Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring?

[jjc]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

I just wish I could see a pic of Surfgirl's diamond - without the ring. I don't suppose anybody would be brave enough to photoshop the setting out of the picture and show the diamond only.

I can't show you her ring, but I will show you another similar and outstanding transitional diamond owned by another PSer and bought at Singlestone:

Why thank you DS!

I have to say, when that whole ruckus was going on with SG, I had to admit that I wasn't sure how I'd feel if that happened to me. But after I got my ring made by 23rd Street and posted a bunch of pictures here on PS, I went back into the store and they said they'd gotten many phone calls and emails including all of my pictures with requests of replicating the ring - and I was THRILLED. To help someone find what they loved in a ring, well that made me feel such happiness. Granted my ring wasn't an antique that I happened upon with all of the attendant circumstances which SG said made the ring so very special and personal to her, it was my ering nonetheless, and it still just made me feel great that someone would want one just like it. So while I won't say that SG was wrong to feel as she did, feelings being as they are, I can now say that I don't understand her reaction.

ETA: My ring was also custom, as much as rings can be now that everything has been done. We went through many tweaks and iterations to get there.

Threadjack: I looooovvveee your ring, jjc. Did you sell it? I thought I saw it on Diamond Bistro...(after the sale, unfortunately! I would have snapped on that like a duck on a junebug! Gorgeous!)

Thanks so much Starshine! I did put the ring on Diamond Bistro but then got an offer to consign it locally so I decided that I'd be more comfortable trying that route first since I've never sold anything this costly on the internet. I was thinking of starting a thread on the Pre-Loved forum with the information of where it's being consigned because I'd LOVE for it to go to a PS'er, but then I was kind of worried about possible 'backlash,' especially since it's the store who set the price and not me.

End threadjack, sorry!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

I just wish I could see a pic of Surfgirl's diamond - without the ring. I don't suppose anybody would be brave enough to photoshop the setting out of the picture and show the diamond only.

I can't show you her ring, but I will show you another similar and outstanding transitional diamond owned by another PSer and bought at Singlestone:

Why thank you DS!

I have to say, when that whole ruckus was going on with SG, I had to admit that I wasn't sure how I'd feel if that happened to me. But after I got my ring made by 23rd Street and posted a bunch of pictures here on PS, I went back into the store and they said they'd gotten many phone calls and emails including all of my pictures with requests of replicating the ring - and I was THRILLED. To help someone find what they loved in a ring, well that made me feel such happiness. Granted my ring wasn't an antique that I happened upon with all of the attendant circumstances which SG said made the ring so very special and personal to her, it was my ering nonetheless, and it still just made me feel great that someone would want one just like it. So while I won't say that SG was wrong to feel as she did, feelings being as they are, I can now say that I don't understand her reaction.

ETA: My ring was also custom, as much as rings can be now that everything has been done. We went through many tweaks and iterations to get there.

Threadjack: I looooovvveee your ring, jjc. Did you sell it? I thought I saw it on Diamond Bistro...(after the sale, unfortunately! I would have snapped on that like a duck on a junebug! Gorgeous!)

Thanks so much Starshine! I did put the ring on Diamond Bistro but then got an offer to consign it locally so I decided that I'd be more comfortable trying that route first since I've never sold anything this costly on the internet. I was thinking of starting a thread on the Pre-Loved forum with the information of where it's being consigned because I'd LOVE for it to go to a PS'er, but then I was kind of worried about possible 'backlash,' especially since it's the store who set the price and not me.

End threadjack, sorry!

jjc, I guess my only sadness is that once you consigned, then it meant a 3rd party is getting a percentage of the money driving up the cost for the buyer. You know I understood that you needed to get the best possible price for your ring, and I still hope you will. But I think if you had left it on DB and even raised the price some to whatever you think is the correct price, it would be sold by now. The jeweler may have the price too high once their commission is added on if it hasn't sold by now. But I certainly won't say anything regarding the price. So by all means post it on the pre-loved board. It is a gorgeous ring and someone will be very lucky to have it!

 

[Brown.Eyed.Girl]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Oh this again?

