Authorship… Baffled by this…..

[David DeCristoforo]

I'm going to stick my neck way out here. I recently posted a pic of a piece. It got "pretty good reviews. A week or so later another turner posted a very similar piece. This piece incorporated several elements that have become something of a (dare I say) "signature" of my pieces. I have shown pictures of both pieces to several people and the consensus is that they are "strikingly similar" in most respects. So much so that the viewers would have assumed them to be by the same maker had they not been previously informed otherwise.


Oddly enough, not one person has even alluded to what would have to be called at least an "obvious influence". The fact that the maker of this piece declined to offer so much as a nod is understandable in view of his comments in other threads to the effect that he has no issues with "borrowing" ideas. But for not one person to even suggest the unmistakable similarity is completely baffling to me.


There is obviously no exclusive domain here. But I have managed to create a small body of work that has pretty much become recognizable as mine. I have certainly been influenced by many pieces I have seen posted on this forum as well as others. But I have always at least given some credit to the source of the inspiration even if I had managed to put my own particular spin on it.


I know this is getting into shaky territory and certainly does not broach any concepts that have not been previously discussed in depth. And I am aware that I may appear to be reacting in a "small minded" manner by even bringing this up. I have been debating with myself all week, vacillating back and forth between just letting it pass or saying something about it. I even contemplated the idea of not posting any more of my work on any public forums and simply sending my pieces to the few galleries that are now showing them, thinking that if someone wants to "emulate" my designs and claim them as their own, I should not be making it this easy for them. But I released that i was actually quite disturbed, not by the piece or the apparent imitation but by the fact that there was not one comment that even alluded to what I have already called the "obvious similarity".


It all leave me scratching my head. On one hand I want to be of "generous spirit" and freely share my work with others. But at the same time, I am working as hard as anyone to develop a body of work that is both marketable and recognizable as mine and this kind of thing puts a bit of a damper of the whole "generous spirit" thing. So I decided to throw this out there for better or for worse and see what kind of feedback I get. I have probably written this fifty times in an attempt to come across as simply curious and not resentful. I don't know if I accomplished that or not. You might want to tell me to go get my head examined. Or to just shut up and quit whining. Or you might have a constructive comment to make. Either way...

[Bill Wyko]

David, I think I know the work you're speaking of. I also have to say, it reminded me of, of course, a "David DeCristoforo" piece. There's an old saying, "Imitation is the ultimate form of flattery" No matter what, when I see a goblet or anything with that long beautiful stem or a gem worked into the piece, I always think of your work. It's like a Ray Allan influence or a Malcolm Tibbetts influence. No matter who turns it and no matter how they claim to have designed it, if you are the one that founded the style, it'll always be looked at as a "David DeCristoforo" style piece. For someone that has borrowed from your style and not given credit to you for the influence, kind of takes away from their piece a little IMHO. I think you should consider it flattering weather or not credit is given because it ultimately sets in concrete that you have now become a recognized name in the wood turning world. I congratulate you my friend.

[Alan Trout]

David,

I kind of take Bill's take on all of this. I do know how you feel, but your posting of your pieces ads to their recognition and in the big picture helps you out in the long run. Keep your chin up and take it as flattery and don't be a stranger :).


Alan

[Steve Vaughan]

I'll chime in just a bit here. It really makes sense what you say, and I agree with Bill too, about the flattery thing. I do know that I've seen a zillion pictures of work here that is just stunning. When I'm at the lathe, I think of a design I saw, but for the life of me, I cannot tell you who. I do think that I've posted a pic or two here whereby I gave contribution to 'someone' but didn't have a name. If I'd had a name, I would have gladly mentioned them as contributing to the piece. I think you make great sense and appreciate the post. And, I appreciate your hard work! You and so many others here just rock with regard to your turnings!

[Roger Chandler]

I think attribution to an artist who inspired a work one has done is very appropriate, if one knows the source of that inspiration. I know that I have done about 3 southwestern pottery style hollow forms............I know that the first time I saw one that made an impression on me was one I saw from Steve Schlumpf...........

I do not think he invented or developed the southwestern pottery style............for the matter, I would likely not have noticed that "style" had it not been that he made one out of wood. I have seen a lot of that style from others also...........does Steve deserve that attribution.............not in my thinking, as I have not tried to duplicate what I saw on one of his......maybe a shape in the same genre, but not a duplication.

For a "signature" piece............as you know David........I have called your stem/ pedestal "Distinctly DeCristoforo" because you have developed that style pedestal to a form easily recognizable as your work............attribution of such a definitive style is in order, I do think.

I for one hope that you do not stop posting your work...........I look forward to seeing what you produce! I think the turners forum here at SMC would miss your work..............that old adage that says "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" does have some merit!

[David E Keller]

I've tried typing a response to this a few times, and I'm still having a hard time expressing my thoughts without seeming like a jerk... Please know that is not my intention. I'm not sure I know what the appropriate response might be... Sometimes you get credit for influencing another, sometimes you don't. Either way, I hope that it wouldn't have an impact on your joy for turning or your willingness to participate here. If I'm thinking of the correct piece, I can see a bit of influence there, but I don't think I would have attributed the piece to you even without knowing the maker. You do wonderful work, and in sharing it, you will certainly influence and inspire other turners... I know I've found inspiration in your pieces and in the works of many others. I suppose the 'high road' would be to feel good about your ability to influence the works of others even if you don't get a tip of the hat.

I still recall the 'Drozda episode' on another site, and I'm afraid her response has colored the way I view her work... I appreciate the fact that you've managed not to 'go Drozda'!

[Paul Williams]

I agree with what has been said regarding imitation is OK, but feel a little stronger about the responsibility to acknowledge the artist who influanced a piece. I also think an out right copy is wrong if it is of a signature piece. On the other hand I doubt that there are too many new forms yet to be discovered, so if we were talking about only the overall shape I would have no concern at all.

