• Beware of Counterfeit Woodturning Tools (click here for details)
  • Johnathan Silwones is starting a new AAW chapter, Southern Alleghenies Woodturners, in Johnstown, PA. (click here for details)
  • Congratulations to Paul May for "Checkerboard (ver 3.0)" being selected as Turning of the Week for March 25, 2024 (click here for details)
  • Welcome new registering member. Your username must be your real First and Last name (for example: John Doe). "Screen names" and "handles" are not allowed and your registration will be deleted if you don't use your real name. Also, do not use all caps nor all lower case.

Flattery or Fraud?

Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,557
Likes
25
Location
Annandale, New Jersey
Recent thread on Wood Central brought up an old topic that, perhaps, deserves a bit more treatment to keep it current. Original post had to do with demos and "how to" instruction by Binh Pho where/how a turner uses the Internet to find and then print an image which is then transferred to a turning for carving, piercing, or other processing.

I, kill-joy that I am, commented that such activity could well subject a turner to suit by the original artist under the copyright laws, usually, but not exclusively, if the turner sells their work.

Given that artists have been ripping each other off for 30,000+ years (all to the benefit of Art as an exchange of ideas), and in light of how humans have progressed from roaming bands of hairy knuckle-walkers into the multifaceted hyperlitigous culture we all now enjoy (especially the people like me [attorneys] who make their living in the judicial system), and given that those clay-spinners have done most every conceivable shape and form many times over the past 30 millenia, where and how should we wood (and stone?) turners draw the line between imitation and emulation, flattery and fraud?

Mark Mandell
 

Steve Worcester

Admin Emeritus
Joined
Apr 9, 2004
Messages
2,690
Likes
93
Location
Plano, Texas
Website
www.turningwood.com
That specific post dealt with how to take a photocopy (or laser print) and transfer the image onto a turning. But if you were to use that method to take a print from something that is copywritten and transfer it without permission, you deserve to be sued (imho).

I do believe that there is a purpose to that method that would be well suited for turners. Say using southwest Indian pettoglyphs or Greek or Egyptian paintings to differentiate your work.
But don't go using an Escher or Warhol (or even Monet I guess) and try to pass it off on your own. At least, I wouldn't
 
Joined
May 29, 2004
Messages
995
Likes
2
Location
billerica, ma
I'm not sure but I think, unless something is a copyrighted trademark, that you can reproduce it in a manner that is not direct recreation such as a photocopy or print. If you were to burn it onto wood, would this still violate copyright, seeing as you've changed colors and perspectives in doing so, in addition to adding it to a medium that you have created. I think this would compare with reproducing a work in pastels on the sidewalk or in mosaic, or painted/drawn reproductions of artwork that is identified as a hand created reproduction.

Once again, is there a difference between trademarked and copyrighted images in this instance?

Dietrich
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Messages
40
Likes
0
Location
Bucks County PA
Website
sawsndust.com
Perhaps we can "draw the line" at the point where emulation (through your own skills) is replaced by direct transfer of copyrighted material. (broadened to include material that if not copyrighted currently, would normally be such given it is/was work actually produced by another individual/group) The same issues exist in many areas, including web design--are the photos/art yours or were they copied from another source that holds the rights to them? I see no issue with the technique in question from a learning/skill building/technique standpoint, but would be mighty uncomfortable, at least ethically if not legally, for work produced for others, whether for renumeration or not. At the very least, ask the original author/artist/entity for permission to use their material in your derived work. And give credit where credit is due once that permission is granted.

And I don't think this takes away the "wiggle room" for things like ancient decorative designs that you "transfer" for an authentic look, especially if you are not skilled at drawing in the present moment. In that case, you're working with cultural material that is more ubiquitous.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,557
Likes
25
Location
Annandale, New Jersey
dkulze said:
I'm not sure but I think, unless something is a copyrighted trademark . . .Dietrich

Dietrich,

Don't get "copyright" and "trademark" confused. A literary work or image (photos included) or music or similar things are copyrighted and remains the property of its creator. A trademark is a registered symbol created and used by a company or enterprise in connection with its business or activities to set it apart from others doing similar things. Two very different things.

Don't know how the Coca Cola Company would react if you engraved their trademarked logo on your bowl or even turned and carved a replica of their classic bottle in wood; chances are they won't mind at all. But I don't think Mr. Springstein would take kindly to your using the words and phrases from his songs as carved "decoration" on your work which you then can sell to Springstein fans for lots of money without his permission or offering him a fee for the use.

