Some turners might be plagiarizing without even knowing it.

This is from an article in the American Woodturner and it really got me to
thinking. With all of the shapes that have already been turned how many
are left? Will I ever be able to turn something that has not already been
done? Before reading this article I had made the assumption that
everything that I turned was original and mine. Now that my eyes are open
it is obvious that I am guilty of intellectual theft. Somewhere,
sometime, someone has certainly turned a piece identical to anything that
I would randomly generate.

Time to change my name and head to the hills. What is the difference
between a felony and a misdemeanor?

Rambling, worked all night and brain not working any more.

Kirk

Kirk, I read the same article yesterday and don't think you need to worry
unless you are copying work from a well known turner and then selling it
without giving him/her some sort of credit. Most of us will never have to
worry about it.
"Kirk" wrote in message
...
Some turners might be plagiarizing without even knowing it.

This is from an article in the American Woodturner and it really got me to
thinking. With all of the shapes that have already been turned how many
are left? Will I ever be able to turn something that has not already been
done? Before reading this article I had made the assumption that
everything that I turned was original and mine. Now that my eyes are open
it is obvious that I am guilty of intellectual theft. Somewhere,
sometime, someone has certainly turned a piece identical to anything that
I would randomly generate.

Time to change my name and head to the hills. What is the difference
between a felony and a misdemeanor?

Rambling, worked all night and brain not working any more.

Kirk

Kirk wrote:
Some turners might be plagiarizing without even knowing it.

This is from an article in the American Woodturner and it really got me to
thinking. With all of the shapes that have already been turned how many
are left? Will I ever be able to turn something that has not already been
done? Before reading this article I had made the assumption that
everything that I turned was original and mine. Now that my eyes are open
it is obvious that I am guilty of intellectual theft. Somewhere,
sometime, someone has certainly turned a piece identical to anything that
I would randomly generate.

Time to change my name and head to the hills. What is the difference
between a felony and a misdemeanor?

Rambling, worked all night and brain not working any more.

Kirk

There is nothing wrong with re-inventing the wheel. It isn't even illegal.

you don't need to worry...

You don't need to worry unless you are _copying_ work... If you come up
with the idea independently -- that is good enough.

If something is an _exact copy_ of a "work of art" that is another matter...

At least that is the gist of Intellectual Property (IP) law.

Pull out the tools and hit the lathe. :-)

One of the great turners (Maybe it was Bob Stocksdale?) complained that
the Greeks and Romans had been stealing his designs for thousands of
years. Ain't no big deal. It isn't plagiarism. It's "Paying Homage To".
David

Kirk wrote:
Some turners might be plagiarizing without even knowing it.

This is from an article in the American Woodturner and it really got me to
thinking. With all of the shapes that have already been turned how many
are left? Will I ever be able to turn something that has not already been
done? Before reading this article I had made the assumption that
everything that I turned was original and mine. Now that my eyes are open
it is obvious that I am guilty of intellectual theft. Somewhere,
sometime, someone has certainly turned a piece identical to anything that
I would randomly generate.

Time to change my name and head to the hills. What is the difference
between a felony and a misdemeanor?

Rambling, worked all night and brain not working any more.

Kirk

Plagiarism in art or craft is a hard one to handle. We all turn bowls,
hollow forms and vases, spindles of various sorts. All the shapes possible
are beads, coves and straights. All other curves and cuts are just
variations on the theme. Surfaces get decorated by various means but they
all reduce to color by paint or burning or whatever with some carving on
some pieces, maybe a twist or a hole here and there. Plus we turners tend to
be a sharing lot. "How do you do that?" tends to be anwered with a half hour
answer, not a couple of minute brush off. Sure we copy but not without a lot
of practice or skill. Just because one person carves feathers on a piece
does not mean that no one else is allowed to do so for the rest of this
world's existence. However, signing Jaques Vessery to it by anyone other
than Jacques Vessery is a definite no-no. Give credit where credit is due
but do not hesitate to turn or decorate a form just because someone else has
done so.

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

Kirk wrote:
Some turners might be plagiarizing without even knowing it.

This is from an article in the American Woodturner and it really got
me to
thinking. With all of the shapes that have already been turned how
many
are left? Will I ever be able to turn something that has not already
been
done? Before reading this article I had made the assumption that
everything that I turned was original and mine. Now that my eyes are
open
it is obvious that I am guilty of intellectual theft. Somewhere,
sometime, someone has certainly turned a piece identical to anything
that
I would randomly generate.

Time to change my name and head to the hills. What is the difference

between a felony and a misdemeanor?

Rambling, worked all night and brain not working any more.

Kirk

I read the same article. Also recall a quote from Mark Lindquist to
the effect that mankind has been making vases for several thousand
years and that it is unlikely that one would be able to come up with a
completely new design. The point, IMHO, is to avoid essentially carbon
copying pieces

Kip Powers
Rogers AR

"Kip" wrote in message
ps.com...
I read the same article. Also recall a quote from Mark Lindquist to
the effect that mankind has been making vases for several thousand
years and that it is unlikely that one would be able to come up with a
completely new design. The point, IMHO, is to avoid essentially carbon
copying pieces

Browsing at my used book store yesterday and ran across a book called _500
Bowls_ or similar. I started thumbing through it, and there was the
spitting image of one of my weird cherry 4-legged bowls. Only difference
was the finial, really. Fortunately, the piece was made about the same time
as mine, or so it would seem.

Daughter was with me, and when I told her to look, she recognized it
immediately. "It's just as ugly as the one _you_ made."

Then while I was protesting, she slipped her books on my stack. Forty bucks
became sixty....

In article dz1Vd.23440$TB.20815@edtnps84,
"Darrell Feltmate" wrote:

Just because one person carves feathers on a piece
does not mean that no one else is allowed to do so for the rest of this
world's existence. However, signing Jaques Vessery to it by anyone other
than Jacques Vessery is a definite no-no. Give credit where credit is due
but do not hesitate to turn or decorate a form just because someone else has
done so.

I read the article and have paused several times since to consider the
matter. Do you think Jaques Vessery would be able to copyright his
feathered vessel design? Not the shape but the surface treatment itself?
Similarly would Lyle Jamieson's torso figures be copyrightable? How
about Art Liestman's puzzle motif? They certainly appear unique and
easily attributable to their respective creators.

I think there is much more to be considered when emulating another's
work beyond condemning an attempt to sign their name and pass it off as
original. Creators like Vessery, Jamieson, Liestman, Burchard, Pho, etc.
have distinct styles of either shape, color, carving or some
combination. To mimic their work in any way other than as a learning
exercise for one's own development and limited display should, in my
view, be discouraged and may be unethical.

