American Woodturner has an article on plagiarism i the latest edition.
There are obviously problems attached to this area of legal usage.

The example used in the article is a piece by Rude Osolnik as opposed to
a "knockoff" by someone else.

First: How on earth can Rude Osolnik prove to anybody that _his_
piece is the first?
Where did he get the idea?
Who else did almost the same at different points in time without
being registered by the author of the article?
As a point of interest, I would think that quite a few such objects
have been made since 1960, the form being a typical 60ies thingy.
Neither is it especially complicated, so, in my judgement a lot of people
could have made the thing independently without knowing about any
of the others.
Are we then speaking plagiarism?

In my opinion the fact that a piece has been sold by somebody does not
create copyright unless you can document being "the first".

In my opinion it is not enough to be the first in your neighborhood to
make a certain form, to establish copyright, or the right to deem others
"knockers off". The techniques and the materials are pretty universal,
and the one hollow form does not differ too much from the other,
unless, and here is one point that I feel is important:
Unless the technique is so complex and the choice of materials and
the finishing touches are so distinct and rare that little doubt can be
had as to the originality of the work.

Collectors value was mentioned, and the copies was said to diminsh
the value of the original.
This I can not understand:
Like the collectors of sculpture and painting, there are two significant
ways to establish the value and origin of a piece:

The signatu
If a piece is signed, and someone else copies the work _and_
the signature, then I imagine that existing laws in all countries
have been breeched, and a lawsuit is a near possibility.

The technique:
If the artists technique is sufficiently complex and special that
an expert or two can examine the work, and state that the probability
of the piece being an original from this or that artist, then the
probability may be worth the money.
Sometimes the copy brings as much money as the original,
even though "everybody" knows the piece to be a copy, it is
that interesting, or well made.

I think this "problem" of plagiarism is a bit out of proportion.
Expensive, well known pieces that are well documented by the
artist or the gallery is one thing: There the term plagiarism may
have some meaning.

Undocumented "firsts" or very local "firsts" of simple form
and common materials should be treated as "public domain"
because of the problem of establishing a real "first".
If the artist signs his pieces and documents his production in a
satisfactory way, he is, of course, in a better position to grumble
about "knockoffs", but it is my opinion that the form cited
in American Woodturner as being an "Osolnik" is far too simple
both in the form and in the choice of material to represent
a real "first".

Bjarte

Bjarte Runderheim wrote:
American Woodturner has an article on plagiarism i the latest edition.
There are obviously problems attached to this area of legal usage.

The example used in the article is a piece by Rude Osolnik as opposed to
a "knockoff" by someone else.

First: How on earth can Rude Osolnik prove to anybody that _his_
piece is the first?

Copyright can be established by creating the work, "publishing" the
work, or registering the work with a copyright office is simply an
affirmation. As you point out later this may not be as easy as it looks
or seems. :-)

Where did he get the idea?

Who else did almost the same at different points in time without
being registered by the author of the article?

Not relevant to establishing a copyright. Possibly relevant to a
challenge -- I would guess.

As a point of interest, I would think that quite a few such objects
have been made since 1960, the form being a typical 60ies thingy.
Neither is it especially complicated, so, in my judgement a lot of people
could have made the thing independently without knowing about any
of the others.

Quite true. Similar works often raise these issues. An "author" would
need to come forward. But for copyright -- probably irrelevant.

Are we then speaking plagiarism?

Good questions. Are you -- like Arch -- trying to make my head hurt?
It's working.

Maybe - maybe not. You certainly raise all the issues.

If an item went to trial a judge would look at the case "in all the
circumstances". And you do raise quite a few... :-)


In my opinion the fact that a piece has been sold by somebody does not
create copyright unless you can document being "the first".

Selling has nothing to do with it. Creating, "Publishing" and possibly
registering create the "copyright". Creation of a work grants you the
copy rights and the moral rights. It does not grant you a patent --
which is quite another matter. I mention a patent because some of your
concerns border on "claiming a form as ones own" -- which is closer to
the Intellectual Property (IP) rights granted by a patent.


In my opinion it is not enough to be the first in your neighborhood to
make a certain form, to establish copyright, or the right to deem others
"knockers off".

Not true. Simply creating a work creates a copyright. Copyrighting a
style or form -- now that might be a challenge. Copyright is quite
specific. You raise two quite different issues here. 1. copying; 2. In
the style of...

