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

[Lookinagain]

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

Yes, I understand that but I was replying to the post that said

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

And my point was that you had to register or apply to have the law protect you. i don't think you're protected legally otherwise.

 

[yssie]

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 know that you would make your best effort to differentiate the non-proprietary details from the specifics that make another designer’s piece unique, and that you would make your best effort to convey that differentiation into your incarnation of whatever piece that a customer hands you to “copy”. That’s why I was proud to work with you and I would be again.

There are some vendors who are popular here on PS who don’t have your honour, and whose business ethic I haven’t any respect for - I will neither work with them nor will I recommend them. Even if they’re cheaper.

I vote with my words and my wallet.

 

[yssie]

Just want to say that I’ve got a work engagement coming up so I’m not going to be reading or responding in this thread for several days. I’ve been quite vocal with my opinion for a decade and change so I doubt anyone here is surprised by anything I’ve said thus far But I think it’s a valuable discussion to be having, this topic is often treated like the elephant in the room, and there have been lots of interesting and thought-provoking perspectives - I’m glad the conversation is being had.

 

[Mjay]

I’m glad you brought this up. I’ve been thinking about this a lot the past few days. I want to have a ballerina ring made. Ballerina rings are nothing new but there is a designer who “revived” the trend. I’m debating on whether to have her create it or use someone else. I think a lot of people feel like the particular designer owns these designs. Her prices are ridiculous and it’s not a new or original design. I do however agree that some designers, Erika winters is a great example, have unique designs that would obviously be wrong (IMO) to replicate.

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

I’m glad you brought this up. I’ve been thinking about this a lot the past few days. I want to have a ballerina ring made. Ballerina rings are nothing new but there is a designer who “revived” the trend. I’m debating on whether to have her create it or use someone else. I think a lot of people feel like the particular designer owns these designs. Her prices are ridiculous and it’s not a new or original design. I do however agree that some designers, Erika winters is a great example, have unique designs that would obviously be wrong (IMO) to replicate.

This is the same “Tiffany owns DBTY” argument all over again imo. I don’t think that any one designer can claim to own ballerina rings. If you like her work, go for it, but if you feel obligated to work with her because she’s famous for making them I think you’re doing yourself a disservice.

 

[Ionysis]

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.

I think the vendor responded extremely well - politely and with a clear explanation which I personally found entirely acceptable.

A “copy” of a design WILL necessarily be different because it wasn’t made by the original designer. Usually the quality will be poorer. That’s why you pay less for copies than branded pieces.

I have a couple of handbags that I really liked. I bought them from a website in two colours as I liked the style about 19 years ago. I was amazed to find they are the same design as a Hermes Birkin. I’d never even seen or heard of a Birkin ten years ago as handbags are completely not my thing. It isn’t a knock off in my opinion because it isn’t trying to pass itself off as Hermes. No fake labels, no Hermes logo. It’s just a design which is the same and which I like. Could it ever be mistaken for a Hermes? Not in a million years - it cost me $25. It isn’t even leather. But from a distance the design is identical. I don’t see any issue with that.

 

[Ionysis]

And that vendor had a good point about a private message….

 

[ksluice]

I have been debating whether any of my thoughts add to this convo, but what the heck. In architecture we’ve long talked about the “death” of the designer. Architects notoriously don’t make anything but drawings (or now computer models). Someone like Gehry, on the other hand, whether designing a building or some jewelry for Tiffany, doesn’t computer model anything. He draws and has a team to digitize his drawings and translate them to physical models he can manipulate with the client and his team, and then his team redigitizes the physical model and then process iterates. One thing is for certain, it is fiction to imagine this process of multiple translation is neutral rather than active. Who is the artist in this case? Who makes the important changes? Who gets the credit for the design and is that different from who should?

It seems to me nearly every ring is similarly the product of multiple artists. Even favorite designers often just make drawings or models. I know some of you know know the bench by name, but even in calling that artisan “the bench” makes the point. Are they really so interchangeable that we don’t refer to them by name, too? Is the system, perhaps, set up to encourage the theft of their contribution by devaluing their work in comparison the the person who “noodles with some Bézier curves”? (blatant theft of a statement by Greg Lynn, another architect)

In case it isn’t obvious, I have no answers whatsoever, but these questions certainly have given me a good rattle while I read through everyone’s highly thoughtful and deeply moral takes.