Consider also the scenerio in which the originator of a style is bested
by his apprentice. Rude Olsonik came up with the candlestick design that
is instantly recognizeable by many familiar with wood turning. (Refer to
the pic on p.57, Am WT, Spring '05, but pretend the Olsonik is on the
left and the copy is on the right.) If he had been mediocre at best in
his tool technique or sense of proportion though a student picked up the
design and then went on to perfect it, should the plagarist get the
deserved recognition of fine craftsmanship/artisanship or should it
remain with the creator of the basic design?

Think back to the work of folks like Vessery or Jamieson. To arrive at a
largely unique design or treatment takes a lot of creative thought and
effort. I'm sure they have both spent much time mulling possibilities
after the initial inspiration as well as developing methods and
techniques to execute their ideas. There are likely quite a few reject
pieces of work that weren't up to representing the idea as successfully
as the artist would have liked. That takes time and materials. They have
dreamed an idea and gone through many steps to bring it to reality. The
person who then takes that work and copies the design and technique
without having to work through the process is not only short changing
his own development but has the potential to harm the artist's creative
outlook.

Should a creative spark occur when viewing a Vessery feathered vessel,
then by all means accept and be appreciative of the inspiration Vessery
provided to you. Then go on to produce work that attempts to bring your
inspired idea to light. On the other hand, producing feathered vessels
because Jaques Vessery showed you his idea and how he creates them
hinders your potential.

--
"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

Owen:

Very thoughtful. I disagree on a lot of points but respect your thoughts.

see below...


Owen Lowe wrote:
In article dz1Vd.23440$TB.20815@edtnps84,
"Darrell Feltmate" wrote:


Just because one person carves feathers on a piece
does not mean that no one else is allowed to do so for the rest of this
world's existence. However, signing Jaques Vessery to it by anyone other
than Jacques Vessery is a definite no-no. Give credit where credit is due
but do not hesitate to turn or decorate a form just because someone else has
done so.


I read the article and have paused several times since to consider the
matter. Do you think Jaques Vessery would be able to copyright his
feathered vessel design?

Under the new Intellectual Property laws (IP laws) you do not need to
register a copyright. The creation of a new physical work - painting,
story or other item like a carving or work of artistic impression (or
even a computer program) "gives" you the copyright, and the "moral
rights". They are independent of each other. (The moral rights prevent
someone from changing your work without written consent - and must be
granted independently..)

For example if a customer paints your goblet -- then yes you can take
them to court and force them to "change it back". Unless you
specifically signed over moral rights.... Course changing it back would
probably destroy it -- so nobody wins... :-)

If you want legal case law, look up the incident of Eatons dressing up
the statue in Eatons Square in Christmas time. The sculptor did not like
it and took Eatons to court. The sculptor won as I recall and the scarf
came off and the statue was bare for ever more... (Moral rights)

Likely, we will only face these issues if our work becomes a "famous
design style" and thereby spawn imitators -- Or we are cranky mean SOBs
who don't like paint on our goblets -- or whatever..

However, the copyright law does not prevent someone from "painting in a
certain style" or "sculpting in a certain style" -- unless I totally
misunderstand the act and the case law that has come to my attention due
to writing and interpreting of numerous IP contracts.

In other words -- do what you like short of copying and don't fret.

If someone can provide reasons the above isn't true it would be nice to
see them -- but I am not going to worry about the issues raised any more
-- including imitating techniques.



Not the shape but the surface treatment itself?

That might be patentable and become an issue that way - otherwise
anything with similar treatment would _likely_ be judged to "be in the
style of" and be considered safe.

Similarly would Lyle Jamieson's torso figures be copyrightable? How
about Art Liestman's puzzle motif? They certainly appear unique and
easily attributable to their respective creators.

I think there is much more to be considered when emulating another's
work beyond condemning an attempt to sign their name and pass it off as
original. Creators like Vessery, Jamieson, Liestman, Burchard, Pho, etc.
have distinct styles of either shape, color, carving or some
combination. To mimic their work in any way other than as a learning
exercise for one's own development and limited display should, in my
view, be discouraged and may be unethical.

Unless it is an "exact" copy there should never be a problem. I think
any dispute would have to show that someone "intended to deceive".

Frankly if someone ever imitates my work I will probably kiss them - as
long as I see their name and a date on the work. Others may feel
differently and maybe we will see some legal battles in the future. Hope
not. Understand why you would feel this way if you create works that
might be imitated.

Consider also the scenerio in which the originator of a style is bested
by his apprentice. Rude Olsonik came up with the candlestick design that
is instantly recognizeable by many familiar with wood turning. (Refer to
the pic on p.57, Am WT, Spring '05, but pretend the Olsonik is on the
left and the copy is on the right.) If he had been mediocre at best in
his tool technique or sense of proportion though a student picked up the
design and then went on to perfect it, should the plagarist get the
deserved recognition of fine craftsmanship/artisanship or should it
remain with the creator of the basic design?

"In the style of" should not be an issue... I raise my (turned) cup
(finished with non-toxic coatings) to the apprentice.

Think back to the work of folks like Vessery or Jamieson. To arrive at a
largely unique design or treatment takes a lot of creative thought and
effort. I'm sure they have both spent much time mulling possibilities
after the initial inspiration as well as developing methods and
techniques to execute their ideas. There are likely quite a few reject
pieces of work that weren't up to representing the idea as successfully
as the artist would have liked. That takes time and materials. They have
dreamed an idea and gone through many steps to bring it to reality. The
person who then takes that work and copies the design and technique
without having to work through the process is not only short changing
his own development but has the potential to harm the artist's creative
outlook.

Should a creative spark occur when viewing a Vessery feathered vessel,
then by all means accept and be appreciative of the inspiration Vessery
provided to you. Then go on to produce work that attempts to bring your
inspired idea to light. On the other hand, producing feathered vessels
because Jaques Vessery showed you his idea and how he creates them
hinders your potential.

That would be a judgment call. IMO -- each to his own. In the style of
-- no problem. Exact copy with intent to deceive -- problem.

Other than the above two issues we can probably do what we want. If you
are happy to restrict your work then do so -- others may safely (IMO)
feel different.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery -- right? :-)

Turn on! (Tune in, and don't drop your tools - T. Leary was a turner
wasn't he?)



--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

In article ,
Will wrote:

Very thoughtful. I disagree on a lot of points but respect your thoughts.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

SNIP
I read the article and have paused several times since to consider the
matter. Do you think Jaques Vessery would be able to copyright his
feathered vessel design?

Under the new Intellectual Property laws (IP laws) you do not need to
register a copyright. The creation of a new physical work - painting,
story or other item like a carving or work of artistic impression (or
even a computer program) "gives" you the copyright, and the "moral
rights". They are independent of each other. (The moral rights prevent
someone from changing your work without written consent - and must be
granted independently..)