[mike ash]

David - I understand the issue you raise here. You certainly have developed a unique form that really is your "signature". I have no way of knowing the true spirit of the turner who may have imitated that style. However, I want you to know that I sincerely enjoy seeing your work here on the SMC Forum. Your artistic talents, your insights, the critiques you provide and your wit help to make this site what it is. I would hope that this issue doesn't stop you from posting, commenting and kabitzing.


Mike Ash

[Brent Dorner]

David,

I'm fairly new here so I can't say I have seen or know your work. It is my opinion in this day in age very little is original, with all of the videos, books, photos and web pages we have at our fingertips it seems if you look hard enough you will find someone who has done what you do. Now, your work may be very unique, but how does the person who is borrowing your idea know that? If I make a segmented bowl should I make sure to credit Malcolm Tibbets? If you make a segmented bowl that Malcolm made and then I see yours and copy it should I give you credit for the design when you may be using a borrowed design? Now, don't get me wrong... I do think it is a good idea to credit someone when you use their design but that person may think that your just repeating something that has been done 100 times before. At the end of the day posting pictures to a public forum makes them public domain to a certain extent. I think you should be honored that someone thinks so highly of your work even if they didn't honor you in the process. I wouldn't let it get to me, if you don't want it to happy in the future you know the solution... I have done a lot of flat work, some picture I don't post because I know it is something I have never seen before and would like to keep it that way. Overall I have shared the large majority of my work and invite people to copy it as they wish... if they want to give me credit... that is fine, if not... that is fine as well. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

[Jamie Donaldson]

This topic is as old as art, and artists of all cultures and media will be debating such until the end of time without resolution. David has developed an identifiable style in his long legged beauties, but is that design original? Not likely, and there are no practical ways to assume ownership of any distinctive design without some assimilation of work that has gone before, contributing to the development of what we would like to call our own. I recall David Ellsworth's response to this subject, that teaching specific designs and techniques publically assumes that there will be copies and copiers, and we just need to continue doing it better than anyone else to identify it as our own. This is a sensitive subject with me too David, having spent 5 yrs. in federal court prosecuting 3 publishers for willful copyright infringement of my work as a photographer, and intellectual property is a vast and complex subject to explore.

[Curt Fuller]

I've tried typing a response to this a few times, and I'm still having a hard time expressing my thoughts without seeming like a jerk... Please know that is not my intention. I'm not sure I know what the appropriate response might be... Sometimes you get credit for influencing another, sometimes you don't. Either way, I hope that it wouldn't have an impact on your joy for turning or your willingness to participate here. If I'm thinking of the correct piece, I can see a bit of influence there, but I don't think I would have attributed the piece to you even without knowing the maker. You do wonderful work, and in sharing it, you will certainly influence and inspire other turners... I know I've found inspiration in your pieces and in the works of many others. I suppose the 'high road' would be to feel good about your ability to influence the works of others even if you don't get a tip of the hat.

I still recall the 'Drozda episode' on another site, and I'm afraid her response has colored the way I view her work... I appreciate the fact that you've managed not to 'go Drozda'!

+1........sorry, but I just can't think of a better way to reply.

I will say that I think this would be a better discussion if you would be more explicit about the turning you're referring to. I'm still guessing.

[Bill Wyko]

David when I saw your goblet in the B&B contest, If you remember, I said it then you had the winner long before judging. Your work is geting recognized. In the segmenting world, one of the best ever, published a book explaining so many secrets. I used his methods and have read his book over & over. Malcolm Tibbetts. Truly a big influence in my work. Maby it's time you publish a book or a DVD of your methods? I'd buy it:D:D:D:eek:

[Jon McElwain]

For what it is worth, this thread encourages me to be sure to "cite my sources" if you will. In writing, plagiarism is easy to see. Someone copies words and claims them for their own. In wood work, each piece is unique, no matter how hard we try to copy or emulate. Because of the unique nature of our medium, the rules seem a little fuzzy, but the individual who copies an idea knows if they copied or not. If a particular piece is copied, the source should be cited.

That said, there is a lot of influence that goes into a turned piece, especially when the maker is a connoisseur of turned forms. I can not say that I have ever turned something original - I have simply spent far more time looking at pretty pictures than I have attempting to make something my own. I am still exploring the trade, and when I see something that I like, I try to emulate it. Each piece that I turn has some elements of one or usually several pieces I have seen.

My recent post of an Elm pot has a number of influences. I loved the rich red color of a piece Baxter posted, so I chose a similar red for my pot. I saw some pots turned by Raffan which intrigued me, so I took some elements of form from those. Christian Burchard turns some amazing vessels out of madrone. I do not have any madrone, but I was so fascinated with the warped forms he produced, I was compelled to try to warp something! So I warped the little elm pot. I saw some well done stitching somewhere - I cannot remember where, but I tried that. The surface texture was again, something I saw that I wanted to try. All of these guys are FAR better turners than I am, and I am thankful for the opportunity to learn from each of them. Baxter - there are a few pieces you have turned that still have me scratching my head!

Now, this sounds all well and good, and I bet no one has a problem with me taking little bits and pieces from several sources and not spelling out where I got all the ideas. But consider a college paper that I might write. What if I took a sentence here and a paragraph there, and wove it all together and called it my own. If I got caught, I would be punished by any reputable school for plagiarism. I should have cited my sources for my little elm pot.

