is it legal to sell my patterns ?

EDIT: wrote this post after David had replied, and he explained most of what I've written below.

Jedifyfe said:

@DAVIDYR1 so patterns are copyrighted? I know designs are and anything labeled as "Spiderman Pattern" would infringe on copyright but "generic superhero spandex man" would as well?

Click to expand...

If a "generic superhero spandex man" pattern was red, perhaps had some black or blue accents, and happened to have spiderweb designs across it, then yes it would infringe on copyright because it is still easily identified as Spider-Man.

Way back when the MMORPG City of Heroes started gaining traction, this exact issue came into question. Players began making short, muscly male characters using the "Claws" melee power set. Or 8 foot, maxed-out-muscle-slider shirtless green men. No matter what you name those characters, the resemblance to existing intellectual property is too close to allow for plausible deniability, and the studio was contacted by Marvel and ordered to find a way to stop it (and the studio did closely monitor that stuff going forward).

Now, CoH did happen to have a red-headed psychically powered woman as part of their in-universe main superhero team (a la the Justice League or Avengers). However, that character's costume was unique from anything Jean Grey had ever worn, and her powers were magical in origin as opposed to a mutation, so there was a strong case for her as a unique character despite the few similarities.

Well there ya go. I'd listen to David. He kind of knows his stuff.

Great informative replies, thanks for clarifying everything @Vox and @DAVIDYR1. I was under the impression no one ever got into legal trouble for it, since I see so many prop sellers on Instagram who make trademarked items and seem to have been operating for years with steady revenue. I remember seeing an article once about a Spiderman costume maker receiving a cease and desist, but that's pretty much the one and only time I've seen any mention of legal troubles from selling costumes.

DAVIDYR1 said:

Now...Same pattern, with webs, logos and all identifiable logos and markings removed...now called Primary Color Pattern. Believe it or not but, 'Possibly' still a legal issue. This is now more of an inspired by and not a copied pattern or design so technically a grey area but intellectual property is fickle and very much about 'if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...then it must be a duck'.
Look at this as selling the same mold with most of the details being worn out. It's still from the same mold though, right?

A copyright lawyer once told me that if you take an infringing item and show a black and white photo of it, side by side the real item it was copied or inspired by...also in a black and white photo...if they look similar enough then that's all that's needed to press the issue legally.

Click to expand...

In this case the black and white photo would be of an actor in a professionally fitted suit and the other photo would be of a unused sewing pattern. And we all know that fashion designs are not copyrightable.

Lightning said:

In this case the black and white photo would be of an actor in a professionally fitted suit and the other photo would be of a unused sewing pattern. And we all know that fashion designs are not copyrightable.

Click to expand...

Well no, that's not what I meant....and costumes are not 'fashion designs'. Not exactly.

If the pattern being sold makes a copyrighted item then there's no need to compare the pattern to anything or of the actor in the finished suit. You compare the finished work from that pattern.
Just like the painter for hire, if HE paints a mural of Spiderman, then he's liable...it's not his 'skill' that's the problem. It's the fact that he took money to paint Spiderman. No matter how good or bad a job he did, if he took money for a Spiderman mural he's liable.

Now...Fashion? Okay, let's talk fashion.

We have to first recognize that a costume is not a fashion item. They're both articles of clothing but once something falls under copyright, like a costume...then it's no longer considered a typical fashion item.
There, easy breezy.
It does get complicated when a fashion item is used in a feature film as a costume element, but in that case it almost always falls under copyright due to the character trademark as well.

The definition of fashion is not a gateway to skirt around the legal ownership of said design.

David

but guys,think about it. Marvel needs supporters at comic con, IF no one sold these patterns,won't it be Marvel' s loss?

Sent from my SM-J7108 using Tapatalk

ronchan32004 said:

but guys,think about it. Marvel needs supporters at comic con, IF no one sold these patterns,won't it be Marvel' s loss?

Sent from my SM-J7108 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

That's what I wrote in my first reply, and why Lucasfilm has tolerated most of the makers of armor for the 501st all these years. It's good PR. Still doesn't make it legal. There's also a caveat in that if a trademark holder doesn't actively protect their trademark, then it makes it harder to defend in court when/if they need to take something to trial.

can I contact marvel?

Sent from my SM-J7108 using Tapatalk

ronchan32004 said:

can I contact marvel?

Sent from my SM-J7108 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Why would you want to do that? To get a license? They don't give licenses to just anyone. (You need a solid business plan and maybe capital, before their lawyers would even blink in your direction.) If you contact Marvel, you are creating a relationship between you and them... which will very likely result in them shutting you down because they can't "ignore" you.

How many known C&D letters has anyone seen or heard of ? Didnt Fields get one for his Captain America shields. Such a shame those things were amazing.