I have an ethics question

[Tony Sizemore]

Ok I and friend of mine are getting set for a show the end of next month. In the process of doing this we found a really cool bowl design. My friend contacted the guy that turned them and started to talk with him about the bowls. In the process of talking it came up that we are going to sell them. Well that chanced everything. He got a little snippy and said something about plagiarism.
My question is this, and for the pro’s more then anything. If you get put in a magazine and your work is all over the web. Do you feel that you own that Idea? Even if it is something we all have been doing for years? I really want to know. This is bothering me.

[Andy Hoyt]

Tom - I don't have an answer for you right now, and may never have one.

I do know that this is a highly subjective topic, and one that's open to a wide range of interpretation and debate.

As such, generalized answers may not be possible.

It might help if there are some photos or sketches you could post or at least a substantial description of the piece or style or form in question.

[Tony Sizemore]

Andy thanks for you r reply<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
You know I don't want to name names, and if I post a picture of one of the bowls I am talking about everyone would know who I am talking about. He had a 6 page spread in American Woodturner on how he does this. <o:p></o:p>
I am not trying to start a big thing; I was just hoping to get some other views on this.<o:p></o:p>

[Gary Max]

Tony here's my thought----For years we made porch swings---they sold great. Then everyone started selling cheaper porch swings--we no longer make swings. When I plan my year---I am making something new and different. There are a few items I make that are unique enough that they have stood the test of time.
It keeps this adventure from getting stale. So my thought is in order to survive I have to be one step ahead of the other guy. We see folks at shows looking for items that they can copy. Heck if you let them they would come into your booth and measure and blue print your stuff.
Just my little thoughts

[John Hart]

Tony....from a personal point of view....I wouldn't want to sell anything that I copied. I like copying what other folks do here on the Creek because I admire the work and the details...so I try to emulate that. When I'm ready to sell my stuff...I want it to be my stuff....maybe little details will show that are a composite of others....but with the infinite number of forms...I'll try to find my own shape. I'm kinda fuzzy on the ethical question though....If imitation is the highest form of flattery.....:confused:

[Joe Tonich]

I dunno.........these threads drive me crazy. No-one can tell me their design is totally unique. There is no way that there is something turned out there that no-one has ever turned before. Especially with turning, you will never exactly duplicate another. Heck...even if you try......there are probably subtle differences that will affect the buyers decisions. Your style will still show thru, and THAT is what makes it unique, not the design. The way I look at it, if they want to turn something that I turned and make a $, go for it. (not like that is gonna happen ;) )

Hope this don't sound stupid. :o

[Travis Stinson]

Oh no! Not the "P" word!:( In my view, those people who are so paranoid about that are blinded by their own self-importance and think they've reinvented the wheel or something........:rolleyes: The only merit in their argument is if you make a direct copy and try to sell the item off as THEIRS, along with a forged signature.

[Dennis Peacock]

Oh no! Not the "P" word!:( In my view, those people who are so paranoid about that are blinded by their own self-importance and think they've reinvented the wheel or something........:rolleyes: The only merit in their argument is if you make a direct copy and try to sell the item off as THEIRS, along with a forged signature.

I agree with this completely!!!!!

Joe T....You're right....If someone copies something of mine? Have at it.

[Tony Sizemore]

I guess I am standing in the same place as Travis and Joe. I am not “COPING” his work. If what I am doing is “coping” his work then anyone that glues up a segmented bowl, or turn a natural edge bowl is coping someone. I am using the same process to get the same outcome. I will be honest this guy is good, and my bowls don’t look anywhere near as good as his. I was just taken back by the thought process.
Also if you don’t want your work copied then don’t put a 6 page How To in a national magazine.

[Stephen Hibbs]

Unless you are in any way affecting his sales (ie- you are at the same shows and selling copies of his stuff) I don't see why he cares, he should be honored. I don't sell stuff, so I can't really comment on that part, but I save some of the pictures you guys post so I can try to copy the general idea, but as soemone else said, there will always be differences, whether in the thickness or wood or whatever, so it's never a true copy. And face it, you will eventually, even if unintentionally, come pretty close to that design since it's now floating in your mind. If the guy had a six page spread detailing how he made the bowls, he can't be that worried about being copied.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I just wished I had the turning skills to accurately copy somebody's project! For now, everything I do is an original, whether I plan it that way or not!

I wished we had a lawyer here to jump into this thread.

