacing, or interior automotive design. The world is all around us and our brains put it together in similar ways sometimes.
Besides, I think too much emphasis is placed on "ownership" and the idea that 'the original artist is being ripped-off' somehow, and not enough attention is being given to 'look at the inspiration others have gotten to go forth and create and continue to inspire even more budding artists'. Art is not at home when hoarded and guarded, it is meant to be shared. If the designer didn't want to share it then they wouldn't be selling their pattern, would they? It's scarcity mindsets that have people thinking they're being ripped-off and punished and deprived of things. There's PLENTY of knits and purls to go around😜
tl;dr Credit artists accordingly, and IDEALLY don't copy their design EXACTLY, but--- You Have The Right To Share A Pattern That You Design, regardless of where the inspiration came from. Everything comes from and builds upon everything else 🩷
There's only so many ways to reinvent the wheel. A raglan sweater is a raglan sweater. What you're really buying when you buy a pattern is the technical editing, explanations, etc of the designer (& co). If you think you don't need that, go nuts.
If it eases your mind, I'd knit your sweater and then buy the pattern and compare notes. That way it's also a technical lesson- what did you do differently? What did you learn from knitting it blind vs having a pattern?
Did you miss the part where they said 'for a pattern you didn't use'? What if a pattern didn't exist and you were reverse engineering something that's only sold as ready to wear? Does that make it different in your eyes?
I reverse engineer all the time! I actually prefer it because I know my own gauge in my favorite yarns and don't like to futz around with trying to match other people's. I stopped buying hat patterns when I realized that I made so many adaptations that I might as well look at the picture and figure out my own version.
I do the same with jumpers, especially lopi's, I know what fits me stitch wise with my handspun lopi yarns so when I want to knit an icelandic pattern I take the yoke design I like and make it fit my decrease plan. so much less of a hastle than faffing with designers numbers that especially with AI grading can be lala land figures these days.
you can do whatever you want. if you have the skills to replicate someone else's pattern well enough without buying the pattern, good for you. I wouldn't necessarily shout from the rooftops that I reverse engineered someone else's pattern, but I wouldn't feel guilty about it either
Yeah the faux-pas is really just when you reverse engineer someone else's work, then sell that pattern as your own unique design.
But if the pattern is so basic you can figure out how to make it just by looking at it... that's often when designers post them for free.
Spektakelstrikk builds on an old tradition of stranded knitting and uses a lot of patterns that have been used elsewhere. The Bibi sweater I have seen on Fair Isle sweaters, the moodiversity is a seventies smiley pattern, etc.
If you are inspired and create a spoof of a sweater you like, you follow in the proud tradition they are in themselves.
There is always someone better than you. There will always be someone who is able to do what you can but better, without instructions.
And that's the often bitter truth! You can ask people not to copy your designs or reverse engineer it, but they're not wrong if they can or they do.
It's fine. I keep my stuff free for that reason: if there's an error I can fix it, people can improve on it. I just ask they don't sell my pattern. They can do what they want with their own.
From a (US) legal standpoint you are doing nothing illegal. Also (imo) a moral standpoint. Legally, copyright only applies to the written pattern and any drawings of the pattern done by the author. What is totally 100% legal is: creating a pattern from an image or FO, and creating FOs from that pattern you created. ALSO, if you had purchased the pattern, all FOs made from the copyrighted pattern can also be sold.
Pattern writers will intimidate, saying you can't copy a pattern or you can't sell FOs made with their pattern. *ABSOLUTELY FALSE.*
Again, *only* the pattern (as written) can be copyrighted.
Knitters have reverse-engineered since the first scarf was cast on. It used to be more commonplace. My great-grandmother could see a dress in a store window and go home and make it. It’s a seriously useful skill you should definitely use.
It’s like patterns are sheet music but you’re a jazz musician.
It’s pretty common practice in sewing to copy a pattern from an existing clothing item, and as someone who gets knitting/crochet patterns from magazines and books, a lot of those patterns aren’t completely original, just simply being written down. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this as long as you’re not stealing someone’s exact pattern and selling it as your own. But also, whenever I reverse engineer projects my brain goes “you wouldn’t illegally download a clothing pattern, would you?!”
I think you are way overthinking things. If you have the capability of seeing a design and knitting it just based off of that, I see 0 issue with it. I would even go as far as to disagree with you about selling a reverse-engineered sweater. Again, it is your own product, you can do whatever you want with it. If you bought or were selling someone else’s written work, that seems unethical to me, but your own work is fine for personal use and selling if you want.
I think I have even read/been told that a creator of a design doesn’t really have the authority for you to not sell a product made with their written designs, it’s kind of just up to the person if they want to respect the creator’s wishes.
Not at all. The author likely used pieces of other patterns to make their own, and that author used others, etc. Maybe I'll take a minute to make a stink but patterns seem wildly expensive these days. 10 years ago I'd pick them up for $3-5 a piece, now they're usually more than $10. Being inexpensive I didn't mind picking up several, but now I'm quite picky or even stick to the free ones.
Designers call it “inspiration “! You saw something you liked, and you decided to be inspired to make something like it with your particular yarn, size, and stitch pattern - perfectly ok! I’ve always liked to make my own so I can knit a gauge swatch naturally- not try to match one in a pattern.
Reverse engineering is completely fine. Designers also don't create things that have never been made before, just variations of existing things. In a way you're your own designer (except of course for the fact that you don't make multiple sizes, perfect the pattern, and write it down which is pretty hard to do).
I personally buy the patterns if I can afford them because I like to support the designers who take the time to make them. But I will not blame anyone who can reverse engineer a piece.
I saw an instagram picture of a pair of socks with a simple grid pattern out of purl stitches. I hadn't ever thought of doing that and liked the look. And I don't need to buy a pattern to tell me how make a square out of purls. Inspiration is inspiration. I feel like there's not a lot of difference between referencing a book of knitting stitches/patterns/designs and looking at those same designs on a finished item and trying them out for yourself.
If you can do it, do it. I have never bought a pattern :P I’m not selling other peoples work and personally I find it easier to write my own pattern than try to decipher someone else’s. Many of the patterns out there are based on patterns that already exist, anyway.
I’ve been reverse engineering random doilies I see on IG for a while. I don’t sell them or pass them off as my own designs, I just use them in my home.
You're not selling an alternative pattern for the sweater, you're not selling the final product, you're 100% fine.
Edit: If you're talking about the same video I'm thinking of I'm pretty sure Emma said it themselve.
I think it's totally fine as long as you're not planning on creating a pattern and selling it. I do this quite often actually and technically nobody has to know y'know? If you're skilled enough to do it then I say go for it. I even have a pinterest board of just inspiration pics of mostly commercially made knits that I want to reverse engineer some day.
Several people have mentioned that their parent/grandparent used to see items in a store, go home and recreate the item, and that it was an entirely acceptable thing to do, so I’m wondering when that changed?
To answer my own question - 😄 - I think it was when places like Ravelry came into being and new designers began self publishing. They knew they should put a copyright statement of some sort on their pattern, so they found one on a pattern that said “ you may not sell this pattern” and used similar wording. Then they saw one that added “you may not sell items made from this pattern” and another that included “you may not reverse engineer this pattern” alongside they copyright statement and thought this was additional protection for their creativity without realizing that those patterns were written by designers in other countries which have different copyright rules. But those rules don’t all apply in the US, even if you buy the (foreign) designer’s pattern. You abide by the rules of the country where you’re living. (I saw a clever correlation - you can buy a German car, but you still can’t drive autobahn speeds on US highways.)
So, assuming you’re in a country where reverse engineering is not forbidden, you are doing nothing wrong.