The techniques and the materials are pretty universal,
and the one hollow form does not differ too much from the other,
unless, and here is one point that I feel is important:
Unless the technique is so complex and the choice of materials and
the finishing touches are so distinct and rare that little doubt can be
had as to the originality of the work.

Collectors value was mentioned, and the copies was said to diminsh
the value of the original.
This I can not understand:
Like the collectors of sculpture and painting, there are two significant
ways to establish the value and origin of a piece:


I have trouble with this as well. As long as copies are identified and
there purpose identified, the should not diminish the value. Fraud is
another issue altogether.

The signatu
If a piece is signed, and someone else copies the work _and_
the signature, then I imagine that existing laws in all countries
have been breeched, and a lawsuit is a near possibility.


Agreed. This is my understanding of IP and copyright. Except....

Taiwan for example insists that IP (at least patents, have to
investigate copyright -- if I get motivated...) be registered there
first -- if at all. Otherwise it does not recognize the Intellectual
Property (IP) rights. There are probably other countries with similar
"gotchas"...

The technique:
If the artists technique is sufficiently complex and special that
an expert or two can examine the work, and state that the probability
of the piece being an original from this or that artist, then the
probability may be worth the money.

That's how (fraudulent) art copiers often work. :-)

Sometimes the copy brings as much money as the original,
even though "everybody" knows the piece to be a copy, it is
that interesting, or well made.

I think this "problem" of plagiarism is a bit out of proportion.
Expensive, well known pieces that are well documented by the
artist or the gallery is one thing: There the term plagiarism may
have some meaning.

Undocumented "firsts" or very local "firsts" of simple form
and common materials should be treated as "public domain"
because of the problem of establishing a real "first".

Unless you take a patent. Someone in this forum mentioned he was working
on "round". Not sure how he made out. LOL

If the artist signs his pieces and documents his production in a
satisfactory way, he is, of course, in a better position to grumble
about "knockoffs", but it is my opinion that the form cited
in American Woodturner as being an "Osolnik" is far too simple
both in the form and in the choice of material to represent
a real "first".

Will look for the article before I dare comment on that. Then it would
be only an opinion. Only a formal court hearing could give a final
verdict in the case of a dispute -- and that is most unfortunate.


Bjarte



This issue was discussed previously. Is it "plagiarism" to "work in the
style of".

Don't think we ever resolved it.


--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

"WillR" skrev i melding
. ..

Copyright can be established by creating the work, "publishing" the
work, or registering the work with a copyright office is simply an
affirmation. As you point out later this may not be as easy as it looks
or seems. :-)

Laws on copyright differ in different countries, and the american version is
probably the most legalized there is.

In Norway copyright is established simply by creating a piece of work,
no matter what kind, as long as it is.

Now, that may seem a bit simplistic to the american mind, but in fact it
works quite well. If you feel used by someone, by way of plagiarism or
otherwise, you first go to established organisations which deal with such
matters, if there is no help, you sue.

Nobody will sue anybody over a 25cm platter of traditional form, no matter
how dear it is to your heart, and how many you already have sold: It is too
much
like something that anybody could come up with, and no court i Norway
would consequently grant you "first right".

To get compensation from "knockers off" you need to prove your originality
beyond reasonable doubt.



Not true. Simply creating a work creates a copyright. Copyrighting a
style or form -- now that might be a challenge. Copyright is quite
specific. You raise two quite different issues here. 1. copying; 2. In
the style of...


Like I said, creating creates copyright.
But: My point is that claiming copyright to any form or article is a bit
selfdefeating, or should be.
I feel that many "artists" claim copyright and damages on a basis that
is too flimsy with respect to the historical overwiew, and use the
laws on copyright to run a lot of cases on plagiarism where no such
thing is either intended or real.

Any woodturner must have the right to go through the classical forms and
techniqes without being afraid of stepping on anybodys toes.
All forms must be legal prey for the trainnee or experience-seeking
woodturner, without being accused of anything:
Namely: As long as he signs his things with his own signature, and in
cases where the original idea is clearly derived from someone else,
giving credit for the idea to whom the credit is due.

Nobody should be brought to court for wanting to practice and learn.

Bjarte

Bjarte Runderheim wrote:
"WillR" skrev i melding
. ..