Wood is a unique medium. There are infinite possibilities with it. However, the ideas - especially those ideas which can be traced to a source, should be cited. I have watched for months? years? as David has explored his recent ideas, drawing them, turning them, changing them, tuning them, and made them his own. To copy them without citing the source is no different than plagiarism. If anyone suspects someone of this type of plagiarism, I would encourage going to that person in private. Send them a PM if it is in this forum - let them know what you think but do it respectfully!! I bet most of the time the person would be happy to make things right. At least give them a chance. If you are copying an idea - cite your source. If you do, only then you really are flattering that person. I might want to copy my neighbor's big screen, but I better not go over and take it - that is not flattery, it is stealing.

[Jerry Wright]

David- Aside from the authorship/plagiarism issue, I would like to raise another issue. Should a capable, creative turner have a signature style embodied in a single form? Is this not just working out the technical details, then "turning the crank" piece after piece? Should not a body of work show growth, maturation, reach? Many of the old master painters utilize similar style influences in their paintings, but the scenes and subjects change. My graduate metallurgy advisor used to tell us relative to research topics, "don't get stuck in a rut with your work, expand your horizons, and explore new and exciting topics, and your career will be more rewarding." I think this is good advice for any field of endeavor.

[Russell Neyman]

The truly unique workpieces are the ones that can't be duplicated because the techniques are beyond everyone else (thinner stems, glossier finishes, etc) or those using rare and unique woods. Emulating the best of what is shown here is part of the learning process, I think, but I understand why you feel slighted. It would be nice if the offending party would at least drop you a note.

At my own woodturning meetings, I have people approach me to ask how I achieved a certain effect, obviously intending to duplicate it. I guess if I don't want it copied, I shouldn't show it to other woodturners.

[Michelle Rich]

I believe the person who copied your "DDC concept/design" should acknowledge that he is attempting to reach your rarified level. He found your work inspirational & he wished /attempted to make something like yours. It seems folks want to take credit for anothers work. But of course, the minute you put your work on the internet, someone will attempt to copy it. that's the way it works. Sorry DD. You live in 2011 where nobody gives a damn, and could care less. As a side note, I know a bit about John Beaver's wave bowls, and made them 25 yrs ago. I have chosen NOT to tell how he does it. I respect his wishes to keep it his secret. But I would make a bowl & post it, but I would say I learned about it 25 yrs ago from_________. It is a balancing act. Ethics seem to have a different definition depending on who is speaking.

[John Keeton]

David, I have held back in posting to this thread - mostly to develop my own thoughts, and quite honestly to see the take of others on this issue. Another creeker emailed me regarding my thoughts, and that compelled me to put to words some ramblings and I will take a shot at restating some of what I told the other creeker.

This is a perplexing issue, as one can see from the well thought out and worded responses. In general, I agree with what most everyone has posted, and the answer is always the same – if you don’t want it copied, don’t post it on the internet.

No doubt, much of my work has been influenced by Cindy Drozda and others, so I find it hard to claim originality. That is the case with most of us. With many forms that I do, I don’t think I care. Most forms have been done thousands of times, and every successive turner/potter adds his/her embellishments in one way or another. It is when one takes the various elements - all of which have probably been done at one time or another, and combines them into a piece in a way not used before that a piece takes on a bit of uniqueness deserving of recognition.

About a month ago, I posted The Widow Maker piece - a commissioned piece as I stated when I posted it. While I have no license on the design – particularly the body form, there were elements in that piece that I had not seen combined together elsewhere. There was a turning posted just yesterday that seemed to be heavily influenced by my piece - even down to the design elements I included. While it would have been nice to simply have given some mention of the influence of having seen my piece, I should not expect that. I posted the piece knowing full well it could be copied or be the source of influence for someone else.

I don’t know the answer, and perhaps there isn’t one. In the end, I agree with the general concept of continual development and improvement, such that one is always growing in the character and quality of their work.

Additionally, I think from a market standpoint, it is the fit and finish that make the difference. I venture to say that no one ever sold a turning that was not held by the purchaser prior to the sale. It is at that point that the fit and finish must be superior. That is probably the one factor I am concentrating on more than any other.

I really doubt that most non-turners ever heard of Cindy Drozda, etc. They simply buy a piece because it strikes them and they like the way it feels in their hands. Quality of execution probably means much more than originality at that point, because those folks aren’t that knowledgeable about the world of woodturning.

Collectors are a different lot, and I doubt I will ever be participating in that game! Your work, on the other hand, may well fall into that category - thus more support for your concern.

I haven’t come to any profound conclusions on this topic, and doubt I will. And, I am not fully sure of what impact all of this may have on my posting certain of my pieces. I just need to consider all of that “as it develops”. Perhaps, if one is developing a theme or series of work he/she feels is truly unique, it may be best not to share that with the world.

Neither am I sure what impact my response will have, but I hope it at least encourages folks to acknowledge their sources of inspiration – that really is all one can expect.

[Nate Davey]

As I'm not good enough to even attempt a piece at the level of your work I feel safe in saying "It wasn't me". John brings up a very good point as to the collector and fit and finish. Collectors, in my opinion, knowing your work, will collect your work, not some ones piece that looks like your work. It is frustrating to spend so much time refining your work and then when someone does a piece similar to it, not at least get a nod for the inspiration. Similarly, it is off putting to do a piece that hasn't been up on the boards for quite some time, have people say "I've been wanting to do a piece like that for some time, guess I'll try one now", then not have them say the turning from person "X" got me started down this path. But, these forums are great places to get inspired and stretch your skills. I hope you continue to post as I love your humor, skill and vision.

[Josh Bowman]

David,
I’ve read many of these posts and mostly agree. We post here for critiques and inspiration. That inspiration is the conglomeration of thoughts and feelings that when tool is applied to wood, beauty is born. To take full credit for ones art is tough, since very little is new under the sun. For instance your work reminds me of a single flower, like a rose or tulip. Our life is a visual assimilation of knowledge and thoughts that results in our outlet here we call turning. I collect some art that is unique because I like it and don’t care who made it. I collect other pieces because not only do I like it, I like to have the signature on it from the artist. That is where your art stands, we can be inspired and influenced by it, however, only by your hand will it have your mark.

