Plagiarism Article

[jkroehn]

Ifound little help in the spring issue article.Cutsie stories and kissingup to our"tresured teachers/artists'is of no help when we decide to sell a piece. The section in Darlows book is much better organized and logical and complete. The Vesery quote on inspiration of function' is "art speak" at its worst. So many questions unexplored-what about turners who have passed away?-what responsibilities does the buyer of an expensive piece have-is this original design? Is it really possible to copy a turning?-from a picture? what of those artists that show how to make their signature pieces and some with drawings? The article clearly shows that money (as always ) is the basis for the conflict.Can our top turners have it both ways? teach and publish and then expect no one will sell a piece that looks like his? Its confusing.

 

[Mark Mandell]

Well, JK,

Perhaps you can look through the "Flattery or Fraud" thread below and add your perspective to the discussion.

Mark Mandell

 

[Bill Grumbine]

Ifound little help in the spring issue article.Cutsie stories and kissingup to our"tresured teachers/artists'is of no help when we decide to sell a piece... ...can our top turners have it both ways? teach and publish and then expect no one will sell a piece that looks like his? Its confusing.

Oh you iconoclast! Oh you troublemaker! How dare you say the emperor has no clothes! This discussion/debate erupted on usenet a number of years ago. I wrote some very strongly worded posts then, and I am happy to say that my opinion has not changed one iota. If people are going to write books, film videos, and teach classes on how they do things, they should not be surprised when others copy their work. I wrote that (or words to that effect) over five years ago on usenet as a relatively unknown turner. Now I am a little more known, but certainly not in the same league as the "big hats" (I really like that expression), and I do not care to aspire to that level.

Most of what passes for art in the turning world is there because of people shouting at the top of their lungs, "Hey everybody, watch me!" [insert Jeff Foxworthy's voice here]. People make it and people buy it. So what? The art market is a closed community of people who arbitrarily assign a value to a piece. It is worth what it is worth because they say so.

It is sort of like an alpaca farm. These cute little animals sell for tens of thousands of dollars because people say they should. Their wool is worth a lot, but the individual animal will never live long enough to recoup its value through wool production (and neither will the owner). There is not enough meat on these things to make them worth eating. So why are they so expensive? They are because a group of people decided they are, and subsequently convinced others to follow suit. The only way to make money raising alpacas is to get other people to raise alpacas. Period.

The only way to make any sort of money on art is to convince others that there is a value in the piece itself, and a huge part of that value is the name on the bottom. That has already been established in numerous discussions. So even if Larry Learner knocks off Alan Artist in every degree, he STILL isn't putting Al's name on the bottom. By the way, you can call me Bill Barfer. I do not mean to offend anyone, but this article was a syrupy as they come with regard to our collective attitude towards those who have blah blah blah. Respect? By all means. Reverence? I don't think so. Artists are hucksters of a different sort, selling people a snake oil which appeals to their vanity. How do I know this? I do it myself. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why anyone would want one of my wooden bowls over a metal or plastic bowl beyond vanity. They are harder to care for, they are not as flexible in use, and they cost many times more what a similar bowl made by a machine in a factory costs.

I am sure some of you reading this may attribute this to cynicism, but I prefer to call it reality. Sure, there is a certain "quality of life" issue here. We like to have nice things around us, even if they require more effort on our part. But the simple truth of the matter is that they are not a necessity for living, and once we get beyond necessary, it is all subjective. But back to the issue at hand.

Once we get beyond the value assigned to the name on the piece, there is the issue of copyright or trademark. Mark the lawyer has already elaborated on that far more eloquently than I could ever do. However, part of that "signature series" is the signature! If it ain't there, then the whole thing becomes very subjective. There are all sorts of artists and wannabe artists out there trying to find something that no one else has done before (or at least something that no one else remembers or has seen) so they can make their mark. There is a lot of that going on in the AAW today. But the truth of the matter is, there is NOTHING out there which has not been done before by someone else somewhere else. You want a proverb? There is nothing new under the sun. So how does someone gain ownership of a shape?

When it comes to exact copies of someone else's work, I think it diminishes the copier, but how can it diminish the copied? Remember, these things have arbitrary value based on the name of the artist. If that name ain't there, then neither is the value. The "art community" already knows that, and the rest of us aren't buying. But wait. So what if we do? What if we really like that shape, but can't afford the original, or what if the original is not available? I have several art prints that are copies of originals. Now, you might say they were made under license, and you would be right, but the issue is the same. They do not have the value of the original, and everyone involved in the transaction knows that. However, if someone tried to palm them off as original, then there is a true crime involved.

I think a person can be known for a style, or even for developing a technique. Does that mean that that stlye or technique is off limits for the rest of us? Maybe it does for the hoity toity galleries and the community of artists, but guess what? The rest of the world does not recognize that, at least not to the degree that some would like. If you want to make your mark, fine. If you want to keep people from knocking you off, you have some decisions to make. You can either run around putting out fires, you can keep your secrets to yourself, or you can continue to develop your style and stay ahead of the curve. Of those three options, the first is the worst in that it consumes energy and time that could be better directed elsewhere. You aren't going to win this one, even if you win. It is what you call a phyrric victory. Please note, I am not talking about patent infringment for a manufacturing process, I am talking about people making round wooden things one at a time in their own shops. I don't even like the word studio. I think it is pretentious. But that is just my opinion. Use it if you like.