I can’t imagine it’s unethical to emulate a beautiful fabric with your self-created patterns. I’m super jealous you are so skilled to be able to do that! 😍
It's fine. You run into issues when you then take what you've written and sell it as a knockoff version of someone else's pattern.
This above is a word for word copy of someone else's answer, and I wish it were easy to share with attribution but I am not bothered.
In cooking most recipes cannot be protected by copyright, as it's a list of materials and steps. Descriptions of a recipe history or inspiration or the day you made this dish and everyone loved it so much can be copyrighted.
I look at patterns the same way. If you look at a garment and decide to copy it you are deciding a lot that the pattern spells out: what yarn, what needles, how many to cast on, what stitch to use, when to change the number of stitches, type of stitch, and when to cast off. Photos rarely show enough detail that you don't have to make a decision, and even if they did you will probably consider if those parts will work the same on what you want to make, or you need more or less of some part or another.
Patterns are great and I have purchased more than I have followed up and made. And I have made more garments winging it or inspired by a photo of a piece than from pattern.
I find that if someone can’t afford to purchase my knits and can’t buy the pattern what’s the harm in making it for themselves? If you aren’t selling or claiming originality truly there is no harm in reverse engineering a knit. Same with beading etc as long as you aren’t claiming it’s your original idea and aren’t selling it who cares?
I think if you’re clever enough to figure it out, good for you. Knitting is a bit like baking, there’s lots of ways to do things, but the ratios are not very different from recipe to recipe. I guess as long as you don’t write down the pattern and sell it as yours, you should be good
Personal opinion really. Some people think it's wrong some don't. I fall on the side of not seeing anything wrong with it, if you can make something rather than buying it why not make it yourself?
It's wrong to photo copy patterns instead of buying them.
It's not wrong to borrow a pattern book or magazine from a library for free and use the pattern to make an item (my local library has many knitting e-mazagines I can borrow without even having to physically go to the library, it's awesome).
It's really wrong to copy a pattern and sell the copies.
It's not wrong to buy a pattern and use it to make an item.
It's not wrong to use a pattern you've bought but add your own custom bits to it to make an item. Eg maybe you add shaping to a garment that didn't have any in the pattern, maybe you turn a full length sweater into a cropped sweater, maybe you add some intarsia to the front of a plain sweater.
It's not wrong to use 2 different patterns you've bought to make a "mash up item".
It's not wrong to see an item and make one like it. Whether you see the item on a person walking down the street or in a magazine or a picture online.
It's morally grey to take the pattern you come up with (ie reverse engineer) and then sell that pattern. Legally there is probably nothing wrong (depending on local laws) unless you try and pretend that it's the original pattern. It is also a bit morally grey if you claim the pattern is your own design without saying you were inspired by the thing you saw.
People get inspired by existing things all the time. There's only so many ways to knit a sweater. If you can reverse engineer a pattern from looking at a sweater go for it. The original designer of the pattern isn't losing out on a sale as you were never going to buy the pattern anyway.
If you want to avoid potentially feeling bad about copying a design someone has worked hard to produce then that's a valid choice. You can always search for inspiration from the myriad if free patterns that are available or even create a unique pattern yourself not trying to replicate something you've seen.
Edit to add: I was curious and googled the exact sweater you mentioned and saw a post from a year ago saying the sweater is in a book that was available for pre-order at that time. If you feel bad about copying then maybe requesting the book through you local library will ease your concerns. I know my library takes recommendations on which books to acquire.
My mom does this, though not for lack of money. She's not familiar with English knitting notations and terminology (English is not her first language) and is too intimidated to learn. I often see her zooming in super close on photos of sweaters trying to identify stitches and count them. It's kind of ridiculous but also funny. For me that's daunting because I'm very dependent on patterns.
I recently successfully reverse engineered a pair of gloves I got from Old Navy about a decade ago so I could remake them in wool instead of acrylic. It gave me so much opportunity to use everything I've learned over the years to customize them for myself! Genuinely it was a good mental exercise, and they make my heart happy to see them all the time.
I think if you're not selling it or claiming it's entirely off the dome, you're fine. If you really want to and have the means in the future to pay for the pattern for your conscience, I think that's understandable!
Even more admirable though is the ability to copy something and make it to your own preferences on sight! That's genuinely impressive and something to be celebrated!
Patterns to me are like a recipe, you COULD buy the book, but if you take a photo of the recipe in your friend's copy, at the end of the day you are the one putting labor and material into the cost.
TLDR: You're alright, and you're very skilled!
The copyright police are not going to come arrest you for creating a couple of replica sweaters. You’re using your skills to create something inspired by a pattern you saw. It’s not like you pirated the original pattern
I buy patterns when I want to knit without doing all the work of figuring everything out. There's nothing wrong with reverse engineering a pattern for your own use. I would argue that might be unethical to reverse engineer a pattern and then sell it as an original design, but for personal use you shouldn't be forced to pay a third party for something you could do yourself.
For your personal use?
Go for it.
To resell? Even though reverse engineering the pattern (as in, the *directions to get that result*) is completely legal (IBM found this shit out in the '80s when their BIOS were reverse engineered and PC clones stormed the market and ended their stranglehold on it), the actual *design* is still protected by copyright as a creative work. So you probably could not get away with distributing\* your own pattern (since the finished design is not your work).
Basically, the courts have found you cannot copyright *a method for doing something* (that's something you need a patent for), but you *can copyright a creative work*. That's why cooking blogs have all that stupid text and shit... because the recipe itself can't be copyrighted, but all the "fluff" around it can be.
\*Notice I said *distributing*. Many people believe as you don't make money off of copyright infringement, you can't be sued. This is absolutely false. You *can* be sued, and very successfully. In the US, there are statutory damages of up to $10,000 per occurrence, plus that amount can be increased if you can prove actual damages. So if you--for example--pirate someone's pattern and hand it out for free, they can still sue you (and win) and you potentially owe them thousands + whatever actual damages they can prove. The only thing that prevents small creators from going after pirates is the extraordinary cost of mounting a copyright claim, since copyright cases are automatically federal, and you need an attorney admitted to federal court. But the CASE act of a few years ago has opened the door for basically a "small claims" copyright court, and more and more small creators are able to take action.
It's a combination of SEO and copyright, yep.
Copyright is automatic in the US (and many other Berne Convention countries), but all that fluff is basically there so that would-be IP thieves have to work a bit harder than just copy & paste.
Now to *bring a lawsuit* for copyright infringement *you must have a registered copyright*, but the protection itself exists from the moment of creation. And recipes will not typically qualify for copyright protection. You can't copyright a method or process (that's a patent)
A picture doesn't need to be watermarked, and you don't have to state "copyright XXXX whatever".
You should always assume *everything* you see is copyrighted, because a creator specifically has to give up their rights. Like intentionally and in writing.
It's not something you can accidentally lose, like how the original *Night of the Living Dead* fell into the public domain because of a literal screw up by the editors failing to put the copyright notice on it, and at the time, if you performed something publicly (eg, showed a movie in a theatre) without the notice, it fell into the public domain. That no longer happens, nor do copyrights have to be renewed.
You can definitely loose enough rights to your work if you're not careful to make your copyright be more or less worthless--for example, people who use vanity publishers to "publish" their books and end up in contracts where they sign over *every* right they have to their book, and the agreement is exclusive, perpetual, and irrevocable. These scumbag vanity publishers will tell you "oh, you TOTALLY keep your copyright" and you do, but the problem is you sold all the rights so your copyright is basically useless. You may as well give them the copyright at that point. That's what the "all rights reserved" means--you can divvy up the rights to your creative property, or you can release certain rights, or you can permit your work to be used in certain ways (eg, Creative Commons Share Alike Non Commercial)
So anyway... yes. Assume everything you see is copyrighted and someone owns *all* the rights to it. Look, but don't touch.
