Whenever I walk through a local craft market, scroll through my social feeds, or browse online handmade marketplaces, I notice a massive trend that’s hard to miss. Everywhere you look, there are beautiful, handmade products featuring familiar movie characters, sports team logos, video game imagery, and corporate brands. Intellectual property associated with well-known brands and franchises has become deeply embedded in our handmade community.
Early on in my own creative journey, I realized how easy it is to assume that because we create an item entirely by hand, we automatically have the right to sell it. Unfortunately, that is not how intellectual property law works.
The fact that something is handmade does not automatically make it original, and creating a product ourselves does not automatically grant us permission to use someone else’s protected work. Here is what I’ve learned about navigating the confusing world of copyrights and trademarks as a maker.
Copyright vs. Trademark: What’s the Difference?
Although the terms are often used interchangeably, copyright and trademark protect different things.
Copyright generally protects original creative works such as artwork, illustrations, photographs, books, music, films, and character designs.
Trademark protects brand identifiers such as company names, logos, slogans, and symbols that help consumers identify the source of goods or services.
A single product can involve both copyright and trademark protection. A popular character, for example, may be protected by copyright, while the franchise name and associated logos may also be protected by trademark law.
Understanding the difference is important because handmade products can potentially infringe upon either or both.
Common Myth: “Everyone Else Does It”
One of the most common responses when intellectual property infringement is discussed in the handmade community is:
“But everyone else does it.”
The reality is that widespread infringement does not create legal permission. Copyright and trademark laws do not disappear simply because a practice becomes common.
What many makers are actually observing is selective enforcement. Rights holders do not have the resources to pursue every infringement they encounter, so many unauthorized products remain on the market for months or even years without consequence. This can create the false impression that the activity is permitted.
However, the absence of enforcement should never be mistaken for approval. A rights holder may choose to take action tomorrow, next month, or years from now. Online marketplaces regularly remove listings, suspend shops, and respond to complaints from intellectual property owners, often without warning.
Common Myth: “It’s Fan Art”
Another common misunderstanding is the belief that creating a drawing, painting, sculpture, or other handmade representation of a character makes it legal to sell because it is “fan art.”
Fan art is a term commonly used by fans and artists to describe artwork inspired by existing characters, stories, movies, games, books, or television shows. However, fan art is not a special legal exemption to copyright or trademark law.
The fact that an artist personally drew a character rather than copying an existing image does not change who owns the intellectual property. Characters, logos, and other protected elements remain the property of their creators or the companies that own the rights to them.
Many artists create fan art for personal enjoyment or to showcase their skills. The issue arises when those works are reproduced and sold without authorization from the rights holder.
Common Myth: “I’m Only Making a Few”
A third misconception often heard in the handmade community is the belief that intellectual property laws only apply when products are mass-produced or sold in large quantities.
Copyright and trademark laws do not contain a “small quantity” exception.
Whether an artist creates one unauthorized item or one thousand, the underlying issue remains the same: the intellectual property belongs to someone else. The quantity produced may affect the scale of the infringement, but it does not determine whether infringement has occurred.
The legal question is not how many items are being sold. The question is whether permission exists to use the protected character, logo, design, or other intellectual property in the first place.
Common Myth: “I Changed It Enough”
Perhaps the most persistent misunderstanding in the handmade community is the belief that making small changes to a copyrighted or trademarked design automatically makes it legal to use.
Makers will often argue that they changed the colours, altered a few details, added decorative elements, combined multiple images, or redrew the artwork by hand. Because the final product is not an exact copy, they assume it has become an original work.
The question is not whether changes were made. The question is whether the protected work is still recognizable within the new creation.
The Litmus Test
If the average person can immediately identify the character, logo, franchise, or protected design, changing colours, adding embellishments, or redrawing the image does not automatically eliminate the underlying intellectual property concerns.
Common Myth: “I Bought the File, So I Can Use It”
The growth of digital downloads, SVG files, laser-cutting patterns, sublimation designs, and online design marketplaces has created another common misunderstanding.
Many makers purchase a digital file and assume that because they paid for it, they now have the right to use it commercially.
Unfortunately, purchasing a file and obtaining the rights to the intellectual property depicted in that file are not necessarily the same thing. A seller cannot grant rights they do not possess. If someone is selling unauthorized files featuring copyrighted characters, logos, or other protected content, purchasing that file does not magically create a valid licence to use it commercially.
The first question should never be:
“Did I pay for the file?”
The first question should be:
“Did the seller have the legal right to licence this intellectual property in the first place?”
What About Licensed Fabric?
Licensed fabric is one of the areas that causes the most confusion among makers. Many fabrics featuring popular characters or sports team logos are sold through legitimate retailers.
Many legal commentators argue that, because of legal principles such as the First Sale Doctrine in the United States and the Doctrine of Exhaustion in Canada, a maker may have the right to use legally purchased fabric to create finished goods for resale. However, the specifics can vary depending on the jurisdiction, the licence terms involved, and the circumstances of the sale.
The trap for makers is often not the sewing itself, but the marketing.
While you may own the physical fabric, you do not own the trademark to the brand. If you create a tote bag using Disney fabric and advertise it as an “Official Disney Tote Bag,” you may be creating trademark concerns by implying a corporate connection or endorsement that does not exist.
Because the line between utilizing personal property and infringing on a corporate brand can be complicated, makers should be careful to understand the licence terms associated with the materials they use and avoid implying official affiliation where none exists.
Copyright and Craft Show Applications
Many makers are surprised to learn that intellectual property concerns can affect more than online marketplaces and social media accounts. They can also influence whether a maker is accepted into a curated craft show.
Every event is different. Some organizers actively prohibit the sale of products that infringe on copyright or trademark rights, while others may take a more relaxed approach. In curated events, however, intellectual property concerns are often considered as part of the application review process.
From an organizer’s perspective, allowing the sale of unauthorized characters, logos, or other protected intellectual property can create legal, ethical, and reputational concerns for an event. Organizers may also feel that original work better reflects the purpose of a handmade or artisan market.
As a result, applicants whose product lines rely heavily on copyrighted characters, trademarked brands, or other unauthorized intellectual property may find themselves at a disadvantage during the selection process. In some cases, organizers may request that certain products be removed. In others, the application may simply not be accepted.
This is not always about legal risk. Many selection committees place a high value on originality and choose to prioritize makers who are building businesses around their own intellectual property. For many curated events, showcasing original creative work is an important part of the event’s identity and mission.
Acceptance at one event does not guarantee acceptance at another. Every show establishes its own standards, policies, and selection criteria.
Building a Business You Actually Own
When it comes to intellectual property, I understand the appeal of doing what everyone else seems to be doing. Popular characters and well-known brands come with built-in recognition, and there is no denying that familiar imagery can attract attention.
For me, however, the real value has always been in creating something of my own.
I prefer knowing that the designs I create belong to me. I don’t have to worry about whether a character licence might change, whether a platform might remove my listings, or whether a rights holder might decide to enforce their intellectual property. My work is my own, and the business I’ve built is based on my own ideas and creativity.
Developing original work takes significantly more time and effort than relying on familiar, pre-existing brands—I know that firsthand. But it also creates a stronger foundation, a more recognizable body of work, and a business that is truly yours.
At the end of the day, your own creative voice is the most valuable asset your business can have.
FOLLOW ME on social media for more tips and information: FACEBOOK | INSTAGRAM