I could go on and on, but I have already gone on as far as I have time for right now. For my parting shot, I think there is way too much focus on "art", and I do not care for most of it. I am a craftsman, and while some of my craft might get a little artsy, I intend to stay a craftsman. You will never see me complain about other people taking my style or copying my work. Of course, there are those who would assert there is nothing there worth taking! When you see something of mine posted, or you watch my video, or you see my stuff in real life, feel free to copy anything you like. Then tell me about it, because I am always honored by those who think enough of what little I have done that they emulate (or even copy) my stuff.

Bill

 

[Mark Mandell]

Copying

So, Bill,

We can assume that your point doesn't apply to someone bootlegging copies of your DVD, right?

Mark

 

[C Edward Moore]

Big Hats explanation

Hi Bill,

So you also found that article to be offensive and one-sided.

As one of my posts in the "Flattery or Fraud" thread mentioned, I used to enjoy competing in sheepdog trials with my two border collies. The term "big hat" is used in the sheepdog world to refer to those handlers who win frequently. It is not used in a pejorative or unkind way, but as a means of separating the sheep from the goats. (I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that. Well, maybe I'm not really sorry. ) I introduced that term here because it served us well in the other venue. I guess it would refer to those whose work is carried by excellent galleries AND who do more than an occasional demo. In addition, it would imply that their name has a good recognition coefficient.

I'm not trying to steal the thread, but the article causes sufficient bile to flow that I dare not engage in that discussion again or I will lose more time that should be spent on doing my taxes. Like you, Bill, I know how I feel and am comfortable with my position, which isn't likely to change.

 

[Bill Grumbine]

Mark, you are exactly right, and there is no disconnect between what I wrote and how I would react if someone were bootlegging my DVD. That is clearly defined as copyright infringement, and while people should not do it from a legal point as well as ethical, that doesn't stop them. Now, if they were concerned that I might show up on their front porch at 5:00 AM... Besides, I do not think anyone is going to classify my DVD as art any time soon. Since you bring up the DVD, my DVD is mine with me in it - my voice, my face, etc. A copy of that is hard to dispute. But if you want to take notes and make your own, even if it has the same segments, then it is your DVD, not mine. My complaint is against those who attempt to claim ownership of something much more ephemeral.

Ed, I understand you completely. When I read big hat, my first thought was, hmmm, a big hat must mean that person has a big head! And we all know that there are some mighty big heads in this crowd. Well, I know it, and I don't mind saying so either!

Bill

 

[DWFII]

Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it art?"

I didn't see the article in question and I beg your forgiveness if my remarks are a bit to the side...but here's another view from the peanut gallery.

I've been a custom bootmaker for 30+ years. I have an internationally renown reputation (probably one that in earlier times I wouldn't deserve). I've written several books and teach...and I've been featured in television (PBS) and magazine and newspaper articles. I've got boots in the permanent collections of nationally known museums.

I've been called an artist.

I don't buy into it, however. Some of what I do is beautiful and of high technical and esthetic value even by my own standards. But I'm not ashamed to call myself a "craftsman" or a "Tradesman."

I think "Art" is an attempt at communicating a perspective or a philosophy. Without that "message" it is just good work in my mind. And "Artists" need...maybe are even compelled--like someone with a runaway lip....to communicate anything and everything that enters their mind, good or bad, reasonable or bizarre.

I think that too many people have bought into that very "elitist" idea of Artist as Hero. Again, I don't buy it. I've seen too many widely acclaimed "Artists" who have no notion of the concept of "excellence." It doesn't do to leave spurious tool marks and evidence of sloppy technique on a piece and proclaim intention. It is disrespectful...to the material at hand, as well as the ultimate consumer of our work. Self-respect alone says you think of finish as well as design. But just because we pursue and incorporate principles of esthetic harmony into what we do doesn't mean that we are automatically "artists" or arbiters of what is art.

I think it is enough to create beauty...or to reveal beauty. In fact, I think that, in itself, that's a nobler pursuit than aspiring to "Art"--which, no matter the intent, no matter the message, no matter the content, can be...and often is...ugly.

Another two cents to the kitty...

DW
In the High Desert of Central Oregon

 

[Wilford Bickel]

I am glad to see some that speak with the voices of reason. This topic is all over the internet at this time. I have posted the link to the copyright office more times than I care to remember and am fed up with the people spouting ignorance that refuse to take the time to read it and get the facts. I am a woodturner, a crafter and make usable items. Usable items cannot be copyrighted, only a unique decoration. I will say that after all of this a number of big hats are on my "DO NOT" list, do not pay to watch a demo, do not pay to take lessons, do not buy their videos, do not buy their books. I will add several that have posted in this discussion are now on my "DO" list!!

