Inspired vs reproduction vs generic design: how do you draw the line?

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

A mini discussion was sparked on a different (unrelated) thread, and I thought it might be an interesting discussion for the wider community. I think we’ve had similar discussions before, but the last one was quite some time ago so might be good for newer members or if older posters have changed their minds.

Tagging @Paisley2628 as we were discussing this on the other thread.

Really the question is what it says on the tin - what is, in your opinion, “acceptable” with jewelry, and what isn’t?

On one hand, there is nothing truly “original” out there. There are a finite number of metal/colours, shapes, and stones that can be used. VCA’s Alhambra is an iconic line, but their use of the general quatrefoil shape isn’t. David Yurman does their own version of a quatrefoil (I’m fairly sure). Both Graff and Chaumet do a version of a stylised bow but they weren’t the first to do so, I’m sure. On the other, all of these pieces are reasonably distinct from each other. Cartier’s screw motif is iconic, and the distinguishing factor from what would otherwise be a standard gold bracelet. So this, imo, is both ok and unavoidable.

Moving on to less “distinct” designs, though - Tiffany may have copyrighted the term DBTY but they were hardly the first to make a diamond bezel station necklace. The Victoria stud earrings, in my opinion, are not particularly distinctive (I’ve seen versions of this by many jewelers over the years, my granddad had a pair of cufflinks that looked like the studs, from the 70s/80s, before Tiffany launched Victoria). The “Tiffany solitaire” setting is not something Tiffany can really “own”, it is a 6 prong knife edge solitaire, and people have been making that before, alongside and probably after Tiffany.

So, I personally think it is fine to own and wear jewelry that is “inspired by” or “similar to” jewelry that is already being made and sold, as long as it is either a very “basic” design or with some small changes. You’ll never know for sure if it was truly unique, anyway.

When it comes to more iconic designs though - I don’t think an exact copy is fair or kosher.

so what do you guys think?

 

[yssie]

Reposting what I just said in that other thread -

I understand - and agree - that several of the big houses’ iconic lines are inspired by existing designs.

I also agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a piece of a style that one of the big houses was inspired by.

And I agree that if you want a style that one of the big houses was inspired by, you have no moral obligation to buy from that house.

If a person specifically asks for lookalikes… Not for suggestions to make a certain style of piece, no non-lookalike inspirations provided... If one is asking to copy another designer’s specific piece, then the intent is to copy that designer’s specific piece with all the specific elements that make that designer’s design uniquely theirs. Not pay homage to whatever might have inspired it. And I have the exact same response to that intent as @RunningwithScissors. Zero tolerance. And my disgust is always aimed far more at the vendor who agrees to do the copying than the person who asked for the copy - jewellery vendors should know better than to steal other vendors’ designs for a quick buck.

@AllAboardTheBlingTrain in that thread you made a good point about simpler designs - differences between the design and inspired-by creations may be minute because the design itself is inordinately simple. Intent matters most to me here. Searching for a ready-made clone - or going into a custom project looking to clone another designer’s piece as closely as possible - is different from adapting a style you like to your tastes and winding up with something immensely similar. But in that case… The thread title or email subject line of such a query would never be “I want a lookalike of X”.

 

[yssie]

Here’s an example of the sort of moral gymnastics some vendors will resort to to justify their obviously-unethcial behaviour. Erika’s Margot is often copied. I commented on IG and the vendor DM’d me. Vendor name crossed out but communications otherwise unaltered.
If you recognize the vendor please DO NOT name, as I don’t want to turn this thread vendor-specific.

 

[yssie]

I have thought about asking PS to have preferred vendors agree to make some sort of best-effort to not copy other jeweller’s designs…

That would be lovely for us, as consumers - for those of us who prefer to give our money to vendors who agree this is unethical, we have a go-to list to recommend. But the precise terms of what “best effort” entails get hairy quickly - obviously I won’t go to a vendor’s website but a customer screenshotting from a vendor’s website is a-okay, no further investigation required is not in fact okay, and leaving the copy public after being alerted to the issue is not okay, but… And I also don’t see how there could be any enforcement of any requirements. It would be by an honour policy, and vendors who have that sort of business ethic already take reasonable best-effort measures, and vendors who don’t won’t adjust their practices anyway.

But maybe I’m not giving the thought enough credit. Maybe there’s something worth discussing more? Thoughts?

