**news From Provo Craft Regarding Licenses** Please Read**
Decorating By JenniferAtwood Updated 22 Apr 2010 , 1:20pm by dburris1
Neither Jenn nor I work for PC or are compensated by them in any way. Jenn posted what was said in a phone conversation earlier this morning. That conversation took place because we too called PC and asked what the deal was. Since we use SCAL2 most of the time, it wasn't a huge concern, but nonetheless, we were not happy with the idea of a professional license without a price tag attached.
Seeing that there are lots of people here that post information about things they heard "somewhere", we figured information that comes from the horse's mouth would be welcomed. Apparently this is not the case.
We have also talked about other products we like, including Satin Ice, Disco Dust, Cake Crystals, etc. That doesn't mean we are on everyone's payroll, it just means we feel that others are interested in our opinion, the many questions we get are proof of that. We have both answered plenty of questions, both cricut-related and not, here on CC as well as in private email. We have never asked anyone to buy anything and have been more than readily available via phone, email and PM.
Regarding the copyright issue I happen to have a very strong opinion, largely because I have written software and produced creative content for over 20 years now. Violating someone's copyright for your own financial gain is tantamount to theft. If you think its ok because PC is a big company, it must be ok to shoplift from Walmart or bootleg Microsoft software. I am not ok with that - it is unethical and before long, you will be the big guy to someone smaller and when they do it to you, you won't like it one bit.
We have been asked to sell some of SVGs that we used on our products - what some people are posting here makes me think that once we sell a few, they will just be traded without compensation for us and I am not ok with that either.
Do we like the Cricut and now the Cricut Cake - yes! We have shared other stuff we liked. Someone called me the other day wanting to know where we buy the little gold circles that our cupcakes are sitting on - I just told them where we buy them and they work great. I don't think I should have to beat around the bush because someone might think I'm on someones payroll.
We offer classes because we have been asked to do so. We have had a long and steep learning curve and others would rather avoid that by having us teach them. We charge for those classes because we both take off work, have to rent a facility, hotel, transportation, etc. We also offer classes on fondant, structural support and taxidermy cakes, that doesn't mean we are in the back pockets of the Satin Ice, Wilton and the taxidermy industry.
I'll gladly engage in reasonable debate, I love that people don't always have the same opinion, but don't accuse us of defending anybody but ourselves.
Tobias
I never said you worked for PC or were receiving any money from them for doing the classes, only that you are going to defend a company that you are teaching classes on how to use a machine that they sell....that's all.
Everyone knows you guys have tested the product for them and probably received at least one free machine to do so. There was a comment made about you guys not defending a company with poor ethics because you don't know what their next move may be, and I was adding a comment to that. I suppose I should have qouted that comment before posting mine.
If you take that shape and alter it, and I'm not a lawyer to tell you exactly how much you need to alter it, it is now yours.
That is an urban myth that altering a copyrighted image a certain percentage makes it ok to use. If you put Winnie the Pooh in a purple sweater he's still Winnie the Pooh.
Was not responding to your particular post, jen1977. For the record, that was me defending myself and Jennifer. 
tab: If you take Winnie the Pooh and alter him to a point where he no longer looks like Winnie the Pooh, he has become your own teddy bear. If you take a heart shape and copy it a couple of times around a circle, and fuse it together to make a flower, that flower is yours. Simply moving a few points won't do, but if someone has insight on that, I'd be interested.
Tobias
Kinda like how they "allowed" the lady that actually invented using the machine for gumpaste/fondant pieces to have the privilege of demonstrating the technique before they sent her away and started making millions on HER revised invention?
Exactly!!
ProvoCraft are NOT in my favorite list...I won't support a company with poor business ethics
Precisely why I'm not buying one either.......the people behind the company don't deserve to prosper on such poor ethics! Not with my money anyhow!
If you alter Winnie to the point it no longer looks like Winnie -- you are going beyond the parameters of the discussion. Those are major changes. People are questioning how much alteration is needed. The courts use the ordinary observer test to determine copying. If an ordinary person, seeing the two items side by side, would conclude one was copied from the other, it was copied. It does not have to be exact copying.
