Flattery or Fraud?

[Fred in NC]

Not always !

The current American Woodturner finally showed up in my mail. Armed with a generous supply of aspirin, I read the article on Plagiarism.

Let me say that I have a lot of respect for David Ellsworth, which is probably an understatement. He is one of our living legends. I read his article, and the following statement jumped at me:

"If someone buys a turned object that you made, there is a natural assumption that because you made it, it was an original design."

Taken in context I can easily agree with David's statement. I think it is obvious that he is talking about original art pieces. These are mostly non-functional items sold as decorations and collectors' pieces, usually at a price beyond pocket change. Somebody paying $2,000 at an art gallery for a piece might be disappointed to find a nearly identical piece somewhere for $100.

In perusing my copy of 500 Wood Bowls, however, I found some pieces of exceptional excution and beauty, such as bowls and hollow forms, where the originality is questionable, but the value is still there. I am sure the name of the artist is worth some money in this case. I remember reading that one time a paper napkin with some scribbles by Pablo Picaso sold for a considerable sum.

The idea of a reputable and knowledgeable art gallery accepting a knockoff of Rude Osolnik's candlesticksw as original art sounds far fetched!

A casual reader, especially someone new at turning, can very easily misinterpret David's statement. Not all lathe turned items are destined to be sold at art galleries, simply because they are not art. The buyer of a $100 piece at a show cannot, in my opinion, demand total originality. Beauty and good execution can be expected if money is to change hands. Any degree of originality would just be a bonus.

Devaluation by imitation, in my opinion, does not work. I can draw squares and fill them with color, but could never get the price of an original Mondrian. His designs have been replicated and used as decorations, and his ideas used on woodturnings, yet I never heard of a Mondrian on sale at a gallery. Imitation is also a form of flattery, since we tend to imitate what we admire.

Personally I have no desire or talent to produce a replica of original art. Yet, every piece I see becomes part of me, and will eventually influence my taste and design one way or the other. What I know today is the sum total of what I have experienced through my senses. Just like notes and phrases in music, they will eventually be arranged in a new and unique form.

Just my personal opinion which is subject to sudden change.

 

[BobHash]

Choices

After reading all this, I feel I must do one of the following.
(I will probably opt for #2. Artist doesn’t carry the same connotation that it once did.)

#1-- Use the following disclaimer:
There is probably a piece that might have even influenced this particular design. I did not start out with a design in mind but let the work proceed on it's own. If someone assumes this is a copy then I'm sorry, but all the good shapes were used up during the last few thousand years.

#2-- I can no longer call any of my pieces art but they :mad: will have to be a simple craft.

 

[Wilford Bickel]

I think this discussion really should be broken down into two different cases.

1) Taking an item that is copyrighted and making a copy without permission.

This would be the case where a picture is applied to a turning. This is as illegal as taking the picture to Walmart and making a copy of it - the copyright law applies. If you take a wood turning by a master that carries a copyright and using a lathe duplicator make a copy - that would be illegal. If you take the same turning and by hand attempt to make the same item without the original turners permission that would also be illegal (unless you can show their item should not carry a copyright due to being same as older work such as SW Indians).

2) Taking a course, demo, or buying video or book where someone teaches you how to make their item.

I think some of the higher up turners are wanting to "eat their cake and keep it too" as the old saying goes in this case. In this case the originator for some reason - goodness of their heart or in most cases financial reward - has elected to release the knowledge of how they make the item. In most cases you have "paid" for this knowledge - the price of the book, magazine, video, attendance fee, etc. - in this case I do not think they can enforce a copyright and you have every right to make as many as you want to make. In this case they have "sold" the knowledge and would have no right to enforce a copyright against items made with knowledge they knowingly released.

My $0.02 worth!

Wilford

 

[PapaDoc]

Mark, I think the answer to your question is that this is a worthy line of comments. I have been impressed with the level of dialogue and insight as I have reread the thread. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to my expanding understanding of this dilemma.
David

 

[crazywoodturner]

Wilford Bickel said, "I think some of the higher up turners are wanting to "eat their cake and keep it too" as the old saying goes in this case. In this case the originator for some reason - goodness of their heart or in most cases financial reward - has elected to release the knowledge of how they make the item. In most cases you have "paid" for this knowledge - the price of the book, magazine, video, attendance fee, etc. - in this case I do not think they can enforce a copyright and you have every right to make as many as you want to make. In this case they have "sold" the knowledge and would have no right to enforce a copyright against items made with knowledge they knowingly released."

Woodturning has been unique in the craft world in that turners are willing to share techniques. This has involved a lot of trust on the part of those "higher up turners" that what they freely share won't be used against them (i.e., they aren't going to have to compete against their 'students' in the marketplace).

At every demonstration I've attended, the "higher up turner" has indicated a willingness to show the audience everything they know. However, they usually also state something to the effect, "take these techniques and work them into your own projects to come up with your own voice." I think this can safely be interpreted to mean that these demonstrators don't mind teaching their methods, but want others to do something different than what they do themselves.

If turners become comfortable with the idea that just because they paid to attend a demonstration or purchased a book, DVD, video, whatever that they have the 'right' to freely copy the style of the author, where is that going to lead with regards to the flow of information? Those "higher ups" are going to become reluctant to share these wonderful techniques and ideas with the community.

just another two cents worth . . .

 

[PapaDoc]

I know John offered an answer as to Rude's prolific run on candlesticks but it more mind boggling than I suspected. I called Nick Cook and asked him about this. He said Rude was up every morning at 2 and would turn until having to go teach. Rude estimated that he turned 150,000 of those suckers. Back in 1980, Nick said he bought a three piece set for $24! John is right about current value for collectors.
As Nick has done bottlestoppers, Rude would brag that he put three kids through school with those candles.
Rude advised Nick to find something simple that people will buy, and make a lot of them. Nick reports that Rude could turn a candlestick in 5 minutes.
Having plaguerized Rude for the last two years, his shape is subtle and he is not worrying about his legacy being stolen. I'm thinking that I might try the Barry Bonds trick and shoot some steroids, although it would probably only enhance my rage when I have a catch!
David Galloway

 

[Fred in NC]

Thanks, David!

Thanks for the added info on Rude's candlesticks.

I suspect Rude Osolnik did not sign his name on the bottom of each candlestick. Can anybody confirm this? I wonder how to identify them if I happen to run into a set.

 

[PapaDoc]

I understood he put green felt on the bottoms at one time. Rude was a functional/utilitarian turner for the most of his life. Later on, he did more "artistic" pieces.
By they way, if you have not seen the AAW video on his life, you need to order it today. REally excellent and captures the spirit of the man, particularly his humor.
David Galloway