As to Bill not objecting to copying of the CD. His video does not show how to copy CD's it shows how to turn bowls. He has every right to object to a CD being bootlegged, not to a purchaser of his CD using the knowledge to turn a bowl like the one(s) he has shown how to make on the CD. BIG DIFFERENCE!!

I believe the editor of the AAW magazine really failed in his job in allowing big hats to grind a personal axe as my mother would say. If he really wanted a good article on copying and copyrights he should of gotten a good copyright/patent lawyer that works in this field every day to write a non biased article. Not allowed someone with a personal interest to cause hurt feelings, scare new turners away, and most of all to use our magazine to try to impose rules that may not have legal bearings.

BTW Bill, around here the big item a few years back were the Ostriches and Emus. I told everyone that when the local stockyards took them every day of the week as they do my cattle, I would look into them. I saw them go from as much as $50,000 for a pair to free if you could catch and load them. Throughout that time, my cattle kept bringing a good price at the stockyard and still do!!

Ed - If you think sheepdog trials are bad, try cattle and horse showing. I will not ever win a national cattle show because I will not give the steroids to my animals that would make me compete on an even basis or buy the award! We still show and enjoy our state fairs and consider an honest win there more meaningful than a national champ on steroids!!

Note to self: See about getting Bill's CD, contact DFWII about what it takes to get boots!!

Wilford

 

[Mark Mandell]

Boots

Hey Wilford,

You get those boots, best not be wearin' 'em to the packing house!

M

 

[Wilford Bickel]

Bury me withem on!

Mark,

My wife already knows to bury me with my best pair on so I can meet the man upstairs in style!!

Wilford

 

[Bill Grumbine]

One more thing

I missed the one side bar in this article, and just now reread it. I probably shouldn't have. :mad: The question is posed, "Is a craftsman one who copies what an artist creates?"

WHAT!?!

Noooo, a craftsman is someone who has demonstrated a competence and an ability to make things that are both useful and beautiful. A craftman can turn a bowl, or four table legs that look reasonably the same and can be attached to aprons and a top. A craftsman is someone who can turn a lamp that might shed a little light for some of these people to see that we all aren't just sitting around waiting for them to make something so we can copy it!

"What's the difference between a craftsman and a rip off artist?"

Apparently none in the mind of whoever wrote this. This is the first time in several years that I sent in my membership money, and I am beginning to see the real meaning of rip off artist. I can't believe that I am actually paying to read this stuff! Of course, my motives were purely selfish - I want to be able to demo in clubs so as to promote my DVD, and more clubs are requiring that demonstrators be members of the national organization for insurance purposes.

I had better stop now before I really haul off and speak my mind. I need to go up to the shop and turn a bigger handle for my shovel, because after rereading this article, it is plain to see that it is not big enough.

Bill

 

[dfriedel]

This is the reason I like to stick with natural edge material. Someone would be hard pressed to say it resembles something David Ellsworth turned - even though it may - but not exactly. Then again, my name on the bottom doesn't garner thousands - just a hundred or so, if I'm lucky.
Form is not something one can patent anymore than one can lay claim to sole ownership of a woodturning design. If that were the case, Darlow, Raffan et al might as well burn their books on the subject.
I read the article in question and dismissed it as a lot of rhetoric void of any practical application in my work. One of the primary attractions of woodturning, at least to me, is the opportunity to produce unique objects which stand on their own merit. That uniquess can either be expressed in simplicity (my preference) or extravagant detail, both of which can take most any form.
Unlike a college thesis, I don't have to worry about someone else's work - only the quality of my own endeavors.
Having said that, it's time to continue my thesis in wood ....

 

[Russ Fairfield]

As a new woodturner, I read that article and it told me loud and clear that I should never attempt to copy anything that already has, or might have been made by someone else. And, Heaven forbid that I should ever try to sell it. Can I give it to my Mother? Why should I buy your books and magazines if I cannot use anything that I see in them as inspiration for my own woodturning.

This article was not a good advertisement for woodturning or the AAW. These folks stake out the limits of what I can do as a new woodturner, and they don't leave me much room. I think I will take up another hobby where the folks are more friendly and I am less likely to get into trouble.

As someone who has been around the block more than a couple times, I read all of the blather as a bunch of folks who are trying to protect their turf. Again, not a good advertisement for the AAW.

The reality is that the Big Hats can't have it both ways. As soon as one of them charges me $300, or whatever the going rate is these days, to show me how to do something, they have sold me the right to make as many copies of it as I want. If they have also sold me the tools to do the job, that is just reinforcement of my argument. Unless there is a copyright or a patent right on the form or the process, a sold property is no longer an exclusive property, and I would be willing to argue that one with anyone in any Court any day.

 

[Mark Mandell]

Ripped Off?

Have a Scoutmaster friend who had an Eagle Scout candidate who needed a badge in woodworking as part of his requirements, and asked if I could help the boy do something in turning. "Sure!" sez I, "C'mon over." Asked the young man what he thought he might like to do and he said, "A candle stick for Mom's table."