[Peter Blair]

I too have started to respond to this thread several times but just couldn't get my thoughts down right, not sure if I will this time either . . .

I'm fairly new to this form and frankly find posting to it a daunting task. Primarily because of all the knowledgable experts who hang out here. I have not posted any pictures because I don't feel my work is of a quality that should be show along side the pieces I see posted. Now, having said that I belong to about 8 different sites, have a couple of web sites I built and maintain but mostly I read about and look at the work of others. Occasionally I print out a shape or particular piece that strikes my fancy. I'm certain that all or most of my turnings are based on the turning or others but never, never intentionally.
Interesting enough this site has someone who shall remain nameless who has an Avitar that looks exactly like one of my bowls or is it that one of my bowls looks like his Avitar? If anyone out there were ever to think my work was worth copying I would be quite excited. The collectors I know seem to use several criteria to decide on a purchase and the criteria used first most often is the artist.
Hope this note doesn't offend anyone cause it's only my humble opinion and as Clint Eastwood once said "Opinions are like as*ho*ls everyone has one".

[Faust M. Ruggiero]

David,
You are a very imaginative and articulate man. I read your blogs in the Workshop News and usually enjoy your take on everyday issues. Your real gift is your originality and that cannot be copied. I spent most of my career in the fashion business producing womens' clothing. The garments we produced were knockoffs of the styles and fabrics introduced by the famous designers in NY and Paris. The more their styles were copied, the more in demand their originals became. Wealthy women paid fortunes for a garment they knew would be found in Walmart sooner or later. The designers just kept one step ahead. Their imagination allowed them to do what others could only copy. Good for you that you were able to create beauty that others find worth trying to emulate. Giving you credit for the idea isn't needed. Everyone knows where it came from. That's your trophy. Your status in the turning community can only grow as your pieces are "knocked off". Now, lighten up and regain that wit and humor we are used to reading.
faust

[Allan Ferguson]

David. I understand your concern. You have concentrated your thought and work into a specialized artistic area of turning. I truly love the pieces that you post and often have my wife come to look at them with me. I would like to try some aspects of you work. If I would do so, I am sure it would not come close to your level and would not compare. For myself, I am happy if someone is inspired to pick up on my work and go with it. I love to share.
I would very much like to meet you one day. Allan

[Deane Allinson]

I guess that I should start signing all of my turnings "by D. Allinson, a piece that was either influenced by, resembles, or almost a copy of a previous work by Bob Stocksdale". But then that would be untrue, I don't and may never have his aesthetic sense or skill level.
Deane

[Baxter Smith]

Get over it and get on with it! All kidding aside, I would truly miss seeing your work and reading your posts David. I remember seeing something a while ago that reminded me a little of your turnings, but it sure wasn’t a “DD”. I don’t remember anything about what it looked like, other than it reminded me of something I had seen before. Since I wasn’t viewing it from your perspective, I never tried to see how close a match it was. It really has been forgotten. Your work hasn't.

The first professional woodturner demonstration I ever attended was at Totally Turning last Spring. Anyd Dipietro did a 90 minute demo on turning hollowforms. This fall, I saw on the WOW calendar that he was going to be doing an all day demo in Annapolis. It was a couple hour drive for me, but since I liked his work and had enjoyed his personality and manner in New York, I felt it would be worth the travel.

His demo involved the steps of hollowing, texturing and dying a red oak HF. It was that demo and sharing of knowledge that put me over the edge on trying some dyed oak hf’s. Since he was sharing his work style and process, he talked a bit about anyone there copying it. The only thing I remember that he hoped/wanted to reserve for his own was the term “Oakobolo”. The name he came up with for oak that was first dyed black then red. And even then, it was in reference to any of us trying to sell something and use that name to describe it. That was probably the reason I didn’t even try the color red until I came to the last one I had. Didn’t end up looking anything like his shade of red but…..

I saw the turning yesterday that John was referring to and knew it looked Keetonesque even though it was no “J Keeton”. It was only after reading John’s post and went back and looked at the original, that I saw how Keetonesque it was. Without acknowledgment , I do consider that an oversite to say the least (and as nicely as possible). It is also what pushed me over the edge to sit down and try and to write something different than has already been said.

I have rambled enough without going anywhere. The thought of not seeing the work that you or John do, would be a great loss for me personally as well as this site.

[mike holden]

How many "maloof" rockers have you seen? How many fooled you into thinking they were Sam's?
I rest my case.

[Dennis Ford]

Like others have said; this is a complicated issue. I will offer this thought; I have been inspired by many on this forum and hope that I have inspired one or two others. Any loss that I might feel if someone were silly enough to copy my posted work would be more than offset by what I have gained by viewing others work.
I agree that is appropiate to acknowledge where inspiration came from when a piece might be considered a copy. This is a judgement call and not all will agree on where to draw the line even if all agree that there is a line.

[Primvs Aebvtivs]

I've read the whole thread thniking "I hope he doesn't mean me"... Having gone via David's profil / website, I realise of course that he doesn't. Phew! I wouldn't want to have made something that resembled *anyone's* stuff without thanking them for at least influencing me... HOWEVER, as stated by a couple of people on here, whatever people may turn now, will have been turned at least in part, by someone, somewhere, before. There are greek Urn style pots, with and without lids, amphora's - ditto, bowl and platters galore in the threads (and that's only the ones I've read). Who knows how much other stuff is lurking on SMC forums, waiting for a turner to glimpse them, and make something new and similar, or say - "I made that years ago!" - "There is nothing new unde the sun" to quote someone...