File cuts and the cake items are end products that are not covered by the copyrights the machine may have (usually the software). If I purchase a machine from you, absent a signed written contract to the contrary, what I make with that machine and what I do with the end product is no longer under the control of the rights owner.
From Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 US 476,497 - Supreme Court 1964
When the patentee has sold the patented article or authorized its sale and has thus granted to the purchaser an "implied license to use," it is clear that he cannot thereafter restrict that use; "so far as the use of it was concerned, the patentee had received his consideration, and it was no longer within the monopoly of the patent." Adams v. Burke, 17 Wall. 453, 456. In particular, he cannot impose conditions concerning the unpatented supplies, ancillary materials, or components with which the use is to be effected. E. g., Carbice Corp. v. American Patents Development Corp., 283 U. S. 27; Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U. S. 661; United States v. Loews, Inc., 371 U. S. 38, 46.
Further, the items made by the machines are useful items and not subject to copyright protection.
Just adding fuel to the fire....I am new to cricut (but can't wait to get my "cake" one)
I feel like original cricut is marketed to the crafter , the same way the "cake" one is marketed to the baker.. for personal and professional use....... I know some people use the "original" cartridges to make and sell , cards, invites, etc......do they pay a licensing fee???
just curious???
[quote="kake4me2"]Just adding fuel to the fire....I am new to (but can't wait to get my "cake" one)
FIRE FIRE FIRE!
Tobias I wasn't knocking your contribution to the industry. You are both pros and all of us little people do appreciate and respect your opinions and reviews on all types of products and of course you should be compensated for all the classes you teach! I have personally read your blog and used your very informativr side by side comparison in making my own decision on which machine to buy.
I do not think that you were compensated for testing the Cake beyond being given the machine. Even if you get to keep the machine that is certainly fair.
My comment was only directed at the condescending tone of some of your comments and the advertising examples you cited. As I said they are not the same situation or context so are not a fair comparison and that in speaking for PC, it appears as though you are being paid to be their spokesperson, whether or not true, it comes across that way. PC need to address all this controversy themselves, rather than using well respected decorators as their mouthpiece. I totally get why they doing it though, theta know what you say carries weight with others. It's just that this issue is so controversial as someone said you guys are goin to get shot as the messenger.
I agree with all of your points on copyright and trademark protection. An artists work should be protected whatever form it takes, and they should have all the rights to protect and control use of that work. But that is not the issue here. Legally PC do not have any right to control how or how often an end user uses their product. I am not talking about the licensed characters like Disney or Nick, but specifically the generic fonts and shapes on the cartridges. They can not say the you or I can only use the machine that we own 200 times a year. As the owner of the machine one has the right of fair use.
Just out of curiosity did you read the article by Tobberone? It makes very interesting reading.
Anyway, I apologize if my previous post came across as disrespectful to you or Jen. Quite the contrary, I think you are icons in the industry and just would hate for your names to be dragged down with PC's.
Just adding fuel to the fire....I am new to (but can't wait to get my "cake" one)
I feel like original is marketed to the crafter , the same way the "cake" one is marketed to the baker.. for personal and professional use....... I know some people use the "original" cartridges to make and sell , cards, invites, etc......do they pay a licensing fee???
just curious???
NO!! That's why the uproar. They are being hypocritical and trying to take advantage of this particular industry in an attempt to make more money. They are making up arbitrary laws and quoting laws either incorrectly or in the wrong context in order to scare us all into submission.
Why should Miss P down the block be legally able to make and sell unlimited cards that were manufactured using a Cricut machine and I not be able to make unlimited cakes using that same machine and cartridge? It's not legally binding or enforceable, not to mention simply not fair or ethical for PC to even try. Also as someone else commented how can they prove that the plain and simple heart or star used on a cake was made using the Cricut and not a cutter? They can't!
Can you use the personal cricut to cut fondant if you buy the deep cut blade
Can you use the personal to cut fondant if you buy the deep cut blade
I believe so. check out jenn and tobias blog. they did their testing with the expression and the cake but the expressiona dn the baby cricut have the same cutting mechanism.