So we discuss turning a bit and do a little drawing of profiles, then take a walk out to the firewood pile. He grabs a piece of spalted maple, and back to the shop we go. After an hour or so of making shavings with only one catch, we checked and found the wood was a bit wet at 18%, so we put it in a baggie with alcohol, and home he went with a few instructions for final drying and finish options.

Just got the following photo of the Genuine Rude Osolnik Rip-Off Candlestick from my Eagle Scout.

So sue me

 

[PapaDoc]

First, thanks for volunteering for the Scouts and giving your time to that kid. Great job!
As to the Rude copy, this form is only slightly suggestive of the design of the Osolnik candlestick. It is a form that follows the broad notion of a taper in and then out which is clearly not something original to Rude. I have used the basic design to do lots of things, not trying to rip off Rude, as if he cared at this point, but trying to play with forms. I agree that much of the article in the magazine is mostly about ego, translated, big hats.

 

[Steve Worcester]

The reality is that the Big Hats can't have it both ways. As soon as one of them charges me $300, or whatever the going rate is these days, to show me how to do something, they have sold me the right to make as many copies of it as I want. If they have also sold me the tools to do the job, that is just reinforcement of my argument. Unless there is a copyright or a patent right on the form or the process, a sold property is no longer an exclusive property, and I would be willing to argue that one with anyone in any Court any day.

I wonder if we all read the same article.
I disagree completely. What they have "sold" you, or as I call it, taught, is a how to. They have sold you a process. They are generically teaching "the men to fish". They talk about designs and processes, and design philosophy. I have taken classes from many and always take away something on their technique or style. I don't want to sell someone else's design, even on a local level. I want to be known for my own work, my own eye and my own designs.

 

[Bill Boehme]

As a new woodturner and a new member of AAW, The article was like a slap in the face that made me feel like I had gotten into the wrong hobby. I certainly wasn't aware of all this political squabbling before joining AAW. I get the impression that there is a holier than thou attitude amongst a bunch of "artists" who think that they should be in charge in order to put the rest of us peons in their rightful place in the pecking order. I am highly offended by this elitist attitude. Here in Texas, I have seen massive manure composting piles around cattle feed lots, but they pale in comparison to the AAW article on plagiarism.

Bill

 

[Mark Mandell]

Bingo!

Doc,

I think your comment on using basic design ideas to make many different things goes right to the heart of this demonstrator thing. Of course my Scout wasn't copying Osolnik; he'd never heard of him. It was instead I, the teacher, who took Rude's design elements, applied them to the boy's basic ideas, and used them to give a youngster his first exposure to both turning and turned wood design. Perhaps in some part thanks to Rude, it's not a bad little candlestick, and the kid can look at it and not feel he has to make excuses for his lack of knowledge or experience.

When Ellsworth or Pho or Vesery or Drozda or Nittmann give a demonstration on how to do a technique they use, they're being paid to impart their superior "how to" knowledge. They may demonstrate that technique by doing a piece that they are most familiar with because it's more efficient for them to use that in a lesson plan. They are not, however, "selling" the rights to that design. They're "selling" the knowledge of how to do the technique that is used to produce the piece, but which can and should be used by the attendees to make a host of completely different designs.

Do we have a massive miscommunication between demonstrators (regardless of their hat size) and their audiences? If people go to an Ellsworth demonstration expecting to learn how to make David Ellsworth pieces (rather than, say, to learn how David handles a particular cut) it seems to me they're going to that demonstration for all the wrong reasons. David never told anyone that he was there to clone himself, and if you asked him, I'll suggest that he would look at you, smile, and simply say, "No."

Now, of course, if we'd like to segregate people by their hat sizes, we can continue down this path with accomplished and high quality teachers becoming more and more difficult to get. I'd hazzard a guess that most all of the "names" that travel and demonstrate could make much more money staying at home in their studio (shop ) doing their own work than by doing the Rubber Chicken Circuit. It's tough enough trying to make a living as an artist; who the hell needs a troop of wannabees running around doing knockoffs because they were dumb enough to show them how?

Here's a question: Is the AAW a social club or a professional organization set up to advance and promote woodturning as a valuable part of the fabric of our culture?

Try telling Mr. Vesery before he books with your club that your members will, of course, be copying and selling duplicates of his work after he shows them how, and see how fast his calendar fills up.

 

[Wilford Bickel]

Boy did I get behind.

That will teach me to take time to feed the cows and eat supper!!

Bill - don't feel bad about missing the side bar, I've read that article at least 3 times and each time I have found something else that makes my hackles rise!!

Mark - a major attaboy from an OLD boy scout. You have pointed out a major problem with the big hats attitude. We have new turners that need to copy and can only hope that they can come close to duplicating the original. In additon I am sure a mother will cherish that candlestick on her mantle more than any Rude Original! The big hats can only hope their work will be worth the value that mother will put on that candlestick. And as PapaDoc pointed out - Rude is probably smiling tonight seeing that piece, not wanting to sue the young man for copying!

Steve - I must respectfully disagree. All of the books and classes I have taken have been taught with a specific item being the ultimate goal. While I personally choose to take what is taught and go my own way, by accepting value for the lessons/books/CD's they have lost the right to claim it cannot be copied. In additon I would challange all of the big hats to show me the paid fee copyright applications that must be filed when an item is published. By demo, book or CD they have legally published the item and a paid fee copyright is required. I respectfully suggest you study the Copyright Office web page.