Take a photograph by someone who makes photos for a living and reproduce it as a design on a turned plate, and I would think that photographer would like a piece of the value (not mere acknowledgement) that you added to your plate by using that photograph. Ad agencies pay photographers for the use of their images, and often that is a limited use situation; for a single ad, not for use anywhere, anytime, forever at no further fee.

I raised the subject here, in part, because people can get so wrapped up in the "how to" of turning (or any other artform) that they lose sight of important issues, and find themselves in trouble even though they meant no harm nor intended to be dishonest.

Mark
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 29, 2004
Messages
995
Likes
2
Location
billerica, ma
Call me a cretan but I'm one of those folks that feels that, other than direct reproduction sold as the genuine or in a setting where only legit duplicates/reproduced material can legally be sold, reproducing material in your art/craft work is perfectly fine. Musicians sample songs. People use recognisable trademarked merchandise in sculptures and paintings all the time. I saw a really great Mona Lisa made of various grains and I doubt that Elvis's estate gets a cut from the velvet paintings.

None of us get to be cultural judges of what is art and what is creativity. Andy Warhol painted Cambell's soup cans and, guess what, it was art. And, in all honesty, cookie cutter stamped out dodads and googaws are perfectly legit creations and merchandise.

The bowl with the Springstein lyrics on it, for example, is perfectly legit. Now if you're publishing the lyrics or music as your own or for sale as lyrics or music, it's a different story. If you're printing it on a line of t-shirts to sell at the concert, ditto. If your tribute band sings it, Bruce is not going to come looking to you for a check. If put it on your hand turned bowl cause it means something to you and sell it at your gallery, there's nothing wrong with it.

Now if you make 300 of them and sell them outside of the Springstein concert, you might run into some problems but I'm not even sure that would be illegal. Possibly just bad taste. (Baby, you were born to turn? urk)

I mean, come on. We all get our opinions and they're all equally legit (or useless, depending on who you ask), including the folks making transfers and carving/burning them. Personally, I'd love to have an attractive vase with an image that was transferred and then carved. Seems a good method to help with perspective and imaging.

IMHO
dietrich
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
Messages
282
Likes
0
Location
Alpine, AL
Mark,

You are correct in your thinking on this matter. Having owned a professional photography studio, the copying of the picture and applying it to a work would be a violation of copyright law.

I ran into this one time when I was hired to handle the pictures for a horse show circuit. It was brought to my attention that one of the vendors at the show had started copying my prints and then was applying them to mugs and T-shirts via heat transfer. My customers were complaining about the quality of his work to me! I went to his location and informed him he was violating my copyright and would be prosecuted and sued if he continued. He wanted to argue and I told him that the law at that time was a per copy fine and every one he did was adding up - he said he would see his lawyer the next week. He did not come back to the show the next week!

Even when I did pictures under contract for horse owners, they could not have them printed in ads until I gave them a written release for that specific printer as I put a copyright symbol on all of my work. Even another photographer using the same pose for a picture can be in violation unless enough artistic changes are made to show enough original ideas are incorporated in the new work so that it does not qualify as a "copy".

What we get into in our turning is that most of our basic designs come from items that are old enough that any copyright has expired. For example the American Indian pottery - these designs are old enough they have become public domain. This would prevent a turner from having a copyright on a turned shaped like an Indian pot, bowl, vase, etc. but he could copyright a color scheme or texture used if it is "new" enough to qualify for copyright and becomes the "major" item in his turning.

Maybe I've muddied the water enough. Interesting post!

Wilford
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,557
Likes
25
Location
Annandale, New Jersey
Dietrich,

You're not a cretan, but you are uninformed. There is a whole body of law that has developed over centuries to protect the efforts of artists, be they writers, musicians, sculptors, and yes, even woodturners. I hope you would agree that people who have dedicated their lives toward enriching the world around us with their creativity, intellegence, and wit and who also use those talents and gifts to make their living and support their families, should have some level of protection from those who would trade upon those artists' gifts yet usurp all of the benefits for themselves. In my view, it is fundamentally wrong and unfair, indeed nothing less than cheating and theft to take and use the efforts of others, even under the disguise of minimal changes from the original, in order to enrich only one's own pocket.

The original post here and on WC had to do with the the how-to of transferring someone else's design or photograph to a turning and then enriching the surface of the turning based upon the transferred design. Perhaps there is no line to be drawn. Perhaps there should just be an absolute prohibition; No Use whatsoever. You want to transfer a photographic image to your turning? Take your camera, go out a take your own pictures, and then use them for your transfer process. What? You can't seem to make that camera work like Adams or Avedon could? Well, then you'll either have to work really hard to get better at it or just use images that lack the quality that prompted you to want to use them for your transfer in the first place.