I can see if someone developed a new tool or a new procedure, had it patented.....then maybe they have a legal right to be concerned. But...if it's not patented and especially if it's been published, I don't that they have a legal leg to on which to stand.

Ethically.........I think that probably is a personal decision. .......It's a tough decision...........

[Jim Ketron]

I was waiting for this subject to pop it's ugly head up on this forum,
after its been on about all the forums I visit.
This is a very touchy subject but here is my take on it.
Most turned objects have been copied from some art form or another, or modified slightly so they can call it their signature work. Thats all fine and good, I like new ideas if they look good and are pleasing to the eye. Pottery, Baskets and Glass are good examples that have been copied over the centuries and have been made into turnings. So who has the rights to that shape, form or medium?
At some point in time we all copy or take parts of a turning and use them in our own work, it has been done for years in all forms of art!
I do know some people depend on there work (turnings) as there means to put food on the table. But most of them are production turners and usually make smaller items that don't take long to make so they can sell them at a large volume. Most hobby turners like to turn for pleasure and a good challenge and make things that are useful around the house. Some try do a few shows a year to recoup some expenses of tools and to be able to keep enjoying the hobby.
I do think its respectful to give acknowledgment to the inspiration that you got from others work! But in some form or another like Joe says its not exactly the same even if you tried. Has it been done before? In some form or another I'm sure it has with glass, pottery, baskets or a combination of several art categories!
IMO if you don't want someone to copy your work then don't show it on forums or in magazines or teach methods of how to do it in a class! Keep it in a closet, far away from prying eyes.;)
Now get out to the shop and have some fun turning wood!:D

[Andy Hoyt]

Tom - been thinking about this since I last jumped in. Have also been reading various items "elsewhere" on the subject.

What does it boil down to?

That you posed the question indicates to me that there may be doubt in your own mind as to whether you're breaking laws or violating some standard of ethics. And without knowing the specifics, which I've now decided that I don't need to know, there's no way to answer your original question.

Instead, let me offer this suggestion.

Take a mental image of the "inspiration piece" (and a mental image only) and turn it. Then turn ten more. Then turn another ten. Then answer these questions.
Do Numbers 2 and 21 look like the "inspiration piece"?
Does Number 21 look anything like Number 2?If the answer to Question One is No - then you're probably okay in calling it unique and your own.

If Number 21 is substantially better and somewhat different than Number 2, you have just developed your own unique thing.

If the answer to Question One is Yes - then I think you have an ethical and moral responsiblity to (at minimum) to give credit to the other turner for providing inspiration.

One last thought. If the guy is good enough to be published in American Woodturner then his work is undoubtedly easily recognized. And if so, you could be opening yourself up to a big can of worms by copying this piece. I just read that at the AAW Symposium in Louisville there will be two separate panel discussions on this very topic.

Forget the other guy and develop your own unique thing.

[Bill Grumbine]

Hi Tony

Speaking from my own perspective here, I have no idea who you are talking about, although if I had enough ambition I could see about locating the issue in question. But, it doesn't matter...

Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, said "There is nothing new under the sun". He spoke regarding the human condition, but this is part of it. What a lot of these famous guys neglect to admit is that they stole the idea from some other discipline. One guy who sticks feathers all over his work and gets all bent out of shape if others do it took the idea from a potter. So who is copying?

I say make what you want to make. There are no truly unique bowl designs. The only way it would really be criminal is if you were signing someone else's name to it. I said a long time ago, and was seriously trashed for it, was if someone is going to publish the way to do their thing, whatever it is, and take money or other compensation for it (in the case of the AAW journal compensation comes in the form of recognition) then that person has no right to complain when others copy his or her work.

Bill

[Richard Allen]

This topic has grown a LOT in the past year. When this topic came up a year ago the overwhelming response was that everyone had the right to copy anything they wanted and if they could sell it for less then they were making an improvment to the original.

Now there is a mix of responses. Some folks seam to want to make something that is their own. Copy for personal growth but produce items for sale that can't be identifyed with some other woodturner.

[Dennis Peacock]

I just wished I had the turning skills to accurately copy somebody's project! For now, everything I do is an original, whether I plan it that way or not!


Amen Ken!!!!!!!!! Preach it!!!!!!:D

[Frank Chaffee]

Who among us is willing to lay claim to an original vessel form? 40,000 or so years of prior use in many, many media and someone is hubristic enough to claim originality? I would not want to be walking in their shoes!!!