I remember being around for this dramz and honestly, I agree with the majority that SG was totally unreasonable. As Gypsy has already said many times, Ari had NO obligation to inform or get the permission of SG for making PT's ring (SG's ring wasn't copyrightable, PT had already tweaked it substantially). And I think that it's a pretty well-accepted unwritten PS rule that you don't rain on someone's SMTR/SMTB parade. And SG did. And she didn't regret it. Total b!tch move IMO - what, are we 12 here?

Anyway, SG's ring, however, is stunning, and I'm tempted to get a copy made of it, because it's pretty, and because, guess what, I can (you know, not protected under copyright, no obligation to inform purchaser, etc. etc.).

 

[milton333]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

FWIW, when it's a "true antique" that was created pre-1922, the copyright has expired, and it can be reproduced exactly. What this all devolves into is whether it's (a) discourteous for a jeweler you patronize to copy your copy-able antique ring, and (b) whether it's discourteous for a random stranger on the internet to use your publicly posted photos of said ring as inspiration. I tend to think that it's uncontroversial that (b) sounds kind of extreme - strangers on the intertubes owe me no personal courtesy. As to (a), I also think that a jeweler in the business of reproducing antique rings has no obligation to forego reproducing an antique ring as some sort of courtesy to one of hundreds or thousands of his customers.

Here's more on the copyright law issue:

Effective January 1, 1978, the United States Copyright law was changed substantially. Previously, a work's period of protection began either when it was published with a proper copyright notice or registered if the work was registered in unpublished form. The period of protection lasted for an initial term of 28 years and could be extended for a second period of 28 years if the copyright was appropriately renewed during the initial 28th year.

When the 1976 law came into effect, the statute extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years and now under the new law, that term is extended for a total term of 95 years. But the copyright owner had to file an appropriate renewal application in order to obtain this extended protection. As a result, a person inquiring as to the status of the copyright of works falling into that time frame has to search the records for that renewal certificate.

In 1992, when the law was amended again, it automatically extend the term of copyrights that had previously been published with a copyright notice from January 1, 1964 through December 31, 1977 to the further term of 47 years and eliminated the requirement to file a renewal application, even though filing such a renewal provides certain benefits. And now, all works published with a copyright notice after January 1, 1964 but before December 31, 1977 have an additional term of 20 years from the previous 47 and a total term of protection of 95 years.

Under the current law, if a work was first published in the United States on or before December 31, 1922, then it is likely to be in the public domain. . . .

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/expiration.html

 

[jjc]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

I just wish I could see a pic of Surfgirl's diamond - without the ring. I don't suppose anybody would be brave enough to photoshop the setting out of the picture and show the diamond only.

I can't show you her ring, but I will show you another similar and outstanding transitional diamond owned by another PSer and bought at Singlestone:

Why thank you DS!

I have to say, when that whole ruckus was going on with SG, I had to admit that I wasn't sure how I'd feel if that happened to me. But after I got my ring made by 23rd Street and posted a bunch of pictures here on PS, I went back into the store and they said they'd gotten many phone calls and emails including all of my pictures with requests of replicating the ring - and I was THRILLED. To help someone find what they loved in a ring, well that made me feel such happiness. Granted my ring wasn't an antique that I happened upon with all of the attendant circumstances which SG said made the ring so very special and personal to her, it was my ering nonetheless, and it still just made me feel great that someone would want one just like it. So while I won't say that SG was wrong to feel as she did, feelings being as they are, I can now say that I don't understand her reaction.

ETA: My ring was also custom, as much as rings can be now that everything has been done. We went through many tweaks and iterations to get there.

Threadjack: I looooovvveee your ring, jjc. Did you sell it? I thought I saw it on Diamond Bistro...(after the sale, unfortunately! I would have snapped on that like a duck on a junebug! Gorgeous!)

Thanks so much Starshine! I did put the ring on Diamond Bistro but then got an offer to consign it locally so I decided that I'd be more comfortable trying that route first since I've never sold anything this costly on the internet. I was thinking of starting a thread on the Pre-Loved forum with the information of where it's being consigned because I'd LOVE for it to go to a PS'er, but then I was kind of worried about possible 'backlash,' especially since it's the store who set the price and not me.