Right. One is not required to submit the form in order to enforce
copyright on their work though registering with the Copyright office
does have benefits. Copyright is also an individual's responsibility to
enforce - in other words, the police aren't going to arrest an
infringer. I guess my question would more properly be phrased as, "Do
you think Jaques Vessery would be able to enforce the copyright on his
feathered vessel design?"

Snip of good stuff

I think there is much more to be considered when emulating another's
work beyond condemning an attempt to sign their name and pass it off as
original. Creators like Vessery, Jamieson, Liestman, Burchard, Pho, etc.
have distinct styles of either shape, color, carving or some
combination. To mimic their work in any way other than as a learning
exercise for one's own development and limited display should, in my
view, be discouraged and may be unethical.

Unless it is an "exact" copy there should never be a problem. I think
any dispute would have to show that someone "intended to deceive".

I'm not sure if this fits your comments, but are you familiar with a
photography and sculpture case a decade or so ago? A photographer took a
picture of a man and woman holding a line of puppies in their arms. A
sculptor then made a version of the photo in 3-D with slight variations.
The photog won the infringement arguement. Granted this is different
than "in the style" but here the entire medium was changed with
variations and still the court found an infringement.

Some folks try to cite a degree of variation from the original as being
OK. "Just change 10% and there's no infringement." That has been shot
down by the courts in no uncertain terms. There is no degree in which
you can change something and be confident there is no violation -
except, of course, 100%.

Frankly if someone ever imitates my work I will probably kiss them - as
long as I see their name and a date on the work. Others may feel
differently and maybe we will see some legal battles in the future. Hope
not. Understand why you would feel this way if you create works that
might be imitated.

Do you think you'd feel the same if you were actively selling your work?
(Not knowing if you do or not.) What of the effort and expense you went
through to arrive at this work that seems to spawn imitations? Keep in
mind that much of my strong views on this relate directly within the
sales arena. In an accompanying side piece, Ellsworth wrote that this is
when the "rules begin to change." If one is not selling their work then
I believe they are merely stunting their development if they continue
making "copies" past a limited few to learn technique. Whether the
intent is to deceive or not, selling work in the style of another's
recognized work is unethical. It has the distinct possibility of harming
the creator of the design through diluting sales potential.

On a related note to this entire discussion, consider the current work
of Eli Avisara - the segmented candlesticks. They sure look like Olsonik
to me... but then Avisara took them a few steps further. The creative
process at work.

--
"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

Owen and Will
there is some good stuff here guys, I appreciate this debate. There has to
be raised the question, however , of what is being plagiarized, if anything?
I was at a syposium where David Ellsworth was demonstrating. He had a
display of his hollow forms on a table at the Instant Gallery. One of them
was a small form in ash priced at $900.00 US. On a near by table was a small
hollow form in ash, obviously inspired by David's work. It was valued at
$100.00 US. While someone else could have told the differences between the
pieces, the only discernable one to me was the signature on the bottom.
David has worked long and hard for it and deserves the accolades in my
opinion. When it comes to art the original artist is the one who gets the
accolades, the rest of us may immitate but until we find our own "voice" we
are only in the style.

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

I have independently originated a style. All of my turnings are round, or at least
have some semblance of round... At least there is a round plane somewhere in each
of my turnings, or there was when I began mutilating that piece of beautiful wood.
Can I claim this style as my own?

I am not a well educated or cultured person; I don't have the skills to articulate
a convincing argument about owning inspiration. I am someone who enjoys and spends
a lot of time turning. Someone else suggesting that I should not display a piece
in a library because it could devalue the work of an established artist… well it
just ****es me off. Especially whenI have never made an attempt to copy one of
these artists' shapes. When I put the gouge to wood it rarely ends up with the
shape that I envisioned when the bark was on the log; however, the final shape is
often something that I am quite proud of and others value. If it happens to
resemble a piece that one of these artists has produced, then tough.

Once again I am back into this topic after being up all night working at my real
job. (the one that pays for my turning) Gonna go to sleep for a while, wake up,
make shavings with a clear conscience, and **** on anyone who is arrogant enough to
suggest that they can own a shape.

Kirk

Owen:

Again - very thoughtful... Only a couple of issues and yes you do have
me thinking more....

See below...

Owen Lowe wrote:
In article ,
Will wrote:


Very thoughtful. I disagree on a lot of points but respect your thoughts.


Thanks for taking the time to reply.

SNIP

I read the article and have paused several times since to consider the
matter. Do you think Jaques Vessery would be able to copyright his
feathered vessel design?

Under the new Intellectual Property laws (IP laws) you do not need to
register a copyright. The creation of a new physical work - painting,
story or other item like a carving or work of artistic impression (or
even a computer program) "gives" you the copyright, and the "moral
rights". They are independent of each other. (The moral rights prevent
someone from changing your work without written consent - and must be
granted independently..)


Right. One is not required to submit the form in order to enforce
copyright on their work though registering with the Copyright office
does have benefits.

Correct - in Canada it's $35 last time I checked. Not much though
regardless. It provides a time marker. This may work for you or against
you...

Copyright is also an individual's responsibility to
enforce - in other words, the police aren't going to arrest an
infringer.

FYI -- not always true -- at least under the Canadian/Commonwealth
system. Criminal copyright theft can be enforced by the Crown Attorneys.
Almost always though I think it would be brought to their attention. It
would involve theft of copyrighted material (either physical theft or
unauthorized duplication) and would have to be of a value to attract
interest. So considerable leeway there...

This (criminal copyright violation) is why we have (and had) the
lawsuits against Napster and others BTW. In Canada at least it is the
Crown that is pursuing (or not) some of the violators. That is why you
can get the police involved in the searches for computers with
downloaded materials.


I guess my question would more properly be phrased as, "Do
you think Jaques Vessery would be able to enforce the copyright on his
feathered vessel design?"

No thinking involved... If he believes there is a violation of copyright
he can sue or attempt to interest law enforcement agencies. His choice.
If you (or any other turner) are considered "an expert" by the courts
then you could testify for or against as you pleased.

Snip of good stuff


I think there is much more to be considered when emulating another's
work beyond condemning an attempt to sign their name and pass it off as
original. Creators like Vessery, Jamieson, Liestman, Burchard, Pho, etc.
have distinct styles of either shape, color, carving or some
combination. To mimic their work in any way other than as a learning
exercise for one's own development and limited display should, in my
view, be discouraged and may be unethical.

Unless it is an "exact" copy there should never be a problem. I think
any dispute would have to show that someone "intended to deceive".


I'm not sure if this fits your comments, but are you familiar with a
photography and sculpture case a decade or so ago?

Was not aware of this. Can't say I am surprised. American case?

A photographer took a
picture of a man and woman holding a line of puppies in their arms. A
sculptor then made a version of the photo in 3-D with slight variations.
The photog won the infringement arguement. Granted this is different
than "in the style" but here the entire medium was changed with
variations and still the court found an infringement.