IF you feel your work style has been compromised because of an inferior copy - I would either contact that person and ask politely that they consider mentioning your name in conjunction with their piece, or stick to making your own, and be happy with the fact that you are better than them - until they improve, or you move away from such a style yourself.

I turn bits and pieces, so does my friend Jon H. we compete, well - I do, to improve my turning, reduction of tool marks and shape and flow of the things I make - he "Faffs" (His word)... He DOESN'T CARE if the piece is better or worse than mine - he's enjoying using his lathe, and making things he likes looking at. NEITHER of us has a 'signature' shape / proportion / style - YET. When / if we do, we'll be glad to improve our skills beyond that of the other.

[Steve Kubien]

Additionally, I think from a market standpoint, it is the fit and finish that make the difference. I venture to say that no one ever sold a turning that was not held by the purchaser prior to the sale. It is at that point that the fit and finish must be superior. That is probably the one factor I am concentrating on more than any other.



I want to chime in on this particular part of John's post. I am a turner who sells a fair bit online, where the buyer has never held my work. I don't turn many pens anymore but I always thought they would be an easier sell online. Boy, was I wrong! I have sold far more touchy-feely pieces online that pens. Most of my work is functional bowls and cremation urns. Now, are my clients "collectors"? Not that I know of but I think one can sell online, through a catalogue or whatever without the buyer ever holding the piece (but it's a lot easier when they can).

As for the rest of it, I don't know. There are very few pieces I have seen which are distinctly unique and do not borrow influence or elements from other people's previous work. John mentions the influence Cindy Drozda has had on his work, I am heavily influenced by the works of Mahoney, Luce, Neddow and Grumbine. If you are hollowing a piece of wood, you've been influenced by Ellsworth, or making boxes you've been influenced by Raffan and/or Keys.

Dave, your work displays excellent skill and artistic sense of proportion and shape. Because I have not personally seen another doing the forms you do, I consider it distinctly yours...with a caveat... When I see your amphora-series, I see two things. A nod to Drozda with the idea of the thin pedestal/stem, in black (I don't remember seeing anything other than black from you but stand to be corrected) and a nod to countless others who have made the top shape like you do so well (highly figured wood, vase-like shape and the natural edge). Have others combined these elements the way you have, especially with such a tall stem? Beats me. Maybe, maybe not. Bottom line, we are all influenced by others. That is not going to change. Direct copying, to me, is dishonest and downright nasty...if the copier is going to attempt to sell the copy. If it is for their own enjoyment or growth, well, to me that is a huge compliment.

With all of that said, if I was to make an insanely tall, thin amphora, I know who I would credit as having influenced me.

[David DeCristoforo]

Wow! food for thought? More like a feast! I really like where this thread went. I have to respond lest I be culpable of acting a manner similar to one suggested by the instructions on those Chinese fireworks… "Light fuse. Run away".


I truly believe that just about every issue that has occupied the minds of humans since the beginning can be, in one way or another, be brought down to a question of ethics. It may be true that there is nothing new under the sun (personally I do not subscribe to that idea). But there are still clear demarcations between what is allowed or accepted and what is ethical. So it really comes down to what each individual believes their own heart. And when it comes to ethics, the heart and the "gut" are much more involved than the brain.


Much of what we see is a result of an individual combining elements that have been seen previously in other contexts. Cindy Drozda;s pieces are a great illustration of this. Examples of lidded vessels on pedestals with some manner of finial can be found dating back to the dawn of time. But there in no question about the possibility of an individual assembling various elements in a manner that is unique. That appears to be the "holy grail" of turners… to develop a "signature style" that is recognizable as theirs. And once that style is established, it is protected better than the gold in Fort Knox!


Not too long ago, a turner posted pictures of some pieces that bore an uncanny resemblance to those made by the famously well known John Jordan. Mr Jordan did not "go Drozda" in that instance. When Ms Drozda publicly castigated Robin Costelle for claiming authorship of a style she feels is her "signature" style, she lost face in the eyes of many. Personally, I had mixed feelings about it. On one hand I felt that she went way overboard in her reaction. On the other hand I applauded her willingness to be so brutally honest about her feelings. She certainly did not just "roll over". But Mr Jordan simply posted some of his own work which was immediately recognized as his and served to remind everyone that this was indeed his personal style of which he is the undisputed master. It was a very classy way to deal with the situation.


I would have to give the "Best Advice of the Day Award" to Baxter: "Get over it…"

[Jamie Donaldson]

I certainly agree that the advice to "get over it" is your best plan of "inaction" David, because in reality you actually have few other options. Harboring the acids of discontent is a self-destructive act, and your efforts will be better directed in a more positive direction. The landscape of ethics is a virtual swamp.

[Jerry Wright]

The point many may be missing is the difference between signature designs and original designs. A certain style may be associated with an artist simply because itis all they do. One who turns croquet balls all day, every day has a signature style. The sphere, no matter how cleverly decorated certainly isn't original.

[Mike Cruz]

David, here's my two cents. First of all, I completely understand your position. You worked hard to create something that is you. A little back slap from the other turner would have been nice...as well as appropriate. There is nothing that keeps anyone from turning exactly what someone else has turned...for themselves. But to pretty much duplicate what you do/did, and not say, "Hey this is my shot at doing a DD", was if nothing else, not nice. If I carved out a Rodin for my shelf...great. But to carve it out and place a picture in a carving forum of A Man With His Fist On His Jaw And Elbow On His Knee would be...well, wrong.

I see your point. I feel for you. Should the author have given you props? Yes. Do I understand your frustration? Yes. Should you get over it? I can't tell you what you should and shouldn't do. I'd like to say be the bigger man. But that might be do as I say, not as I do...because I'm not sure I could do it. I hope you follow your heart on this one. But at the same time, I'd hate to see you not posting here. Best of luck in whatever path you take on this...