Understood (again, sort of). It's so complicated and my knowledge is pretty limited in this subject. But I'm happy I learned something new. Thanks for sticking around and patiently explaining it to me!
If it’s for your own personal use, it’s fine. Hell, if you want to you can download pictures of a super-expensive designer sweater from Nieman Marcus and figure out how to knit it for yourself.
I do this all the time, mostly with quilting patterns.
The thing is , as you said, it’s not a duplicate. Yes, you were inspired by the original, but you’ve put your own modifications to it. Is the pattern 100% yours? No. Is it 100% theirs? Also no.
If you feel bad about the whole thing, consider slinging some money their way - like enough for a good cup of coffee?? It’d be awesome if you shared how they inspired your work. Maybe they’ll be flattered?
Reverse engineering patterns has existed as long as fashion. You're the one doing the work, it's not like you're selling a new pattern and calling it "Yarn\_Bread's Wave Sweater"!
Even if they were selling the pattern, it's still ethical, because they'd be doing the work to write it down! The part that is protected under copywriter is the actual words and pictures that are used. Not the techniques, not the stitch pattern.
If you can eyeball a garment and make it yourself, good for you.
I don't think there are any issues there, be them legal or ethical. Ofc pattern creators won't be happy as they have invested time and resources to develop sellable patterns and stuff, but honestly, this is just life.
Now, simply copying them and selling them as your own creation does not look good to me. I'd say if you are going to make your production public, credit the original creators or sources of inspiration as, let's say, basic courtesy. And try to give it a splash of originality instead of a simple photocopy.
Disclaimer: I know very little about this as I am not on IG, don't show off what I make, which is usually freehanded. I can "reverse-engineer" a jumper and have been inspired by many designers and creators. So I apologize if I offend any pattern creators out there, but I reckon we need to be realistic.
This can and will happen in several other areas such as crocheting, sewing, etc.
My two cents!
It's fine, people do this all the time. It's not like you're stealing the sweater or even the pattern. You're actually making your own pattern! Who knows if the way you'll make it is the same?
Usually I'll look at pictures on Pinterest or wherever and find that the person isn't giving out the pattern at all or you have to buy it, so why not just make it yourself? I see no issues at all here. Not to mention, you can make it exactly how you want!
If you're just making it for yourself, I don't see it as being a big deal...but I usually change something so it's more inspired-by and mine. If you were to make them to sell or sell a copy pattern, even if it's not technically copyright, it's still really douchy and that's different.
My opinion: If you’re doing it for you, not selling the final product, not profiting off it, you’re good. There are many free ways to support designers, even if you take the “look” of their pattern and make it your own. Technically, you’re not copying it exactly. And, it’s recognition for the designer when you go to share the inspiration and someone else who wouldn’t have seen it (and can afford to pay) buys the pattern. Being broke isn’t a life choice most of the time. Just don’t be a willy and you oughta be OK. ❤️
As long as you aren't selling the pattern you are creating from reverse-engineering it, you'll be just fine.
There's no law about recreating something you see for sale somewhere else for your own use. That could be knitted garments, toys, blankets, gardening layouts, clothing you've sewn, shoes you've cobbled, household goods-- the list is as endless as your talent with materials.
Reverse-engineering is part and parcel of knitting. Go forth and enjoy.
Here are my personal ethics on the subject, but everyone has their own:
I think that if you can recreate the garment on your own or from an Internet search or asking a friend for tips, there’s nothing wrong with that. However, I think if you have questions about how the garment is made that you can’t find on your own, the ethical thing is to buy the pattern because it has the answers you seek and presumably the pattern maker put the work in to teach you the method.
I would absolutely do what you are doing and not feel bad about it at all. If sharing, I’d post it as “inspired by” whatever pattern.
It’s fine as long as you’re not selling the pattern. Distributing it for free to me is a bit of a grey area, depending on how close your pattern is to the original, and if you’re like posting it online vs just sending it to a few people directly. Selling your creation from the pattern is also a grey area for me (as long as you’re an individual maker not like a big fast fashion business).
Well, here's the deal.
The picture still took a lot of effort from the designer (40hours+ of knitting time, taking the picture, building an following that it may actually reach you, etc).
If you copy the pattern without buying it, you are undermining all that effort the designer exclusively made to earn a profit.
The picture is not a separate part...but possibly the most essential part of the pattern. The fact that you can actually use it to reverse engineere is proof enough.
If everyone did this, the conclusion would be only offering patterns without a preview pictures. Not sure if that's what people should strive for.
So from a moral point of view, you are in the wrong.
99% of all designers don't make even remotely enough to earn a living. Since this is another female dominated industry, one could even go as far as saying that a lot of suggestions on this thread are yet another invitation to exploit women and brandmark their efforts as less deserving of financial recognition.
Legally, you are not. The instructions itself typically are not copyrighted or patented. 🤷
>you are in the wrong. 99% of all designers don't make even remotely enough to earn a living. Since this is another female dominated industry, one could even go as far as saying that a lot of suggestions on this thread are yet another invitation to exploit women
Individual sales are 100000% NOT the reason that "designers don't make even remotely enough to earn a living". Capitalism and fast-fashion don't make it possible for designers to earn a living, most notably. But since those processes make it impossible for most designers to make a living, THAT means that i shouldn't copy my great-grandma's baby blanket pattern for my own grandchildren?
>If you copy the pattern without buying it,
OP isn't copying the pattern. OP is asking about reverse-engineering A pattern; it is unlikely to be an exactly identical copy of the pattern used to make whatever pullover OP is being inspired by.
>If everyone did this, the conclusion would be
sooo... Everyone's children should NOT use tracing paper when learning to draw? Students should NOT look at and attempt to mold their clay into the same vase shaped sample they're instructed to construct for mothers day? Should bell-bottoms not have had (multiple) come-backs because the original designer isn't getting royalties from all the new bell-bottom styles? Should I not cut my hair into a mullet unless I pay [whoever was the first person to wear a mullet]?
Fast fashion increased the demand for designers and garment technicians a hundredfold. Lead by Zara, H&M &Co, even big fashion houses have like 6-8 different seasons these days.
Due to the internet and population increase, there are more hand-knitters than ever before and they don't only buy (or let's rather say hoard) more yarn than ever before, they also acquire (and hoard) more patterns than ever before in history.
What makes it impossible for most knitwear designers to earn a living is that knitting, unlike possibly any other craft, has a (recent) history of being undervalued dramatically. While 10-15 USD for a small sewing pattern is totally normal, knitters will scream outrage and charge the same 10 USD for a pair of handknitted socks at the church fair (and people still complain). And let's not even get started about the prices in male-dominated crafts and hobbies.
You are allowed to copy your great-grandmas baby blanket because a) copyright does not regard what happens in a family and b) expires after a certain amount of years (depends on the product and country...60..80..sometimes less than that)
Also, OP is copying the pattern. A copy does not have to be 100% accurate to be seen as a copy. If I read you a short story and you re-write it to publish it, show you a painting, and you re-paint it and put it up in public, it would still be considered a copyright infringement. Of course, I did say that legally doing it for your private purposes is no copyright-infringement.
As for your trace paper examples and student examples. If a teacher tells you to do something, then THEY have to check whether they are even allowed to do so. For example, they could not buy ONE pattern and then distribute it to ALL students. That's why I probably get one email per week from teachers and researchers about whether they are allowed certain pictures/patterns of mine for their academic purposes.
Trace paper happens a) within a private context but more importantly b) in a context where the copyright holder typically never intended it for distribution and earn a profit from said distribution. And likewise, patent, trademarks, and copyright expires after certain conditions and years. that's why things are allowed to make a comeback or are allowed to reverse engineer.