Copyright can be established by creating the work, "publishing" the
work, or registering the work with a copyright office is simply an
affirmation. As you point out later this may not be as easy as it looks
or seems. :-)


Laws on copyright differ in different countries, and the american version is
probably the most legalized there is.

In Norway copyright is established simply by creating a piece of work,
no matter what kind, as long as it is.

Now, that may seem a bit simplistic to the american mind, but in fact it
works quite well. If you feel used by someone, by way of plagiarism or
otherwise, you first go to established organisations which deal with such
matters, if there is no help, you sue.

Nobody will sue anybody over a 25cm platter of traditional form, no matter
how dear it is to your heart, and how many you already have sold: It is too
much
like something that anybody could come up with, and no court i Norway
would consequently grant you "first right".

To get compensation from "knockers off" you need to prove your originality
beyond reasonable doubt.




Not true. Simply creating a work creates a copyright. Copyrighting a
style or form -- now that might be a challenge. Copyright is quite
specific. You raise two quite different issues here. 1. copying; 2. In
the style of...



Like I said, creating creates copyright.
But: My point is that claiming copyright to any form or article is a bit
selfdefeating, or should be.

Well.... it is or it isn't. LOL

I feel that many "artists" claim copyright and damages on a basis that
is too flimsy with respect to the historical overwiew, and use the
laws on copyright to run a lot of cases on plagiarism where no such
thing is either intended or real.

Agreed - could happen. We have seen more cases here of artists
exercising their "moral rights" probably.

Any woodturner must have the right to go through the classical forms and
techniqes without being afraid of stepping on anybodys toes.

Agreed....

All forms must be legal prey for the trainnee or experience-seeking
woodturner, without being accused of anything:
Namely: As long as he signs his things with his own signature, and in
cases where the original idea is clearly derived from someone else,
giving credit for the idea to whom the credit is due.

Agreed -- but even as you stated the offense would be in the mind of the
beholder.

Nobody should be brought to court for wanting to practice and learn.

Agreed. But then maybe they should never show their copied work to
"outsiders". ...Or as you said actually identify the piece with the
original authors name and your name and identify the purpose of the piece.

Bjarte



Bjarte:

It seems that you and I agree.

I am in Canada, we are signatories to the same treaties as your country,
and our laws are similar for that reason.

And the methods of redress are the same -- again because our countries
are signatories to the same treaties.

The USA are signatories to the same treaties.


--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

"WillR" skrev i melding
...

It seems that you and I agree.

I am in Canada, we are signatories to the same treaties as your country,
and our laws are similar for that reason.

And the methods of redress are the same -- again because our countries
are signatories to the same treaties.

The USA are signatories to the same treaties.


If we do, I am pleased.

The practice of law in the USofA, especially the civilian law
(if that is what it is called: _not_ criminal law) and the strong
tendency to reward the ambulance chasers with payment of damages
outside this world, and stopping anybody from making anything
for fear of being sued in case somebody finds some way to
harm themselves with your product, - - - well, nuf said.

US law is not viewed as a positive example in my part of the universe,
even though a lot of people still are thankful to the americans for the
help we got during and after WW2. (And from Canada too, for that
matter:-)

Bjarte

Bjarte Runderheim wrote:
"WillR" skrev i melding
...


It seems that you and I agree.

I am in Canada, we are signatories to the same treaties as your country,
and our laws are similar for that reason.

And the methods of redress are the same -- again because our countries
are signatories to the same treaties.

The USA are signatories to the same treaties.



If we do, I am pleased.

We do -- and I am pleased as well.


The practice of law in the USofA, especially the civilian law
(if that is what it is called: _not_ criminal law) and the strong
tendency to reward the ambulance chasers with payment of damages
outside this world, and stopping anybody from making anything
for fear of being sued in case somebody finds some way to
harm themselves with your product, - - - well, nuf said.


Well yeahh... and Canada is going that way a bit... but we use the
common law as a base -- where Americans do not. That prevents many of
the same issues from arising.

Aside: In common law we look at the body of previous decisions of the
lower courts as forming a precedent. In the American systems they seem
to concern themselves with appellate courts as forming the "real body"
of the law. But the American can comment if they wish to clarify the point.

US law is not viewed as a positive example in my part of the universe,
even though a lot of people still are thankful to the americans for the
help we got during and after WW2. (And from Canada too, for that
matter:-)

Be careful here -- because...