 

[Karl_K]

And my point was that you had to register or apply to have the law protect you. i don't think you're protected legally otherwise.

Close but not exactly in the US and many other places with the same system.
Copyright is automatically granted at creation, be it a photo, art, or a ring design.
Who owns the copyright depends on several things, I'm not going to go into.
However to gain access to the courts to sue someone you have to have registered the copyright.

So lets say you take and post a photo on line, someone uses it on a postcard for sale in a store near by, you can ask them to stop even if its not registered.
If it was registered you could sue them for statutory damages up to $150000 per card.

 

[Karl_K]

I have been debating whether any of my thoughts add to this convo, but what the heck. In architecture we’ve long talked about the “death” of the designer. Architects notoriously don’t make anything but drawings (or now computer models). Someone like Gehry, on the other hand, whether designing a building or some jewelry for Tiffany, doesn’t computer model anything. He draws and has a team to digitize his drawings and translate them to physical models he can manipulate with the client and his team, and then his team redigitizes the physical model and then process iterates. One thing is for certain, it is fiction to imagine this process of multiple translation is neutral rather than active. Who is the artist in this case? Who makes the important changes? Who gets the credit for the design and is that different from who should?

That is what "works for hire" contracts are for so who ever the contract says owns it then owns it.
Copyright assignment contracts are another way of doing the same thing.
More often than not the one who did the most work is not the one getting credit.

 

[Dancing Fire]

People on the watch forums refer it as homage , IMO, just another word for FAKES!

 

[AprilBaby]

There is a designer who’s rings I love but doesn’t work in yg. Would it be an infringement to copy their design in yg? (I’m not planning on doing it)

 

[bludiva]

There is a designer who’s rings I love but doesn’t work in yg. Would it be an infringement to copy their design in yg? (I’m not planning on doing it)

If it's a distinctive design, the designer may have a copyright. You could take inspiration from aspects you like of that ring and add some others to it to make it your own. I also think different jewelers will execute the same idea differently -- they may not have the skill, or use the same processes, or what have you, so you're not going to get the exact look of that particular designer from someone else.

I thought jewelry was like fashion in that you can't patent a design, but turns out you can if it is creative enough:

The Crown Jewels: How to Protect Your Jewelry Designs

Knock-offs and ‘copycat’ designs are nothing new to the fashion world. The rising demand for “fast fashion” and bargain hunting alike make knock-offs…

www.lexology.com

But then the next company or designer can come along and put a little twist on it and create something similar, seems like.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I also think different jewelers will execute the same idea differently -- they may not have the skill, or use the same processes

Bingo!!! This is another crucial point...the whole sentiment of worrying about imitations cheapens the original artist, in a manner of speaking.
It's as if the implication is that it's simple to make this sort of thing...and it's not. How many copies do we see that really capture the original's intent?
Going back to the analogies...
How many guitar players attempt to play "Gimme Shelter"...it's actually a relatively simple part. ( kind of like most original jewelry designs)..but the way it's played by Keith Richards simply can't be copied in a way that actually replicates what the guy is doing.......
In other words.....copies of art are inevitable....but if someone wants to hear the Rolling Stones., there's only one place to do it.

 

[Cerulean]

I have been debating whether any of my thoughts add to this convo, but what the heck. In architecture we’ve long talked about the “death” of the designer. Architects notoriously don’t make anything but drawings (or now computer models). Someone like Gehry, on the other hand, whether designing a building or some jewelry for Tiffany, doesn’t computer model anything. He draws and has a team to digitize his drawings and translate them to physical models he can manipulate with the client and his team, and then his team redigitizes the physical model and then process iterates. One thing is for certain, it is fiction to imagine this process of multiple translation is neutral rather than active. Who is the artist in this case? Who makes the important changes? Who gets the credit for the design and is that different from who should?

It seems to me nearly every ring is similarly the product of multiple artists. Even favorite designers often just make drawings or models. I know some of you know know the bench by name, but even in calling that artisan “the bench” makes the point. Are they really so interchangeable that we don’t refer to them by name, too? Is the system, perhaps, set up to encourage the theft of their contribution by devaluing their work in comparison the the person who “noodles with some Bézier curves”? (blatant theft of a statement by Greg Lynn, another architect)

In case it isn’t obvious, I have no answers whatsoever, but these questions certainly have given me a good rattle while I read through everyone’s highly thoughtful and deeply moral takes.