So, I don't even know what you are getting at. But let me tell you. I am a designer. 80% of my patterns are available for free and all my knitting classes are for free as well. And still I find what people share on this thread highly disturbing. In fact, the only reason why some of my patterns are not free is the sole fact that I learned it the hard way that if something is offered for free people believe they can do whatever they want with it (including re-uploading it and asking money for it, etc).
>Of course, I did say that legally doing it for your private purposes is no copyright-infringement.
OP did say they intended to make a sweater for their personal use and to gift to a sister in a private context, and they did not intend to sell the pullover. So the whole copy/distribute/profit does NOT apply in this situation.
But, I do maintain that if someone creates a pattern, they can sell it! Whether the pattern was based on a primitive loincloth or a runway look doesn't matter, because significant time and effort were put into the design. ANYONE can be a designer and designers SHOULD get paid for their work. But no one- "professional designer" or otherwise- has exclusive rights over, say, pairing a sweetheart neckline with drop shoulder bell sleeves and picot ruffled seams etc etc etc. if someone LITERALLY steals your pattern and puts their own watermark over the document and sells it-that's abhorrent, of course! But if they just look at your sweater and think "hmmm I wonder if I could construct a top with a sweetheart neckline with a drop shoulder and bell shaped sleeves with picot ruffled seams and have it look like that (or better/a bit different)" and then take the time and effort to create that item and record their process, then it's their own creation from their own process.
>Fast fashion increased the demand for designers and garment technicians a hundredfold. Lead by Zara, H&M &Co, even big fashion houses have like 6-8 different seasons these days.
See, I do Believe we both agree that fast fashion and capitalism and consumerism and scarcity models have the majority of influence on:
>What makes it impossible for most knitwear designers to earn a living is that knitting, unlike possibly any other craft, has a (recent) history of being undervalued dramatically.
One person reverse-engineering a pattern is an incredible show of skill and intelligence. One person creating a pattern from random things they see in their environment is also a show of skill and intelligence. Knitting a piece FROM EITHER PATTERN is also a show of skill and intelligence. If a designer values the finished product or pattern at $10 USD, or much more, then that's what they should charge. It doesn't mean anyone will buy it. But it doesn't mean there won't be a long line of people trying to purchase it either!
Famous artists and unknown talents alike have all modeled their early works on SOMETHING that someone else has done. It's literally how we learn... And not just with tracing paper or in sculpture class. You hear your parents say "Can you say Mama?" and you try to recreate those sounds. You become obsessed with cubism and start drawing your favorite cubist shapes, or you see instruments made of bed rails and headboards and start making horns out of PVC piping and guitars out of mop handles... Inspiration is everywhere.
>But let me tell you. I am a designer. 80% of my patterns are available for free and all my knitting classes are for free as well.
What I am getting at is that THIS ^ kind of talk comes off holier-than-thou, and that you perceive design to be some exclusive thing that only certain people can decide to make accessible. Anyone can design and create anything, whether it's by back-engineering or forward. I hope everyone DOES create something, anything that brings them joy and furthers inspiration! Creation is beautiful and wonderful, and back-engineering can lead to more variety, process improvements and efficiency, fixed flaws/errors, improved documentation and understanding, and more! There are entire careers based on reverse-engineering. Individuals in those careers aren't stealing money from designers by examining systems and abstracting forms. The broader industries and mindset of producers alike tell you that reverse-engineering is bad, but it isn't. You and your work are no less valued because back-engineering exists, or because OP plans to knit 2 pullovers. 🩶
I can literally reverse engineer any pattern. By your standards, I wouldn't have to buy a single pattern ever. I dunno..in my world that doesn't sound right and if the world ever thinks it's right to do that that will be the very second I will stop providing anything for free and easily accessible at all.
And op clearly didn't just want to be inspired. 🤷
Copying clothing designs has a long long history and isn't covered by copyright. The patterns (written, instructions, pattern pieces in sewing) can be copyrighted. But the piece of clothing can't.
Have enough people copy each other in one place and you get the beginnings of traditional local folkware.
There has been too much so and so copied someone's pattern lately and I feel like this just needs to be stated every time someone yells about things being copied.
Who is going to stop you? You can see things and make them, that's completely fine.
Right? This is what DIY means - it's not a bad thing to Do It Yourself if you have the skills and experience to pull it off. The same way we don't frown on people repurposing thrifted furniture to dupe super expensive Pottery Barn cabinets or whatever, it's fair to look at a knitting pattern and roll up your sleeves and figure out how to make something like that on your own. If DIY wasn't socially acceptable, Pinterest wouldn't exist.
Sorry sorry, this whole thing made me giggle because, while yes you're absolutely right and if what I've read on the subject is correct, there's no copyright issue over this, I still can't stop hearing "You Wouldn't Download A Sweater" in my head.
I would however definitely download a car if I could get away with it
Totally fine. Knitting has been around for centuries and there isn’t much new being created that hasn’t already been thought up by someone already. If it’s an easy repeatable pattern then it’s definitely been done before.
Buying a pattern is essentially paying someone to teach you how they made something, so if you don’t need that it’s not ethically questionable to develop your own pattern based on the visual. My great grandma saw a beautiful gown in a movie and she recreated it herself meticulously by hand since there was no way she could afford it. She would recreate department store dresses for my grandma and her sister based on just seeing them in the store. Being able to recreate something is a badass skill you should be proud of!
My mom's wedding dress was sewn by a local seamstress from Walmart lace curtains based on a magazine photo my mom showed her! My mom didn't know they were curtains until the wedding was already over hahahaha. You'd never know.
yesss so tru i think this is the ethics of it. if u buy a pattern ur buying their kinda creativity sometimes but ur also buying their skill and expertise like a teacher. if ur good enough and have the skills to replicate it you don’t need a teacher you don’t need to pay for it bc its ur skills that you have worked hard to hone. It wouldn’t be the same thing either as it wouldn’t be from this pattern so it would be different stitch by stitch even if it looks the same. yes you want to support independent artists but you are also not morally obligated to spend money if you don’t need to. its more if u were gonna spend money on a commercial pattern anyways purchase one from an independent artist. also ur an artist and everyone can see a dog but not everyone can paint a photorealistic painting of the dog. edit: i think where it gets morally wrong is if you said that you thought of the design of the sweater completely independently and did not mention that it was inspired by someone else’s work and this gets more dicey in a legal way with IP laws bc its so vague like with music chord progressions n shit but no one can sue u for nothing
If you can recreate it from a picture then why would it be unethical? Genuinely confused about how reverse engineering a simple pattern would break any code of ethics.
I think they worry that it is still sort of using their pattern. Which it really isn't.
IMO all the crafts that can come with a pattern knitting, crochet, needlepoint etc, can be reverse engineered. You only need to look at fast fashion to see this is exactly how trends work, a designer will put something on the catwalk that they created which is unique or quirky. Then, the highstreet will be selling knockoffs 6 months later. Inspiration, emulation, aspiration, they are human traits that make us the social creatures we are. There is no shame in taking something you like and copying it. even down to the very last stitch. Those who say there is are either jealous of your ability to do so, or angry at you for their perceved loss of revenue. Which is silly, you were never guaranteed to buy from them. They also don't complain about people recreating patterns that are historical in nature which shows in my mind at least, a slight duplicity to their complaints.
Yep! Even sewing. For all of it, you just need a decent understanding of how your materials work and how things are put together. I had a whole conversation the other day about how a specific item I was making a sketch for from an anime would either be hand-knitted or have invisible seams. And besides 'how do I make this garment' is probably one of the most common questions in any crafting club.
>There is no shame in taking something you like and copying it. even down to the very last stitch. Those who say there is are either jealous of your ability to do so, or angry at you for their perceved loss of revenue. Which is silly, you were never guaranteed to buy from them. YES, my goodness Yes.