The USA is a signatory to the Berne Convention and since they are a
member of the WTO they would be by default a signatory to the Berne
Convention anyway. And that means they must -- by law -- respect the
"moral rights" of an artist. ...And an understanding of the "moral
rights" of an artist should answer many of the questions on this forum.
And those rights are explained in the treaty...

Note that I made a couple of posts showing the links to the Berne
Convention (Treaty) and a few other research links.


And...
You are welcome. Some of my relatives died in that war -- and few
Canadians -- if any -- begrudge our losses. I suspect the Americans (and
others) feel the same way about the Great Patriotic War -- but they can
speak for themselves.




Bjarte




--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

I used to think if somebody copyrighted something or patented it, that
they created it or invented it. Then I grew up.



Bjarte Runderheim wrote:

American Woodturner has an article on plagiarism i the latest edition.
There are obviously problems attached to this area of legal usage.

The example used in the article is a piece by Rude Osolnik as opposed to
a "knockoff" by someone else.

First: How on earth can Rude Osolnik prove to anybody that _his_
piece is the first?
Where did he get the idea?
Who else did almost the same at different points in time without
being registered by the author of the article?
As a point of interest, I would think that quite a few such objects
have been made since 1960, the form being a typical 60ies thingy.
Neither is it especially complicated, so, in my judgement a lot of people
could have made the thing independently without knowing about any
of the others.
Are we then speaking plagiarism?

In my opinion the fact that a piece has been sold by somebody does not
create copyright unless you can document being "the first".

In my opinion it is not enough to be the first in your neighborhood to
make a certain form, to establish copyright, or the right to deem others
"knockers off". The techniques and the materials are pretty universal,
and the one hollow form does not differ too much from the other,
unless, and here is one point that I feel is important:
Unless the technique is so complex and the choice of materials and
the finishing touches are so distinct and rare that little doubt can be
had as to the originality of the work.

Collectors value was mentioned, and the copies was said to diminsh
the value of the original.
This I can not understand:
Like the collectors of sculpture and painting, there are two significant
ways to establish the value and origin of a piece:

The signatu
If a piece is signed, and someone else copies the work _and_
the signature, then I imagine that existing laws in all countries
have been breeched, and a lawsuit is a near possibility.

The technique:
If the artists technique is sufficiently complex and special that
an expert or two can examine the work, and state that the probability
of the piece being an original from this or that artist, then the
probability may be worth the money.
Sometimes the copy brings as much money as the original,
even though "everybody" knows the piece to be a copy, it is
that interesting, or well made.

I think this "problem" of plagiarism is a bit out of proportion.
Expensive, well known pieces that are well documented by the
artist or the gallery is one thing: There the term plagiarism may
have some meaning.

Undocumented "firsts" or very local "firsts" of simple form
and common materials should be treated as "public domain"
because of the problem of establishing a real "first".
If the artist signs his pieces and documents his production in a
satisfactory way, he is, of course, in a better position to grumble
about "knockoffs", but it is my opinion that the form cited
in American Woodturner as being an "Osolnik" is far too simple
both in the form and in the choice of material to represent
a real "first".

Bjarte

Whenever this topic comes around, it always becomes many lawyers or
legal experts citing laws and statutes and about copyrights and
patents. Once we get there, we have missed the whole point.

The issue, as Bjarte wonders, is: "Where does one turner's original
work end and another's begin? When am I infringing on someone else's
turf?" Forget the legal definitions. What are the ethical boundaries
and how do we define them?

This same topic came up on the WOW group and I wondered out loud there
too. Can nobody ever use a puzzle motif because Art Liestman "did it
first"? How different is different enough? Can nobody ever turn a
southwest pottery shape with segmented turning because Mark Kauder does
such great work? Or is Mark plagiarizing Malcolm Tibbetts? Or is
Malcom plagiarizing Ray Allen? Or they all are stealing from the
native Americans from the southwest - no wait - they used clay so its
OK, at least for Ray.

Exhortations to NOT copy are OK, but until we have practical tools to
determine the boundaries, exhortations are inadequate.