Can you use the personal to cut fondant if you buy the deep cut blade
Yes, as long as you use some gumtex, tylose or other additive to help stiffen it up. I use 8 oz. of fondant and 1 tsp of gumtex, knead it in and wrap it up and put in a air-tight bag for a couple of hours. I roll it out to a 5 on my clay machine and place on a criscoed mat and put in a 2 gal ziplock bag and store overnight. Then cut the next day. It allows the fondant mixture to "age" and I get some pretty good cuts that way - always using the deep cut blade (I keep mine set on a "6"). I have also "flipped" my images and fonts when cutting out, then flip them over after trimming away the excess and I get really smooth cuts that way.
Hope that helps 
Edited to add: I had my Expression for about 2 years before this new way of cutting cake decorations started and am satisfied with what I have. I won't be purchasing the cricut cake.
We still use our expressions as we only have one cake machine. We run 3 to 4 machines a day.
We received a call this morning from our contact at Provo Craft. He asked us to relay to the industry as a whole that the Angel Policy on Provo Craft content would be suspended for the creation of cakes. This means that anyone can use any of the cartridges, with the exception of third-party licenses such as Disney, to make as many cakes as they want and sell them wherever they want. Provo Craft said they will announce the news some time today.
Jennifer,
Thank you for letting us know.
-Debbie B.
Can you use the personal to cut fondant if you buy the deep cut blade
I believe so. check out jenn and tobias blog. they did their testing with the expression and the cake but the expressiona dn the baby have the same cutting mechanism.
where do I go to find this blog and many thanks
From Ellison Equioment v AccuCut Systems, 769 F. Supp. 1090 - Dist. Court, D. Nebraska 1991
In this case, Ellison seeks to assert copyright protection in forty-seven (47) of its various shapes. As previously noted, the designs are merely silhouettes of ordinary, common items which are generally readily identifiable by even young children. The parties' products are marketed to educational environments to facilitate the teaching of children. The Court finds that the shapes in this case do not possess artistic or aesthetic features which are physically or conceptually different from their utilitarian function. Although the shapes can be said to have artistic and aesthetic features, they are inextricably intertwined with the utilitarian function and are therefore not entitled to copyright protection. As there are an extremely finite number of ways to alter the shape of, for example, a dog bone and still have it readily be identifiable as a dog bone, granting Ellison copyright protection would in essence grant it a virtual monopoly. Accordingly, the Court finds that Ellison has little, if any, probability of success on the merits. The Court further finds that the public interest does not favor giving Ellison a virtual product monopoly without competition.
Thanks for Relaying the info Jennifer and Tobias!
I plan on using SCAL and MTC with My Cricut Cake but it is good to know that I can use the cartridges (aside from licensed characters like disney) without having to buy rights .
You and Tobias are Very helpful, and I appreciate you both taking the time to address the issue here on CC. You didn't have to say anything , you got the answer you needed from Provo Craft and were under no obligation to pass that on to us. So Thanks for letting us know.
This is wonderful news! Yaaaaaaaaaaa! I am glad we can create, create, and create. I do belive they have made the right decision!
Thanks Jennifer and Tobias for all the information!
Thanks for the info. I actually took no issue with PC's wanting to require licensing for use (I understand the ins and out of copyright law), and I merely started the thread I did to inform others (I use SCAL, so it's not an issue for me).
My biggest problem with Provocraft was that they were not forthcoming about this licensing BEFORE taking orders for the product. Even HSN was completely unaware that this was going to be required for professional use before they went on live TV and told people they could use these machines for their business, with no mention of licensing fees. Those issues should have been ironed out well in advance of the launch, and what they are doing now is only right to rectify the "crime of omission" they committed against their customers.