Some who have seen my hollowform turnings seem to identify the influence of David Ellsworth. But I don't copy David's work. I don't set up a picture of one of his spirit pots over my lathe and then proceed to try to use (dream on, Mark) his proportions and such to turn my piece. While some part of my design style is similar to his, perhaps because we both were trained as sculptors, my work is not taken from his designs. I may, either conciously or unconciously, "borrow" a note from his "song" and fit it into mine, but in the end the resulting song is mine, not his with my name on it.

That's the difference between emulation and imitation, and I think if we are to continue to advance the cause of turning as an artform, we need to purposfully foster an atmosphere of professional responsibility and respect for other's work and property in order to keep the open exchange of ideas flowing.

Of course, that's just my opinion ;)

Mark
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 29, 2004
Messages
995
Likes
2
Location
billerica, ma
I agree with you, Mark, both about being uninformed regarding actual copyright law and in regards to imitation and emulation. I guess I'm reacting to many threads I've been involved in where folks are very critical and degrading of imitation/emulation. Personal opinion, if you want to post a picture of "Spirit Forms" over your lathe and try to imitate it, go for it and good luck. You're not David Ellsworth and you're not going to be but it will make a good learning exorcise and might give you some sellable pieces. If that's what you're aiming for, it's legit. Just don't expect to get his prices unless you sign his name to the bottom (purty sure that one is illegal).

I'm not a production turner but most of my work starts out as some degree (sometimes a high degree) of imitation of a form or style then grows from there (hopefully). I know some production turners that find a popular style or shape and imitate as closely and consistantly as they can because that is where the market is. Legit as far as I'm concerned but not very artistic.

Just to pass along, my interpretation of the original post was that a transferred image would be SIGNIFICANTLY changed, as in fully carved or burned. If not, then using copyrighted images would be a no no.

Dietrich
 

john lucas

AAW Forum Expert
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
8,321
Likes
3,576
Location
Cookeville, TN
Copyright gets too deep too fast for me. I believe what Binh teaches is to buy a book with drawings that were meant to be copied. He had samples of these in the class that I attended. I have since purchased books with Celtic drawings. These are sold in art supply stores and are there specifically for us not artist types who can't draw a straight line. That's why I got into turning anyway because everything is curved.
 
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
5
Likes
0
Location
Memphis, TN.
Website
www.lifetakesaturn.com
Derivitive Works

Dietrich,

The process you describe, of overlaying or transferring a copyrighted item onto a same or different medium for the purpose of producing a new work that is significantly like the initial work in a measurable way is called "Derivitive Work". The rules for derivitive works should be taken seriously. And the situation Mark describes qualifies to me as this form of copying.

I am also part of a Christian band that produced a song with an 8 measure Bass line that sounded suspiciously like the line from "Brown Eyed Girl". Our legal advisor told us to pay the royalty and not risk having a good song pulled. We did. In the end, the royalties have amount to a couple dollars total on several thousand CD's. A small price to pay.

I read the following in a forum for musicians...
The heart of the matter revolves around the term "Derivitive Works".

Copyright Law grants the original owner the sole and exclusive right (among others) to create dirivitive works from his own original copyrighted material.

This means that for the most part you cannot "take an image and change it to make it mine".

Any modification, or alteration of an image without expressed permission is a violation of the original copyright owners exclusive rights.

Truthfully, such alterations may in fact be legal if the type and extent of the modifications is so drastic that the dirivitive work could qualify as an original, creative work in it's own right. Generally speaking however, the practice of altering or modifying existing copyrighted works is not recommended because many Artists are able to recognise their own work even through heavy modifications.

Play it safe, if you feel you simply must use someone else's copyrighted material then seek the permission required, and include proof of the granted permission with your work.


I hope this helps. Please note that I differentiate the practice Mark is describing from an aspiring artist woodturner staring at Raffan's or Ellsworth's forms and trying to independantly produce something new that adopts the principals of form they embody.

Hope this is not now muddier than the muddiness of the copyright laws.

Chuck
 
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
39
Likes
19
Location
UK
Website
www.woodturningdesign.info
Is it just laziness?