End threadjack, sorry!

jjc, I guess my only sadness is that once you consigned, then it meant a 3rd party is getting a percentage of the money driving up the cost for the buyer. You know I understood that you needed to get the best possible price for your ring, and I still hope you will. But I think if you had left it on DB and even raised the price some to whatever you think is the correct price, it would be sold by now. The jeweler may have the price too high once their commission is added on if it hasn't sold by now. But I certainly won't say anything regarding the price. So by all means post it on the pre-loved board. It is a gorgeous ring and someone will be very lucky to have it!

Truth be told, I actually don't even know what the price is. Which reminds me, I need to check in on them soon Who knows, maybe once I work up my nerve enough to sell it on DB, you might just see it back up soon! Just had to try locally first

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!

 

[Rhea]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

There are a couple of people on PS who say that they own the copyright to their rings. I often wonder, how would they know if I copied it? I could easily take a photo in to someone to reproduce, say it's an antique, have it copied, and no one would be the wiser.

If the rings are copyrighted, this would be illegal and you would be inducing the jeweler to break the copyright law also. When is it okay to break the law so that you can get the jewelry, you want? Where do we draw the line?

I'm not sure where the line is drawn. I'm sure that several rings, posted on here, are also posted on other sites. How do jewellers know the rings are copyrighted? In which countries does copyright apply? If a ring was designed and copy-righted in Canada, I had no clue, found a photo online without credit to the owner, I'm fairly certain I could find a designer in Australia to copy it if I wished to. How would anyone know I copied it? How does the law work in that situation? Would it only be found if I posted on the site where the copy right holder also posted?

I still hold the opinion that nothing in jewellery design is that original.

 

[minitiki]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

There are a couple of people on PS who say that they own the copyright to their rings. I often wonder, how would they know if I copied it? I could easily take a photo in to someone to reproduce, say it's an antique, have it copied, and no one would be the wiser.

If the rings are copyrighted, this would be illegal and you would be inducing the jeweler to break the copyright law also. When is it okay to break the law so that you can get the jewelry, you want? Where do we draw the line?

I'm not sure where the line is drawn. I'm sure that several rings, posted on here, are also posted on other sites. How do jewellers know the rings are copyrighted? In which countries does copyright apply? If a ring was designed and copy-righted in Canada, I had no clue, found a photo online without credit to the owner, I'm fairly certain I could find a designer in Australia to copy it if I wished to. How would anyone know I copied it? How does the law work in that situation? Would it only be found if I posted on the site where the copy right holder also posted?

I still hold the opinion that nothing in jewellery design is that original.

Copyright applies to in every country that signed an international treaty. Using Canada and Australia as examples, both countries signed the Berne Convention (the earliest international treaty for copyright protection) and the WIPO Copyright Treaty (the latest treaty), so if a design is copyrighted in Canada, it is protected in Australia also.

As anybody finding out that you would be in violation of the copyright law, I tend to be cautious. If I do not know it for sure, I assume it is copyrighted and will not want an exact copy.

 

[Gypsy]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

FWIW, when it's a "true antique" that was created pre-1922, the copyright has expired, and it can be reproduced exactly. What this all devolves into is whether it's (a) discourteous for a jeweler you patronize to copy your copy-able antique ring, and (b) whether it's discourteous for a random stranger on the internet to use your publicly posted photos of said ring as inspiration. I tend to think that it's uncontroversial that (b) sounds kind of extreme - strangers on the intertubes owe me no personal courtesy. As to (a), I also think that a jeweler in the business of reproducing antique rings has no obligation to forego reproducing an antique ring as some sort of courtesy to one of hundreds or thousands of his customers.

Very good analysis! Are you a law student or a lawyer?

 

[LaurenThePartier]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

I'm calling BS, and if you owned a business (I don't know if you do, but let's just assume you do), I'm not quite
sure you would act in that manner at all.

