Plagiarism

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.

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, . 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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:

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

Sorry...

Denis Marier wrote:

LOL - THAT IS FINE!

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

I covered that earlier.

Must go.

Design patents might well be relevant. See

Roger

Will wrote:

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.

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

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:

Owen:

Your > >

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...

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.

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.

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.

This is common and not unreasonable in most cases. The company is generally providing the employee: a salary and benefits; continued educational opportunities; a facility, funds and similarly educated coworkers to study, research and develop ideas; the secondary or tertiary resources and labor force required to bring the product to reality; the legal team to hash out the risks and legalities of the developed product; etc. If you are inventing on their dime and tools, why would the individual employee own the product produced? What's the point of hiring educated and innovative employees if the company is not the recipient of their labor?

There are also instances in which the employee proved that the invention was developed totally outside the realm of the employer, using no company resources and thus retained sole ownership of the product.

Likewise a number of companies and products exist today in which the employees bought the rights to the product or method they came up with in order to strike out on their own.

That is true as far as I know of the subject. Protecting your rights can be expensive and time consuming. Just consider, though, the story of the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper system...

I've no idea - though I can certainly hear Sinatra's warble in my head.

My question back to you is whether your prices fit into the ballpark of other turners in your region producing items requiring similar skills and time and for sale at similar venues? If you are low on the range, then you might very well be undercutting others. If on the other hand you are in the neighborhood then I'd respond that this annonymous emailer has either unrealistic expectations or else he's not proficient enough with his skills.

Since we've taken a tangent into pricing fairly, I wonder how many turners have really examined their prices in realistic terms. If the turner was forced to live off what he made selling his work, could he? I'd bet a majority could not due to underpricing and, in my opinion, that cheapens the value of woodturning in the buyer's mind thus making the professional turner's struggle to live off his work extremely difficult. Most turners don't recognize this because they are living off income from other sources and haven't been forced to examine, in realistic terms, the amount they are charging in relation to their living requirements. A side arguement may also be that they, personally, don't value the craft and/or have little respect for their own skills.

Of course there is no exact price - but there is an acceptible range of price depending on variables. Two of which are time and skills required. I've hollowed a few pieces with smallish openings and have a rough idea of the time and skills required. $100 translates to barely above minimum wage - if that, if the completed piece is finely finished but that doesn't even take into account materials, supplies, tools and equipment. Are the time and skills on the level of Ellsworth (and his imitators) only worth minimum wage? There are those who claim they are only selling to augment their tool budget, they're also claiming, though silently, that their skill and time is worthless.

I have just gone through a week of attempting to come up with a price on work that will be submitted to a juried show. My final method was to figure out how many similar pieces I could make in a 50 week year and divide that into what I felt I wanted for a reasonable (average-ish) income for my area. That gave me a base value to which I added materials and supply costs. I considered the venue and a small bit of markup and established a ballpark figure. Then I asked several other turners - one who sells turnings regularly though works full time in other pursuits, one who hasn't looked to sell his work but is in the corporate world and is comfortable with sales and pricing product, and one who is attempting to become a full-time turner - to view the work and give their gut-feeling price range for the venue. Surprisingly, or not, they all cited a range +/- 10% of what I had ballparked. I'm now pretty comfortable with the price and I'm confident that if I could sell a year's worth of production I could make a living off the work. I challenge all turners reading this to apply your prices and income requirements to the exercise.