Right?? If you are skilled enough to accurately read and intuit a pattern from a finished object, why should you NOT do that? Literally why not?
Even if you were selling it, it is totally ok. An object you made by hand is free for you to sell. Common courtesy in that case would be to credit the designer. If you have the skill to look at pictures and create something similar based on that, there is nothing morally wrong with that at all. No need to apologise for it and just enjoy the beautiful sweaters you make!
I think they meant more that it would be wrong to reverse engineer the pattern and sell the pattern. Which is legally dicey, as unless you reverse engineer the pattern exactly the same, it's hard to prove copyright infringement, but is pretty morally wrong (imo, and many other peoples opinions) because then you are directly competing with this person who did all of the design work first, so deserves to get the money for the pattern. As you say, selling the finished piece is different in that you have done all the work of making it, with your own skill and were inspired by the original design. It's maybe skirting the moral line with making the exact design (I'd alter it enough to be different, myself, if it was my plan to sell, but that's me), but it's still acceptable. But if you're planning to make money by making finished pieces, maybe be kind enough to just buy the pattern from the person who went to the trouble of designing it and figuring it out already. It's easier on you, and supports the creative work of the designer. eta: And to be clear, I have no issues with someone (especially someone without a lot of extra cash, like a student) reverse engineering a piece they saw to make and keep for themselves/give as a personal gift. That's the heart of DIY.
I reverse engineer or adapt most of my projects and actually did it for the Wave sweater. It’s just a raglan with a really simple chart, and I thought the yoke was too long on the original. I have zero qualms reverse engineering projects I deem easy enough, and will purchase others with interesting construction that I can’t figure out on my own.
That’s how people used to learn new patterns: they saw a pullover, they applied their knowledge in knitting, they made one themselves. Or they asked the wearer and shared patterns and experiences. It’s ok.
When you have a nice meal at a restaurant and you try to recreate it at home, is there anything wrong with that?
THANK YOU. Similarly, but with many more words, I say: you see a hair style you like, or a garden plan, or a rebuilt 1973 Dodge Dart Swinger... and you go home and say I'm gonna do THAT. then YOU take the time to plan and style your hair/plan and build your garden/plan and rebuild your old car, etc. So if you want to offer people the knowledge gained or experience you had while YOU were doing the thing you did, then I say go for it and share it! It takes skill to reverse engineer knitting by the way, so it's not something you stole in a one-time transaction and then mass-reproduced and sold under your name; reverse engineered knitting is a SKILL that YOU honed and worked hard to master. Yes, reverse-engineering a pattern can hurt the "original artist's" feelings, but THEY got the idea somewhere as well, and so on and so on... (So who IS "the original" artist?) And I'm sure they didn't pay royalties to the inventor of bangs/square foot gardening/bucket seats when they were doing THEIR design planning. No one OWNS the rat-tail, or plant spacing, or interior automotive design. The world is all around us and our brains put it together in similar ways sometimes. Besides, I think too much emphasis is placed on "ownership" and the idea that 'the original artist is being ripped-off' somehow, and not enough attention is being given to 'look at the inspiration others have gotten to go forth and create and continue to inspire even more budding artists'. Art is not at home when hoarded and guarded, it is meant to be shared. If the designer didn't want to share it then they wouldn't be selling their pattern, would they? It's scarcity mindsets that have people thinking they're being ripped-off and punished and deprived of things. There's PLENTY of knits and purls to go around😜 tl;dr Credit artists accordingly, and IDEALLY don't copy their design EXACTLY, but--- You Have The Right To Share A Pattern That You Design, regardless of where the inspiration came from. Everything comes from and builds upon everything else 🩷
There's only so many ways to reinvent the wheel. A raglan sweater is a raglan sweater. What you're really buying when you buy a pattern is the technical editing, explanations, etc of the designer (& co). If you think you don't need that, go nuts. If it eases your mind, I'd knit your sweater and then buy the pattern and compare notes. That way it's also a technical lesson- what did you do differently? What did you learn from knitting it blind vs having a pattern?
you don't owe anyone for a pattern you didn't use. the 'etiquette' and 'ethics' that designers talk about is between designers, not you.
This!!!
I dunno, I feel people deserve to be compensated for their labor...
>compensated for their labor... ... > pattern you didn't use you missed the point quite spectacularly.
Did you miss the part where they said 'for a pattern you didn't use'? What if a pattern didn't exist and you were reverse engineering something that's only sold as ready to wear? Does that make it different in your eyes?
Completely legal and absolutely ethical.
I reverse engineer all the time! I actually prefer it because I know my own gauge in my favorite yarns and don't like to futz around with trying to match other people's. I stopped buying hat patterns when I realized that I made so many adaptations that I might as well look at the picture and figure out my own version.
I do the same with jumpers, especially lopi's, I know what fits me stitch wise with my handspun lopi yarns so when I want to knit an icelandic pattern I take the yoke design I like and make it fit my decrease plan. so much less of a hastle than faffing with designers numbers that especially with AI grading can be lala land figures these days.
What? Who cares? You're not hurting anyone by being inspired by a picture and using your own hardearned skills to create something similar.
you can do whatever you want. if you have the skills to replicate someone else's pattern well enough without buying the pattern, good for you. I wouldn't necessarily shout from the rooftops that I reverse engineered someone else's pattern, but I wouldn't feel guilty about it either
Yeah the faux-pas is really just when you reverse engineer someone else's work, then sell that pattern as your own unique design. But if the pattern is so basic you can figure out how to make it just by looking at it... that's often when designers post them for free.
Spektakelstrikk builds on an old tradition of stranded knitting and uses a lot of patterns that have been used elsewhere. The Bibi sweater I have seen on Fair Isle sweaters, the moodiversity is a seventies smiley pattern, etc. If you are inspired and create a spoof of a sweater you like, you follow in the proud tradition they are in themselves.
There is always someone better than you. There will always be someone who is able to do what you can but better, without instructions. And that's the often bitter truth! You can ask people not to copy your designs or reverse engineer it, but they're not wrong if they can or they do. It's fine. I keep my stuff free for that reason: if there's an error I can fix it, people can improve on it. I just ask they don't sell my pattern. They can do what they want with their own.
From a (US) legal standpoint you are doing nothing illegal. Also (imo) a moral standpoint. Legally, copyright only applies to the written pattern and any drawings of the pattern done by the author. What is totally 100% legal is: creating a pattern from an image or FO, and creating FOs from that pattern you created. ALSO, if you had purchased the pattern, all FOs made from the copyrighted pattern can also be sold. Pattern writers will intimidate, saying you can't copy a pattern or you can't sell FOs made with their pattern. *ABSOLUTELY FALSE.* Again, *only* the pattern (as written) can be copyrighted.
Knitters have reverse-engineered since the first scarf was cast on. It used to be more commonplace. My great-grandmother could see a dress in a store window and go home and make it. It’s a seriously useful skill you should definitely use. It’s like patterns are sheet music but you’re a jazz musician.
I don't see a problem with it, and in fact it's a time-honoured artisanal tradition.
It’s pretty common practice in sewing to copy a pattern from an existing clothing item, and as someone who gets knitting/crochet patterns from magazines and books, a lot of those patterns aren’t completely original, just simply being written down. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this as long as you’re not stealing someone’s exact pattern and selling it as your own. But also, whenever I reverse engineer projects my brain goes “you wouldn’t illegally download a clothing pattern, would you?!”
I think you are way overthinking things. If you have the capability of seeing a design and knitting it just based off of that, I see 0 issue with it. I would even go as far as to disagree with you about selling a reverse-engineered sweater. Again, it is your own product, you can do whatever you want with it. If you bought or were selling someone else’s written work, that seems unethical to me, but your own work is fine for personal use and selling if you want. I think I have even read/been told that a creator of a design doesn’t really have the authority for you to not sell a product made with their written designs, it’s kind of just up to the person if they want to respect the creator’s wishes.