Were we to make a template to duplicate a shape, the turning process and uniqueness of the wood would still create an original vessel.

Now on the other hand, if someone were to make a mold off of one of my bronzes, I would sue their fore bearers and progeny to the end of time for all they were worth.

Oh that’s right; I haven’t made any bronze vessels yet. Sorry, time for me is in a very slippery, fluid state right now.

It sure will be interesting to see what Dale chimes in with on this subject, and I hope we are all sitting down when he does.

Frank

[Raymond Overman]

Tony,

Three years ago, when I had been turning a little over a year, I glued two pieces of nice cherry on either side of a piece of spalted maple and I turned what I felt was a unique and artistic bowl. It sits in my parent's house to this day. It's dated and I hadn't seen anything like it prior to turning it.

A year ago, after enjoying a demonstration by Jim McPhail, whom I would guess the article is by, I laughed when he said don't copy my work and go selling it after he went through an hour and a half of telling how to make them. It's his original idea.

A certain person whose work is well known in galleries including Del Mano and the Renwick had something to say about people copying his work, yet he gladly will accept $500 a day to show you his trade secrets. No matter how hard I try, no one would accept my work as his right now. I'm just not that good but I will sell at least one hollow form with carving on it at my next show for far less than he sells his and I'll feel good about the transaction.

Not to run afoul of the pro turning crowd, but all the talk of plagiarism and bickering is one of the reasons I hesitate to join the AAW. I like the idea of a group of craftsmen who work together to further the craft, not single artists who have formed a union that favors those that are already known turners. If I'm a new turner, how am I to support my tool purchases if I don't sell what I make and how am I to develop my style if I don't make something similar to what I see.

I don't market my pieces as a copy of someone elses. I sign my name on the bottom and I take responsibility for the imperfections as well as the accomplishments. I cite my influences when I have a chance and tell people to look on the Internet if they are interested.

The finials for my boxes for instance were strongly influenced by Bill Stehman (AZ) and I'll gladly sit down with anyone willing to listen and help them turn one for themselves. I'm sure they look like someone elses but I haven't seen a picture of a similar one and I haven't seen one in person. I developed my design independently of others. I hope they catch on and everyone wants to turn one next week.

Our own Bill Grumbine would be hard pressed if he said don't use the techniques and style he teaches in his video (which is a mighty fine work in my opinion) to make salad bowls because that would be plagiarism. A salad bowl is a salad bowl. The difference is in the quality of the turning and the name on the bottom. The customer will decide what they want to pay for.

What it boils down to is a medium coming into it's own. Painter's use the same material, the same style, the same canvas, to paint the same landscape and yet they produce individual works each with it's own expression. If I come from the school of laminated, hollow form, box making, embellished with carvings, more than likely that's what I'll produce.

Good luck with your sales.

[Mike Ramsey]

I think I'm gonna go & copy Kenneth Georges tool handles!

[Keith Burns]

IMHO you can copy my work or anybodys work and sell it as your own. Just don't sign someone elses signature. Period, end of report.

[Barry Stratton]

With the scenario you described - sign your name to them and sell away.

Best of luck to you.

[Curt Fuller]

Here's the way I see it. (for what that's worth) If ____________ turns a great looking, original, and unique bowl, posts it on the web, publishes it in magazines, or whatever, it will always be a _____________ style bowl. No matter how you copy or try to duplicate it, it will still be a ____________ style bowl, just done by you. Now if you ever want to be famous like _____________, you're going to have to come up with something somewhat original and unique that you can attach your own name and style to.

As far as selling a ____________ style bowl done by you, I think that's ethical enough I guess. But when you get into buying turnings as art and for something beyond utility purposes, buying a ___________ style bowl turned by someone else would be like buying a Picasso style painting done by someone else.

just my 2 cents worth, adjusted for inflation of course.

[Larry Klaaren]

Have you been following the Dan Brown story in the news? (I know that is in Britain, but the basic ideas are very similar.)

If the original artist decides to protect the intellectual or artistic design, the test is something like this: Would a reasonable person who is knowledgeable about the genre recognize that the piece could be attributed to the original producer (even if it is of lesser or greater quality)? If the answer is "Yes", the piece is not unique and it is plagiarism or copyright infringement in a court of law, especially if the original creator has developed a market in the design. That is the legal answer. The ethical and sensible answer might be different, but that does not matter in a court of law.