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

I kind of feel like this is a bit of a slippery slope, tbh. Like, I am currently working on designing a ring, and I get my inspo pics from pinterest, and often pictures are posted there without any context. So I can see for a vendor it can become a bit of a tall ask to investigate every single image they get. I, for example, didn't know the name of this setting or that it was famous. Though I am the kind of person who is forever altering something or the other in all my inspo pics so nothing comes out exactly as per the picture. I do think that once it's brought to their attention taking it down is probably a good idea.

This specific design really has only one thing to me that is "non standard", which is the little pokey bits at the basket. That I think could have been altered or changed.

I think this is more on the customer than the vendor, unless it's something really, really obvious (like a picture reference that has the original designer's logo in it or something), or being asked to copy something REALLY recognisable and iconic.

I also think it would be nigh impossible to actually police or ensure for PS, so this would be honour system based, and the truth would be hard to determine.

Also, personally I don't know if this is super different from when people copy the Tiffany e-ring designs, or the HW cushion halo design, etc. which seems to be fairly accepted and okay.

"I don't know" would be the best way for me to summarise my stance.

 

[yssie]

Many of the points you bring up are also my reasons for having not actually done anything on this front.

I do think a vendor is morally obligated to not agree to make an exact copy of a picture a customer provides unless they can confirm positively that it’s an antique or not a contemporary’s work. Ie. Default to “no”. Many PS preferred vendors do this already actually.

I take objection to copying the Tiffany soli etc. too. I’m consistent

 

[MRBXXXFVVS1]

I think it depends on the intent, if the piece is "inspired" by vs. a "copy" of something else and "pretending" to be the branded piece. Ideas (and designs) are a dime a dozen, a jeweler/designer/business person's success is often in the execution and branding...

 

[EC8]

unless they can confirm positively that it’s an antique or not a contemporary’s work.

Trying to understand this caveat - and why it is ok - an exact replica is a copy regardless if original maker is living or piece is signed or not.

 

[yssie]

Trying to understand this caveat - and why it is ok - an exact replica is a copy regardless if original maker is living or piece is signed or not.

I add the caveat because if the original maker is alive, or the original maker’s company/brand is still alive, then that entity is still able to benefit from having its unique designs be associated with its name. Benefits in many forms - money, of course, from direct sales. Brand recognition. I have seen instances on PS where a newcomer has seen a copy of a piece and thought that design belonged to the vendor who copied it - in those instances those people had no idea that it was someone else’s original design. And that sort of misinformation propagates, even worse.

If the original designer is still present to benefit from having their designs associated with their name then I feel strongly that it’s unethical for other vendors to knowingly profit from that recognition because it’s at the original designer’s expense. If the original designer or brand is no longer here, however, proceeds from sale and diluted recognition do no harm.

I’m talking only about copying the look and feel of a piece here - adding brand stamps and fake serial numbers is a whole different conversation that I think everyone would agree is never acceptable!

There is one grey area. What about vintage or antique signed pieces that are out of production, but the brand or jeweller is still around? In those cases I think the consumer has a responsibility to ask the brand if it will reproduce first. If the brand says “no”, then by doing that the brand is willingly relinquishing the monetary profit and profit from icon recognition, and in that circumstance I can find no fault with someone choosing to take the repro project elsewhere. I personally would still be uncomfortable with a repro, for me, even in this case, but that’s just my preference.

 

[Lookinagain]

There is one grey area. What about vintage or antique signed pieces that are out of production, but the brand or jeweller is still around? In those cases I think the consumer has a responsibility to ask the brand if it will reproduce first.

I understand the thought here, but is it practical to assume that if someone wants an antique Tiffany ring that they can just dial up Tiffany's and ask them to reproduce it? Do they even offer that service? Just curious.

 

[oncrutchesrightnow]

Has anyone paid a jewelry designer not to sell their custom design to other customers?

In the tattoo industry, ethical tattooers won’t copy other tattooers’ designs OR put their own custom design from one customer on another customer. Both the tattooer and the customer own the design.

But in the jewelry industry apparently the designer can make a custom ring for one customer and then sell their design to other customers. The jeweler owns the design (I guess). Can you pay a designer extra not to re-sell your custom jewelry design?

 

[yssie]

I understand the thought here, but is it practical to assume that if someone wants an antique Tiffany ring that they can just dial up Tiffany's and ask them to reproduce it? Do they even offer that service? Just curious.

It’s not something I’ve ever wanted to do so I’ve not felt any obligation to find out.