Can you use the personal to cut fondant if you buy the deep cut blade
Yes, as long as you use some gumtex, tylose or other additive to help stiffen it up. I use 8 oz. of fondant and 1 tsp of gumtex, knead it in and wrap it up and put in a air-tight bag for a couple of hours. I roll it out to a 5 on my clay machine and place on a criscoed mat and put in a 2 gal ziplock bag and store overnight. Then cut the next day. It allows the fondant mixture to "age" and I get some pretty good cuts that way - always using the deep cut blade (I keep mine set on a "6"). I have also "flipped" my images and fonts when cutting out, then flip them over after trimming away the excess and I get really smooth cuts that way.
Hope that helps
Thank you very much for your help
Edited to add: I had my Expression for about 2 years before this new way of cutting cake decorations started and am satisfied with what I have. I won't be purchasing the cake.
PCs angel poicy now http://www.cricut.com/messageboard/tm.aspx?m=6556521
Funny how you guys seem to be all stuck with stars in your eyes for Provo's decision, when the Policy didn't have a legal leg to stand on and they are just wording it's withdrawal benevolently trying to instill good graces amongst purchasers, because angry customers are bad for business.
If it had been a real enforceable policy they wouldn't have pulled it so super fast when it was questioned. They would be enforcing it and deciding how much to charge people for the licensing agreements, and making more money on it. But it isn't and they can't. Stop thanking Provo for trying to rip you off and then deicing not to... what they tried to do is ridiculous!
Didn't mean to sound condecending. I admit I was a little agitated, not necessarily because of your post, but because of some of the downright hateful PMs and emails both Jenn and I received.
I thought my examples pertained to what I was trying to say. I guess I look at it a bit differently since I am considering putting some of our SVGs up for licensing and quite frankly I don't think its fair for people to just share them, claiming they can do what they want with them once they have them. Some of these scrolls I have worked hours to create, test cutting and tweaking them - and those are hours we don't charge the customers for since we will keep the scroll for future use.
Anyway - I guess looking at Jenn being very upset about some of the accusations that we received got me a little more in defense mode than I realized - but I love her with all my heart and don't like to see her sad.
Sorry if I overreacted ...
Tobias
Funny how you guys seem to be all stuck with stars in your eyes for Provo's decision, when the Policy didn't have a legal leg to stand on and they are just wording it's withdrawal benevolently trying to instill good graces amongst purchasers, because angry customers are bad for business.
If it had been a real enforceable policy they wouldn't have pulled it so super fast when it was questioned. They would be enforcing it and deciding how much to charge people for the licensing agreements, and making more money on it. But it isn't and they can't. Stop thanking Provo for trying to rip you off and then deicing not to... what they tried to do is ridiculous!
I wasn't thanking Provo , I was thanking Jennifer and Tobias for relaying info.
I do a lot of machine embroidery for my Retro Apron shop and understand the copyright issue. There are a lot of designs I cant use if I am putting it on something I am going to sell. I can create my own PES or HUS files and use those but I cannot use the images from the design cards for sale.
Same Thing.
The only issue I had with PC was them not disclosing this prior to my purchase.
I understand that without the uproar that ensued over this they might not have rescinded their policy and , yes the squeeky wheel gets the grease but at the same time I don't think what they were doing was any different than many other craft policies. Yes it would have affected the way I used the product and I may not have wanted it at all if there were limitations to what I could do with it, but in the end they are just another corporation developing a product that they can make money on.
I do not condone nor villainize their actions , All I now is YES I am getting the Cricut Cake.... because I want it.
I have had a few Pm's & emails trying to make me feel bad for getting one, for giving money to a company that would do such a thing....
Do I feel bad? NO
I am sure if we all looked into the backgrounds of some of the other companies we buy products from we would find issues and policys we don't agree with but many of us would still buy from them.
I understand the anger but don't understand why it is being directed at people that have nothing to do with it.
Kinda like how they "allowed" the lady that actually invented using the machine for gumpaste/fondant pieces to have the privilege of demonstrating the technique before they sent her away and started making millions on HER revised invention?
Exactly!!
ProvoCraft are NOT in my favorite list...I won't support a company with poor business ethics
This is really the only issue I have with PC, the licensing was a bunch of hogwash anyways.
Quote by @%username% on %date%
%body%