I wrote a senior thesis in Vet School on a new (at that time) disease of swine known as pseudorabies. My thesis was published all over the world, in several languages, mostly because no one had put together much information on that disease at that time. (It wasn't that great IMHO and certainly not in the opinion of my classmates!) It was a compilation of published research from several vet schools and biological companies. About six months later, another person, a well-known researcher at another vet school, published a paper that included the same information, with his own wording and conclusions. All of the information was from prominent journals commonly read by people in the industry. I believe the bibliography had sixteen sources in common. The editors of the magazine that published mine went after him on that.

Recently, I got a letter about an illustration I used in a sermon I posted on my website (I know, different career) because I didn't credit someone else (also a well-known person). I didn't even know he had developed that same story into an illustration, although when I checked it out, I did see that he used the same redactive style and ordered his telling the same way. But I'd never seen it and it was definitely in my own words. He probably would have won in court, but he wasn't inclined to do that, he just wanted to protect his idea. It was his intellectual property. The end result was that I took down my sermons on the net.

FWIW that's what I know about plagiarism and copyright encroachment. If a knowlegeable person would recognize it as another person's idea or style, it is their idea. Don't know if it helps, but hope it did.

Larry

[Earl Eyre]

I think Andy has the right idea. I guess I do think that many people turn what could be considered a unique object. Some things are universal and could never be considered unique--like a salad bowl or a traditional vase or candlestick. Here copying is not an issue. But when a professional makes an object that is clearly unique, then I don't think we should re-copy it and sell it as ours. If you set his and mine down on a table and they both look like his, and it is a truly unique idea, then I don't think you should also make it and sell it as yours. That's sort of like copying the Mona Lisa and saying you did it.

A copyright lawyer would have to chime in on the legal issues. My thoughts on that would only be from my ignorance.

But if I'm selling items that are unique, then I think it's unethical to sell copies of somebody else's work. There is a huge gray area in this kind of argument--but all ethics questions have a huge gray area. There are simply no black and white, right or wrong answers. Each person will have to decide where their work is on a continuum from commodity items (copy away) to unique artistic creations (Originals).

[Robert E Lee]

Here is my take on this. If you are going to make a bowl for your own use or a gift to a close friend it might be alright to call the bowl maker and ask a few questions about how he did something. But if you call this bowl maker to ask your questions on how he did something then start selling the bowls I can see why he started getting a little snippy. If you see a how I did this bowl write up in a magazine, then I would think there are offering this to the public to use as they see fit. I don’t know how legal this is. If the bowl it is in a add to sell then I think I would change parts of it to make my own design.

[Barry O'Mahony]

Have you been following the Dan Brown story in the news? (I know that is in Britain, but the basic ideas are very similar.)Don't assume the law on intellectual property are the same in Britain and the U.S. While both are signatories to the Berne Convention and have thus agreed to harmonize their laws on IPR with international standards, there may be differences. I'm not sure, but it seems that the copyright is a bit more applicable in Britain than it is here.

The bottom line is that, as a default, it is legal to copy anything, anytime. Unless, of course, such copying would infringe on someone's protected intellectual property, which in this case would be either a trademark, a patent, or copyright.

If you copy someone's signature or logo, you run afoul of trademark infringement, and probably fraud as well.

A designer can obtain a Design Patent on their design, which gives them exclusive rights to the design for 20 years. These are much easier to get that Utility Patents, but most designers still don't bother with the hassle, and they are relatively easy to work around.

That leaves copyright. It's the easiest IPR to acquire, as it covers just about any expression of an idea once that idea is "affixed to a tangible medium". Note it cover the "expression of an idea", and not the idea itself.

Since copyright is so easy to obtain, folks usually try to claim copyright on as many things as possible. Often it's because they are too lazy to apply for a Design Patent. However, if anything is eligible for a Design Patent, it is not eligible for copyrighting. What this means is that you can't copyright any functional or utilitarian aspects of an object. Ornamental aspects can be copyrighted, however: if a particular turner used a distinctive pattern, for example, the pattern itself can be subject to copyright.

But for a general design of a bowl, no. If this guy doesn't want people copying his stuff, he can get a design patent on them. Or, he can leave them at home and keep them a Trade Secret (the other form of Intellectual Property). Otherwise, he just has to accept the fact we live in a dog-eat-dog, competitive free enterprise market-based system, and every endeavor is likely to have to face aggresive competitors.

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

OK then what about this, we all know what "Stickley Furniture" is, yet many sell furniture that is in a definite "Stickley" style, is that wrong too?

