verticalhorizon
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2004
- Messages
- 840
One of the biggest problems we had in making the site is that the designers thought people would take our photos and have them knocked off. Most saw the vision of exposing their work to the greatest number of possible consumers. Some feared the mass exposure would leed to the breaking down of the brand. There really is no comparison as to what these designers are producing and what others try to replicate. I have worked in the design field for over 30 years with my first designer being Eddie Sakamoto 30 years ago. He is the father of his design style and has inspired many other in his school of design. For a designer to be inspired to learn from his design is fine. To try to copy a artists exact design is highly unethical and shows no respect for anothers work. We work in a wonderful industry where we get involved in others peoples lifes. Many in their first walk down the isle. To suggest to these people that one can do it cheeper than the original designer suggests more of a money matter than love of true design.
I agree with Bill's statement. I never not agreed with this line of reasoning, despite what I was accused of.
It was my interpretation of earlier posts that some people felt there was no differentiation in creating exact copies from similar inspired jewelry based on famous brands. It was also implied that there is little difference between stealing paper clips, cars, or ring designs, which I believe are also false analogies. Accurate analogies proved harder to come up with and nay-sayers were quick to attack the negative without noting the positive.
Not until the post was further defined to say e-rings (which is why most of us are here) and to limit the topic question to exact copies did the conversation become more focused and paletible.
A comment on exposure: Whether on the internet, through magazines, television or galleries, any artist has to risk exposure (or even overexposure) in order to sell. Part of the downside of that exposure is potential copies and the revenue lost as a result. It has always been my intent to display that this is a part of business reality and that companies factor this into pricing. Doing so does not make me the expert as to what companies should make for profit. It's just economics.
Also, this statement is not to say that I support crime or that because companies factor loss into pricing, that's it's ok to steal. Such conclusions are accusatory, overemotional, irrational, and illogical. (It's like saying: George Bush fights terrorism. John Kerry dislikes George Bush. Therefore John Kerry supports terrorism.)
Companies have the right prosecute infringing perpetrators and choose to do so on a case-by-case basis dependent on the intent which varies and the estimated outcome (be it monetary or PR). Situations that can vary are seldom black or white. Situations that are seldom black or white often require arbitration or judicial hearings. Situations that require judicial process are done so by a court of one's peers... to which consitutes a community's established ethics.
PS: To be on the safe side, once again, I ask if I'm going to be quoted, to quote the post in its entirety.
I agree with Bill's statement. I never not agreed with this line of reasoning, despite what I was accused of.
It was my interpretation of earlier posts that some people felt there was no differentiation in creating exact copies from similar inspired jewelry based on famous brands. It was also implied that there is little difference between stealing paper clips, cars, or ring designs, which I believe are also false analogies. Accurate analogies proved harder to come up with and nay-sayers were quick to attack the negative without noting the positive.
Not until the post was further defined to say e-rings (which is why most of us are here) and to limit the topic question to exact copies did the conversation become more focused and paletible.
A comment on exposure: Whether on the internet, through magazines, television or galleries, any artist has to risk exposure (or even overexposure) in order to sell. Part of the downside of that exposure is potential copies and the revenue lost as a result. It has always been my intent to display that this is a part of business reality and that companies factor this into pricing. Doing so does not make me the expert as to what companies should make for profit. It's just economics.
Also, this statement is not to say that I support crime or that because companies factor loss into pricing, that's it's ok to steal. Such conclusions are accusatory, overemotional, irrational, and illogical. (It's like saying: George Bush fights terrorism. John Kerry dislikes George Bush. Therefore John Kerry supports terrorism.)
Companies have the right prosecute infringing perpetrators and choose to do so on a case-by-case basis dependent on the intent which varies and the estimated outcome (be it monetary or PR). Situations that can vary are seldom black or white. Situations that are seldom black or white often require arbitration or judicial hearings. Situations that require judicial process are done so by a court of one's peers... to which consitutes a community's established ethics.
PS: To be on the safe side, once again, I ask if I'm going to be quoted, to quote the post in its entirety.
300x240.png)