I consider some of the jewelers I've worked with *friends* and only once have I gotten a courtesy request,
at the behest of the customer, no less. Why would any *intelligent* business person pigeonhole himself
into possibly *losing* business from one potential customer at the will of one other customer?

No need to assume, since I do actually own a business and I will not totally replicate one brides design for another bride, and I WILL tell a potential client that up front. It is in my policies sheet that I give in my packets and is explained clearly when I meet with a bride/couple. With a few more generic exceptions, most of the work I do is done for the individual person, and there are several very specific ones that will not be altered or reused at all period, either because the bride requested it, and in some cases did NOT request it and I just did it, because I think that is the professional thing to do. I have never copied someone else's design because a client said "I want exactly this". I worked hard to get the reputation that I earned, and maybe i have more integrity than Ari seems to.

And Gypsy, I do believe that he knew it would upset her, and unless you have a sworn statement from him, you cannot state that as fact. He did it on the sly, and he was called out for it by SG. He had enough encounters with her that he most certainly knew how she felt about it. We're going to have to agree to disagree, I am not calling you wrong, despite you calling me wrong. You're stating his side of this based on your opinion, and your recollection. It's not factual, unless you can provide actual fact, or Ari wants to join the discussion.

I also consider some of my jewelry vendors friends, and many of my former clients are also now great friends, and I would not consider them as such any further if they didn't at least say "hey there's another customer interested in a duplicate of your design, what is your opinion of that", esp if it was my design, whereas I would ask the client if there was any opposition to that. I personally don't own anything non-generic in terms of jewelry. I don't own a lot of custom anything for that matter, but I would take offense to another designer doing a direct rip of my work down to the font, when it's specific to the bride. I also know there's nothing I can do about it in 99% of the cases, I just know that some people are more concerned about a buck than about having an ounce of self respect. And I think he's one of them.

Ohhhh, so you change the font? Much like PT changed the center stone and had smaller proportions in her ring?

Got it.

 

[ame]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

but I would take offense to another designer doing a direct rip of my work down to the font, when it's specific to the bride. I also know there's nothing I can do about it in 99% of the cases, I just know that some people are more concerned about a buck than about having an ounce of self respect. And I think he's one of them.

Ohhhh, so you change the font? Much like PT changed the center stone and had smaller proportions in her ring?

Got it.

Ooohh so you just picked out a random phrase to highlight part of and still didn't really read the post? Got it.

but I would take offense to another designer doing a direct rip of my work down to the font, when it's specific to the bride.

I don't just "change the font". I do a whole design for someone. I create a font. I take actual parts of their dress or their florals and incorporate it into the design. And then I don't reuse it. I don't put those designs out there for other customers to see without permission from the couple, esp online, and I still don't copy it by just "changing the font". A proportional change isn't really making a great change to the design of the ring. Much like "just changing the font" isn't changing a design enough to make the design unique. She just got a smaller diamond of a different cut than what SG had already. That's not a great change to the design, that's working with the smaller budget she had for the piece and hoping it would still capture the design she was copying, and spent a year working on copying, and readily admitted shamelessly that she was copying. But because SG was displeased and told her so, SHE is the problem. Got it.

What Ari did, whether it was for PT or another customer, was unethical and unprofessional. And the fake shock at being called out for it by a regular and well paying customer of his store, one that brought him a lot of business, just proves my point that he knew what he was doing wasn't ethical or professional. He just decided that having integrity wasn't as important as making a buck. Just a shady used car salesman.

 

[galeteia]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

IN MY OPINION as someone who did NOT talk to Ari himself and get the story from the horse's mouth, What Ari did, whether it was for PT or another customer, was unethical and unprofessional. I believe, based not on personal experience with talking to him, but on a thread on the internet the fake shock at being called out for it by a regular and well paying customer of his store, one that brought him a lot of business, just proves my [ personal and unsubstantiated opinion] that he knew what he was doing wasn't ethical or professional. If viewed from my perspective, which is based on conjecture He just decided that having integrity wasn't as important as making a buck. Just a shady used car salesman.

Fixed that for you.