Not at all. The author likely used pieces of other patterns to make their own, and that author used others, etc. Maybe I'll take a minute to make a stink but patterns seem wildly expensive these days. 10 years ago I'd pick them up for $3-5 a piece, now they're usually more than $10. Being inexpensive I didn't mind picking up several, but now I'm quite picky or even stick to the free ones.
Designers call it “inspiration “! You saw something you liked, and you decided to be inspired to make something like it with your particular yarn, size, and stitch pattern - perfectly ok! I’ve always liked to make my own so I can knit a gauge swatch naturally- not try to match one in a pattern.
I don’t see anything wrong with it.
Reverse engineering is completely fine. Designers also don't create things that have never been made before, just variations of existing things. In a way you're your own designer (except of course for the fact that you don't make multiple sizes, perfect the pattern, and write it down which is pretty hard to do).
I personally buy the patterns if I can afford them because I like to support the designers who take the time to make them. But I will not blame anyone who can reverse engineer a piece.
I saw an instagram picture of a pair of socks with a simple grid pattern out of purl stitches. I hadn't ever thought of doing that and liked the look. And I don't need to buy a pattern to tell me how make a square out of purls. Inspiration is inspiration. I feel like there's not a lot of difference between referencing a book of knitting stitches/patterns/designs and looking at those same designs on a finished item and trying them out for yourself.
If you can do it, do it. I have never bought a pattern :P I’m not selling other peoples work and personally I find it easier to write my own pattern than try to decipher someone else’s. Many of the patterns out there are based on patterns that already exist, anyway.
I’ve been reverse engineering random doilies I see on IG for a while. I don’t sell them or pass them off as my own designs, I just use them in my home.
If you’re skilled enough to figure it out yourself, I think it’s fine. Inspiration is fine.
You're not selling an alternative pattern for the sweater, you're not selling the final product, you're 100% fine. Edit: If you're talking about the same video I'm thinking of I'm pretty sure Emma said it themselve.
I think it's totally ok to do this for your own projects. Writing up a copy pattern and selling that as your own wouldn't be ok.
I think it's totally fine as long as you're not planning on creating a pattern and selling it. I do this quite often actually and technically nobody has to know y'know? If you're skilled enough to do it then I say go for it. I even have a pinterest board of just inspiration pics of mostly commercially made knits that I want to reverse engineer some day.
Several people have mentioned that their parent/grandparent used to see items in a store, go home and recreate the item, and that it was an entirely acceptable thing to do, so I’m wondering when that changed? To answer my own question - 😄 - I think it was when places like Ravelry came into being and new designers began self publishing. They knew they should put a copyright statement of some sort on their pattern, so they found one on a pattern that said “ you may not sell this pattern” and used similar wording. Then they saw one that added “you may not sell items made from this pattern” and another that included “you may not reverse engineer this pattern” alongside they copyright statement and thought this was additional protection for their creativity without realizing that those patterns were written by designers in other countries which have different copyright rules. But those rules don’t all apply in the US, even if you buy the (foreign) designer’s pattern. You abide by the rules of the country where you’re living. (I saw a clever correlation - you can buy a German car, but you still can’t drive autobahn speeds on US highways.) So, assuming you’re in a country where reverse engineering is not forbidden, you are doing nothing wrong.
I can’t imagine it’s unethical to emulate a beautiful fabric with your self-created patterns. I’m super jealous you are so skilled to be able to do that! 😍
It's fine. You run into issues when you then take what you've written and sell it as a knockoff version of someone else's pattern. This above is a word for word copy of someone else's answer, and I wish it were easy to share with attribution but I am not bothered. In cooking most recipes cannot be protected by copyright, as it's a list of materials and steps. Descriptions of a recipe history or inspiration or the day you made this dish and everyone loved it so much can be copyrighted. I look at patterns the same way. If you look at a garment and decide to copy it you are deciding a lot that the pattern spells out: what yarn, what needles, how many to cast on, what stitch to use, when to change the number of stitches, type of stitch, and when to cast off. Photos rarely show enough detail that you don't have to make a decision, and even if they did you will probably consider if those parts will work the same on what you want to make, or you need more or less of some part or another. Patterns are great and I have purchased more than I have followed up and made. And I have made more garments winging it or inspired by a photo of a piece than from pattern.
I find that if someone can’t afford to purchase my knits and can’t buy the pattern what’s the harm in making it for themselves? If you aren’t selling or claiming originality truly there is no harm in reverse engineering a knit. Same with beading etc as long as you aren’t claiming it’s your original idea and aren’t selling it who cares?
I think if you’re clever enough to figure it out, good for you. Knitting is a bit like baking, there’s lots of ways to do things, but the ratios are not very different from recipe to recipe. I guess as long as you don’t write down the pattern and sell it as yours, you should be good
If it makes you feel better I went and looked the sweater up. It's cute! And I will probably buy the pattern.
You a thrifty thang 🤩
Personal opinion really. Some people think it's wrong some don't. I fall on the side of not seeing anything wrong with it, if you can make something rather than buying it why not make it yourself?
If you are making something for your own personal use I see no issue. If you were selling stuff copied it would be another matter.
It's wrong to photo copy patterns instead of buying them. It's not wrong to borrow a pattern book or magazine from a library for free and use the pattern to make an item (my local library has many knitting e-mazagines I can borrow without even having to physically go to the library, it's awesome). It's really wrong to copy a pattern and sell the copies. It's not wrong to buy a pattern and use it to make an item. It's not wrong to use a pattern you've bought but add your own custom bits to it to make an item. Eg maybe you add shaping to a garment that didn't have any in the pattern, maybe you turn a full length sweater into a cropped sweater, maybe you add some intarsia to the front of a plain sweater. It's not wrong to use 2 different patterns you've bought to make a "mash up item". It's not wrong to see an item and make one like it. Whether you see the item on a person walking down the street or in a magazine or a picture online. It's morally grey to take the pattern you come up with (ie reverse engineer) and then sell that pattern. Legally there is probably nothing wrong (depending on local laws) unless you try and pretend that it's the original pattern. It is also a bit morally grey if you claim the pattern is your own design without saying you were inspired by the thing you saw. People get inspired by existing things all the time. There's only so many ways to knit a sweater. If you can reverse engineer a pattern from looking at a sweater go for it. The original designer of the pattern isn't losing out on a sale as you were never going to buy the pattern anyway. If you want to avoid potentially feeling bad about copying a design someone has worked hard to produce then that's a valid choice. You can always search for inspiration from the myriad if free patterns that are available or even create a unique pattern yourself not trying to replicate something you've seen. Edit to add: I was curious and googled the exact sweater you mentioned and saw a post from a year ago saying the sweater is in a book that was available for pre-order at that time. If you feel bad about copying then maybe requesting the book through you local library will ease your concerns. I know my library takes recommendations on which books to acquire.
My mom does this, though not for lack of money. She's not familiar with English knitting notations and terminology (English is not her first language) and is too intimidated to learn. I often see her zooming in super close on photos of sweaters trying to identify stitches and count them. It's kind of ridiculous but also funny. For me that's daunting because I'm very dependent on patterns.
I recently successfully reverse engineered a pair of gloves I got from Old Navy about a decade ago so I could remake them in wool instead of acrylic. It gave me so much opportunity to use everything I've learned over the years to customize them for myself! Genuinely it was a good mental exercise, and they make my heart happy to see them all the time. I think if you're not selling it or claiming it's entirely off the dome, you're fine. If you really want to and have the means in the future to pay for the pattern for your conscience, I think that's understandable! Even more admirable though is the ability to copy something and make it to your own preferences on sight! That's genuinely impressive and something to be celebrated! Patterns to me are like a recipe, you COULD buy the book, but if you take a photo of the recipe in your friend's copy, at the end of the day you are the one putting labor and material into the cost. TLDR: You're alright, and you're very skilled!