I do have a couple of suggestions that I think all of us need to
ponder. First, plagiarism is about lost earnings potential and lost
prestige. If you copy a form as an exercise for your own satisfaction
and give it away, I don't think that is an ethical violation. If you
start to sell items that closely resemble someone else's designs, you
are leveraging their creativeity for your own profit. I think that is
wrong. But again, how close is too close?

Second, if you make and sell forms in a vacuum that end up looking
close to another's your ignorance of their prior design is not an
adequate defense in my book. You are obligated to know your profession
and your profession's history a little. Read books on gallery
collections. Visit the WOW group and other gallary-type websites.
Study other media for what is happening there (glass, pottery, fabric,
whatever). I think by doing this step, you begin to learn the ethical
boundaries for yourself.

Joe Fleming - San Diego

I agree Joe. I also think that design or form isn't something that magically
lands on our shoulders. All we are is a sum of all our experiences and
perceptions. (and musings (and genetics)) Therefore everything we create
owes, in part, its origin to all we have seen.
I was watching a movie once and the bloke quoted the bible and said "There
is nothing neww under the sun" or something similar.
However, about the bloke in the vacuum; If he is able to produce quality,
saleable work resembling the famous work of another (who would need to be in
another world) Then it would follow that others not in the hobby would be
even less likely to have seen the original therefore his earning potential
would not be reduced.
Mick

"Joe Fleming" wrote in message
ups.com...

Second, if you make and sell forms in a vacuum that end up looking
close to another's your ignorance of their prior design is not an
adequate defense in my book. You are obligated to know your profession
and your profession's history a little. Read books on gallery
collections. Visit the WOW group and other gallary-type websites.
Study other media for what is happening there (glass, pottery, fabric,
whatever). I think by doing this step, you begin to learn the ethical
boundaries for yourself.


Seems the surest way to find yourself doing something you saw elsewhere.

You're not a bookseller, are you?

Joe Fleming wrote:
Whenever this topic comes around, it always becomes many lawyers or
legal experts citing laws and statutes and about copyrights and
patents. Once we get there, we have missed the whole point.

Did not most -- perhaps all -- of these laws come into existence because =

of prior problems? So how could knowing the law and the treaties "miss=20
the point"? Are you not debating a legal issue -- since the ethics have=20
been enshrined in law and treaty?

=20
The issue, as Bjarte wonders, is: "Where does one turner's original
work end and another's begin? When am I infringing on someone else's
turf?" Forget the legal definitions. What are the ethical boundaries
and how do we define them?

I would have though that one could look to copyright law and the=20
international treaties for guidance. Otherwise... will we not rehash the =

same ground over and over again?

Those who do not study history are domed to repeat it...

This same topic came up on the WOW group and I wondered out loud there
too. Can nobody ever use a puzzle motif because Art Liestman "did it
first"? How different is different enough? Can nobody ever turn a
southwest pottery shape with segmented turning because Mark Kauder does=

such great work? Or is Mark plagiarizing Malcolm Tibbetts? Or is
Malcom plagiarizing Ray Allen? Or they all are stealing from the
native Americans from the southwest - no wait - they used clay so its
OK, at least for Ray.

I guess the original artists will have to sue. Otherwise all that the=20
rest of us can do is feel really bad -- if indeed there has been an=20
"ethical violation". Certainly I cannot feel wounded as I am not even=20
aware of the art of which you speak.

Exhortations to NOT copy are OK, but until we have practical tools to
determine the boundaries, exhortations are inadequate.

As above -- are these not the copyright laws which enshrine our creators =

rights in Copyright Law and International treaty. These treaties give us =

Copyright and Moral rights for our original works.

Does that not only leave the problem of determining what is an original=20
work, and determining the wounded party?

Do the treaties not define "ethical behaviour"?

I do have a couple of suggestions that I think all of us need to
ponder. First, plagiarism is about lost earnings potential and lost
prestige. If you copy a form as an exercise for your own satisfaction
and give it away, I don't think that is an ethical violation. =20

It is definitely a legal violation, and since the laws are based on=20
ethics... That would make you wrong -- IMO.

If you
start to sell items that closely resemble someone else's designs, you
are leveraging their creativeity for your own profit. I think that is
wrong. But again, how close is too close?

Same as above point -- only now you may have trespassed into the=20
criminal provisions of Copyright and the Artist need no longer bear the=20
burden of prosecuting the offender. (At least as I read the law -- a=20
lawyer may differ in this opinion.) In Canada, the UK and many of the=20
old commonwealth countries "The Crown" would have to pursue the case --=20
and normally it would be brought to their attention. I suspect that in=20
the USA it can go either way...