There's no such thing as can't draw. Some of us may not be able to draw well because not enough study or practice has been applied to the learning process. If you want to draw or produce designs then you have to work at it! Turning skills are aquired by practice over time, drawing skills (or any other image making method) need the same application to task. Copying can always be an excuse for not bothering to try, it's an instant solution but not a worthy one. Just be sure you are using copyright free material if you have to go this route. There are plenty of sources available.
As far as words and images are concerned, have'nt we got something interesting or profound to say for ourselves? If we have'nt then don't pretend our work either art or original. If the intention is to produce art then study art and apply it in an original way. Learn to look, learn to see, then learn to say.
 
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
102
Likes
0
Location
minnesota
All that is way too deep and technical for me. I am just a woodturner. Don't know about such laws and don't care to.
Here is how I do it. When I go to a demonstration I go home and do what I just learned. That is the best way for me to learn and remember. The result is a copy of the demonstrators work. That is why, I believe, I paid the demonstrator. Then I branch out and use the learned information.
I sign my name on the bottom. NOT his.

Seems proper to me.

?Any comments??
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,557
Likes
25
Location
Annandale, New Jersey
That is how it should be. You must be able to replicate and use what you've seen or the seeing is nothing more than paying to have some "professional" intimidate you by impressing you with how much he knows, how much you don't, and how you will never get better because he has cornered the "One True Path To Enlightenment."

However, once you learn the technique demonstrated, you are constrained to incorporate it into your own methodology to carry out your own designs, not pick up/usurp the result obtained by your demonstrator/teacher. Cross that line and you're stealing aesthetic design ideas rather than using the freely-given (even if you did pay) "how to's." After all, that teacher is selling you knowledge only. If you want one (or more) of her pieces, go to her gallery and pay for it like everyone else.

See how you feel when, having invested $10k for that Ellsworth piece, you see some dude selling dead ringer copies of it at your local craft show for $29.95.

[Square,

Came back and read this, and seems I may have worded this too strongly in response to your post. Sorry. Did NOT mean to criticize your thought or you. M]
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 4, 2004
Messages
76
Likes
3
Location
Baltimore
Website
www.schwingwoodworks.com
Uh, oh, did I cheat

The square brain which I just finished carving ( www.schwingwoodworks.com/braindone.jpg ) was accomplished by copying. I scoured medical websites for pictures of human brains, mostly electronic renderings from MRIs, printing them, applying them to the block, and tracing the major lines with a carving tool. Once I had the outline, I did the rest by hand.

By the time I got around to the top of the brain, I had a good enough grasp to do the top by hand, simply drawing the curves where I thought they should be and then carving on my own. But I still used the printed images as a reference. Is it stealing if you really have one in your head? I don't know if any of the images were copyrighted, but I would assume they were.

This is a great topic.
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,557
Likes
25
Location
Annandale, New Jersey
Mike,

Suggest you contact the person(s) whose cerebellum(a) you have "copied" and get their permission. After all, the scans/photos are merely "permitted copies" of those originals. Remember, all x-rays and such taken of you remain your personal property, and you have the right to have them and all copies returned to you. (Now you know what all the micro-fine print on the permission form is that you sign but can't read when you have to have those internal protraits taken in the first place.)

Hum. . . . On second thought, you may need to contact the subjects' parents as they were the originating artists who shaped the brains and modified the results with their hard work over many years. Then too, there are the subjects' children who, as derivative works, may assert a proprietary interest in their own "source material."

Wish you a lot of luck . . . .

Carry this too far and you could get accused of being a real squarehead.

Mark

[Actually, since the scans are machine-made by a technician for analysis rather than for publication as original work images created by a professional photographer, I think you're probably fairly safe. After all, I don't think you're going to be claiming the pictures are of you, right?]
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
1
Likes
0
I think the answer is pretty simple if you think about it. If the item that you have copied is patented you have no right to sell this in the marketplace in direct competition with the owner of this design. To play things safe it would be a good idea to get the o.k. in writing if you wanted to sell on a limited basis in your local fleamarket but only if permision has been given and your product is advertised as being a replica of such and suches. My personal feelings on this is that if your an artist you should be able to create a new design and patent that yourself and not be copying someone elses ideas, Anyone can do that and i see it no diferently than someone forging dollar bills-talented yes but correct-NO. J.B.K.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
70
Likes
0
Location
North Carolina, USA
Copyright

I am very confused about all this. . .

It was my uderstanding that literary and art works are subject to the copyright laws. Patents are for inventions, such as a new toothbrush. . .

Also, it is my understanding that the copyright laws have changed:

Several websites have the following info about copyrights:

"What is not required. Until 1978, you were required to register your work with the Library of Congress and to provide a copyright notice before your work was protected. After 1978 and presently, formalities are no longer required. Your copyright springs into existence the instant the work becomes fixed to a tangible medium." Wood, of course, is a tangible medium!