 

[ame]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Since you apparently DID speak to both SG and ARI, by highlighting how I have not, how about you share those supposed facts I am misconstruing? None of you did, Gypsy claims she spoke to Ari, whether she did or not, he can feed her whatever he wants to feed her knowing full well she'll come right back here and post his comments as fact. We are ALL speculating and ALL are sharing OUR OPINIONS. Not one of us is either of those parties. So NONE OF US knows what actually happened in reality. So ALL OF US are sharing OUR OPINIONS.

 

[Laila619]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

For every one person who thinks he did something unethical, you'll probably find three people who don't. I don't think Ari did anything unethical at all.

Moreover, I think SG should be more gracious about the whole thing instead of spoiling someone's SMTB thread. Guess she didn't learn how to share in kindergarten.

 

[canuk-gal]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Oh this again?

Uh huh. The record's stuck......the record's stuck.....the record's stuck........

 

[starshine]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Seriously. The ring was not earth-shattering unique. A round center flanked by half moons and baguettes. I have seen many antique variations as well as modern. Fairly certain that SG's was not the first one in the world nor the inspiration for all the modern renditions! I really feel for PT having been inspired by one of the MANY pics SG posted of her ring because this fallout is utterly ridiculous!

 

[missydebby]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Ame, the way you conduct your business is your choice, but it's not a morally superior choice, like you are making it out to be.

I am a painter and run my own business. I retain the copyright to all of my painted images, even my commissioned ones. I reserve the right to use them on my merchandise unless we negotiate that I will not use them on my items, in advance. If my clients want the copyright and use of my painted image, they pay me more to buy that copyright from me.

I think that if you give up your right to use of your creation on future products out of some sort of misguided morality that you are being silly. But well, that's how you like to do it and how you hold yourself higher than others. Glad it works for you. But you are wrong to think that that silliness is the way it should be done. It's not.

And LOVE Gala's post. perfectly said.

 

[lulu]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Just want to say I never understood all the sturm und drang about copying that ring. I really don't care if it was a precise and exact copy-I don't think it was unethical at all.-It is a configuration of stones and gold-not a rewriting of "The Divine Comedy". And I sure don't understand posting it on a public forum and then expressing outrage when it's copied.

 

[davi_el_mejor]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Anyone care to share?

 

[aljdewey]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Ame, the way you conduct your business is your choice, but it's not a morally superior choice, like you are making it out to be.

I am a painter and run my own business. I retain the copyright to all of my painted images, even my commissioned ones. I reserve the right to use them on my merchandise unless we negotiate that I will not use them on my items, in advance. If my clients want the copyright and use of my painted image, they pay me more to buy that copyright from me.

I think that if you give up your right to use of your creation on future products out of some sort of misguided morality that you are being silly. But well, that's how you like to do it and how you hold yourself higher than others. Glad it works for you. But you are wrong to think that that silliness is the way it should be done. It's not.

This is so perfectly said, I couldn't agree more. I don't believe it is a morally superior choice at all (and I actually think it's a tremendously unsavvy business choice, but it's your business to run as you see fit.)

 

[aljdewey]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

There IS a way to commission a work as an exclusive design.....and it costs a boatload and a half of money. (Think Pitt/Aniston rings, for example).

And even then.....it was the jeweler who agreed not to recreate (based on the boatload fee). However, once paparazzi photos went all over the internet? Yeah, less exclusive.

Right to exclusivity, particularly when one wasn't the original commissioner? Even less.

 

[LaurenThePartier]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

but I would take offense to another designer doing a direct rip of my work down to the font, when it's specific to the bride. I also know there's nothing I can do about it in 99% of the cases, I just know that some people are more concerned about a buck than about having an ounce of self respect. And I think he's one of them.

Ohhhh, so you change the font? Much like PT changed the center stone and had smaller proportions in her ring?

Got it.

Ooohh so you just picked out a random phrase to highlight part of and still didn't really read the post? Got it.

but I would take offense to another designer doing a direct rip of my work down to the font, when it's specific to the bride.