How about anything in the style of Mr. Maloof...?

If I build a sculpted chair with a low hand rail on it, am I stealing?

Just my thoughts....

Cheers!

[Larry Klaaren]

I think the "reasonable person who is familiar with the genre" is the applicable part of what I was saying. If they would know that it is "in the style of" is different than if they might reasonably believe it was the product or work of a particular artist. Hope that clears it up what I was trying to say.

Larry

[Alan Turner]

Many years ago I built a chest of drawers from a photograph on the web; he is a rather well known maker and it was his web site. Same dimensions, same wood, same shapes (as well as I could figure it). Came out quite well. I did this to develop my drawer making skills. Once complete, I could not stand that fact that I had copied another's work. I gave it to my step daughter so that I would not have to look at it too often. She loves it. I didn't feel right about it. This is to me a pretty personal decision. It is still fun to see the grandkids crawl into the largish drawers, which still work just fine.

I will add that I don't think making a true reproduction piece suffers from this same personal ethical qualm. Just my 2 cents. Each to his own.

[Andy Hoyt]

It's interesting that some of the language Larry used to describe what's done in England is practically identical to the language I encountered when I was designing houses for a living. "Substantially similar" was the acid test. Changing colors, door sizes and swings, window locations and stuff like that was not enough and would get one into trouble.

Speaking of trouble - all of us in this thread are operating in the dark because we don't know the design (or form), the method of manufacture (glue up or solid stock), or materials used. As such, we're trying to hit a moving target with our eyes closed. That's why I asked Tony (not Tom - sorry) in my first reply to enlighten us about the piece in question. Sure wish you would do so, Tony.

[Andy Hoyt]

It's interesting that some of the language Larry used to describe what's done in England is practically identical to the language I encountered when I was designing houses for a living. "Substantially similar" was the acid test. Changing colors, door sizes and swings, window locations and stuff like that was not enough and would get one into trouble.

Speaking of trouble - all of us in this thread are operating in the dark because we don't know the design (or form), the method of manufacture (glue up or solid stock), or materials used. As such, we're trying to hit a moving target with our eyes closed. That's why I asked Tony (not Tom - sorry) in my first reply to enlighten us about the piece in question. Sure wish you would do so, Tony.

[Lee DeRaud]

I think the "reasonable person who is familiar with the genre" is the applicable part of what I was saying. If they would know that it is "in the style of" is different than if they might reasonably believe it was the product or work of a particular artist. Hope that clears it up what I was trying to say.Ok, that makes sense, but I'm not sure why you think the Dan Brown "Da Vinci Code" case is applicable: as far as I can tell, the people suing him still claim that their work is non-fiction.

[Ron Ainge]

I attended the Utah Woodturning Symposium last year and the persons that you are talking about did his first demo there. I was fortunate enough to ride to the stake fry with him and his wife that Friday evening. He and his wife had spent a great amount of time designing a packet to go with his demos that he gladly gave to everyone that attended his demos. I have read his article in the AAW magazine and have also read that he has given additional demos on his bowl turning process. I find it hard to understand that anyone who would give away his methods in the demos that he taught as well as the material that he gave away at those demos could complain about people using his directions to make a similar product. I once talked to one of the owners (a very well known wood turner and demonstrator) of CSUSA about the copying of other peoples work and I thought it was quite interesting to hear his reply. It was his opinion that there were no new ideas in the world at this time there are only personal interpretations of existing form that had been done for many centuries. He felt that everyone including himself borrow ideas form other people as they feel the inspiration for a new project. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I had the pleasure of taking a class for Stuart Mortimer (spelling) last fall on spiral turning. At the time I was making Christmas ornaments and had the idea of making one inspired by the artist. I made one and when I put it in a show that he was giving a demo at he thought it was a good idea that he had not thought of. As you can imagine it did make me very happy to have a positive comment form someone that I had copied. <o:p></o:p>

[Earl Eyre]

OK then what about this, we all know what "Stickley Furniture" is, yet many sell furniture that is in a definite "Stickley" style, is that wrong too?



I'm no lawyer, but I think that would be fine. The fact is a knowledgable antique furniture dealer can take one look at a piece and know that it is a Stickley. So to make an identical copy would definitely be thought of as a forgery. But our house is full of mission style furniture I have built and they are definitely "in the style of"...and nobody would confuse them with originals, especially when your looked at the joinery and pywood drawers! LOL

Earl

[Larry Klaaren]

Ok, that makes sense, but I'm not sure why you think the Dan Brown "Da Vinci Code" case is applicable: as far as I can tell, the people suing him still claim that their work is non-fiction.