 

[yssie]

Has anyone paid a jewelry designer not to sell their custom design to other customers?

In the tattoo industry, ethical tattooers won’t copy other tattooers’ designs OR put their own custom design from one customer on another customer. Both the tattooer and the customer own the design.

But in the jewelry industry apparently the designer can make a custom ring for one customer and then sell their design to other customers. The jeweler owns the design (I guess). Can you pay a designer extra not to re-sell your custom jewelry design?

This is interesting. I’m one of the people who does default to thinking that a jeweller who creates a custom design “owns” that design… Even when I’ve gone to a jeweller and said “please make this”, and given him or her a sketch. Because in my mind the jeweller is the one who filled in all the details to bring that original design to fruition if you know what I mean? I don’t mind when a jeweller recreates a design they made for me… Or even adds it to stock! Actually to be honest I’m quite chuffed when that happens!

I know of some exceptions. Robinson Designer Goldsmith never remade custom designs - they were unique to each customer. I don’t know if I’m David Michael operates the same way but I would imagine so? One reason I never started a thread on my RDG is because that ring is mine, made for me, finished with details that are meaningful only to me, and I never want to see it copied - or a copy even vaguely attempted.

I do feel confident that you’re right, for enough money any jeweller would certainly oblige and never reproduce a custom piece! But I have no idea what that price might be. I have wondered exactly who owns a design, when one is having a piece custom designed… And then, if you share photos and videos of that piece on social media, who owns the rights to those photos and videos?

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

Has anyone paid a jewelry designer not to sell their custom design to other customers?

In the tattoo industry, ethical tattooers won’t copy other tattooers’ designs OR put their own custom design from one customer on another customer. Both the tattooer and the customer own the design.

But in the jewelry industry apparently the designer can make a custom ring for one customer and then sell their design to other customers. The jeweler owns the design (I guess). Can you pay a designer extra not to re-sell your custom jewelry design?

I don’t know if it would be super practical to expect a designer to not resell your custom jewelry design. I guess it would depend on how complex a piece is, and therefore how unique it is.

I think you could request them to perhaps leave off an element, or tweak a design, if you feel very strongly about something. But I don’t know how practical that would be, in reality.

Maybe I’m lucky in that I actually find it a compliment! My last BIG custom project was for a pair of earrings that I planned for almost a year before that, and the entire design and making process took months to complete. The design input was mostly mine, though of course, execution was entirely his. A few months afterwards when I was back in the store to browse, he told me my earrings created such a buzz that when he showed them to another client (before I could come back to pick them up) she ordered herself the same pair on the spot. Honestly it just made me feel proud, like I could become a jewelry designer!

 

[Cerulean]

This is an interesting topic.

I think a lot of boils down to intent.

In art, copying masterpieces is frequently used as training tool. Copying is a technique to learn skills and push yourself as an artist and it’s frankly an extremely valuableThis practice goes back hundreds of years.

Google something like “David and Goliath sculpture” and you will see dozens of sculptures done by different artists. Same subject. Same medium. Sometimes even the same material…or even the same pose and style!

But there is a lot of nuance here. Are you straight copying? Translating? Adding nuance? Reinterpreting?

Or are you just creating a knock off? The most heinous circumstance is creating a knock off and falsely representing it as the real thing - ie. Counterfeiting

I think line being drawn at dead or alive is fuzzy - ownership is a tricky thing (unless something has a copyright )

I confess that I have had a jeweler directly copy I design I liked. I didn’t like the finish on the original, and they wouldn’t set my stone anyways. Is what I did wrong? It feels wrong, whether I can sort of justify it or not.

the point is, it’s a grey area. But if you have to ask yourself if you’re doing the right thing by maybe too liberally being “inspired” by a design, you already have your answer

 

[oncrutchesrightnow]

The lines do get blurry, no matter how skilled the artist. There’s customized flash, and then there’s original art. A tattooer can draw up a heart with a “mom” banner and it could be custom in the sense that they drew it to fit someone’s anatomy, but there’s no way to claim that the customer or the artist could ever exclusively own a mom-heart. It’s just customized flash.

i think it will be harder to own unique jewelry in the internet era.

 

[bludiva]

i don't support copying a designer's artistry, but by the same token it irks me when high end brands try to "corner" a generic or existing design.

 

[dk168]

From a personal point of view, I trawl the internet for design inspirations, and seldom come across a piece that ticks all the boxes for me, in that there is something I am not keen on, and there is a long list of what I do not like.