However, I understand a copyright notice is still advisable. This takes the form of "Copyright C 2005 John Doe" The "C' is the copyright symbol.

All this said, the Supreme Court says, "...the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice." This precludes "exact copies" regardless of the size, but allows variations of an original work of art to be considered original too. So I can take Binh Poh class and start making turnings and coloring them in his style, as long as I do not make exact copies of what he has made, and put my name on my own works.

However, one can comply with the law, and still be unethical. That is a different matter !!!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
372
Likes
0
Location
Burnt Chimney, SW Virginia
Website
www.burntchimneystudios.com
Mike,

I just checked out the square brain and it is with extreme difficulty that I am refraining from remarks about self-portraits. :D Excellent and creative to be sure.

Fred,

You have said it very well and I agree.

I have read the article in the current AAW Journal about plagiarism and I was put off by it a little. My reaction was that the author was toadying up to the professional artists a little and made it sound like the rest of us should just pack up our tools and go home. Actually, the words that came to mind were a lot stronger than "toadying", but it is not my intent to flame here. I felt that David Ellsworth's contribution was a little more realistic. He did not say "nailing Jello to a tree", but he acknowledged that the situation is a lot murkier than we might like it to be.

IMHO it is totally unreasonable to make videos about how to make a widget, go around the country doing demos about how to make a widget, and then expect no one else to make a widget because it is their artistic property. I'm sorry, but I sense a hint of arrogance or chutzpah in there somewhere. The artist is "enabling" the plagiarism, if nothing else, and a reasonable person would expect some similar work to emerge.

I had some ideas about offset turning that were too close to Mark Sfirri's work for my comfort, so I wrote to him. In the final analysis, Mark suggested that I do something to "make it my own". I felt that this was quite reasonable. I just wrote to another "big hat" about an idea and was told that it was sufficiently dissimilar from his work for me not to worry. I believe in direct (non-aggressive) confrontation when there is a question. I would not want to put the time in and then have someone say that I had erred in an area that is death to a former academic. :(
 
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
102
Likes
0
Location
minnesota
I ust received my copy of the AAW magazine. Their article sure is very timely with this discusion. Or is it the other way around.

I get more confused on the issue of plagiarism every time I read more about it.

Take a natural edged bowl as an example. I have read many articles and viewed videos on the subject. I also make natural edge bowls. Are all but the originator , whoever that may be, of the idea guilty?

Seems some people are trying to make us feel guilty every time we learn something new.

I belong to the Rio Grande Woodturners. Last year Gary Roberts demoed to us how to make a sphere. Two weeks ago he demoed how to lay out baseball stitching on that sphere. Since then I have made a "baseball" using that information, showed it to Gary and I didn't feel I had done anything wrong.... I don't believe Gary did either.

Any coments welcome.
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
372
Likes
0
Location
Burnt Chimney, SW Virginia
Website
www.burntchimneystudios.com
common body of knowledge

Square,

There is a body of knowledge that is community property now and it would be useless to try and delete specific items from it. Natural edged bowls and spheres are in that body. So are baseballs. So are the generic hollow forms. How you embellish those hollow forms is right on the edge and is an area where the slope gets slippery.

The portion of Glenn McMurray's article which annoyed me most was the use of Rude Osolnik's candlestick as an example. First, to a mathematician (me) the shape of Rude's candlestick is a hyperboloid of one sheet and that shape belongs to no modern man. It has been part of the body of mathematics for centuries. Second, I understand that Rude happily taught that shape to anyone who was interested, including hundreds of Berea students. At this point, that shape is common property and should be seen as such. Third, the supposed rip-off was distinctly different because it had two inflection points (where the concavity changes from convex to concave or vice versa) that were not present in Rude's candlestick. IMHO no one need take a guilt trip because they make similar candlesticks.

When Mark Sfirri suggested that I make an offset candlestick which has some feature that is mine, I took a careful look at his standard offset candlestick and decided that his design was optimal and that no matter what I did, the result would be a lesser item. So, I chose not to make those candlesticks or similar ones.

I first saw hollow ornaments with icicles at the Capital Area Woodturners in Northern Virginia and later was shown how to make them by Bob Rosand. Did Bob make them first? I simply don't know. But, certainly his name is associated with them. And Bob has specifically said that I may make my own version, which has a different icicle.