Yeah, that would make it a different issue, but . . . those books are on the fiction shelves. The question here is "Who owns ideas?" You can use historical fact and statements, without limit, no problem, and you don't even have to credit the people who dug them out of oblivion. And you can use a defined style of wood-woorking in the same way.

I'm not adversarial on this, just trying to figure it all out myself.

[tod evans]

i think that all of us who create "things" regardless of the medium draw on our life experiences for a style or look, and given that over the course of our respective lives we`ve all been exposed to different things that stick in our subconscious as something we find appealing, when we draw on these memories to create something "totally original" we are still in a way plagiarizing those shapes or objects that influenced us..... but to blatently duplicate anothers work by such means as purchasing an item and using it to create umpteen more, say in tai/chi, or even in the garage on a copy lathe or a shop-bot, that type of plagiarism is in my opinion unethical...02 tod

[Rob Bourgeois]

I going to sue Ken and everyone in the bonker contest. I turned my first bonker last year..anyone turn one before that?:p

Somebody hinted at this...there must be a lot of ticked off Egyptians, Native Amercians and other ancient peoples since all of our forms that are popular today come from these early forms.

Its a bowl...its round, have an opening, can be made out of the same wood and have similar proportions if you follow the
"rules".

I would be curious to see the picture..what makes this bowl so special to both you and the guy who made the first one..

[Harry Goodwin]

Plagerism (spell) is copying words. Ideas are as free as birds. It would be sad to cut and paste the description of his piece in some advertising. Patents are for manufacturing and mass production and distribution. There are so many variations in selection of materials, finish and design that each craftman, woman, adds. It is also high appreciation. He also publlished it I'm sure for money. Harry

[Barry O'Mahony]

It's interesting that some of the language Larry used to describe what's done in England is practically identical to the language I encountered when I was designing houses for a living. "Substantially similar" was the acid test. Changing colors, door sizes and swings, window locations and stuff like that was not enough and would get one into trouble.Architecture is a "special case" in the U.S. Ordinarily, this would be considered utilitarian, and thus not copyrighable. The plans for a house design, yes, but not the design itself.

However, architects had enough lobbying power that they were able to convince Congress to extend copyright to architecture, so now they are covered. 'similar thing happened to the "mask" patterns used to fabricate silicon computer chips. The hi-tech industry got a new "maskworks" law passed, which extends copryright to them as well.

[Larry Klaaren]

It's pretty tricky stuff, so each case has it's own factors, and yes, it is not a direct application from writing to hand created craftsmanship (for lack of a better term in this tiny brain). However, the concept that an idea that has been put out in the public forum has some legal protection has been upheld. The theory is that ideas couldn't be advanced if they aren't put out for scrutiny.

I just thought of the Brown case as I was typing and threw it out. There's not all that much similarity to that case. That being said, the debate in that is not about the concept of living descendants of Christ and a secret society to protect them, but that the story lines in the two pieces in question are so similar. That's the part that has some bearing and is the "unique idea" in that one (or the not-so-unique idea). Brown is trying to get around it by saying his wife did the research and he did the writing, so he didn't know that the idea was questionable. They didn't put her on the stand. Wouldn't work in the US, might in Britain, but it might explain why he used names that were so similar to the other story. That seemed strange to me.

I'm done until we hear a little more about what the guy wanted to protect. I do understand Tony doesn't want to go to where the originator could be identified.

It is important to remember that logic, ethics, morality, and common sense have no bearing if it comes to a legal case. At that point, the only thing that matters is how the statute is interpreted by the judge and the courts. On the other hand, we have to live with ourselves and our decisions.

Larry

[john mclane]

This has been an interesting forum. There has been some confusion and fuzziness in the discussion between legal questions, ethical questions and personal opinion. Since the original bowl design was not copyrighted or patented in design there is no legal question here.

There might be a question of business ethics but the first maker did not try to keep this as a trade secret and does not have any contract with show administrators that he can be the only one to sell this type of bowl at a show. (there are contracts such as at malls a food vendor can be the only food vendor in the mall to sell white rice for an example and if someone eles in the mall sells white rice he is violating a contracted business agreement and the mall administrator needs to correct this "grievance").

There could be moral ethics but again the original designer was open about his design and what went into it and the copier just used openly availble information.