For all of the new turners - I suggest you note the big hats that are in support of this article and avoid them like the plague. I for one will not pay for books, CD or training from someone that threatens to sue me if they think I have used what they taught me. There are too many wonderful craftsman out there like Bill Grumbine willing to share their knowledge to worry about lawsuits!

Finally I hope one day to be called a Craftsman in woodturning. I would value that much more than to be called an artist. Artist must die before their work is valuable, a craftsman's work is immediately of value.

Wilford

 

[GeeSeaWhy]

Ed, those candlesticks don't look at all like the ones I've seen by Rude Osolnik - the curves are all wrong. Yours look much more like the candlesticks Eli Avisera makes - and Eli uses segmented designs too. You're really trying to rip off Eli and throw people off by saying you're ripping off Rude. Are we confused yet

What raised a big red flag for me was the subtitle of the article "some turners might be plagiarizing without even knowing it". Not according to my dictionary, which defines plagiarize as "to take (ideas, writings etc.) from another and pass them off as one's own". How do you take something without being aware that you're doing so??? Just how many somnambulent kleptomaniac woodturners are out there?

BTW, if you really want to copy Eli's designs, do it properly. Craft Supplies sells the blanks - all handmade by Eli himself. Now are we confused?

Graeme

 

[gran]

As a real member of the "big hat club" (size 7 7/8) I can only hope I manage to make something that someone would like to copy one day.

 

[Fred in NC]

Galleries

I have to agree with Bill Grumbine and Russ Fairfield.

Not everyone in the AAW sells to big name galleries. Those who sell to the galleries obviously will not get away with copying others' work or STYLE.

As far as copying work in a way that will infringe a copyright, that would be kind of hard to do! STYLE cannot be copyrighted, only INDIVIDUAL WORKS.

 

[Mike Schwing]

Hi guys.

I've resisted re-commenting on this thread because mainly, I've nothing to offer that hasn't been said. But I do want to reiterate some of Russ' comments. I've come to believe that this article was a huge mistake for AAW and has done nothing but generate negative feelings - and lots of chatter. To suggest that someone might be practicing plagairism without any awareness of the primary source of material is both ludicrous and insulting, not to mention wrong.

I know of a few other hobbies where the folks aren't quite so nice and polite as are woodturners. In response to the drivel in a similar article about their craft, they'd band together and deliberately produce copious amounts of copies of those "big hats'" work., and they'd call it justice.

Me, I have enough trouble copying my own work. But I must say, that even though I've got an Ellsworth gouge in my hand 99% of the time I'm near the lathe, it has yet to reproduce an original Ellsworth, or even a Schwing copy. I want a refund! :cool2:

 

[DWFII]

Such forms as Rude Osolnik or Eli Avisera develop are not "visions" that are unique unto themselves...even if their fascination with a specific form leads them to explore it extensively and/or perhaps obsessively. What humans consider beautiful or "classic" (the Golden Mean, for example ) are, almost without exception, forms that exist in nature; forms that resonate with something deep, *and* nearly universal, within our psyches. If such forms, no matter how attenuated, no matter how thoroughly associated with one individual, for all the reasons given above, are a "unique vision" or the property of any being , they are the property of the Creator...not Rude Osolnik, not Eli Avisera, not anyone.

People who "copy" the work of others are really only copying a form second or third hand. Even Rude's candlesticks are copies.

But beyond that little bit of metaphysics (no less true for it), people who deliberately copy, who deliberately set out to replicate in every detail short of the signature often do so as a means of understanding the form. The trouble there, is simply that it's impossible. Even the most dedicated counterfeiter will bring some slight sensibility, some tremor in the hand or brain, to the work that was not in the original. And for people of good will, that's precisely the objective--to learn a form and then, over time, transform it into something more representative of one's own perspectives.

Forgive my naiveté, if you will, but I don't see how that can be wrong, much less controlled. To deliberately counterfeit the work of another--be it a painting, a song, a bowl or a DVD...right down to the signature--is both legally and ethically offensive. But to explore the same natural laws of esthetics and design that someone else has explored...using those previous explorations as a starting point and a guide...seems to me the very foundation of all human knowledge and civilization.

Trying to suppress or discredit such natural impulses with stern and lofty (and arrogant and distant) lectures-to-the-unwashed, strikes me as futile, if not misguided.

Hmmm...there's another two cents for the kitty...

DW
In the High Desert of Central Oregon

 

[C Edward Moore]

sidebar

Graeme, I first became aware of Eli Avisera when the Craft Supplies catalog arrived. And you are correct, these sticks are different curves due to either the existence or placement of points of inflection.

I just reread the sidebar entitled "Defining plagiarism". There is a comment denigrating artists who combine elements from the work of others to generate their work. This is not only uninformed, but it is naive. Some of the greatest advancements have occurred by exactly this process. Norbert Weiner was a famous mathematician at MIT who took seemingly unrelated areas and combined them so successfully that he was awarded a National Medal of Science. Cybernetics evolved from his work. Control Theory is another such area. And mathematics is quite conscious of who did what and when and is intolerant of plagiarism.

