My latest outrage? Knitpicks.
See, they've been publishing a pattern called "The Potato Chip Scarf". I had not really paid any attention because its butt ugly, in my opinion.
Anyways, this weekend I was reading Knitters Review, and saw this post. In the newest catalog, knitpicks says that the potato chip scarf was designed by Kelley Petkun. The problem is that she didn't design it. She actually ripped the pattern out of this thread on Knitters Review. I mean, word for word. Knitpicks had also contacted the person who originally posted the pattern. That person said that it wasn't her design - that her LYS had described the technique verbally.
Anyways, they went ahead and published the pattern. It's a dead simple pattern, and exists all over the internet in various forms.
Here's my beef - first, in the newest catalog, the attribution is incorrect. My second beef is that even without an attribution, I still think that publishing the pattern, in its current form (meaning that its ripped off from the forum - it was not reworded at all. Even the "tips" come from that thread), is still unethical. They are profiting from other folks work.
Well, anyways, Knitpicks posts a sad excuse for an apology. When others (including myself) post about how its not good enough, and how its a fairly bad thing what they did, the masses jump on us.
Because, in the online knitting community, disagreement is not allowed. We must be all sweetness and light. If someone steals other folks work - well, I'm sure it was for a good reason. We should "just get back to our knitting".
It so pisses me off. Anyways, I won't be ordering from Knitpicks in the future, that's for sure.
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Comments
2. It amazes me how many people in the original thread aren't outraged about the biggest (to me) issue: that Knitpicks blatantly claimed that someone (one of their staff members?) wrote the pattern, when they clearly knew that was not true. And I'm only about halfway through that first thread, as it seems to be getting fairly repetitive.
3. I'm with you on recognizing the low tolerance for anything but smiles and rainbows in the knitting community. I also never really get the people who lecture others that they're beating a dead horse. Why the hell are they bothering to still read the thread if they think you're beating a dead horse? I think it's just code for "Shut the fuck up, because I'm right and you're wrong." But they can't say that because disagreement is evil!
4. I also am very skeptical of KnitPicks original intentions, given their explanation of the "mistake". I could understand forgetting to attribute a pattern, but claiming that they added a designer's name because they didn't take the time to properly proofread? Bull. I guess I could think of a scenario in which that could happen, but it doesn't seem bloody likely.
5. It took all I had to not post something in response to a person who said they were planning to photocopy all of Aran Knitting. (It was here or on the knittyboard - I forget.) Now, I toyed with the idea of knitting St. Brigid from a photocopy, but I eventually decided on being a lawful person, and resolved to just get the darn book through ILL when I need it again. But that person who wanted to photocopy the whole book? Another example of how devalued intellectual property is, I guess. And I was beating myself up for thinking of using solely a photocopy for 4 pages...
6. How much do you want to bet people wouldn't be so defensive for the company if it were a company known for producing higher priced luxury yarns?