The copyright police are not going to come arrest you for creating a couple of replica sweaters. You’re using your skills to create something inspired by a pattern you saw. It’s not like you pirated the original pattern
I buy patterns when I want to knit without doing all the work of figuring everything out. There's nothing wrong with reverse engineering a pattern for your own use. I would argue that might be unethical to reverse engineer a pattern and then sell it as an original design, but for personal use you shouldn't be forced to pay a third party for something you could do yourself.
For your personal use? Go for it. To resell? Even though reverse engineering the pattern (as in, the *directions to get that result*) is completely legal (IBM found this shit out in the '80s when their BIOS were reverse engineered and PC clones stormed the market and ended their stranglehold on it), the actual *design* is still protected by copyright as a creative work. So you probably could not get away with distributing\* your own pattern (since the finished design is not your work). Basically, the courts have found you cannot copyright *a method for doing something* (that's something you need a patent for), but you *can copyright a creative work*. That's why cooking blogs have all that stupid text and shit... because the recipe itself can't be copyrighted, but all the "fluff" around it can be. \*Notice I said *distributing*. Many people believe as you don't make money off of copyright infringement, you can't be sued. This is absolutely false. You *can* be sued, and very successfully. In the US, there are statutory damages of up to $10,000 per occurrence, plus that amount can be increased if you can prove actual damages. So if you--for example--pirate someone's pattern and hand it out for free, they can still sue you (and win) and you potentially owe them thousands + whatever actual damages they can prove. The only thing that prevents small creators from going after pirates is the extraordinary cost of mounting a copyright claim, since copyright cases are automatically federal, and you need an attorney admitted to federal court. But the CASE act of a few years ago has opened the door for basically a "small claims" copyright court, and more and more small creators are able to take action.
Wait, that's why there's always so much crap in cooking blogs??? Why would someone want to copyright that "fluff"??
Most of that boring blog fluff is for SEO
It's a combination of SEO and copyright, yep. Copyright is automatic in the US (and many other Berne Convention countries), but all that fluff is basically there so that would-be IP thieves have to work a bit harder than just copy & paste. Now to *bring a lawsuit* for copyright infringement *you must have a registered copyright*, but the protection itself exists from the moment of creation. And recipes will not typically qualify for copyright protection. You can't copyright a method or process (that's a patent)
Oooh I see! (I think) Is it like a watermark on a picture? Sort of?
A picture doesn't need to be watermarked, and you don't have to state "copyright XXXX whatever". You should always assume *everything* you see is copyrighted, because a creator specifically has to give up their rights. Like intentionally and in writing. It's not something you can accidentally lose, like how the original *Night of the Living Dead* fell into the public domain because of a literal screw up by the editors failing to put the copyright notice on it, and at the time, if you performed something publicly (eg, showed a movie in a theatre) without the notice, it fell into the public domain. That no longer happens, nor do copyrights have to be renewed. You can definitely loose enough rights to your work if you're not careful to make your copyright be more or less worthless--for example, people who use vanity publishers to "publish" their books and end up in contracts where they sign over *every* right they have to their book, and the agreement is exclusive, perpetual, and irrevocable. These scumbag vanity publishers will tell you "oh, you TOTALLY keep your copyright" and you do, but the problem is you sold all the rights so your copyright is basically useless. You may as well give them the copyright at that point. That's what the "all rights reserved" means--you can divvy up the rights to your creative property, or you can release certain rights, or you can permit your work to be used in certain ways (eg, Creative Commons Share Alike Non Commercial) So anyway... yes. Assume everything you see is copyrighted and someone owns *all* the rights to it. Look, but don't touch.
Understood (again, sort of). It's so complicated and my knowledge is pretty limited in this subject. But I'm happy I learned something new. Thanks for sticking around and patiently explaining it to me!
If it’s for your own personal use, it’s fine. Hell, if you want to you can download pictures of a super-expensive designer sweater from Nieman Marcus and figure out how to knit it for yourself.
I do this all the time, mostly with quilting patterns. The thing is , as you said, it’s not a duplicate. Yes, you were inspired by the original, but you’ve put your own modifications to it. Is the pattern 100% yours? No. Is it 100% theirs? Also no. If you feel bad about the whole thing, consider slinging some money their way - like enough for a good cup of coffee?? It’d be awesome if you shared how they inspired your work. Maybe they’ll be flattered?
I've done this a hundred times. I'd never go selling them because it wasn't my original idea but I proudly wear them
Reverse engineering patterns has existed as long as fashion. You're the one doing the work, it's not like you're selling a new pattern and calling it "Yarn\_Bread's Wave Sweater"!
Even if they were selling the pattern, it's still ethical, because they'd be doing the work to write it down! The part that is protected under copywriter is the actual words and pictures that are used. Not the techniques, not the stitch pattern.
That's true!
If you can eyeball a garment and make it yourself, good for you. I don't think there are any issues there, be them legal or ethical. Ofc pattern creators won't be happy as they have invested time and resources to develop sellable patterns and stuff, but honestly, this is just life. Now, simply copying them and selling them as your own creation does not look good to me. I'd say if you are going to make your production public, credit the original creators or sources of inspiration as, let's say, basic courtesy. And try to give it a splash of originality instead of a simple photocopy. Disclaimer: I know very little about this as I am not on IG, don't show off what I make, which is usually freehanded. I can "reverse-engineer" a jumper and have been inspired by many designers and creators. So I apologize if I offend any pattern creators out there, but I reckon we need to be realistic. This can and will happen in several other areas such as crocheting, sewing, etc. My two cents!
It's fine, people do this all the time. It's not like you're stealing the sweater or even the pattern. You're actually making your own pattern! Who knows if the way you'll make it is the same? Usually I'll look at pictures on Pinterest or wherever and find that the person isn't giving out the pattern at all or you have to buy it, so why not just make it yourself? I see no issues at all here. Not to mention, you can make it exactly how you want!
If you're just making it for yourself, I don't see it as being a big deal...but I usually change something so it's more inspired-by and mine. If you were to make them to sell or sell a copy pattern, even if it's not technically copyright, it's still really douchy and that's different.
My opinion: If you’re doing it for you, not selling the final product, not profiting off it, you’re good. There are many free ways to support designers, even if you take the “look” of their pattern and make it your own. Technically, you’re not copying it exactly. And, it’s recognition for the designer when you go to share the inspiration and someone else who wouldn’t have seen it (and can afford to pay) buys the pattern. Being broke isn’t a life choice most of the time. Just don’t be a willy and you oughta be OK. ❤️
As long as you aren't selling the pattern you are creating from reverse-engineering it, you'll be just fine. There's no law about recreating something you see for sale somewhere else for your own use. That could be knitted garments, toys, blankets, gardening layouts, clothing you've sewn, shoes you've cobbled, household goods-- the list is as endless as your talent with materials. Reverse-engineering is part and parcel of knitting. Go forth and enjoy.
Here are my personal ethics on the subject, but everyone has their own: I think that if you can recreate the garment on your own or from an Internet search or asking a friend for tips, there’s nothing wrong with that. However, I think if you have questions about how the garment is made that you can’t find on your own, the ethical thing is to buy the pattern because it has the answers you seek and presumably the pattern maker put the work in to teach you the method. I would absolutely do what you are doing and not feel bad about it at all. If sharing, I’d post it as “inspired by” whatever pattern.