I don't just "change the font". I do a whole design for someone. I create a font. I take actual parts of their dress or their florals and incorporate it into the design. And then I don't reuse it. I don't put those designs out there for other customers to see without permission from the couple, esp online, and I still don't copy it by just "changing the font". A proportional change isn't really making a great change to the design of the ring. Much like "just changing the font" isn't changing a design enough to make the design unique. She just got a smaller diamond of a different cut than what SG had already. That's not a great change to the design, that's working with the smaller budget she had for the piece and hoping it would still capture the design she was copying, and spent a year working on copying, and readily admitted shamelessly that she was copying. But because SG was displeased and told her so, SHE is the problem. Got it.

What Ari did, whether it was for PT or another customer, was unethical and unprofessional. And the fake shock at being called out for it by a regular and well paying customer of his store, one that brought him a lot of business, just proves my point that he knew what he was doing wasn't ethical or professional. He just decided that having integrity wasn't as important as making a buck. Just a shady used car salesman.

No, I read the whole thing, I just think you're unwielding position is somewhat OTT. My ultimate point is that print work/2d design is a much different world than jewelry design. My husband is in a similar businesss, and commented to me that laypeople simply can't tell where the 20% difference in changes occur in the name of jewelry, and to them, it appears to be the *same* thing. Like it or not, PT's ring is at least 20% different than SG's. Starting with prong shape, height of center stones, side profile, and proportion of sides.

Also, since all inspiration rings put you squarely in the "shady used car salesman" camp, I suppose you'd better start casting aspersions at BGD, WF, GOG, JA, Leon, and all of the others who have done the *exact* thing you're complaining about. With much more unique designs than this one. Oh, but you know what? You probably don't know about all of those *other* copies because the people who owned the copied rings didn't go on and on about it and pout and act like spoiled little children and take their toys and go home.

I have been in SG's exact shoes, and while it was mildly annoying to not be warned of the aforementioned *near exact copy of my HUSBAND'S original design*, the last thing anyone with any empathy should ever do is rain on someone's happy thread, which is why this topic is brought up over and over. It's true, it's not really what you say, but how you say it.

Also, Ame, I suspect if you're being honest with yourself, if SG and her friends had never made such a stink about it, you wouldn't even bother to be in this thread raining your morally superior choices upon the rest of the jewelry community.

 

[Haven]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Are we really still talking about this?

I didn't understand the drama then, and I still don't understand it now. At the time, I wore a very standard e-ring. I've since had a hand-forged ring custom made based on a drawing I made myself. Then, I said I would be thrilled if someone copied my ring. Now, I feel the same way.

If you have a thing that you don't want others to copy, then you really ought to avoid plastering pictures of it all over the Internet. In fact, if you want to keep something all to yourself, well, do that. Keep it. To yourself. Don't show others, lest something horrible happens and they become inspired by your coveted object.

Besides, can anyone really show me a picture of a truly original ring? Aren't all of our pieces derivative of others?

I get the impression that people who spend a lot of time complaining about others' behavior are really just bolstering their own self-image due to who-knows-what--insecurities? Self-loathing? (I don't know, that's not my field.) After all, when I say "He has no idea what he's doing in the classroom," aren't I really trying to communicate that I, myself, am quite superior and know exactly what I'm doing?

 

[Rhea]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Copyright applies to in every country that signed an international treaty. Using Canada and Australia as examples, both countries signed the Berne Convention (the earliest international treaty for copyright protection) and the WIPO Copyright Treaty (the latest treaty), so if a design is copyrighted in Canada, it is protected in Australia also.

As anybody finding out that you would be in violation of the copyright law, I tend to be cautious. If I do not know it for sure, I assume it is copyrighted and will not want an exact copy.

That's interesting and scary! I'm not sure how anyone can design anything without fear that they've copied someone else in that case.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Addy, copyright is unlike patent in that the design doesn't have to be "never done" before.

If you were in Australia and I were in the U.S. and we both drew the exact same rings.....having had no communication with each other, having not even known of the existence of one another......neither would be an infringement of the other.

However, if you had received an email of my design from a mutual friend and then committed your design to paper, that could qualify for infringement.