This comes down to competition in design and ideas and likely business competition on selling. Most likely the market is big enough so both people can sell and if the buyer market is small may the best quality product win. Competition does create stress between the two parties and this is what the overall discussion seemd to boil down to.

Isn't open and free market competition a founding princible of our economy and democracy? (or at least we pretend it is since in reality it is not due to all the laws and regulations).

[John Taylor]

HI

I have read this thread with interest as this is a subject that has come up over here in the UK recentlly. The outcome was that if you could prove that your design was unique then in order to protect it to stop others copying it you should get legal copyright or a patent or similar. If you didn't do this and displayed it at public shows or on the internet then you couldn't complain if others made the same or similar objects.

As the maker in question has not only displayed his items but also told/shown others how to make them he has no right to complain if others copy it unless he has taken out some form of legal protection. If he has taken out legal protection then he should make this clear in all articles and demonstrations. There is an english turner who has made a unique design of sound bowl with strings and he has taken out legal protection to protect himself from copies, he said the problem was proving that it was a unique design.

In order to be unique there must be nothing like it anywhere in the world in any medium, which in this day and age is almost impossible. For thousands of years humans have been making items out of pottery, wood, glass etc so to come up with something new is almost impossible.

Recently a Uk turner displayed a bowl he was very proud of as it was a new shape that he, and others, had never seen before. Then at a show where he was displaying it a visitor was overheard commenting on the bowl by saying that it was exactlly like a roman pottery bowl that is in one of our main museums. The turner in question was a bit upset by this as he thought he had created something unique, after thinking about it for a few minutes he then said that he had been to that museum about a year before he made his bowl. Although he didn't remember seeing the bowl in the museum he thought he probably had and that is what influenced his design. So what was originally thought to be a unique design suddenly became just a copy of a 2000 year old bowl.

My thought are that if you don't want others to copy your designs keep them secret or get legal protection for then. Everyones work is influenced by others be it consciously or sub-consciously, so the chances are that the turner mentioned in the first post has produced something he has seen elsewhere although he probaly doesn't realise that himself. I try not to make direct copies of others work unless it is to learn a new technique and if I do make a direct copy I am usually the only one that sees it. I quite often take an idea from others and incorporate it into my own designs or take someone elses design and change it to suit my style, so far I have had no complaints.

[Lee DeRaud]

Yeah, that would make it a different issue, but . . . those books are on the fiction shelves. The question here is "Who owns ideas?" You can use historical fact and statements, without limit, no problem, and you don't even have to credit the people who dug them out of oblivion.Yup, exactly...except when people try to have it both ways. When I first read about this case, my reaction was, "But the only way they can win is to admit that their work is fiction." Sounds like they decided that a piece of Brown's money was better than academic acceptance.

To some extent, that's also happening here: somebody wants to make money telling you how to do something, but doesn't want you to actually do it.

That dog won't hunt.

[Larry Klaaren]

I said I was done, but there is a very common misconception I want to point out.


This has been an interesting forum. There has been some confusion and fuzziness in the discussion between legal questions, ethical questions and personal opinion. Since the original bowl design was not copyrighted or patented in design there is no legal question here. .

You probably want to look at the US Copyright FAQ page at
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork).

Here's a brief clip and paste:

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr).”

The registration process involves establishing that it was indeed your expression of an idea. But the protection itself exists before you register it.

Andy, there is a discussion on that page about architecture, which has it's own rules.

Most things made of wood are "fixed in a tangible form". If they are art, there is possibly copyright protection. But, if you think of a way to make a drawer slide easier, that would need a patent to be protected. Even then, you can use "Patent pending."

Yes, we have been comingling copyright, trademark, and patent. Copyright applies to the expression of ideas in writing, art, and audio and visual forms.

Remember, logic and common sense have no place in a discussion that involves legalities. You just cannot rely on how you would figure it or what makes sense to you. You have to look it up. Did I say that before?

One thing I said incorrectly. It is not the idea, it is the expression of the idea that is protected. I gave the wrong impression about that. So to be precise you would have to say that "If a reasonable person who is familiar with the genre would think that it was an artistic expression that was created by the original designer," etc.

Larry

[Larry Klaaren]

To some extent, that's also happening here: somebody wants to make money telling you how to do something, but doesn't want you to actually do it.

That dog won't hunt.

I agree, but I haven't seen the article. Don't know how it was presented.

