Plagiarism

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

Reply to
Kirk
Loading thread data ...

Reply to
Jim Pugh

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. :-)

Reply to
Will

Reply to
David Wade

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.

Reply to
Darrell Feltmate

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

Reply to
Kip

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....

Reply to
George

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.

Reply to
Owen Lowe

Owen:

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

see below...

Owen Lowe wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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

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?)

Reply to
Will

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

SNIP

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?"

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%.

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.

Reply to
Owen Lowe

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.

Reply to
Darrell Feltmate

Owen:

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

See below...

Owen Lowe wrote:

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I do.

My choice.

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...

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.

Reply to
Will

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 > Owen and Will

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)"

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

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.

Reply to
Will

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.

Reply to
George

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

formatting link

Reply to
Arch

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

My attempt at humour for the day.

EXACTLY!!!!!

Well said.

Reply to
Will

AFAICT, it is impossible to plagiarize unintentionally.

Might I someday come up with an exact duplicate of a Daniel Ellsworth piece? Yep.

When pigs fly and when those 10,000 monkeys actually DO write a Shakespearean play.

Simply put, Daniel and I have different artistic perspectives (and checking accounts to prove it!) but we both share the human sense of shape and proportion. This was long ago codified in "The Golden Mean". All that is necessary for our artistic paths to cross is for us each to continue creating. Someday a piece of my work, derived independently, is going to look very much like a piece of his work, also derived independently. No matter WHO creates that shape first, neither is guilty of plagiarizing. He is unfamiliar with my work and I am unfamiliar with his. All I know about him for certain is that he has a full beard. IIRC, he also sometimes wears suspenders.

If Ellsworth or other artist thinks someone is stealing their designs, they need only unleash the legal beagles to settle the matter. That, NOT the court of public opinion, is where such matters belong. Those who intentionally copy a work to the detriment of someone else are fully aware of what they are doing and deserve to be fanged ... thoroughly. 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.

When I was down in Berea a few months ago, I saw (and held) an Osolnik piece. It was nice, but unremarkable. Good work, but not, in my opinion, great. I understand that his son is preparing a catalog of Rudes' work. I have not seen that catalog, if it does actually exist. Perhaps the spectacular pieces are in there ... they aren't in the tourist center in Berea.

Why copy? There is lots of creating left to do. And creating is what I do. I leave the (intentional) copying for the artistically bankrupt and those on foreign shores with different moral senses and different laws to go with them.

Bill Canaday

I don't normally sign my full name, but I want to clearly record my opinion on this matter.

Reply to
Anonymous

Will wrote in news:GyeVd.28764$ snipped-for-privacy@news20.bellglobal.com:

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)

Reply to
Henry St.Pierre

Pretty much. :-)

Unless you bought the moral rights. :-)

Reply to
Will

InspirePoint website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.