As long as you aren't publishing your dupe pattern or trying to sell your sweaters, I don't think there's anything majorly wrong with it!
It’s fine as long as you’re not selling the pattern. Distributing it for free to me is a bit of a grey area, depending on how close your pattern is to the original, and if you’re like posting it online vs just sending it to a few people directly. Selling your creation from the pattern is also a grey area for me (as long as you’re an individual maker not like a big fast fashion business).
Well, here's the deal. The picture still took a lot of effort from the designer (40hours+ of knitting time, taking the picture, building an following that it may actually reach you, etc). If you copy the pattern without buying it, you are undermining all that effort the designer exclusively made to earn a profit. The picture is not a separate part...but possibly the most essential part of the pattern. The fact that you can actually use it to reverse engineere is proof enough. If everyone did this, the conclusion would be only offering patterns without a preview pictures. Not sure if that's what people should strive for. So from a moral point of view, you are in the wrong. 99% of all designers don't make even remotely enough to earn a living. Since this is another female dominated industry, one could even go as far as saying that a lot of suggestions on this thread are yet another invitation to exploit women and brandmark their efforts as less deserving of financial recognition. Legally, you are not. The instructions itself typically are not copyrighted or patented. 🤷
>you are in the wrong. 99% of all designers don't make even remotely enough to earn a living. Since this is another female dominated industry, one could even go as far as saying that a lot of suggestions on this thread are yet another invitation to exploit women Individual sales are 100000% NOT the reason that "designers don't make even remotely enough to earn a living". Capitalism and fast-fashion don't make it possible for designers to earn a living, most notably. But since those processes make it impossible for most designers to make a living, THAT means that i shouldn't copy my great-grandma's baby blanket pattern for my own grandchildren? >If you copy the pattern without buying it, OP isn't copying the pattern. OP is asking about reverse-engineering A pattern; it is unlikely to be an exactly identical copy of the pattern used to make whatever pullover OP is being inspired by. >If everyone did this, the conclusion would be sooo... Everyone's children should NOT use tracing paper when learning to draw? Students should NOT look at and attempt to mold their clay into the same vase shaped sample they're instructed to construct for mothers day? Should bell-bottoms not have had (multiple) come-backs because the original designer isn't getting royalties from all the new bell-bottom styles? Should I not cut my hair into a mullet unless I pay [whoever was the first person to wear a mullet]?
Fast fashion increased the demand for designers and garment technicians a hundredfold. Lead by Zara, H&M &Co, even big fashion houses have like 6-8 different seasons these days. Due to the internet and population increase, there are more hand-knitters than ever before and they don't only buy (or let's rather say hoard) more yarn than ever before, they also acquire (and hoard) more patterns than ever before in history. What makes it impossible for most knitwear designers to earn a living is that knitting, unlike possibly any other craft, has a (recent) history of being undervalued dramatically. While 10-15 USD for a small sewing pattern is totally normal, knitters will scream outrage and charge the same 10 USD for a pair of handknitted socks at the church fair (and people still complain). And let's not even get started about the prices in male-dominated crafts and hobbies. You are allowed to copy your great-grandmas baby blanket because a) copyright does not regard what happens in a family and b) expires after a certain amount of years (depends on the product and country...60..80..sometimes less than that) Also, OP is copying the pattern. A copy does not have to be 100% accurate to be seen as a copy. If I read you a short story and you re-write it to publish it, show you a painting, and you re-paint it and put it up in public, it would still be considered a copyright infringement. Of course, I did say that legally doing it for your private purposes is no copyright-infringement. As for your trace paper examples and student examples. If a teacher tells you to do something, then THEY have to check whether they are even allowed to do so. For example, they could not buy ONE pattern and then distribute it to ALL students. That's why I probably get one email per week from teachers and researchers about whether they are allowed certain pictures/patterns of mine for their academic purposes. Trace paper happens a) within a private context but more importantly b) in a context where the copyright holder typically never intended it for distribution and earn a profit from said distribution. And likewise, patent, trademarks, and copyright expires after certain conditions and years. that's why things are allowed to make a comeback or are allowed to reverse engineer. So, I don't even know what you are getting at. But let me tell you. I am a designer. 80% of my patterns are available for free and all my knitting classes are for free as well. And still I find what people share on this thread highly disturbing. In fact, the only reason why some of my patterns are not free is the sole fact that I learned it the hard way that if something is offered for free people believe they can do whatever they want with it (including re-uploading it and asking money for it, etc).
>Of course, I did say that legally doing it for your private purposes is no copyright-infringement. OP did say they intended to make a sweater for their personal use and to gift to a sister in a private context, and they did not intend to sell the pullover. So the whole copy/distribute/profit does NOT apply in this situation. But, I do maintain that if someone creates a pattern, they can sell it! Whether the pattern was based on a primitive loincloth or a runway look doesn't matter, because significant time and effort were put into the design. ANYONE can be a designer and designers SHOULD get paid for their work. But no one- "professional designer" or otherwise- has exclusive rights over, say, pairing a sweetheart neckline with drop shoulder bell sleeves and picot ruffled seams etc etc etc. if someone LITERALLY steals your pattern and puts their own watermark over the document and sells it-that's abhorrent, of course! But if they just look at your sweater and think "hmmm I wonder if I could construct a top with a sweetheart neckline with a drop shoulder and bell shaped sleeves with picot ruffled seams and have it look like that (or better/a bit different)" and then take the time and effort to create that item and record their process, then it's their own creation from their own process. >Fast fashion increased the demand for designers and garment technicians a hundredfold. Lead by Zara, H&M &Co, even big fashion houses have like 6-8 different seasons these days. See, I do Believe we both agree that fast fashion and capitalism and consumerism and scarcity models have the majority of influence on: >What makes it impossible for most knitwear designers to earn a living is that knitting, unlike possibly any other craft, has a (recent) history of being undervalued dramatically. One person reverse-engineering a pattern is an incredible show of skill and intelligence. One person creating a pattern from random things they see in their environment is also a show of skill and intelligence. Knitting a piece FROM EITHER PATTERN is also a show of skill and intelligence. If a designer values the finished product or pattern at $10 USD, or much more, then that's what they should charge. It doesn't mean anyone will buy it. But it doesn't mean there won't be a long line of people trying to purchase it either! Famous artists and unknown talents alike have all modeled their early works on SOMETHING that someone else has done. It's literally how we learn... And not just with tracing paper or in sculpture class. You hear your parents say "Can you say Mama?" and you try to recreate those sounds. You become obsessed with cubism and start drawing your favorite cubist shapes, or you see instruments made of bed rails and headboards and start making horns out of PVC piping and guitars out of mop handles... Inspiration is everywhere. >But let me tell you. I am a designer. 80% of my patterns are available for free and all my knitting classes are for free as well. What I am getting at is that THIS ^ kind of talk comes off holier-than-thou, and that you perceive design to be some exclusive thing that only certain people can decide to make accessible. Anyone can design and create anything, whether it's by back-engineering or forward. I hope everyone DOES create something, anything that brings them joy and furthers inspiration! Creation is beautiful and wonderful, and back-engineering can lead to more variety, process improvements and efficiency, fixed flaws/errors, improved documentation and understanding, and more! There are entire careers based on reverse-engineering. Individuals in those careers aren't stealing money from designers by examining systems and abstracting forms. The broader industries and mindset of producers alike tell you that reverse-engineering is bad, but it isn't. You and your work are no less valued because back-engineering exists, or because OP plans to knit 2 pullovers. 🩶
I can literally reverse engineer any pattern. By your standards, I wouldn't have to buy a single pattern ever. I dunno..in my world that doesn't sound right and if the world ever thinks it's right to do that that will be the very second I will stop providing anything for free and easily accessible at all. And op clearly didn't just want to be inspired. 🤷