Ok, I'm going to be done again. I think.

Larry

[Tony Sizemore]

Well I didn’t know what was going to happen with question. I asked it for my own knowledge because I am a new turner I started about 9 months ago and I don’t really have any contact with other turners except here and one or two guy’s in the area. I wanted to se what other turners had to say about it.
Thank you all for your input. It has given me a good idea of what the general thought was.
Now here is where I am with this. I have no intention of copying, or stealing the persons work. I am how ever going to use the technique that he used to get a similar result.
I feel that the ethical and moral side of this comes from inside the person. If you are truly trying to expand your skill and technique then it is not stealing (for lack of a better term).
Yes I am going to sell these. Yes I have intended to sell them from the beginning. I do not travel the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> going to shows. I have only sold bowls one other time and very small craft fair. If I can sell a few bowls to help me get better tools and better wood then so be it.
It all goes back to what is in your hart. I have been doing flat work for while. I know most of you know this already but I am going to say it anyhow. Turners are different. I have never met a group of people more welling to help or show you how to do something new in my life. That is why when this happened I was taken back. It is not what I was expecting.
Thanks all of you again.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

[ Turners are different. I have never met a group of people more welling to help or show you how to do something new in my life. .[/quote]

Boy do you have that right! But don't anger them by teasing them! Next thing you know they'll ship a lathe to your front door all the while smuggly knowing if they can get you started turning....you're hooked....you'll spend more money out of your own pocket.....and they'llget their revenge! And they did! DAMHIKT..........:o :D

[Dale Thompson]

Hi Folks,
I agree totally with Larry Klaaren's posts!

Larry, you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!! Sorry to jump in so late on this thread but you got it, bud. Everything that you and I make is "automatically" copyrighted whether we choose to register it or NOT! That includes literary work, recordings, mechanical designs, etc. I ALWAYS copyright my shop stuff! ;) Don't laugh! I CAN copyright the scrap that I make. :rolleyes:

Different registration symbols are used for copyright designation of various forms of "art". I'm not sure of the symbol that they use for my "scrap". :confused: Whatever, to protect my "precious" errors, I register them under Title 17 of the United States Code and refer to
Section 410(a). If I chose to do so, I could "copyright" my own version of the Mona Lisa. The problem is that my painting is even WORSE than my woodworking. :(

Even if I don't "copyright" my stuff and you choose to "copyright" a particularly obscene example of MY disastrous woodworking skills, I can still beat you in court. :cool: The problem is that the burden of proof is on ME and the documentation requirements are next to unachieveable -especially for a northwoods hillbilly like me. :(

If I had to guess, I would say that 90+% of the patents assigned in this country are not intended to keep others from manufacturing a given product. They are taken out to protect the right of the original designer to continue to produce his/her product in the face of a later similar design patent. Right or wrong - that's the way it is!! :eek:

As far as a woodworking or turning project is concerned, I can't see any problem whatsoever. No matter how good you are, I would defy you to produce two "identical" pieces out of your shop! That is even more true with the lathe. The only thing "identical" about MY stuff is that it is all scrap! :( HMMM?? I wonder if I could get a general "copyright" on "scrap". I'd make jillions!! :cool:

The only thing to be aware of is if you sign MY name to a piece of YOUR scrap and sell it to the Smithsonian for a buck two ninety-seven, I will see that your demise is aired on "Law and Order" or, better yet, "COPS"!!. :)

Dale T.

[Larry Klaaren]

Thanks, but the only reason I'm aware is that it came up in some sermon publishing I did. You can't litigate unless you register, but you can register after the fact and are still protected. I didn't have the need to litigate, it was just in the FAQ's on the website I used. The tricky part is that the idea isn't copyrighted, but your expression of it is automatically protected.

This next part is a little more speculative than what I've said before, but I think this is the application to woodworking. If you have some part of your design that is a unique expression, and some one copies that, it could be a copyright violation. If you make a design that is unique, that is yours. The basic concept of the design can't be copied, unless it is attributed. If I design a wooden shoe (ask Andy) design into a piece, that is in common usage and not protected, but if I arrange wooden shoes as the fans of a windmill, that would probably be a unique expression and if I didn't want to let you use it you couldn't.

BTW, my 10-year-old daughter came up with the flag in the wooden shoe idea (I mean expression) that I attached when my mom's family had a reunion. Most people in our family are a hundred percent Dutch, except several of our families have adopted. My daughter is Chinese-American.

Larry