Does anybody have any idea if fly pattern recipes are public domain or would one be violating copyright for publishing a pattern that they themself didn’t create, in a book or magazine? For example, if I were to write a guide book for a particular state, and were to include the top 10 flies for that state, could I include a Stimulator? Or an Emergent Sparkle Pupa? Or a Jim’s Crayfish? Or an Edgar’s Caddis? Even if I made it clear that this was not a creation of my own? What about if I could cite the creator and give them full credit?
Any advice would be greaty appreciated!
good q… But you’d be hard pressed to find actual pattern’s that are acredited to solely one person’s credit…That said, I like the way Hans W’s site is laid out as to what may be taken from his and all the other contributor’s effort’s.!!!
If you cited the tier then it should be fine. might wanna ask their permission first before using there pattern…just to cover all bases.
This help any?
http://www.flyanglersonline.com/cst/cst061002.html
Seems like Al Beatty may be particularly qualified to comment on the subject ??
Which site is that?
hutjensmpg,
PM sent.
What about a Woolly Bugger, for example? If, hypothetically, I wouldn’t need to cite a Bugger (because it’s been around forever and who exactly would I cite), at what point does it go from needing to be cited, to not needing to be cited? And how would I determine one from the other, legally speaking? What if I do my research and can’t find a name of a creator, and then get sued by some fellow who claims it’s his intellectual property? (I realize it probably wouldn’t happen but …) And who’s to say I couldn’t create the exact pattern tomorrow, that someone else created long ago? I could go on, but you get the drift of my concerns.
In my opinion, The Wooley Worm is the original pattern;http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.flyfisherman.se/images/18.165a3c2f7cf1077f97fff2000/wooley-worm-streamer.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flyfisherman.se/produkter/flugfiske.4.acb158f5455bc3857fff119.html&h=79&w=100&sz=4&hl=en&start=16&tbnid=6NXPwIHTTnDptM:&tbnh=65&tbnw=82&prev=/images%3Fq%3DWooley%2BWorm%2BFly%2B%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
And that has been around forever, so the Wooley Bugger is a variation.
Doug
I wouldn’t worry too much on the legal side. There are some patterns (only a handful to my understanding) that are copyrighted or patented. However it would be just about impossible for one person to claim ownership of any particular pattern that has been out there in the flyfishing world for any length of time. The difficulty lies in proving that no one else has tied the same or a similar pattern before, therfore any claims of intellectual property would not get very far.
Out of courtesy, one could try to acknowledge the “originator as known to you”. Even at that you might ruffle someone else’s feathers and pride.
Guy
If there are royalties involved, can I lay claim to the Wooly Bugger?
Yes! But you have to spell it “Wooley” not “Wooly”
Doug :rolleyes:
unless your name is “russ blessing” no[SIZE=2] !!! and its “[/SIZE][SIZE=2]woolly” not “wooly” or “wooley”
http://www.midcurrent.com/articles/flies/soucie_woolly_buggers.aspx
[/SIZE]
russ blessing is the originator of the woolly bugger.
http://www.midcurrent.com/articles/flies/soucie_woolly_buggers.aspx
the above site is just one of many that has russ blessing as the originator of the woolly bugger.
a little google work would have found that patterns history. alot of research is used to write a book about anything.
i have a ton of fly fishing/tying books that list the originators name of a specific pattern if it is known. doesnt hurt to give respect to any originator for their contribution to the craft.
Nobody is the past 100 years has come up with an original fly–only variations. They might yell, they might argue with you, but most of them have been around for 1,000 years. I haven’t seen anything new in the past 25 years I’ve been involved with fly tying and I have many books.
Vincent Marinaro
Carl Richards
Nah. I bet if you researched it you’d find their flies are variations on some primitive patterns. LOL!
Waterwisp?flys are trademarked… I though they were patented also but I couldn’t find that information on their website
Are you refering to a Carl Richards’ fly style, the no hackle perhaps, or a particular pattern?
Deezel
As has been pointed out so far, so many patterns are variations on a “theme”. The odd pattern like the Waterwisp flies are certainly unique enough to be trade marked but to patent and copyright a pattern is just not really worthwhile. Any tyer worth his/her salt can reproduce another reasonable facsimile at the vise from a picture or two of the original. So much for the protection of intellectual property.
I think realistically all an innovative tyer can do is hope for “peer recognition” of their efforts. Even at that, it seems that whenever someone tries to lay claim for a “new” pattern, there will be those who can rightfully claim they have been tying a similar pattern for years now. In many cases, flies are not really known by their “true originator” but rather by their “publicist”!
Guy