What we are experiencing now is the emergence of woodturning from the "home craft" age which was dominated by a few to a thriving and active movement that is becoming less manageable and less responsive to the old rules. What we are hearing are the cries of those who had a semblance of control at one time, who helped create this growing monster, who benefitted by its growth, and who now see their control slipping away. The dynamics of the economics are changing and there is concern that their financial well-being may be adversely affected. AND THIS IS A REASONABLE CONCERN. Efforts to thwart the changes are akin to "putting the genie back in the bottle". Like real estate, what was once rural and has become suburbia will not become rural again. So there is no chance that the "old ways" will prevail. Woodturning is experiencing the usual growing pains associated with increasing popularity, and some of the changes are inevitable, whether they are popular or not. At some point, someone is going to say "It's all about money." and we will realize that we aren't just floating down a stream in utopia anymore, that there is a real world out there.

 

[Bill Grumbine]

But beyond that little bit of metaphysics (no less true for it), people who deliberately copy, who deliberately set out to replicate in every detail short of the signature often do so as a means of understanding the form. The trouble there, is simply that it's impossible. Even the most dedicated counterfeiter will bring some slight sensibility, some tremor in the hand or brain, to the work that was not in the original. And for people of good will, that's precisely the objective--to learn a form and then, over time, transform it into something more representative of one's own perspectives.

Very wel put DW, and I would like to add to that if I may. I stand across the lathe with all sorts of people with all sorts of backgrounds, levels of experience, ability, etc. Despite my intense instruction and encouragement, no one does it just like me, or anyone else, and that is trying to do it! I am talking about simple stuff like tool control and making the gouge move across the wood. The curves are always different in very slight ways. Some are good, some are not so good, and even with me saying "Do it just like this", just like that never really happens.

Wilford, I am going to have to put it away. After my last post I read some more.

"It's about inspiration of function that renders the soul, which makes craft, 'art'."

Could someone parse this for me? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Art is spiritual and craft is not? I do not go into my own personal beliefs in public very often, but I will say this. I believe that we are created in the image of God. While theologians have debated that concept for thousands of years, a big part of it which I find very easy to understand is that we are creative beings ourselves, that being part of the image of our Creator. None of us is creating anything ex nihilo, and anyone who says or thinks he is is deluded. But any time any of us makes anything, we engage in the creative process, at least as much as is allowed us in this dispensation. That creation may be a fabrication from premade parts or it may be our own vision for a lump of wood, but we are creating nonetheless. While I have chosen to define it in religious terms, someone more secular might choose to say that we are "increasing the negative entropy of a piece" or something like that. (and that is no less accurate with the possible exception of my misuse of the words) When someone puts in a whole bunch of esoteric mushroom soil into the process, you can bet it is nothing more than a device designed to separate people from more of their money.

Bill

 

[eemer]

I am a beginning turner and have a few points to make about the topic of plagiarism.

1.) If I copy someone else's work, it is just that a copy - as long as I do not attempt to pass it off as someone else's work. (Just the reverse of the written word) - And if I were to display it, I would credit the individual that inspired it. (example, "Grumbine style bowl" - Not a Grumbine Original Bowl as that would be plagiarism and the first is honoring an individuals style and showing how poorly my attempt to duplicate it was!)

2.) My copy, no matter how hard I try will never equal the original. (example, Maloof style furniture is just that Maloof style - Only Maloof himself can make Maloof furniture - we merely attempt to copy his Style)

3.) As a beginner, I must attempt to "Copy" the works of the great masters in order to develop my own style. There is no way anyone can manually duplicate any hand-crafted item (that is why they sell duplicators and CNC machines). If we are "prohibited" from copying anything we see in a book (that we purchased and therefore the artist should have received compensation from it) or a magazine article (again the artist should have received compensation for) or just like Norm Abrams does, go see the item and make a sketch of it and try to make one similar yourself; how can we ever learn.

In all my years of woodworking, the real talented experienced people out there have always been open to help, guide and improve my skills (be it in "Flat" work or Pens or whatever) and never against me trying to copy or duplicate one of their pieces.

I am assuming that the real issue here is that someone is going to Profit from or take credit for another persons work, and that is truly just plain wrong. To "Copy" someone (with credit given) is flattery, to steal from someone is always wrong. remember folks, if "It is an Original" It IS Original and even if someone tries to duplicate it - it will always be that a duplicate and therefore NOT Original.


My $0.02 worth, that is all - no more no less.

Please think whenever a beginner like myself would like to attempt to copy a piece you made as an original that all we are trying to do is learn from a "Master", not steal from him.

If we want a plan for a design, either say NO or sell it to us with a quantity limitation or royalty clause and if we do not follow the rules in place - sue the dickens out of us! If we all treat each other with the respect we've earned, we will never have any problems with each other.