Seems like it could be a stretch to me. Not sure it would stand up in an
appellate court. If it does, I will review my photo work as it has
appeared in a number of publications. Maybe I have a retirement plan and
did not realize it. :-)

Here I think the test would be... Was the original work duplicated
(exact expressions, atmosphere, nuances) -- simply in another media.
Like for example -- was a book scanned, ran through OCR and then
republished on the internet. ...Or was the movie filmed at the movie
house than released on the internet as an MPEG. Both I can accept as
violations.

However, if there was strong similarity to the points above then yes --
I understand the decision.

Some folks try to cite a degree of variation from the original as being
OK. "Just change 10% and there's no infringement." That has been shot
down by the courts in no uncertain terms. There is no degree in which
you can change something and be confident there is no violation -
except, of course, 100%.


Beg to differ on that. Hopefully the courts will agree with me. If not,
perhaps we will both become cell mates in the not-too-distant-future.
Too much of my wood work has been done in previous variations.


Frankly if someone ever imitates my work I will probably kiss them - as
long as I see their name and a date on the work. Others may feel
differently and maybe we will see some legal battles in the future. Hope
not. Understand why you would feel this way if you create works that
might be imitated.


Do you think you'd feel the same if you were actively selling your work?
(Not knowing if you do or not.)

I do.

What of the effort and expense you went
through to arrive at this work that seems to spawn imitations?

My choice.

Keep in
mind that much of my strong views on this relate directly within the
sales arena. In an accompanying side piece, Ellsworth wrote that this is
when the "rules begin to change." If one is not selling their work then
I believe they are merely stunting their development if they continue
making "copies" past a limited few to learn technique. Whether the
intent is to deceive or not, selling work in the style of another's
recognized work is unethical. It has the distinct possibility of harming
the creator of the design through diluting sales potential.


Then a lot of the recognized painting masters are thieves and should
have their work stripped from museums. ...At least this is the logical
conclusion. So this is the significant point where we disagree. Or
perhaps we just have to come up with a percentage of variation that must
be there to satisfy us, the courts and the art auction houses...

On a related note to this entire discussion, consider the current work
of Eli Avisara - the segmented candlesticks. They sure look like Olsonik
to me... but then Avisara took them a few steps further. The creative
process at work.


As I just started turning again, I am unfamiliar with most turning work.
(And am now grateful for that -- see below. :-)) However, the principles
remain constant throughout the world of artistic creation. Lower courts
will probably give us many variations of interpretation as the artistic
world learns to use the new copyright protection treaties. We will need
decisions at the appellate court level before everyone is really
confident of the decisions that have been reached.

However, I did just think of another related issue....

In the world of IP and Patents.... Many companies no longer search for
similar work (to that which they wish to undertake) before embarking on
their own creative research... Why? Because if similar work has been
done and you were aware of work that in the opinion of "the court"
should have been recognized as "prior art" then the holder of the
original IP is entitled to "treble damages".

So maybe I will quit reading books and just "carry on turning". The at
least if I (commercially) duplicate someones work I will only have to
pay "normal" damages.

--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

Darrell:

Read this with a gentle tone of voice and take no offense -- none is
intended.

Be careful of what you say. :-) Some of us are bound to think it is your
"Boss" talking. :-) LOL

But we might yet seek moral guidance from you as legal guidance often
tends to fall short in this matter, and moral arguments can and should
come to the fore. Indeed the legal arguments for this type of law are
usually based on "sound" moral judgment.

Darrell Feltmate wrote:
Owen and Will
there is some good stuff here guys, I appreciate this debate. There has to
be raised the question, however , of what is being plagiarized, if anything?
I was at a syposium where David Ellsworth was demonstrating. He had a
display of his hollow forms on a table at the Instant Gallery. One of them
was a small form in ash priced at $900.00 US. On a near by table was a small
hollow form in ash, obviously inspired by David's work. It was valued at
$100.00 US.

The difference is price is simply that of having a "famous artist"
handle or create the work. IMO. We, as humans, want to feel that is some
way we have a piece of a "creative genius". We want to "belong" to an
exclusive group. A lot of marketing works that way - what is called the
"touchstone" principle and of course "esclusivity". FWIW.

e.g -- "this work was inspired by Ellsworth" or "the artist himself made
the sketch from which I created in his style this... (whatever)"

While someone else could have told the differences between the
pieces, the only discernable one to me was the signature on the bottom.
David has worked long and hard for it and deserves the accolades in my
opinion.

And clearly he has them (accolades) if his work commands a nine times
premium over similar work that is casually indistinguishable.

When it comes to art the original artist is the one who gets the
accolades, the rest of us may immitate but until we find our own "voice" we
are only in the style.

Einstein? He certainly did not get the money. The people who produced
nuclear power plants certainly had a few pieces of silver change hands.

Here Darrell you might argue that Einstein was simply a popularizer for
your Bosses work and as such was not entitled to significant rewards as
his efforts were "only in the style". But I am going to leave those
arguments alone for now... :-)

As I said previously, moral arguments hold sway here. Laws simply tend
to reflect the moral arguments and judgments -- however accurately.

--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

Kirk wrote:
I have independently originated a style. All of my turnings are round, or at least
have some semblance of round... At least there is a round plane somewhere in each
of my turnings, or there was when I began mutilating that piece of beautiful wood.
Can I claim this style as my own?


No. Over 30 years ago I did something in this shape. Be warned. However,
on reflection, since you spoke so elegantly and eloquently, I grant you
special dispensation to make round pieces. All others take note and be
warned though... LOL



I am not a well educated or cultured person; I don't have the skills to articulate
a convincing argument about owning inspiration. I am someone who enjoys and spends
a lot of time turning. Someone else suggesting that I should not display a piece
in a library because it could devalue the work of an established artist… well it
just ****es me off.

My point too - I was just trying not to offend. Not that you did. I will
probably laugh all day while thinking of your post.

Especially when I have never made an attempt to copy one of
these artists' shapes. When I put the gouge to wood it rarely ends up with the
shape that I envisioned when the bark was on the log;

Mine neither - but for different reasons than yours I will bet...
Dig-ins, gouges spirals that sorta...

however, the final shape is
often something that I am quite proud of and others value. If it happens to
resemble a piece that one of these artists has produced, then tough.

I agree. My point too I think. Yours is more to the point however.

Once again I am back into this topic after being up all night working at my real
job. (the one that pays for my turning) Gonna go to sleep for a while, wake up,
make shavings with a clear conscience, and **** on anyone who is arrogant enough to
suggest that they can own a shape.

Sleep well and turn with a clear conscience. I know that I will.

Would love to see some of your work. When you do display it -- let us
all know.