Second, if you make and sell forms in a vacuum that end up looking
close to another's your ignorance of their prior design is not an
adequate defense in my book. You are obligated to know your profession=

and your profession's history a little. Read books on gallery
collections. Visit the WOW group and other gallary-type websites.
Study other media for what is happening there (glass, pottery, fabric,
whatever). I think by doing this step, you begin to learn the ethical
boundaries for yourself.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse -- at least that was the theory.=20
However... Ignorance is an excuse -- at least in the United States of=20
America. If the "offended party" can prove that you were aware of the=20
prior art, they can ask for treble damages -- in civil court anyway.

This last issue has been much discussed in terms of Software and=20
Engineering Intellectual property.

The custom now is to _not_ do IP research -- to avoid the treble damages =

issue. So -- so much for good research... :-(

=20
Joe Fleming - San Diego
=20

Perhaps if people really care about this they should search for the=20
International Copyright Treaties and read them. they will find that many =

of these issues are enshrined in law -- to which at least the EU,=20
Canada, USA and Mexico are signatories. There are lots of other=20
signatories, but those ones come to mind.

Some countries do require that you register your IP rights there first=20
-- otherwise they do not recognize them -- e.g. Taiwan.

Hope this helps.


--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

My question is this: Did the second person to commit plagiarism steal the
idea from the first?

Leo Lichtman wrote:
My question is this: Did the second person to commit plagiarism steal the
idea from the first?



Obviously, they did.

--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

But you cant plagiarise a plagiariser as they have no claim to any
intellectual property.

"WillR" wrote in message
...
Leo Lichtman wrote:
My question is this: Did the second person to commit plagiarism steal
the idea from the first?

Obviously, they did.

--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

Are you not debating a legal issue -- since the ethics have been enshrined
in law and treaty?


IMHO ,as laws are made by governments [and governments are, in the main,
greedy corrupt and unethical] the enshrining of any ethics by an unethical
body is unconscionable. (Legal ethics may not be an oxymoron when applied to
the legal profession but when applied to government
That does lead me to an ethical dilemma. Say someone copies a famous turners
style and then sells the product (with his name on it) at a charity
fundraiser.
??
mick

Michael Lehmann wrote:
Are you not debating a legal issue -- since the ethics have been enshrined
in law and treaty?


IMHO ,as laws are made by governments [and governments are, in the main,
greedy corrupt and unethical] the enshrining of any ethics by an unethical
body is unconscionable. (Legal ethics may not be an oxymoron when applied to
the legal profession but when applied to government
That does lead me to an ethical dilemma. Say someone copies a famous turners
style and then sells the product (with his name on it) at a charity
fundraiser.
??
mick



Pass the money to charity and jail the plagiarizer. Assuming the
plagiarsee agrees that is. Of course if they won't agree then they are
not ethical. So we should give the money to charity anyway and jail
everyone else for lack of ethics.... Including the original turner -- if
you get my drift.)

Of course by your reasoning the governments are corrupt and unethical so
jailing the other people would be a breach of ethical behaviour as well
-- which would land us in jail -- leaving no one to do anything...
(Since the jails are run by governments...)

And therein lies the problem -- if you see what I mean.

Just making this up on the fly of course so it may take a little work to
gain acceptance...

Perhaps you can think on it a bit and clean up the logic a tad...

--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

All,

I guess I didn't make my point clear and I apologize.

We can argue what law says what all day long. These threads always
seem to go there as this one is now doing.

My point is, prior to legal action and a verdict determined by a judge
or jury, how do I know where the line between plagiarism and
originality is located? none of us should have to be relying on a
civil action to draw the line. That is why I am dismissive of legal
discussion. Instead, I am looking for practical
tools/guides/practices/etc. that help us make these
design-close-to-the-line decisions more easily.

If I want to make a carved and colored lef motif on a bowl, I do not
want to rely on Andi Wolfe suing me so that I know where the line is
located. I want a practical reference for all of us to use.

Joe Fleming - San Diego

Ethics is indeed a very tricky area. I prefer woodturning myself but..
I'm off work sick (botched op and will need to speak with my muse and
clarify my position.
mick