This is a really interesting perspective that I appreciate a lot.

You are also bringing up a complex issue - authorship, which implies the privilege ownership

It is more cut and dry when you are working under an individual artist who has a team of support staff, and it’s the unique combination of the artist and the people who help them that contribute to real masterpieces

If Gehry creates a sketch, asks his team to recreate it as a functional space, they have to be brilliant in themselves - to understand his vision, the nuances of it, and to make it a reality

 

[MRBXXXFVVS1]

Since patents expire, does the same thinking apply for design? Just a thought starter.

 

[bludiva]

Since patents expire, does the same thinking apply for design? Just a thought starter.

i think that's the logic behind antique repros

 

[glitterata]

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…

I'm not a lawyer, just a google user, but when I google "intellectual property jewelry," lots of hits pop up that discuss these issues. As oncrutchesnow points out, international laws vary. Still, copying jewelry design is a subject that laws address. It's not just a question of personal opinion. You or I might think this or that is fine or terrible, and I guess it's fun to chat about it, but ultimately, who cares what *I* think? What matters is what the courts think.

 

[oncrutchesrightnow]

This is the same “Tiffany owns DBTY” argument all over again imo. I don’t think that any one designer can claim to own ballerina rings. If you like her work, go for it, but if you feel obligated to work with her because she’s famous for making them I think you’re doing yourself a disservice.

This comment brings up a good point. I think some designers are not necessarily super original but rather are ”famous for making” a certain design.

There is a designer who’s rings I love but doesn’t work in yg. Would it be an infringement to copy their design in yg? (I’m not planning on doing it)

This is not a formal legal opinion but your example is arguably the definition of inspiration as opposed to copying.

I'm not a lawyer, just a google user, but when I google "intellectual property jewelry," lots of hits pop up that discuss these issues. As oncrutchesnow points out, international laws vary. Still, copying jewelry design is a subject that laws address. It's not just a question of personal opinion. You or I might think this or that is fine or terrible, and I guess it's fun to chat about it, but ultimately, who cares what *I* think? What matters is what the courts think.

Interesting article in the WSJ. Not directly on topic for jewelry but think about how disregard of IP law may apply to cutters.

China Wields New Legal Weapon to Fight Claims of Intellectual Property Theft

Chinese technology giants have seized on a new legal tactic to fight claims of intellectual property theft, raising concerns in the U.S. that Beijing’s promises to strictly enforce patent and copyright laws will be undermined by Chinese courts.

www.wsj.com

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

this is a very intetesting thread and has given me planty to think about

reading through it i am partially happy with the work my Wellington jewler did on my one and only custom ring - before i joined PS
i took this a picture off the internet
it was of a 'Victorian era' pearl and turquoise ring
he made it beautifully and it had a particularly detailed gallary
he explained to me being an artist he prefered to put his own spin on things rather than making exact copies

 

[Wink]

This is a fascinating topic to me. Melissa handled my mountings department for many years and was constantly asked to copy designs, which she constantly declined to do. Inspired by versions that were similar, yes, exact copies, no.

A popular designer contacted me once and asked me to stop copying a design of his. It was a generic design based on the description from a client and nothing about the design was in anyway unique. We talked for a few minutes and he agreed that I had not intentionally copied his piece and we went on about our respective businesses with no ill feelings.

Ten to fifteen years ago, I started getting requests for a Mark Morrell style three prong ring. The original design by Mark is an incredibly beautiful design. There is no way to be "inspired" by it and not be copying it, in my opinion. To me, it is a unique design and there is no way I would make one. I expressed this to Mark one day when we were chatting and he said, "Please, copy it! It is a HUGE PIA to make." I told him he deserved all of the pain and he could continue to be the only maker...

There are only so many pieces with which to build a piece of jewelry, but the way they are combined are limitless. A simple Tiffany style six prong ring made by any reputable house will look like any other simple Tiffany style six prong ring, except for minuscule details such as the width of the shank, the depth, the thickness of the prongs, the style of the prongs, etc. The style is made by thousands of craftsmen around the world. In my opinion, none of them should be able to claim rights to the basic design, even Tiffany. Am I right, or wrong? I do not know, legally.

That is why this is such a fascinating topic for me.

Wink