Kirk


--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

"Will" wrote in message
. ..
The difference is price is simply that of having a "famous artist"
handle or create the work. IMO. We, as humans, want to feel that is some
way we have a piece of a "creative genius". We want to "belong" to an
exclusive group. A lot of marketing works that way - what is called the
"touchstone" principle and of course "esclusivity". FWIW.

e.g -- "this work was inspired by Ellsworth" or "the artist himself made
the sketch from which I created in his style this... (whatever)"


Unfortunately, as in the story I related, most of us have no idea if any
"famous name" ever did something like what we do. Therefore we, like Kirk,
can only say that what we do is what we do.

Then there's the oft-referenced "you sell too cheaply," a phrase sometimes
used here and elsewhere to grant some sort of tacit copyright to the
established name by implying that you owe h/er/im a royalty or living.

It's said that we stand on the shoulders of giants, but they stood on
shoulders of others before them and so on and on. It seems to me that
'unaware plagiarism' is a contradiction of terms. Not knowing what you
know is an oxymoron easily denied with: 'after the style of' "I
always give full credit" "I claim no originality'", 'the sincerest
form of flattery', "I never sell my turnings", "who cares anyway", We
each have our favorite 'feel good' phrases, but we all really do know if
we are copy cats and true plagiarists. It just matters more to some than
it does to others and usually the least of all to those who are
plageriazed.

A part of earning a widely recognized style is owing to excellent
repetitive work being accepted by those who can promote the stylist's
work and escalate its value. Some work is recognized immediately on
viewing a picture of it, but the same picture had to be seen many times
before.
This doesn't detract from fine original work, just helps to explain the
rules of the game.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

Arch wrote:
It's said that we stand on the shoulders of giants, but they stood on
shoulders of others before them and so on and on. It seems to me that
'unaware plagiarism' is a contradiction of terms. Not knowing what you
know is an oxymoron easily denied with: 'after the style of' "I
always give full credit" "I claim no originality'", 'the sincerest
form of flattery', "I never sell my turnings", "who cares anyway", We
each have our favorite 'feel good' phrases, but we all really do know if
we are copy cats and true plagiarists. It just matters more to some than
it does to others and usually the least of all to those who are
plageriazed.


And computer scientists stand on each others toes. :-)

My attempt at humour for the day.


A part of earning a widely recognized style is owing to excellent
repetitive work being accepted by those who can promote the stylist's
work and escalate its value.


EXACTLY!!!!!

Well said.


Some work is recognized immediately on
viewing a picture of it, but the same picture had to be seen many times
before.
This doesn't detract from fine original work, just helps to explain the
rules of the game.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings


--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

Will wrote in
:


Under the new Intellectual Property laws (IP laws) you do not need to
register a copyright. The creation of a new physical work - painting,
story or other item like a carving or work of artistic impression (or
even a computer program) "gives" you the copyright, and the "moral
rights". They are independent of each other. (The moral rights prevent
someone from changing your work without written consent - and must be
granted independently..)

For example if a customer paints your goblet -- then yes you can take
them to court and force them to "change it back". Unless you
specifically signed over moral rights.... Course changing it back
would probably destroy it -- so nobody wins... :-)

If you want legal case law, look up the incident of Eatons dressing up
the statue in Eatons Square in Christmas time. The sculptor did not
like it and took Eatons to court. The sculptor won as I recall and the
scarf came off and the statue was bare for ever more... (Moral rights)


If I had bought the statue and the goblet,decided it was crap; took a large
hammer to them and made smaller pieces of art - could the sculptor and
goblet artist take me to court for doing to my physical property what I
choose?
Like Arch (Lord High Muser) only musing.
Hank (lord low muser)

Henry St.Pierre wrote:
Will wrote in
:


Under the new Intellectual Property laws (IP laws) you do not need to
register a copyright. The creation of a new physical work - painting,
story or other item like a carving or work of artistic impression (or
even a computer program) "gives" you the copyright, and the "moral
rights". They are independent of each other. (The moral rights prevent
someone from changing your work without written consent - and must be
granted independently..)

For example if a customer paints your goblet -- then yes you can take
them to court and force them to "change it back". Unless you
specifically signed over moral rights.... Course changing it back
would probably destroy it -- so nobody wins... :-)

If you want legal case law, look up the incident of Eatons dressing up
the statue in Eatons Square in Christmas time. The sculptor did not
like it and took Eatons to court. The sculptor won as I recall and the
scarf came off and the statue was bare for ever more... (Moral rights)



If I had bought the statue and the goblet,decided it was crap; took a large
hammer to them and made smaller pieces of art - could the sculptor and
goblet artist take me to court for doing to my physical property what I
choose?

Pretty much. :-)

Unless you bought the moral rights. :-)



Like Arch (Lord High Muser) only musing.
Hank (lord low muser)

--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

In article ,
Will wrote:

Unless you bought the moral rights. :-)

Will, I've not heard the term "moral rights" before reading your replies
in this discussion. Is this a Canadian term? I don't believe it's
something in the US copyright terms.

--
"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

In article 42,
"Henry St.Pierre" wrote:

If I had bought the statue and the goblet,decided it was crap; took a large
hammer to them and made smaller pieces of art - could the sculptor and
goblet artist take me to court for doing to my physical property what I
choose?

If you tried to profit from the resulting item, then yes - at least in
the US. Taking a portion or reconfiguration of someone's work does not
constitute a new work giving you the rights to it.

There are exceptions for critical comment, satire and such, but you'll
likely end up in court explaining why your new work should be exempt
under these exceptions - in other words, it's not an automatic exception.

--
"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

In article ,
Anonymous wrote:

But it
isn't likely that I would even try to copy an Ellsworth and pass it off at
my local craft show as genuine. Firstly, I doubt if anyone in attendance
there would attach any cache to his name. Secondly, all the shows I would
expect to exhibit at require that the artist be present. Even if genuine,
I would not be allowed to sell 'an Ellsworth'.

The only way I could sign anyone else's name to the bottom of a really
nice piece of work is to give that person, male or female, credit for work
-I- did. If I am capable of copying him/her faithfully, I am capable of
doing better work than (s)he because I have already mastered his/her level
of craft and now need only step into my own sense of artistic vision.

I don't see this discussion as focusing on attempts to make knockoffs of
known artists' works but rather intentionally copying a successful
design as a whole - shape, color, surface treatment, etc.

Refer again to Jacques Vesery,
http://www.delmano.com/2003/Wood_Art...sery___Ha/Jacq
ues_Vesery_/Jacques_Vesery/jacques_vesery_8.html.
If one was to, by and large, copy this design with the intent to sell
it, I would have a problem with the ethics of the person. Keep in mind
this type of work has a very distinct look that is recognizeable as done
by Vesery. Not so with a majority of the bowl, box, or platter work out
there - even that done by the "pros". A bowl is a bowl is a bowl.
However, when the maker begins adding his own sense of design and
creativity to the surface of the shape then it starts to become his
known style - and that's the departure point for me in the ethics of
attempting to emulate another's work for profit.

