Having gotten good feedback on one complex set of opinions, I have another set of complicated opinions to put out there. Please comment, argue, let me know what you think. My opinion seems to be at a slightly different angle than most of the knitting world so far, so it’s certainly possible that I’m wrong or that I’m out of step.
The lovely Pam at Flint Knits recently posted about yarn stores using free patterns to teach classes. I dig Pam’s blog and patterns and photos, so I’m always interested in what she has to say. She was responding to an earlier post by Kate at Zeitgeist Yarns about her own patterns and their use. Both of these ladies have generously offered some truly beautiful patterns for free, and if you’re not familiar with their work, I encourage you to check them out. (There are a bunch of other blog posts on this – these are just the two I read.)
Kate and Pam had slightly different points, but I wanted to address the parts I agree with before I get to the parts where my opinions differ. First of all, even the simplest pattern takes a good deal of work to write up so that other knitters can replicate your original. Sizing patterns takes a good deal more work. When designers offer their patterns for free, the very least that you can give them is credit. Free means that you don’t have to pay for it, but it does not mean that the work is without worth, and credit is most of what designers have. If you love a pattern enough to knit it, you love it enough to credit the person who took the time to think it up and put it down for you to knit.
Apparently, some local yarn stores have been offering classes in popular free patterns without crediting the designers or sources, and I think this is plain wrong. I also think it’s wrong if the use violates the license on the pattern, as in the case of Kate’s free patterns. However, I think there are some points being made about free patterns and the law that miss the mark.
First off, is it wrong for a yarn store to offer a class using a free pattern? My answer would be, “Sometimes.”
In the case of a pattern with an explicit license forbidding use in a commercial venture, then yes. In the case of a pattern that a store prints out and distributes without crediting the source, then yes.
However, if the store offers a class in a for-sale pattern, it’s usually a requirement that class participants purchase a copy of the book or pattern ahead of time. If stores are directing class participants to obtain their own copies of the free pattern from the original source, then I don’t really see the problem, unless the pattern is, of course, licensed specifically against commercial use.
A momentary digression about licenses. Licenses are contracts. When you download any pattern, free or paid, you are, in essence, signing a contract to abide by the rules imposed by the license. Not all patterns have a license attached. Most of mine don’t. Those that do, though, should inform you of the terms before you download the pattern. Even if they don’t, your use of the pattern constitutes agreement.
What licenses are not is the law. You cannot be dragged into criminal court over a license. You can be sued, though, for violating a contract or for violating copyright law. This is unlikely in the case of individuals, but could be justified if, say, a major manufacturer was violating copyright on a pattern.
Back to the subject of classes. This is where I start to diverge from the opinions I’ve read thus. I certainly do not think that knitting classes are making money unfairly in teaching from free patterns. What is being sold, provided the patterns are obtained fairly, is instruction. Knitting teachers who are not violating copyright have to create their own class materials, have to come up with methods of instruction, have to create a whole class schedule around their chosen project. Looking at classes offered in the area, the focus is on skills obtained with an attractive finished object as a motivator. You want to learn cables? Great, we’ll make a cabled hat. It’s more fun than a big old swatch.
Knitting teachers are sometimes designers, but not always. And that is because these are separate skills. If I want to take a class in modern American literature, I am not going to start ringing up authors on the New York Times Bestseller list. If I sign up to take a class about themes of loneliness in American literature from 1955 to the present then I’m going to look at classes offered at local schools, and I’m going to have to purchase the class materials, which are certainly going to include books that are under copyright. If the teacher wanted to refer to materials freely available on the internet, but still under copyright (this is increasingly common) then the teacher needs to refer the students to the source.
What he or she doesn’t need to do is ask permission of the authors to teach their work. Though the teacher’s salary comes from teaching the words of other people, the skill of teaching is separate from the skill of writing. There are many great writers who are not good teachers, and many great teachers who are not good writers.
Knitting classes are not simply a matter of printing out a pattern and handing it to people in the class. The reason people take a class in the first place is because they want to get instruction, not because they want the pattern. I’m not referring to knitting stores that are outright deceptive, passing a pattern off as their own or otherwise preventing the knitter from finding the pattern at its source. That’s a different and clearly shady problem. I just object to the characterization of knitting classes as being a way of making money off of someone else’s work. It would be just as easy to apply that to any endeavor, including pattern writing. I am working on a pattern currently that uses elements I learned from many sources, including Barbara Walker, Elizabeth Zimmermann, and whatever pattern first taught me seed stitch. I got opinions on how to change parts of the pattern from the Lady. The idea for the pattern, though, and the construction, the writing – putting it all together – this comes from my own work. Teaching is not dissimilar. The pattern is only one component in instruction.
Pattern writers are free to put a license on their patterns that forbids their use in classes, or that requires that a store ask permission before using the pattern for a class, and that’s fine. We, as knitters, need to be aware of these licenses and avoid violating them. I think, though, that the attitude that a teacher is somehow stealing money from a designer in using their free (or not free) patterns in order to teach a class is wrong, and should be considered by those of us who design. If we want respect for our own intellectual property and skills, then we need to extend respect to other fields and understand the different skills involved in teaching. My personal opinion is that a class that credits the designer fairly is likely to be a boost to that designer, not a leech on their material.
Thoughts? I would love to hear from you on this.