[Dale Bright]

David,

I think I know the piece you are concerned about. I thought as soon as I saw it on this site and another, that is is "similar" to a DD piece. I do not think it is a copy or that it was meant to be. It was well done and I think stands on its own. I have seen many pieces that closely resemble the one in question, in fact so many that I have no idea who could have been the "originator" of that style.

You do have a 'signature style" but are you sure you are the originator? Perhaps you are but I have seen turnings similar to yours that were made before I saw any of yours. I am not trying to put down your work or your desire to have a recognized style. I think you do great work and it should be in the very best galleries. I wish I had the patience and skill to do the type of turnings you produce.

These discussions of "copying" and "original styles" come up on this site and others quite often. When I look at the photos of turnings on SMC and the other turning sites I read, I see very few pieces that I would say are an "original style" from the turner that posted it. I would estimate the true "origianals" to be less than 5%, but I do see many "signature styles".

David, please keep posting your work, I really enjoy seeing it, it inspires me.

Dale

[John Beaver]

David

Unfortunately this is an issue that artists have had to deal with for a long time. Look at the "art periods" in history; Renaissance, Impressionist, all the way back to Greek and Roman sculpture, when someone becomes successful with a style, people tend to copy it, and there isn't much we can do about it. In our business you can look at Ellsworth and the Moulthrops and every hollowform that has followed. People like Ellsworth and Jordan have decided to go ahead and teach their techniques with the opinion that they might as well capitalize on it, and hopefully it will expand the interest in wood as an art form. Although your work is definitely yours, you have certainly borrowed elements from others and just put them together in your own way.

I agree that it's frustrating, and I personally have struggled with it. When I debated about doing demos, Malcolm Tibbetts told me that someone could figure it out anyway so I might as well share it and take the money and credit for it. Malcolm has shared more then anyone I know, and as far as I know it hasn't hurt his sales. There are two makers who have copied my "wave" designs without me showing them. One gave me credit for it, the other did not. My response is to stay ahead of them with new designs and do it better then them.

If anything I would recommend that you promote it more so anyone who matters will know it's yours. Del Mano is not going to take the person who copied you, and hopefully the top galleries and collectors will recognize that also. As far as the public is concerned, (assuming that this guy sells, which is a big assumption) I don't think you can worry about that.

A favorite quote of mine is - "to be successful you either need to be the first or the best." I say you should strive to be both.

[Curt Fuller]

I remembered a post from a while back that I think answers this question of ownership or authorship pretty well. We're all influenced by many things but maybe the culprit in this discussion just had the idea hit them on the head.

Anyway, check out this really cool stem on the piece in this post.....http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?161469-Got-gall&highlight=art+nouveau and then read the explanation of where the idea came from in reply #24.

[Sid Matheny]

When I read the first post here I had several thoughts on the subject but as I read each post it all seems to be covered. We all have get ideas when looking at others work. Sometime we think what we would do different. Sometimes we think that is just about perfect. Either way in the back of our minds we store that information and can use it as we work on projects of our own. Being an old redneck I'm not as good as some of the folks here and may never be but If someone copies something I do, more power to them.

Sid

[David DeCristoforo]

OK...OK I get it!!! Thanx to everyone for letting me vent without smacking me too hard on the back of the head for it!.

Curt, I had totally forgotten about that "piece". And the "Art Nouveau" influence was accurate. But let me tell you how I really got onto these stem "designs". I was actually making a "typical" stem with an onion at the bottom and a flare at the top. "Typical", right? So I had the whole thing pretty well done but I wanted to reduce the bottom of the onion a bit where it joined the base. I was cutting it down with a skew but I ended up going a bit too far and I cut it right off at the bottom of the onion. It fell on the floor and when I bent down to pick it up I was looking at upside down and I thought, hummm.... The only way I could use it was to drill the ends and pin additional bits to it and all of that quickly evolved into the ones I am making now. So in this case it did not fall out of the sky and hit me in the head, it fell down and hit me in the foot!

[Ken Hill]

Hard to go further then whats been posted, most of which I agree with. I can tell you that when a photographer walks and stands in my boot prints to copy my location I do smirk and shake my head, and then I realize there are only so many ways or options and if they need to copy me then they will have to beat me on quality. I compete with others for the dollar, is it right for them to, and I mean literally, stand in my boot prints to capture what I just did? Its not all that different then someone copying a form or shape etc, still doesnt make it right or ethical. In most cases where I have confronted the person they usually reply that I am the best in my field and they want to be like me and my work.....again, doesnt really make me feel all cheery inside. I have seen fist fights break out over this issue from people whom you would consider "refined" so I know i'm not alone in finding the imitation unnerving and potentially a loss of income. So with that said, in my humble opinion, you have every right to be tweaked and go kick a trash can......unfortunatley, until it directly affects you beyond your ego or pride, saying or doing much beyond a venting session will have you coming off looking worse then the offender.

Who ever penned the saying "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" indeed coined a conundrum.

[Terry Gerros]

If not mistaken, I believe Bob Stocksdale said it best.....the ancient Chinese copied my bowl designs.....

[Leo Van Der Loo]

Just popping in here for one second, and if you are interested or agree or not :eek:, this is the way I look at it, and it goes something like this.

I came in this world without any form or shape or whatever in my mind, but as I grew I looked and I saw, I listened and I heard, and I made what I had seen and liked, and combined my way.