--
"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

In article ,
Will wrote:

there is some good stuff here guys, I appreciate this debate. There has to
be raised the question, however , of what is being plagiarized, if anything?
I was at a syposium where David Ellsworth was demonstrating. He had a
display of his hollow forms on a table at the Instant Gallery. One of them
was a small form in ash priced at $900.00 US. On a near by table was a small
hollow form in ash, obviously inspired by David's work. It was valued at
$100.00 US.

The difference is price is simply that of having a "famous artist"
handle or create the work. IMO. We, as humans, want to feel that is some
way we have a piece of a "creative genius". We want to "belong" to an
exclusive group. A lot of marketing works that way - what is called the
"touchstone" principle and of course "esclusivity". FWIW.

e.g -- "this work was inspired by Ellsworth" or "the artist himself made
the sketch from which I created in his style this... (whatever)"

While someone else could have told the differences between the
pieces, the only discernable one to me was the signature on the bottom.
David has worked long and hard for it and deserves the accolades in my
opinion.

And clearly he has them (accolades) if his work commands a nine times
premium over similar work that is casually indistinguishable.

Hello Will.

First of all you don't know that Ellsworth sold the piece for $900 when
the other piece nearby was marked at only $100. It's human nature to
make comparisons and if a turner (Darrell) couldn't tell a difference
except for price then the inexpensive piece may have thwarted the sale
of Ellsworth's piece.

Secondly, let's examine that $100. There's absolutely no way a turner
can make a decent return on his time to sell for that amount - not to
speak of purchasing tools, supplies or the education process. He is
severly undercutting any realistically priced pieces and hurting others
attempting to be paid a just amount for their efforts. (Not knowing if
$900 is reasonable or not, I just know that $100 is totally
unreasonable.) Perhaps this very situation is the reason David Ellsworth
wrote the article.

Lastly, there are undoubtedly collectors or speculators out there who
would look for an established turner's pieces. If serious enough in
their quests they'd likely expect to pay a fair bit of money and they
wouldn't be swayed by an adjacent copycat. These types of buyers are
relatively few and far between. However there are people who are
unfamiliar with wood turning but discover they are attracted to the
craft and would like to acquire a piece or two for their mantle. They
are obviously attracted to the design which Ellsworth pioneered and
presents in his piece but are torn by another turner who has copied
Ellsworth but is charging substantially less. This turner has harmed
Ellsworth's earning potential and may benefit from Ellsworth's
creativity and learning process. He is hurting not only Ellsworth but
others who may desire to enter into turning for a living.

Well, enough ranting for one night. This isn't going to be laid to rest
any time soon.

--
"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

In article _4iVd.34381$ab2.8712@edtnps89,
"Darrell Feltmate" wrote:

there is some good stuff here guys, I appreciate this debate. There has to
be raised the question, however , of what is being plagiarized, if anything?
I was at a syposium where David Ellsworth was demonstrating. He had a
display of his hollow forms on a table at the Instant Gallery. One of them
was a small form in ash priced at $900.00 US. On a near by table was a small
hollow form in ash, obviously inspired by David's work. It was valued at
$100.00 US. While someone else could have told the differences between the
pieces, the only discernable one to me was the signature on the bottom.
David has worked long and hard for it and deserves the accolades in my
opinion. When it comes to art the original artist is the one who gets the
accolades, the rest of us may immitate but until we find our own "voice" we
are only in the style.

Maybe I missed your point Darrell, but did you support your question -
What, if anything, is being plagarized? I thought you were going to
discredit the plagarism debate but it seems to me your observation is
pretty clear that Ellsworth's "look" was plagarized and it left you with
strong feelings in support of Ellsworth.

--
"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

"Will" wrote in message
. ..

Henry St.Pierre wrote:
Will wrote in
:


Under the new Intellectual Property laws (IP laws) you do not need to
register a copyright. The creation of a new physical work - painting,
story or other item like a carving or work of artistic impression (or
even a computer program) "gives" you the copyright, and the "moral
rights". They are independent of each other. (The moral rights prevent
someone from changing your work without written consent - and must be
granted independently..)

For example if a customer paints your goblet -- then yes you can take
them to court and force them to "change it back". Unless you
specifically signed over moral rights.... Course changing it back
would probably destroy it -- so nobody wins... :-)

If you want legal case law, look up the incident of Eatons dressing up
the statue in Eatons Square in Christmas time. The sculptor did not
like it and took Eatons to court. The sculptor won as I recall and the
scarf came off and the statue was bare for ever more... (Moral rights)



If I had bought the statue and the goblet,decided it was crap; took a
large
hammer to them and made smaller pieces of art - could the sculptor and
goblet artist take me to court for doing to my physical property what I
choose?

Pretty much. :-)

Unless you bought the moral rights. :-)

Even if he had the disclaimer attached, like the do in DVDs?

"This statue has been modified from the original. It has been smashed to
fit in the trash."

IP (Intellectual Property) is part of every government contracts and many
others.
In Canada we rely on common law (except in Quebec where they use a civil
code) and most of the decisions are made on jurisprudence (the number of
court cases that took place in the past and how they were settled).
So far, at this time, I do not know of any jurisprudence relating to
woodturning. If any one find valid court cases I would appreciate hearing
about them.
The trick is to get someone to registered and issued a valid and legal
patent for your work.
A patent may be declared valid and legal in one country and not in the
other. The intent, the application and enforcement of a patent is quite a
challenge in today's world.

"Owen Lowe" wrote in message
news
In article _4iVd.34381$ab2.8712@edtnps89,
"Darrell Feltmate" wrote:

there is some good stuff here guys, I appreciate this debate. There has
to
be raised the question, however , of what is being plagiarized, if
anything?
I was at a syposium where David Ellsworth was demonstrating. He had a
display of his hollow forms on a table at the Instant Gallery. One of
them
was a small form in ash priced at $900.00 US. On a near by table was a
small
hollow form in ash, obviously inspired by David's work. It was valued at
$100.00 US. While someone else could have told the differences between
the
pieces, the only discernable one to me was the signature on the bottom.
David has worked long and hard for it and deserves the accolades in my
opinion. When it comes to art the original artist is the one who gets
the
accolades, the rest of us may immitate but until we find our own "voice"
we
are only in the style.

Maybe I missed your point Darrell, but did you support your question -
What, if anything, is being plagarized? I thought you were going to
discredit the plagarism debate but it seems to me your observation is
pretty clear that Ellsworth's "look" was plagarized and it left you with
strong feelings in support of Ellsworth.

--
"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

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

No. It is not "Just Canada". These are issues resolve in _International
Treaties_ - otherwise Microsoft could not sue people in other countries
for ripping off "MS Windows" for eg.

Get a copy of the international treaties relating to copyright, and
check an applicable American Law book if you really do need to know.