Therefore, I have never asked a bench to "make me an exact copy of this piece".

I do not feel comfortable in having an exact copy of a specific design replicated. Good job for my long list of design elements that I do not like!

Personal opinion and all that.

DK

 

[elle_71125]

I believe that there’s not a lot that’s truly original out there. It seems like pretty much everything has already been done jewelry wise and, as such, I’m totally fine with “inspired by” designs. I mean, how can one designer claim a simple solitaire design as their own? Everything’s been done a million times before and will be done a million times again. Now that’s not to say it’s ok to intentionally steal and directly copy a designer’s work. It’s not. I think you need to change up a couple details to make it your own. A good faith effort if you know what I mean.

All of my designs have been inspired by different settings I’ve pinned over the years (hello, Pinterest, my old friend). Even Clover (the ring in my avatar) used the basic elements of an antique setting. Still, I’d consider it mine and unique to me because I made sure not to copy a design completely. Having said that, I really don’t care if someone else copies my designs. In fact, I designed a floral setting a few years back that David Klass remade for a few of his customers. Personally, I found it flattering.

 

[Rockdiamond]

There's another consideration.....do you realize exactly how difficult it is to stay in business today???

Of course, it's not OK to try to fool people with a design.....but it's also not ok to start grilling a potential client who asks you to make a piece of jewelry they've seen online.
My pictures are stolen on a daily basis- hourly....every minute it seems.
If you want to live in this internet age, you'll need to accept current reality. Photos are so easily stolen, as are ideas. There's no defense for sellers- people- using deceptive methods.....but if you want to play, you're going to have to live with the rules ( such as they are) today.

And as was brought up before....a handmade piece of jewelry is going to represent the maker. I expect people to try and copy us, and I also know that we do it better- so have at it.
In our case, we've been copied more times than I can count. Even in terms of web design! We were the first ones to have a website with large pictures which was copied by virtually all the largest sellers today.
Bottom line is, it's frustrating......yet at the same time, there's only so much an honest business person can do when operating in this (savage) business environment.

 

[yssie]

it's not OK to try to fool people with a design.....but it's also not ok to start grilling a potential client who asks you to make a piece of jewelry they've seen online.

No grilling needed. If a vendor doesn’t know offhand where an inspiration comes from it’s easy enough to say “I won’t recreate this exactly, because I don’t like to recreate my colleagues’ designs without their permission, but I’d love to work with you to change a few details and create a new piece in exactly this style that’s unique to you/your intended”. Or, y’know, something like that. I really can’t see any reasonable customer objecting to this?

 

[glitterata]

This topic is thoroughly covered by intellectual property law. It's puzzling to see everybody trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

[yssie]

I’ve tried reading once but… I got thoroughly confused about precisely what can be trademarked… And then my understanding is that enforcement gets really sticky. @glitterata do you have any references for laypeople like me? Tagging @MollyMalone as well…

 

[oncrutchesrightnow]

This topic is thoroughly covered by intellectual property law. It's puzzling to see everybody trying to reinvent the wheel.

International law varies…

 

[Rockdiamond]

I believe that if you publish something, the copyright is implicit.
I know this because it's impractical for me ( or anyone) to copyright tens of thousands of pictures.

Let's start by agreeing that copying a proprietary design, and marketing it either deceptively as if it were made by the original maker, or marketing it based on the specific design aspects as its main selling point is crossing a line.
But speaking as an artist- there's a tremendous amount of leeway when it comes to working with an individual client, on a one time project.
For the sake of discussion- let's say it was art.
Someone wants an exact copy of Michelangelo's David.
Not for resale- to put in their living room ( it's a large house)
The artist who does the work proudly signs their name to it. ( no forgery of makers mark)
Is that wrong?

 

[Lookinagain]

This topic is thoroughly covered by intellectual property law. It's puzzling to see everybody trying to reinvent the wheel.

Well, I don't think it's that easy. Don't you actually need to apply for a patent or trademark, etc. Or at least register a copyright to protect the design ? And it's expensive to enforce it once granted, and time consuming. Not many artisans have the funds or time to take this on.

 

[yssie]

For the sake of discussion- let's say it was art.
Someone wants an exact copy of Michelangelo's David.
Not for resale- to put in their living room ( it's a large house)
The artist who does the work proudly signs their name to it. ( no forgery of makers mark)
Is that wrong?