 

[Bill Grumbine]

At some point, someone is going to say "It's all about money." and we will realize that we aren't just floating down a stream in utopia anymore, that there is a real world out there.

Well Ed, it didn't take very long for that to happen! You posted this at 8:58 AM and I hit the submit button at 9:18. The last sentence in my post pretty much says what you wrote here.

Bill

 

[Wilford Bickel]

I know of a few other hobbies where the folks aren't quite so nice and polite as are woodturners. In response to the drivel in a similar article about their craft, they'd band together and deliberately produce copious amounts of copies of those "big hats'" work., and they'd call it justice.

That has got to be absolutely the best idea I have read since this BS article was published!!!!!!! Trust me guys, I know BS when I see it, I walk in it every night feeding!!!

Now who is going to post a picture of the first item we all need to start making copius copies for justice?????

Wilford

 

[Bill Boehme]

[font=&quot]OK, one more thought from a beginning woodturner. I would think that by the time that a developing woodturner attains the necessary skill to convincingly produce a work similar to one that has been produced by one of the “Mastersâ€Â, that the aspiring woodturner would then be much more interested in making things that could be identified as being his/her own hallmark. After all, if recognition were what a person is really seeking, they would never achieve it by blatant copying the works of other turners down to the minutest detail.

And, as already mentioned in another posting, if I could just reproduce my own turnings I would be in nirvana (or at least, somewhat pleased). As a new turner, I am trying to turn four “matching†furniture feet for a friend. I showed them the first one and they were pleased and asked if I could make three more just like it. I said, “that is the $64 question†[/font][font=&quot]. Progress report: the second one is “similar†so I suppose that I can’t be accused of plagiarizing my own work.

Bill [/font]

 

[crazywoodturner]

over reacting to this article?

What's with all the resentment floating about in this thread? Why are woodturners with some name recognition labeled as "big hats" and painted as the big bad guys in AAW? I don't get it. What's the real problem here?

It doesn't seem unreasonable that turners who demonstrate techniques and show how to make one of their "signature" pieces would take offense when others do knock-offs of those items to sell as their own, original work. The whole point of doing a demonstration is to show how a piece is made so the attendees can learn about those techniques, and, hopefully, apply those techniques to their own work. It's not a license to go out and sell knock-offs.

 

[DWFII]

[font=&quot]I would think that by the time that a developing woodturner attains the necessary skill to convincingly produce a work similar to one that has been produced by one of the “Mastersâ€Â, that the aspiring woodturner would then be much more interested in making things that could be identified as being his/her own hallmark. After all, if recognition were what a person is really seeking, they would never achieve it by blatant copying the works of other turners down to the minutest detail.[/font]

Well said, Bill...and a point well worth repeating.

DW
In the High Desert of Central Oregon

 

[C Edward Moore]

Not pejorative

Crazywoodturner,

1. Have you read the article?

2. Did you read post #5 in this thread where I define "big hat"?

I quote myself here:
"As one of my posts in the "Flattery or Fraud" thread mentioned, I used to enjoy competing in sheepdog trials with my two border collies. The term "big hat" is used in the sheepdog world to refer to those handlers who win frequently. It is not used in a pejorative or unkind way, but as a means of separating the sheep from the goats. (I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that. Well, maybe I'm not really sorry. ) I introduced that term here because it served us well in the other venue. I guess it would refer to those whose work is carried by excellent galleries AND who do more than an occasional demo. In addition, it would imply that their name has a good recognition coefficient."

If you read the last sentence you will understand that this is a totally positive statement. No negatives.

 

[crazywoodturner]

Yes, I read the article. Yes, I saw your post where you defined "big hat." However, your definition is not what I perceived with the use of the term in this thread.

Regarding the article and sidebar to the article, I really don't understand why several posters are finding so much to criticize about it, and why there is such spite in promoting the idea of copying to show those "big hats" where to stick it.

I've attended several AAW symposia, club demos and regional symposia. I've found all of the "big hats" I've met to be very generous with their time, willing to make suggestions to beginners on how to improve their techniques or to figure out how to make their work stand out above the rest.

Contrary to some recent posts, it's not all about money, either. I think there are probably a small handful of "big hats" that actually make a career of being an artist. Production turners probably make a better income at this than do those "big hats."

Maybe y'all should take a big breath and try to figure out what is really bothering you about that article.

 

[Bowen Turner]

I wish my copy would arrive so I can read it!

Without having done so, here's what I think: There must be thousands of woodturners in the world - how many bowl shapes can there be! I think to copy a turners work one would have to use the exact wood, the exact tools, the exact tool use, the exact thickness of final product, the exact foot, and of course, the exact signature.

If you look back on the work the early artists and designers did at Bauhaus, then we would have to say almost that every tea pot, dish, chair, table we use today is a copy of a Bauhaus design from the turn of the 20th century.......and I don't see anyone suing Tefal!

 

[Bill Grumbine]

Maybe y'all should take a big breath and try to figure out what is really bothering you about that article.

I think that most people here have been quite clear on why they found this article offensive. Contrary to the doublespeak in many places of the article under discussion, posts here have been direct and clearly written. I have had no trouble understanding them.