The next paragraph is actually relevant...
In the British Commonwealth system, case law can also be used from the
lower courts. In the American system the appellate courts set the
standard. So... particularly in the commonwealth and European countries
a body of case law has accumulated supporting "moral rights". These laws
have become part of the treaties.

Programmers have successfully sued companies and insisted that code be
returned to what is was prior to "Quality Assurance" improving it... LOL

If you hire creative types without both parties agreeing that the deal
includes, copyright, patent rights, moral rights etc... You may not
actually _fully_ own the material for which you have paid. This includes
people who create pictures, (photographers, painters, sculptors) and
people who create written works (stories, technical manuals, contracts,
computer programs, procedure manuals).

I have written and negotiated a number of these contracts and have
tested them in court - unfortunately (for the other party).

Understanding these rights can save a lot of time as you know what the
boundaries are -- and how to prevent misunderstandings.

Someone asked - "Could they break it with a hammer ..."... ???

Not and re-display it as art!

....Since it would in effect be a misrepresentation of the artists work.
(Unless they specifically via forethought had purchased the work with
"moral rights".)

Can they smash it just before throwing it out or burning it or grinding
it to bits -- YES! And they can do that because they own the work. they
do not own the rights to "change the work".

That is to say, without "moral rights" they cannot change the work
without the artists written (contractual) agreement.

Hope that helps...

If any of these are issues for you or anyone else reading this -- see a
lawyer. As they will (should) advise you -- any court looks at _all the
circumstances_ -- at least as they are able. However, I strongly
recommend that you learn everything you can before you go and set
realistic expectations. Lawyers competent in IP law are expensive. Make
sure you know what you want and can put it in writing. ...Or expect a
_large_ invoice.

USA is a signatory to these International Treaties - not that they
always pay attention to treaties they have signed.



Owen Lowe wrote:
In article ,
Will wrote:


Unless you bought the moral rights. :-)


Will, I've not heard the term "moral rights" before reading your replies
in this discussion. Is this a Canadian term? I don't believe it's
something in the US copyright terms.


--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

Patents are not relevant here. Must go. Can say more later if you wish.

Sorry...


Denis Marier wrote:
IP (Intellectual Property) is part of every government contracts and many
others.
In Canada we rely on common law (except in Quebec where they use a civil
code) and most of the decisions are made on jurisprudence (the number of
court cases that took place in the past and how they were settled).
So far, at this time, I do not know of any jurisprudence relating to
woodturning. If any one find valid court cases I would appreciate hearing
about them.
The trick is to get someone to registered and issued a valid and legal
patent for your work.
A patent may be declared valid and legal in one country and not in the
other. The intent, the application and enforcement of a patent is quite a
challenge in today's world.

"Owen Lowe" wrote in message
news
In article _4iVd.34381$ab2.8712@edtnps89,
"Darrell Feltmate" wrote:


there is some good stuff here guys, I appreciate this debate. There has

to

be raised the question, however , of what is being plagiarized, if

anything?

I was at a syposium where David Ellsworth was demonstrating. He had a
display of his hollow forms on a table at the Instant Gallery. One of

them

was a small form in ash priced at $900.00 US. On a near by table was a

small

hollow form in ash, obviously inspired by David's work. It was valued at
$100.00 US. While someone else could have told the differences between

the

pieces, the only discernable one to me was the signature on the bottom.
David has worked long and hard for it and deserves the accolades in my
opinion. When it comes to art the original artist is the one who gets

the

accolades, the rest of us may immitate but until we find our own "voice"

we

are only in the style.

Maybe I missed your point Darrell, but did you support your question -
What, if anything, is being plagarized? I thought you were going to
discredit the plagarism debate but it seems to me your observation is
pretty clear that Ellsworth's "look" was plagarized and it left you with
strong feelings in support of Ellsworth.

--
"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long




--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

George wrote:

Even if he had the disclaimer attached, like the do in DVDs?

"This statue has been modified from the original. It has been smashed to
fit in the trash."

LOL - THAT IS FINE!

You simply cannot -re-display it as work representative of the artist.

I covered that earlier.

Must go.




--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

Darrell Feltmate wrote:
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

That raises the question of time, and definitions. I wonder who turned
the first hollow vessel from wood, and when? Great idea, and the
originator deserves a lot of credit. Likewise with style and decorative
enhancements. There is a very fine line between copying, and working in
the 'style of'. Who was the first person to decorate a turning with
carving? Or carving in this style, or another style which derives from
the first?

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.

Perception is a very subjective thing though! Some might perceive that
an object is a copy, others may perceive very slight changes in style
that add immensely to (or detract from) the copied work.

If credit is given where
credit is due, is it palgiarism?

And what if the plagiarism is subconcious? I probably incorporate all
sorts of elements into my work due to past influences, but I doubt that
I could tell you where they came from.

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.

That's interesting. I'm curious as to whether quilters actually give
credit when they use a published design. It certainly puts the maker in
a category of pure craft, rather than one of designer craft or artist,
and hopefully would be judged in a different category.

Of course, once one publishes a plan, unless it is sold with limited
rights (ie it may be used only once, or may only be used for personal
use) then it moves into public domain.

Then of course there is plagiarism of technique. Do we give credit to
the person(s) who developed the techniques for making turned natural
edge green bowls, or wooden boxes, or bottle stoppers.


--
Derek Andrews, woodturner

http://www.seafoamwoodturning.com
http://chipshop.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/toolrest/

Design patents might well be relevant.
See http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/design/definition.html

Roger

Will wrote:
Patents are not relevant here. Must go. Can say more later if you wish.

Sorry...

"Owen Lowe" wrote in message
news
In article ,
..

Hello Will.

First of all you don't know that Ellsworth sold the piece for $900 when
the other piece nearby was marked at only $100. It's human nature to
make comparisons and if a turner (Darrell) couldn't tell a difference
except for price then the inexpensive piece may have thwarted the sale
of Ellsworth's piece.

Secondly, let's examine that $100. There's absolutely no way a turner
can make a decent return on his time to sell for that amount - not to
speak of purchasing tools, supplies or the education process. He is
severly undercutting any realistically priced pieces and hurting others
attempting to be paid a just amount for their efforts. (Not knowing if
$900 is reasonable or not, I just know that $100 is totally
unreasonable.) Perhaps this very situation is the reason David Ellsworth
wrote the article.


Interesting point Owen. In the past I received an email from a complete
stranger accusing me of charging too little for some of my turnings and
thereby taking food from the mouths of his children. Obviously he wanted me
to raise my prices to his level so that he could compete "fairly" in the
same market. Interesting that he wants to set the price of my turnings.
Interesting.....maybe a little arrogance here? I don't give a damn what
other turners charge for their turnings. I set what I consider to be a fair
price for my turnings and if that undercuts other turners....... Well...
welcome to a free market world.
You mention above that $900.00 may not be reasonable but you KNOW that
$100 is not. You fail however, to set for the turning world, an EXACT price
that the turning should be in ALL areas of the globe.

