Owen
I am not sure if anything is being plagiarized here, i.e. with two hollow
forms, one by Ellsworth and one by John Doe. On the other hand I think not.
I have seen many hollow forms in glass and pottery both corporeal and in
historic photo settings. It would be a reasonable premise that turners in
general would try to emulate the form in wood. That being so I do not think
that a generic hollow form would be a form of plagiarizing. There are
certain surface enhancements that a copying of would appear to me to be
plagiarizing as I think I mentioned with the work of Jacques Vesserey. Bin
Pho and Art Liestman also come to mind. That said, it raises the question of
to what degree is carving, air brushing, or tesselating a turned surface an
infringement on the work of others who have done so when we have a history
of pyrography, painting, piercing and carving on wood surfaces? It would
seem to be plagiarizing when the finished product is perceived to be a
blatant copy of an another turner's work, otherwise not.
One point that needs to be considered is the phrasing "in the style of..." I
turn bowls, hollow forms and vases, not to mention many other things, in the
style of many turners. Some things are simply in the public domain because
of frequent or historic use of form and style. That said, some things are
distinctive to the work of an established turner. If credit is given where
credit is due, is it palgiarism? By the way, that credit may be financial.
My wife quilts. If a quilt using a published design is entered into a
contest and wins a monetary prize, it is deemed to have won by merit of the
skill of the quilter and the skill of the designer and the priae money is
expected to be devided between the two, even if the designer is unaware of
the use of the design in this instance. Something for thought.

--
God bless and safe turning
Darrell Feltmate
Truro, NS Canada
www.aroundthewoods.com