And this counts for anyone of you, YOU ALL have been copying from what you have seen since YOU were born and in whatever shape or form you did combine these images doesn't really make any difference, and that is all IMO :eek: :p :eek:

So yes GET OVER IT, and do what YOU like to make, maybe someone else will like it to, and try to make something similar :eek: :eek: :eek: :D

[Jack Mincey]

I am having reservations on even posting on the thread, but here it goes. I really don't want to upset anyone but this is how I feel on the subject. It is almost imposable to turn much of anything that doesn't have some influence from some previous work out there. It is very hard for anyone not to copy some one else's work since there has been some many things created over our history. I look at pottery glass and ceramics to get forms into my mind. Heck even if we've never seen the form or shape before you can almost guarantee that it has been done before. I had my work in a gallery last year next to the Moultrop's work and found that a few of my pieces in the gallery had a very similar shape to their work even though I had never seen their work before. I had turned these forms after seeing some of David Ellswrth's forms. I wonder which of them did it first? Two of my forms sold so I guess some of the customers liked something about my bowls even if they where similar in shape. I would guess the price being a lot less might have had a little to do with it.:D I like your pieces very much but have always thought that they looked a little like work from this famous turner. .http://www.woodturner.org/resources/bb/a_g_gallery/Drozda/9464LibraAweb.jpg I would have to guess that Cindy Drozda designs were also born from seeing other work and putting her on personal touch on it. I would have to say that this is how most designs are created, by taking a previous design and trying to improve on it are make it more to our personal taste. With the huge amount of turning in our past it's very hard to lay claim to any shape or form as being ours alone. It is most important to make the workmanship set ones work apart from the others out there. I've taught for 29 years and have found it very satisfying to have my students copy designs that I came up with in the shop. Some of them are different from anything I've seen but similar so No, I can't say that I was the one that came up with it just hopefully improved on it, and that is about the best I can ever hope to claim.
Jack

[David DeCristoforo]

OK... I get it. I'm over it! Thanx again for all of the responses. This has been an enlightening discussion with many excellent points made. Good to hear from you again Leo...

[Mike Cruz]

I don't mean to speak for David, but I've noticed more than one person pointing out that all shapes and forms have been done by one person or another somewhere along the history of mankind. I don't think David disputes that one bit. I don't think David thinks he alone came up with the form. I don't think David thinks his piece is so unique that each one screams DD and that no one else is allowed to make them. I DO think David found it odd that someone made something strikingly similar (even down to the signature touches that he has added to the form that he is known for that HE added) without any recognition to David in the thread. I think David would/may have been flattered if the first sentence in the post went something like this: "I've been drooling over DD's turnings for years now, and I thought I'd try my hand at it." Maybe, at least, it would have been easier to swallow... David, please correct me if I'm wrong about any of those assumptions/observations.

[Roger Chandler]

What a can of worms! :eek::(:(

[Don Alexander]

What a can of worms! :eek::(:(

must be time to go fishing then :D:D:D:D

[Scott Hackler]

WARNING: Long post of a VERY upset person
Time for me to chime in on this. Keep in mind that I am doing this long post in EXTREME PAIN as I just had my carpal tunnel yesterday (and am not in a very good mood), but I can no longer stay quiet on this as I believe my character has been questioned. I am also posting this reply under the auspice that David is referring to me and one of my turnings. I asked him in a PM but his response was a little cryptic and so I have come to the conclusion that he IS referring to my piece "Delicate Distraction". So under that suspicion, I am "throwing it all on the table". I am also going to be using already posted photos from this forum and off the internet. If anyone has a problem with that, well.......

On or about 11-26-11 David posted a goblet form. The piece was nice, but nothing like his beautiful, "signature Amphora" pieces. Remarks were made and all were of a general pleasing nature. This is not unusual, as David turns some very nice stemmed pieces. No big shocker here.

About 12-14-11, I posted the tiny stemmed cup I titled as "Delicate Distraction". I bought this black ash burl at the SWAT symposium (8-27-11) and turned the cup as soon as I returned home. There is sat with just barely enough burl left over to finish a foot, but I had other projects to do. I have turned many stemmed cups or goblets prior and almost always use the same wood for the foot because I don’t have enough African blackwood for the appropriate foot to match the stem. No big deal, many many turners do this same thing, either for that same reason for just for the looks.

Now, as I was in full blown Christmas ornament mode, I was turning ornament icicles like crazy. Same style I did last year….I did this year. You all seen them, you know what they look like. The icicles are ALL the same shape with the same elements.

216206
Now to finish that darn LITTLE goblet/cup. What did I turn, but the EXACT same icicle for the stem with just a larger transition at the bottom to mate the foot. And by exact… I MEAN EXACT! You know the ornaments that even David has commented that they are his favorite of all the turnings I do.

216207
So surprise to me when after reading David’s thread I initially thought, “Who the heck turned a long stemmed Amphora?” After all THAT turning is, in my mind, his “signature” form. Not the top piece by itself, because the Greek potters, John Hart and Tim had been turning that amphora shape long before David came up with his pieces. Not the long stemmed goblet form…many turners have been doing that for a very long time, not even inverting the stem on a long stem….Cindy Drozda beat us to that too.

216209

So…after searching everywhere, I could not find a copied long stemmed Amphora. Then I looked at all David’s recent threads and found his goblet thread and no one else EXCEPT myself had posted and thing remotely similar to that one. So I loaded both up in the photo editor and looked at them side by side and asked myself, “self, what elements did I possibly steal from a “signature” piece from David DeCristoforo?” Foot design….nope, natural edged cup….nope, “he’s not really thinking these stems are the same is he?” Well I guess so.

216208

Frankly, I don’t see it. I don’t see even an influence in my piece from any of David’s piece. If I borrowed, stole or copied…I would not only admit it BUT apologize. Turners should be able to see the difference between a regular bulbous onion tapering to the 1/16” stem and an “Art Nuevo” stem that has NO bulb and is more straight lined to the smallest point at the foot. There is not even a burl “bead” in my stem. Non-turners wouldn’t know the difference between a hundred different stemmed cups, IMO.