My take is - no, it’s not wrong, because
1. The work is so old that no one can possibly dispute that it’s public domain, and
2. The artist is no longer alive to be impacted by copies of his work being sold, and
3. Goodness knows what else one could possibly fill that living room space with.

 

[LightBright]

Not everyone can afford EW, and some people don’t want to work with her. Artisans deserve to do their art and not get harassed for it. Do we want to constrict and intimidate the few reasonable artisan jewelry makers out there so only the wealthiest 10% can afford a certain look? If a look looks too much like an elite jewelry designer, which is debatable, we go into public design infringement convos about the artisan who fabricates?

Bottom line, if you look at trends in rings, you see phases of designs. Everyone in a certain ten year period was seemingly following the same design playbook, and creating similar looks, down to the prong style, types of diamonds and the embellishments. (Victorian halos, Art Deco style or Edwardian style platinum rings, ballerina rings, target rings, etc). It’s likely that a few fine jewelers per decade did the initial design groundwork, and everyone else copied them. Jewelry is populist. If you can afford to obtain the original designed piece you will get something exquisite with status. If you get a copy of the style, you will get something stylish, that gives you happiness, and won’t be the original and wont be worth the original, but it will be attainable. This is not a new thing at all.

David of DBL illustrates another benefit:: the employment of good artisans who fill a niche for lower budgets. Not every artist can claim the top 10% of customers in our economy, yet EVERY human deserves something beautiful on their hand if they wish. I know this doesn’t reward the innovator with any protections, but I really don’t think the people can afford it who want a true authentic exquisite EW would ever settle for less. For the other people, they’ve got to ask another artisan for the look they want. And I am personally OK with that.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Don't you actually need to apply for a patent or trademark,

Copyright, patent, and trademark are three totally different things.

2. The artist is no longer alive to be impacted by copies of his work being sold.

Easy to move on with the analogy- only if we do it in the best of spirits- because I respect you as a friend.
Say the maker would benefit from the sale- as opposed to Michelangelo.
In this world, both the original maker, and the other poor shnook who made the copy are also clinging on.
They're living in a world where there are competitor companies 1000 times the size of theirs- spending hundreds of thousands a month on google ad placements and other advertising.
As a smaller artist, turning down work is really a hard thing to do.
Publishing- then defending the work, which should have been a private matter, is clearly an issue.
If you were an artist and someone you loved asked you to privately recreate anothers work.....and they also knew that you needed to earn a living, and insisted on compensating you.

We agree - advertising a piece that is clearly a copy is wrong.
Personally- I won't copy details like the ones in this case. But there's so much about that design that isn't proprietary as well.
I very much respect your opinion @yssie ..and I am in no way defending the other guy in this thing....but it's an interesting discussion.

 

[yssie]

Not everyone can afford EW, and some people don’t want to work with her.

No one is obligated to work with any jewellery vendor.

Artisans deserve to do their art

If an artist copies someone else’s design it’s not “their” art to deserve to do or profit from.

Do we want to constrict and intimidate the If a look looks too much like an elite jewelry designer, which is debatable, we go into public patent infringement convos about the artisan who fabricates?

I think that’s exactly what happens…

Bottom line, if you look at trends in rings, you see phases of designs. Everyone in a certain ten year period was seemingly following the same design playbook, and creating similar looks

100% agree.

If you can afford to obtain the original designed piece you will get something exquisite with status. If you get a copy of the style, you will get something stylish, that gives you happiness, and won’t be the original and wont be worth the original, but it will be attainable.

But you will also have devalued the original artist’s brand and name recognition, directly eating into profits that that artist has earned and deserves.

Not every artist can claim the top 10% of customers in our economy, yet EVERY human deserves something beautiful on their hand if they wish.

Again, 100% agree.

but I really don’t think the people can afford it who want a true authentic exquisite EW would ever settle for less. For the other people, they’ve got to ask someone else for the look they want. And I am personally OK with that.

My view is that being unable to afford something does not entitle anyone to a knockoff. Being unable to afford something doesn’t make having it copied on the cheap a reasonable solution.

If one is already having something custom made it costs nothing to customize it enough to differentiate it from the original. Doing that avoids all problems and at the same time yields something uniquely ”theirs”.

Erika’s take on the conversation I posted was unforgiving. She saw it as blatant theft of her design. It would be professional - at the very least it would be beneficial in the CYA sense, it seems! - of other vendors to recognize that a great many designers feel this way and simply avoid this whole set of problems by refusing to make exact copies of other designers’ works…