I like to turn boxes and purchased the excellent book by Chris Stott. For experience I am working through many of the 50 boxes shown in the book. I found that I naturally made design choices that suited me, but some of the results are very similar. If I decide to market some boxes, then I will make sure that I have not blatantly copied someone else's work. However, some of the boxes in the book are acknowledged to be "in the style of" boxes made by others, such as Ray Key and Richard Raffan. I feel that Stott has been professionally honest and has not stepped over the line.

Square, my approach is to ask myself if when making a certain item, am I trying to make one exactly like someone else's or not. If I am, then it isn't for sale. I do not intend to rip off anyone, but I also will not be intimidated by the article in the AAW Journal, which is one-sided. I have experience doing remediation work with errant students. Part of that process is helping them understand where the lines are drawn and where they are not drawn. I assure you that making a natural-edged bowl is a LONG way from that line.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
31
Likes
0
Location
Royersford, Pa
copying

Just to add my two cents.

I saw Michael Hosulak demonstrate and at one point he said "I don't care if you copy my work...........as long as you don't get rich doing it"

He said it as a joke but I bet it's more true than he realized. And I think that goes for most turners. Copying to learn is fine but don't turn it into a business.

Mike
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
70
Likes
0
Location
North Carolina, USA
Mondrian

I have to agree with Jim Moore: "There is a body of knowledge that is community property now and it would be useless to try and delete specific items from it."

So, If I decorate a bowl with colored squares, I am guilty of plagiarizing Mondrian?

A work of art can be copyrighted, but a technique can not. Othewise I would not be able to go to Yosemite and take a pic of the Big Half Dome ... even if it looked very similar to Ansel Adam's, it would not be infringement, because no matter how hard I tried, it would not be identical. However, producing a copy of HIS photograph would be infringement of copyright.

Now, to produce an exact copy of a turning.... HOW ???????

No matter how hard I tried, I could not replicate other's work, not even style, completely. There would always be a part of me in my works. Osolnik's candles, mine will be RED !
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
372
Likes
0
Location
Burnt Chimney, SW Virginia
Website
www.burntchimneystudios.com
Mondrian? Hosaluk?

Fred, Jim Moore is my brother. :D

Since Mondrian died in 1944 it is fair to say that there is a distinctive style associated with his name. I wonder if someone has programmed a screen-saver to randomly draw blocks of colors that reflect that style? He did no woodturning, so it is quite permissible to decorate bowls made in his style. It would be acceptable to advertise or describe the bowls as being "in the style of Mondrian". As we all know, it would be improper to sign the bowls "Mondrian"

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that you, Fred, have established a solid reputation in the woodturning world for making bowls that are decorated in the Mondrian style. Here is the fork in the road for me ethically. Suppose further that you have gone around the country doing demos on how to make these bowls and have an excellent video on this topic. Then I feel that you have worked very hard to make your work part of the body of knowledge of woodturning and have , in a sense, made a donation there. While it may not have been your intention, you have enabled the other woodturners to make and sell "Mondrian bowls". You should expect to see similar bowls in galleries and craft shows.

On the other hand, let's suppose that you have not promoted your work in the manner described above. Then I accept the ownership of "Mondrian bowls" as being Fred's. While I could make such bowls for my use and maybe as gifts to a few close friends, there is certainly an argument that I should not put them in craft shows or galleries.

AS you can probably tell, I have a problem with "big hats" that try to have it both ways.

Let's suppose that you have made Mondrian bowls, but have not made turned boxes in that style and do not intend to. If Ed decides that he would like to make such boxes, then Ed should contact you and ask how you feel about it. Your answer should provide Ed with what he needs to know and then Ed makes his decision. IMHO, making Mondrian boxes should not be considered wrong. However, if Fred tells me that he would be offended, I would probably CHOOSE not to make the boxes.

Mike,

As you suggested, there is an element of truth in Hosaluk's statement. I can understand that he has "blazed a trail" and doesn't want someone else riding on his efforts. I see his demonstrations as encouraging others to push the envelope, not just how to make an object like he does. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't feel that he is "enabling" like the first hypothetical example of Fred above.

Are there gray areas where it is not really clear where the line is located? Absolutely!! I am sure that sometimes we get ideas and run with them and do not realize that we saw a bowl or platter like that six months ago. While the offended big hat is justified in their indignation, there may have been absolutely no intent to copy their work.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
70
Likes
0
Location
North Carolina, USA
Golden Rule

Ed, sorry for the name confusion. Once again, your views make sense.

The bottom line, in my modest opinion, and much in keeping with your post, is that what is legal is not always morally right.