So while I truly and honestly attribute the long stemmed Amphoria form, to you David, you don’t have creative authorship on all inverted stems, natural edged cups/goblets or repeated woods from the cup to the foot. Neither can you lay claim to any of the individual elements of even your “signature” form, just the final assembled piece of art. To do so is disingenuous to all the turners before either of us during our relatively short turning careers. No one can ever take away from you the distinct style you designed, of your Amphora series. They are a beautiful work of art and your recent success in the gallery listings and sales AND accolades, show that clearly. But that cup/goblet is NOT one of those pieces even though the stems are very similar in your goblet and your Amphora series (albeit a big size difference).

What further puzzles me is the fact that you had recently requested wood to turn, because of financial issues or maybe just to “mix it up” (either reason it doesn't really matter). I responded and sent you a 30lb box of wood, with NO desire or request or expectation to be reimbursed for the rather large postage bill. You knew this for days prior to this thread and never mentioned an “issue” with me or my piece. Instead, you besmirched my character to all here on SMC, without mentioning my name. You just left to everyone to “figure out” that you were referring to me.

I can’t help your “thoughts” on my piece or that from the responses here and on WoW…I seemed to have done better (this time) in the audiences mind with my goblet than yours. I can’t control what other people think of either one of our items. But I will not let someone call me out for something I just did NOT do.

So if I own credit to anyone I guess maybe I should send a message to …dare I even have to think about it….Cindy Drozda for all of the elements I used and continue to use. I just turned the same ole thing I have been turning, that’s all. And now, I have to defend myself against charges that you wouldn’t even discuss with ME prior to “going public” and force me to grit my teeth under pain from my surgery YESTERDAY…and type up this (insert major swear word here) rebuttal.

Time for somebody to “man up” and get off your high horse.

I apologize for getting heated, but folks…this was BS from the beginning and if it weren’t for the Percocet I wouldn’t have been able to respond now.

[Cody Colston]

I keep reading that this is "a complicated situation." BS, I say.

There is no one on this forum, NO ONE, whose work has not been influenced by another turner. The uniqueness of turnings, IMHO, lies in the wood, not the form. The form, or something close to it has been done before, I'll guarantee it. The wood is a one-of-a-kind made by a one-of-a-kind creator.

I don't post frequently here but I've been a member of SMC for a long time and I've watched this forum transition from a bunch of good ol' boys and girls just excited to be shaping useful and beautiful pieces on the lathe to a bunch of wannabe artistes. I think I liked it better the old way.

A wise man once said, "There is nothing new under the sun." Y'all might want to keep that in mind while "creating" your forms.

[Terry Gerros]

Amen Scott.

Regards,
Terry

[joel nucifore]

I think Cody said it the best!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( and maybe Scott I think you should get the I am sorry)

[Dick Wilson]

Well, this thread was painful to read. I suggest that all Creekers sit back, take a breath, and continue to turn the fine work that you all do.

[Jerry Wright]

To quote Confucious, "Artist who claims a signature style is out of ideas."

[John Keeton]

At this point, "All in, All done" seems appropriate. Looks like everyone has had an opportunity to contribute to the thread, and Scott, if his was the piece in question, has had an opportunity to respond and did so in an appropriate fashion.

I am not going to lock the thread at this point, but I also do not want any "piling on". So, if you have some significant thought as to the original issue, please stick to that and don't take sides. That serves no purpose but to be divisive - more of that we don't need.

Thanks!

[Dale Bright]

I think Cody said it the best!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( and maybe Scott I think you should get the I am sorry)

Joel, I agree with you, Cody nailed it!!!! I also think you are probably right about the "sorry" to Scott.

Like I said in my earlier post, there is a similarity in the goblet forms but only a similarity. Both pieces are very well done.

Dale

[Bill Bulloch]

This tread has left a bitter taste in my mouth. On a web site where the quintessence is sharing of thoughts, ideas, proceedures and techniques is not the place you would expect to find this sort of controversy. I wish it was a thread that I had not opened.

[Mike Cruz]

To all of those who are disgusted by, uncomfortable with, or in any way offended by DD's post, here's the deal...

DD felt that he was wronged. He voiced his opinion. We all do that EVERY day with just about EVERY post. Could he have done this privately first, yes. But he didn't. What he accomplished, if nothing else was to open the eyes of many that if you copy someone's work, or feel like you were inspired, just say so.

Scott finally gave his rebuttle. Scott, I'm glad you did. There are two sides to every coin, and you got your chance to explain. In all fairness to Scott, he didn't feel like he was borrowing (or stealing for that matter) from DD any more than from any other artist. So, that's why he didn't give "props".

Who's right? They both are, and no one! DD felt hurt and voiced his frustration. If he had done it in private only, many eyes wouldn't have been opened to how some people feel about copying their work without so much as a footnote. Scott felt he created something that was different enough to not warrant a footnote.

I, personally, don't feel any different about DD or Scott for what has happened. They are both great turners. Both seem like good guys. I hope no one is writing either one of them off as a whiner or a thief.

Merry Christmas, ya'll...

[David DeCristoforo]

This morning I am feeling quite stupid! And quite chagrined as well. I truly believed the "design" I spoke of was mine. I have been shown otherwise. Obviously the stem design I believed to be of my own creation has actually been done by others long before I even began turning. I can attribute this oversight only to my own failure to thoroughly familiarize myself with existing bodies of work. For this, I apologize.


I attempted to express a frustration (now apparently unjustified) without having it become a personal attack on another. I failed in this as well. For this I also apologize.


I broke one of my own cardinal rules here by allowing my ego to influence my thinking. Again, for this I apologize.


I have obviously caused another a great distress. While this was not my intention, I must apologize directly to Scott Hackler.


Ciao
DD

[Steve Schlumpf]

This thread has now come full circle and it is time for everyone to get back to turning.

Merry Christmas to everyone!