 

[Rhea]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

ALJ - Oh! So I only have to have knowledge of the design? So if I took your ring drawing in to copy it, that's a problem. If a randomly came up the same design then that's fine. Is that correct? If so, how can it be proven that I knew about a particular design before copying it? What if we designed something a few years apart but I'd never seen your drawing?

This all seems a bit confusing to me. Everything in design seems to play and build off another. I have trouble with the idea of copy righting something where you borrowed a fair amount of the ideas yourself. Guess I shouldn't go into copy right law!

 

[galeteia]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Addy, copyright is unlike patent in that the design doesn't have to be "never done" before.

If you were in Australia and I were in the U.S. and we both drew the exact same rings.....having had no communication with each other, having not even known of the existence of one another......neither would be an infringement of the other.

However, if you had received an email of my design from a mutual friend and then committed your design to paper, that could qualify for infringement.

Interesting!

So, is it that SG's ring does not qualify to be copyrighted because neither she nor the vendor designed her ring - it was an estate/antique piece that was found, not designed by SG?

Therefore, unlike LaurenThePartier's ring, which was designed from scratch by her husband working with their vendor, SGs is not copyright-able as the original design had elapsed it's copyright timeframe (which she would not have owned regardless), or is that she failed to declare copyright on the design even though it was already in existence?

 

[aljdewey]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

So, is it that SG's ring does not qualify to be copyrighted because neither she nor the vendor designed her ring - it was an estate/antique piece that was found, not designed by SG?

Therefore, unlike LaurenThePartier's ring, which was designed from scratch by her husband working with their vendor, SGs is not copyright-able as the original design had elapsed it's copyright timeframe (which she would not have owned regardless), or is that she failed to declare copyright on the design even though it was already in existence?

If there was still an active copyright on SG's ring, it would be held either by the original designer or whomever he sold the design rights to. As an older ring, it's possible (and even probable) that any copyright on the design would have already expired.

Re Lauren's ring, when you hire a company to commission a piece, the terms (including who will own the copyright) are dictated by the work agreement. I can tell you that one of the conditions of custom work with WF stipulated that WF would own the copyright for all works they create (unless you arrange/agree to separate conditions, which usually do significantly increase the price). I wasn't working there when Lauren's ring was made, but to my recollection, this provision was part of their custom work process even then.

The problem with jewelry is there are a limited number of elements available, so most combinations have already been done at some point before. My 3-stone ring was inspired by an LM piece, but I made several changes to keep from infringing the copyright. Years later, DandiAndi joined PS with a ring substantially similar to mine. She and I had no access to each other's works. Since then, I've seen near duplications of my ring in estate stores, so the notion that there is a ton of uniqueness/individuality in jewelry design is a fallacy.

What was likely copyrighted by SG were the photos she took of her ring. If SG's photos were printed out and taken to a jeweler, that could potentially be an infringement of SG's copyright on her photos....but keep in mind that posting photos here on PS would be subject to PS rules, too. If PS rules say "when you agree to membership here, any photos or content you post become the property of PS", you may be surrending rights to post them here.

If PT or someone else sent a jeweler an email with a link to a PS thread with photos of SG's ring in it, that wouldn't be an infringement of copyright (no copies made).

 

[audball]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

but I would take offense to another designer doing a direct rip of my work down to the font, when it's specific to the bride. I also know there's nothing I can do about it in 99% of the cases, I just know that some people are more concerned about a buck than about having an ounce of self respect. And I think he's one of them.

Ohhhh, so you change the font? Much like PT changed the center stone and had smaller proportions in her ring?

Got it.

Ooohh so you just picked out a random phrase to highlight part of and still didn't really read the post? Got it.

but I would take offense to another designer doing a direct rip of my work down to the font, when it's specific to the bride.