If the tone comes across as too harsh I apologize in advance ....These are
just my personal opinions and you are most certainly entitled to yours.
--

Regards,
M.J. (Mike) Orr

I remember when working in engineering design for international companies.
One of the prerequisite for employment was that "If during the course of
your employment you created, designed, invent, facilitate, reduce
production cost or improve machinery's the drawings and procedures made by
you shall remind the property of the employers. The common weaver was that
the employer had the right to get your idea patented and only pay you $1.00
for your invention. Failing to sign this weaver a designer was not hired.
If your idea is not patented or duly recognized by a legal body and accepted
by the law of the land your have a mammoth task to prove in a court of law
that you are the first one that created, invented or wrote the operational
philosophy and so on. One interesting song is "I did it my way" who was the
real creator of that song? FWIW

"Will" wrote in message
...
Patents are not relevant here. Must go. Can say more later if you wish.

Sorry...


Denis Marier wrote:
IP (Intellectual Property) is part of every government contracts and
many
others.
In Canada we rely on common law (except in Quebec where they use a civil
code) and most of the decisions are made on jurisprudence (the number of
court cases that took place in the past and how they were settled).
So far, at this time, I do not know of any jurisprudence relating to
woodturning. If any one find valid court cases I would appreciate
hearing
about them.
The trick is to get someone to registered and issued a valid and legal
patent for your work.
A patent may be declared valid and legal in one country and not in the
other. The intent, the application and enforcement of a patent is
quite a
challenge in today's world.

"Owen Lowe" wrote in message
news
In article _4iVd.34381$ab2.8712@edtnps89,
"Darrell Feltmate" wrote:


there is some good stuff here guys, I appreciate this debate. There has

to

be raised the question, however , of what is being plagiarized, if

anything?

I was at a syposium where David Ellsworth was demonstrating. He had a
display of his hollow forms on a table at the Instant Gallery. One of

them

was a small form in ash priced at $900.00 US. On a near by table was a

small

hollow form in ash, obviously inspired by David's work. It was valued
at
$100.00 US. While someone else could have told the differences between

the

pieces, the only discernable one to me was the signature on the bottom.
David has worked long and hard for it and deserves the accolades in my
opinion. When it comes to art the original artist is the one who gets

the

accolades, the rest of us may immitate but until we find our own
"voice"

we

are only in the style.

Maybe I missed your point Darrell, but did you support your question -
What, if anything, is being plagarized? I thought you were going to
discredit the plagarism debate but it seems to me your observation is
pretty clear that Ellsworth's "look" was plagarized and it left you with
strong feelings in support of Ellsworth.

--
"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long




--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

What about a hair cut? Say someone gets this u-bueat whizz bang hair cut and
makes a lot of money from the fame it brings. What then if I get my hair cut
in a similar vein and try to get famous myself?
How can a form be property of anything other than the form? We find all
forms in nature.
Seems to me that if you copy someones work and try and sell it as their work
you are a dog and that would be fraud.
This leads to the question, (my mind often makes these jumps) where does
creativity come from?. Is it the sum of our experiences? Your idea may very
well be new, but it is a composite of all you have seen. Does this then mean
that everyone who creates plagiarises?
Of course not.
Mick

Roger:

Yes I took a 10 second look. been out all day so quite tired... Went to
DT Toronto - The Royal Ontario Museum. We went to see geological
displays but caught a display of European designed furniture as well.
Incredible...

To business..
The design patents might be relevant if you wanted to lock up a
particular pattern -- or even take over "round beads" and stake them as
your own. (The latter might be tough though... )

Maybe as the design on a bowl -- a specific pattern. Not sure how we
could lay claim to a particular sequence of beads and coves and finials
etc, or a particular geometric form for a bowl. That is what I was
thinking of...


Roger wrote:
Design patents might well be relevant.
See http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/design/definition.html

Roger

Will wrote:

Patents are not relevant here. Must go. Can say more later if you wish.

Sorry...



--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

Owen:

Your information is not complete... It is essentially sound - but just
widen out the issues a bit... see below.

Owen Lowe wrote:
In article 42,
"Henry St.Pierre" wrote:


If I had bought the statue and the goblet,decided it was crap; took a large
hammer to them and made smaller pieces of art - could the sculptor and
goblet artist take me to court for doing to my physical property what I
choose?


If you tried to profit from the resulting item, then yes - at least in
the US.

Profit is a not necessarily an issue. It might be but is not necessary
to make a case. There are at least two issues that could trigger a suit
here... "Reconfiguring a work to make money _might_ be one...

Taking a portion or reconfiguration of someone's work does not
constitute a new work giving you the rights to it.


Correct IMO - we concur on this. Indeed it would be a clear violation of
the "moral rights" of the artist.

You could throw it in the garbage at this point. No problem there.

If you display the broken piece - "as the artists work" then you
_definitely_ have a problem.



There are exceptions for critical comment, satire and such, but you'll
likely end up in court explaining why your new work should be exempt
under these exceptions - in other words, it's not an automatic exception.


Exactly, we concur, if you are making an attempt to disparage the other
persons work by creating something extremely close, but distorted copy
in a manner as to disparage, you have probably given them enough to file
suit. Since you are talking about "reconstructing" their creation.

A satirical drawing or copy should not (but might) draw fire. It depends
on the temperament of the offended artist and what they are willing to
pay a lawyer. A court would likely be willing to _hear_ the case, but it
would then be up to the artist to prove that the satirical work somehow
violated their copyright or moral rights. Not always an easy thing to do...

If you recall "The Wind Done gone"... A take-off of "Gone with the wind
"(GWTW). A lower court fond the satire to be a violation. An appellate
court found the satire allowable -- as I recall.

BUT!!!!! The new work was a new story. Not a simple rehash of the
original, or the old book with words crossed out and new words inserted etc.



--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

In article ,
"Michael Lehmann" wrote:

Seems to me that if you copy someones work and try and sell it as their work
you are a dog and that would be fraud.

What of the person who copies someone's work and displays it for sale as
their own creative expression? That is much more likely, in my opinion,
among the woodturning masses. Does anyone out there tell, or have you
overheard other turners telling, buyers that the piece they are looking
at is "in the style of" or an attempt at producing work originated by
Johnabob Ellsonik, professional turner? Is it a matter of the turner not
being forthcoming with information because the buyer does not know the
right question to ask?

If there is no desire to mislead buyers who are not familiar with the
evolution of woodturning, why are such statements of creative origin so
silent? Are these turners not proud of their abilities to mimic the
style and designs of others?

As forgeries are fraudulent, purposefully omitting pertinent information
is fraud as well - though I believe it is a moral and ethical failing,
for this discussion, rather than legal.

--
"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long