To those who teach or demo, and the ones who learn from them (including myself), I would like to offer one of my ORIGINAL proverbs:

"He who lives in a glass house should not look into the horse's mouth!"
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
372
Likes
0
Location
Burnt Chimney, SW Virginia
Website
www.burntchimneystudios.com
Fred,

My interpretation/application of your clever proverb is
"Big hats should not be so critical of those who pay the demo fees."

For many years a W.C. Fields poster hung in my office and it said "There comes a time in the affairs of man when one must take the bull by the tail and face the situation."
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
70
Likes
0
Location
North Carolina, USA
Original ?

Thanks Ed. How original is my proverb ?

By the way, I am working on a new turning tool, combination bowl gouge and skew . . . will save on having to buy two tools, but will cost twice as much . . . :D
 

john lucas

AAW Forum Expert
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
8,321
Likes
3,576
Location
Cookeville, TN
This is an interesting issue that gets muddier all the time. Let's say I see Jacques Vessery do a demo and then I go out make a piece with feathers. That's pretty clear that I copied him. Even though there are other pieces out there with feathers you can definitly tell Jacques feathered pieces from Say Frank Sudols vessel with feathers. They don't even look similar.
Now lets say I do a make a bowl or a hollow vessel and it happens to have a shape like Pristini or Ellsworth. (not that I could but even a blind squirrel finds an acorn). If I sell this piece am I infringing on Ellsworth's profit or devalueing his work because mine sold for $150. Assuming I've never met him or seen his work in magazines.
Rude Osolnik's candlesticks are beautiful but I've seen the same shape or very similar in glass and ceramic. I personally would not copy that shape simply because I don't want someone saying, you make candlesticks just like Rude. On the other hand When asked how you price something Rude responded" does it have your name or mine on it". If I make a Rude candlestick and put my name on it am I truely undermining Rude's proffit.? Mine would never sell for as much as his simply because his name is on it.
I see both sides of this issue and think we do need to be talking about it. Discussion brings to light issues and makes more people aware of the problems.
Even though I desire to find my own niche and don't want to be known for making a copy of someone elses work, there are those out there who simply want to pay for their hobby and will make anything and try to sell it. This same issue goes on at craft fairs where a person will under sell others simply because they are doing this to pay for their hobby and don't need to make the same profit. this same person would probably copy what is seen in magazines or demonstrated at symposiums and sell it as his or her own work.
I've learned that in this cut throat world that you must always explain to your customers why your work is worth more than someone elses. That's just a fact of life. I'm not condoning copying someone elses work but these things happen and we need to deal with it.
I do agree that if we copy someones work and turn aroung and sell it we will be undermining the teaching process. No one will purposely demonstrate how to create their work if they know it will put them out of business
 

john lucas

AAW Forum Expert
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
8,321
Likes
3,576
Location
Cookeville, TN
Fred
Thousands. He said he would get up at 4am and make a huge number before going to work every day. I doubt they sold for much in the beginning because he sold them through craft fairs but I've seen sets that he donated sell for $1000 and more. He was a remarkable man.
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
372
Likes
0
Location
Burnt Chimney, SW Virginia
Website
www.burntchimneystudios.com
Hi John,

If I have read you correctly, then you are talking about the logical equivalent of Fred's Mondrian bowls when you refer to the Jacques Vessery piece with feathers. So, my reaction goes back to my earlier post. If Jacques does thirty demos this year and teaches feathering at every one of them, then at some point I feel he has moved feathering from "his" to "community property" and that he has enabled that by promoting feathers.

I see a distinction between feathering on a bowl and making a bowl with feathering that is strikingly similar to a Jacques Vessery piece. Feathering is not a new concept that Jacques developed, but rather is a skill that has been popularized by hundreds of bird carvers. Is there something distinctive about the feathers that Jacques uses? I plead ignorance here.

Now here is an interesting thought. Suppose that I made a turned box and applied feathering in a manner as similar to Jacques' work as I possibly could. Have I stepped over the line? I personally would not feel comfortable with this scenario because it is not just that I am using feathers, but am copying a distinctive style even though it is by no means a copy of a specific piece. (Here I am assuming that Jacques does not make boxes.)

I have been observing the emergence of Andi Wolfe's carvings and painting that is so distinctive. I think it will be obvious to anyone who has seen her work if someone does similar things. Because she is a professor, I assume that she has had experience letting her students know where to draw the line in matters of honor. I hope that she imparts that same information to her demo audiences.
 

john lucas

AAW Forum Expert
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
8,321
Likes
3,576
Location
Cookeville, TN
Ed
See how interesting this gets. As far as I know Jacque doesn't make boxes but if you look at the collaborations he's done with other artists you immediately recognize his feathers. they are different than what a lot of bird carvers do.
I believe if you made a box with feathers that would be OK. If you made a box with Jacques Vessery feathers then you are possible crossing the line.
I agree with fred. We simply have to make a turning that doesn't look like a turning and then we don't have a problem. Oh darn that's probably a SToney Lamar, Robin Horn or Todd Hoyer.
 