I don't just "change the font". I do a whole design for someone. I create a font. I take actual parts of their dress or their florals and incorporate it into the design. And then I don't reuse it. I don't put those designs out there for other customers to see without permission from the couple, esp online, and I still don't copy it by just "changing the font". A proportional change isn't really making a great change to the design of the ring. Much like "just changing the font" isn't changing a design enough to make the design unique. She just got a smaller diamond of a different cut than what SG had already. That's not a great change to the design, that's working with the smaller budget she had for the piece and hoping it would still capture the design she was copying, and spent a year working on copying, and readily admitted shamelessly that she was copying. But because SG was displeased and told her so, SHE is the problem. Got it.

What Ari did, whether it was for PT or another customer, was unethical and unprofessional. And the fake shock at being called out for it by a regular and well paying customer of his store, one that brought him a lot of business, just proves my point that he knew what he was doing wasn't ethical or professional. He just decided that having integrity wasn't as important as making a buck. Just a shady used car salesman.

Really? Aren't proportions, like, everything when it comes to jewelry? I can't even think of how many of your threads were about how something wasn't just right on one of your pieces.

Proportions are HUGE in the design, height, size. Size/shape of prongs, height of stone, width of band, size of side stones, center stone, ratios between them all. It's kind of what makes the "look" of the ring what it is. The fact that PTs proportions are nothing like SGs changes the whole thing. It's most certainly got more than 20% of changes. I was around for the original thread and am also one of the many admirers of SGs original ring. It was really crappy for her to rain all over PTs parade. PT is a wonderful poster and I enjoy reading her posts in FHH.

So what if you won't patronize SS...seems like you don't want to patronize many of our loved vendors here for whatever reason. Ari did nothing wrong. He didn't "owe" SG anything. It was a ring. Not original, not unique. The only thing unique about SGs ring was the BEAUTIFUL center stone. The one and only thing that CAN'T and will never be copied.

 

[Gypsy]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

With respect to SG's pictures being printed out... that issue is complicated by the "fair use" stipulation in copyright. There might have been no infringement while using SG's photo's if it falls under fair use.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Also there is an argument that by posting on the internet, SG was giving permission (which she did rescind but not until after the PT thing) for people to download the pictures and even to print them out, so PT may not have been infringing at all even with the pictures by taking them to Ari because AT THAT TIME, SG's photo's where all over the place on the net.

 

[galeteia]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

So, is it that SG's ring does not qualify to be copyrighted because neither she nor the vendor designed her ring - it was an estate/antique piece that was found, not designed by SG?

Therefore, unlike LaurenThePartier's ring, which was designed from scratch by her husband working with their vendor, SGs is not copyright-able as the original design had elapsed it's copyright timeframe (which she would not have owned regardless), or is that she failed to declare copyright on the design even though it was already in existence?

If there was still an active copyright on SG's ring, it would be held either by the original designer or whomever he sold the design rights to. As an older ring, it's possible (and even probable) that any copyright on the design would have already expired.

The problem with jewelry is there are a limited number of elements available, so most combinations have already been done at some point before. My 3-stone ring was inspired by an LM piece, but I made several changes to keep from infringing the copyright. Years later, DandiAndi joined PS with a ring substantially similar to mine. She and I had no access to each other's works. Since then, I've seen near duplications of my ring in estate stores, so the notion that there is a ton of uniqueness/individuality in jewelry design is a fallacy

So between the two points you posted, they pretty much definitively absolve PT from any wrongdoing by 'copying' the design SG's ring itself, regardless of what emotional fallout SG may have felt by her doing so, because SG had no proprietary rights to that design.

What WAS copyrightable by SG were the photos she took of her ring. If SG's photos were printed out and taken to a jeweler, that could potentially be an infringement of SG's copyright on her photos....but keep in mind that posting photos here on PS would be subject to PS rules, too. If PS rules say "when you agree to membership here, any photos or content you post become the property of PS", you may be surrending rights to post them here.

If PT or someone else sent a jeweler an email with a link to a PS thread with photos of SG's ring in it, that wouldn't be an infringement of copyright (no copies made).

And this is potentially the only thing she did 'wrong' (if she did in fact print the photos to take to him as opposed to him looking at them online, which would make sense for him to do regardless, as print outs would not have the same clarity of detail) is to print SG's photos? Assuming of course that it wasn't covered under 'fair use'.