However, I will not presume to speak for anyone else, only myself. I do not think there is anything wrong with the overall idea of the article, but rather its execution. Plagiarism is plagiarism regardless of the renown of the people involved. But here we are presented with this lofty article that puts certain people up on a pedestal and looks down a very long nose at the rest of us. The article is very condescending and insulting to many of us. Apparently we are supposed to tiptoe around the big hat people and examine ourselves to make sure that we are not even coming close to any feature that they may have used, contemplated using, or are in the process of using. The definition of plagiarism has been expanded from copying outright to using features or details. Personally I think it is quite a stretch in any event. While an exact copy would be easily recognized, who is in charge of saying something is too similar?

Like Mike, I found the "unintentional plagiarism" comment almost past believing. Did anyone edit this thing? This is truly a contradiction in terms, and is only one example of the nonsense which made it onto the page. See the quote above where I asked for explanation. Would you care to tell me what it means? I don't know. I suspect that no one really knows what it means. It is there to impress the hoi polloi.

There is a huge difference in someone being personable and friendly at a meeting and an accepting spirit when it comes to something they deign too similar. How do we know some of these people aren't plagiarizing US? How do we know whether or not some big shot famous turner is taking ideas found in the wealth of turnings presented at some of these symposia and using their connections, catapult themselves into the limelight again with someone else's idea before the unknown person has a chance to develop it? Don't tell me that that hasn't happened.

And, I must respectfully disagree with you, it is ALL about money. Go back and read the article again. If it weren't about money, there wouldn't have been the discussion revloving around galleries, other displays, lost sales, protection of other's living, etc.

Finally, I find it a little disconcerting that we have no idea who you are. I have my full name and even my boyish good looks posted here and I am not afraid to have them associated with whatever I write. How about you?

Bill

 

[Hugh]

I am having some problems with this whole plagiarizing thing. I have a lathe and a block of wood with some cutting tools. I turn round objects. There are only so many ways to shape the round object. If I decide to make a salad bowl - I know I am copying someone - but whom? If I make this salad bowl - can I sell it? I know there is a woodturner out there - I have seen the pictures - who makes their living making salad bowls? So, if I make and sell this salad bowl, am I stealing?

If I make a hollow forms in the shape of "Southwest bowls" - am I copying the shape from the Indians from way back or am I copying a more recent woodturner? And then I go to the Asian Art Museum and find a shape nearly the same. This is all so cloudy. What am I to do?

Any place where I sell my turnings I do not believe that any of the people know who David Ellsworth or John Jordan or .... are. Much less care.

If I go to an AAW Symposium,
I get instruction from many people - all of whom say "continous curve", "lift", etc. Then I go home and try to get the "continous curve" and the "lift" in my bowls. Am I plagiarizing?

What if I take a shape from one person, a texture from another person, a finish from someone else - am I plagiarizing? What if I hear the same thing from a number of different teachers? Who am I plagiarizing from?

Then I go on the internet and pull up the Del Mano Gallery and look at the latest exibit. These are professionals in one of the best galleries for woodturners. And I see a lot of similarities in some of the works. Is it OK just because they are all professionals?

I don't know what is OK to turn now. I know what I like to turn and I also know that I am never going to compete with the large name woodturners. Can these large name woodturners produce enough product to satisfy the masses? Or are only a limited number of people (collectors who will pay a bunch) allowed to have these objects?

A long time ago I took up stained glass. I told my wife that I wanted a "Tiffany" lamp in every room. I knew I could not afford to buy these lamps. So I learned how to make them and I now have one in every room. Are they copies - no. Are they somewhat like the real Tiffany lamps - yes. Did I steal from Tiffany?

That is it for now. I think I have gone on enough.
Hugh

Hugh

 

[Wilford Bickel]

Finally, I find it a little disconcerting that we have no idea who you are. I have my full name and even my boyish good looks posted here and I am not afraid to have them associated with whatever I write. How about you?

Bill

No fair Bill, I am having to keep my job up and try to keep up with this post! You beat me to a response to Crazy saying the same thing - I find it quite suspicious that he is taking the side of the article in both this post and the previous one but will not identify himself. I will respond to him when he identifies his true identity!

I hope you come south one day to demo Bill, I would love to attend and meet you. I would even buy your steak dinner!!

Wilford

 

[Mike Schwing]

No fair Bill, I am having to keep my job up and try to keep up with this post! You beat me to a response to Crazy saying the same thing - I find it quite suspicious that he is taking the side of the article in both this post and the previous one but will not identify himself. I will respond to him when he identifies his true identity!

I hope you come south one day to demo Bill, I would love to attend and meet you. I would even buy your steak dinner!!

Wilford

Wilford, you might need to buy him two. Bill is quite a man - nearly 3x the mass of me. Oops, better make that "you might need to buy him three"!

 

[Wilford Bickel]

Wilford, you might need to buy him two. Bill is quite a man - nearly 3x the mass of me. Oops, better make that "you might need to buy him three"!

Not a problem - if need be I will just take another steer to the slaughter plant and have plenty to throw on the grill!!

Wilford