Joined
May 4, 2004
Messages
76
Likes
3
Location
Baltimore
Website
www.schwingwoodworks.com
I can't help but think that the majority of AAW members are not the least bit interested in this topic. The common man, turner wise, must be a guy who just likes turning, and likes improving on his turning. I figure he probably wouldn't recognize a red tailed hawk's feathers from a Jacque's version, nor an aztec pot from an Ellsworth original. I gotta think he's just some guy trying to figure out how to minimize sanding scratches on his work, and keep from blowing up a bowl every now and then.

The more involved I get, and the higher I set my goals, the more I dislike what I see in the upper realm.

I just like turning out nice work. Some it might look like some other guy's work who came a little before me in the scheme of things. Sure, I might have had one of those forms in mind when I tried to make something pretty, but I'm not intentionally stealing, shoot, I'm happy if it doesn't explode. The legalities and the vagaries surrounding them is a total turn off. It reminds me of watching C-SPAN.

I might like the detail Mr. Vessery puts into his work (in fact I'm taking his class in Maine in August), and in an effort to learn that technique I might even make a feather, but you can trust me, I'm not stealing any money from his mouth.

I'm just going to go back to turning and working on something that nobody else is doing. Then someday maybe I can complain about my work being copied, too.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
9
Likes
0
Location
Overland Park Kansas
Mark Mandell said:
Recent thread on Wood Central brought up an old topic that, perhaps, deserves a bit more treatment to keep it current.

Mark Mandell

Then again maybe it was better off left there. For some reason I can't help but think this is all about drumming up business.
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
372
Likes
0
Location
Burnt Chimney, SW Virginia
Website
www.burntchimneystudios.com
Mike,

I share your disdain for the the scene at the upper echelons of woodturning. However, in another life I was competitive in sheepdog trials - or at least my dogs were. I aspired to be among the best at one time. Then, when I got a peek at the politics and what it would take to be really competitive I bailed out. Take a GOOD look at the life of some of the big hats in woodturning. Would you want to be on the road 20 or 30 weekends a year? Not me.

Now perhaps you understand my reaction to the article by Glenn McMurray in the Journal, which I have described here as being one-sided. The "big hats own it all" flavor of the article was a real turn-off for me. And that is why I have been so vociferous here, playing the devil's advocate and trying to present a different view of things.

Mike, did I meet you at Woodcraft in Timonium when I was with the Chesapeake club 3 or 4 years ago?
 
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
102
Likes
0
Location
minnesota
I don't believe Rude Osolnik originate that form. He just copied it.
He certainly did not originate the 1/3 - 2/3 proportions. That goes back in archiology somewhere. He just was clever enough to market it.

I don't intend to make any like it but that is because of Rudes reputation with that prticular form. Not because of the form itself.
 
Joined
May 4, 2004
Messages
76
Likes
3
Location
Baltimore
Website
www.schwingwoodworks.com
Ed, I don't think so. I wasn't interested in turning much over 2 years ago. Your name is incredibly familiar, but I think I used to have a guy in my cycling club with the same name. Perhaps we will meet in KC in July?

I should know by now that the same exact things happen at the top of every big hobby/sport - I was heavily involved in triathlon organization until I got a whiff of the politics involved and it ceased to be fun. Same exact thing before that with water skiing. You'd think I would have learned by now that I enjoy these things the most when I'm a participant and not involved beyond that - but damned if I didn't just start the Baltimore WoodTurner's Club...
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
102
Likes
0
Location
minnesota
Feathers;

I have a picture of a vesel with feathers on it seting right here on my desk. Under the pecture is a line saying"relics I remember". It is an old picture from some magazine or the like.
This was given to me by a friend who does much woodBURNING. She teaches woodburning. Has been doing feathers, since waaay back when, on boxes, napkin holders etc. A couple days later she gave me a chunck of basswood. I assume that is a hint that she wants to burn feahers on a vessel.

I doubt she has ever heard of the person refered to previousley that has "claim" to the feather thing. That is the first I had heard of him. I am going to turn the vessel for her and I hope she enjoys puting feathers on it...

After all she is 70+ and this other guy may well be coppying her idea from her boxes.
 
Back
Top