Poll: Is it ethical/do you feel comfortable having a jeweler recreate a ring you like but can''t aff

[chialea]

Hmm... I can't agree with Mara on this one, but there certainly are a few things that outlets do to prevent those sorts of things. The J. Crew outlets cut out the brand name on the tag, so you can't return it to a normal retail store (though they don't often carry exactly the same thing, except for jeans). Dansko marks the boxes of dishes. This always seemed like a good approach to me, at least.

Outlets also often carry factory seconds... returning those sorts of products to a retail store seems somewhat unfair, as they can't be sold there. However, it would be a good idea to mark them as such.

 

[Hest88]

----------------
But I do think most art in any way shape or form (rings, clothes, pictures) is severely marked up and most people do not want to pay markups.
----------------

Mara, I used to think art was marked-up too much as well, until I realized that it's a lot harder for an artist to sell at volume--unless he's Thomas Kinkaid. If an artist were to sell at prices you'd find acceptable, he or she would have to sell a lot of artwork to make a living wage. That's really difficult when it comes to a luxury item, such a painting, where tastes are so varied (and your boyfriend doesn't feel obligated to buy you one before he can propose!). I don't begrudge any artist charging premium for a piece of art, not when I know that with galleries taking 50% an artist would have to sell at least 10 of them at $10,000 each to live decently.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/19/2004 11:51:39 AM chialea wrote:


Outlets also often carry factory seconds... returning those sorts of products to a retail store seems somewhat unfair, as they can't be sold there. However, it would be a good idea to mark them as such.----------------

That did enter my mind as well.

But to add to the further madness - I bought some items off of ebay for our second home. The items were originally retailed by Williams Sonoma. There must be an outlet in Tennessee somewhere as that is the location of the items I purchased. I inquired about the items (just to make sure they weren't stolen). Seems they were purchased for pennies on the dollar at the Williams Sonoma outlet as "overruns, overstocks & *RETURNS*. This is something that makes you go hmmm as the item is still stocked in their regular store. Could be the return that just keeps returning.

 

[Mara]

F&I, I'm sure if I did that often then the employees would get a bit of a giggle, but it's so infrequent that I am sure they don't even remember me. Do you know how many returns they get a day at large retail chains? I usually just say it was a gift. I do return alot of items that ARE gifts from this same store as well. I shop there alot in general to Greg's chagrin.

So yes they always get my business.

As for the return policies on say a JCrew..I appreciate their product warranty. Half the time I don't have the patience to return something because all the items I return to them are through their mail-order house which means they send my item BACK to the mail order house before I even hear if they still have the item or not. But if it's a favorite pant and they no longer carry it in the catalog, and they have it in stock, they will send me a new one.

The gals who are noting outlets should mark their products more permanently, that is very appropriate! This store just puts an outlet sticker which is usually peeled off for a resale. And yes this is very similar to the WS products you purchased F&I..this store's model is much the same. Customer buys something via mail-order, returns it to store (doesn't like it, whatever). That then goes to outlet store where it's marked down to a few bucks, when retail is $90. They still sell it in the retail catalog. This is where it looks sticky to me, selling it for a few bucks in an outlet and for $90 in a catalog?

Many times it's as you note, an overstock that is brand new but they don't have room for! You dont know how often I've wished I live in a state where there was an outlet store I could pillage and buy out the shelves.

 

[CaptAubrey]

there's a line in the big chill that has stuck with me ever since i first saw it almost 20 years ago:

jeff goldblum: rationalizations are more important than sex.


william hurt: oh, come on.


jg: have you ever gone a day without a rationalization?

nothing i've read in this thread has shaken my faith in this truism.




nope, it's not stealing, it's just good business sense.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/19/2004 12:54:41 PM CaptAubrey wrote:


there's a line in the big chill that has stuck with me ever since i first saw it almost 20 years ago:

jeff goldblum: rationalizations are more important than sex.

william hurt: oh, come on.

jg: have you ever gone a day without a rationalization?

nothing i've read in this thread has shaken my faith in this truism.


nope, it's not stealing, it's just good business sense.

----------------

Cap't that is one of my *favorite* sayings. I quote it quite often. Would have here except I didn't know who to credit - as would be an issue in this thread!

And, I try to not live by it as much. Though, sadly, I may not go a day without a rationalization. But, I really do need that piece of chocolate to cheer me up. Medically, it does have some benefits! - especially the dark choclate......yep,

 

[JHeebner]

I didn't want anyone to miss this one ...

Hi! I'm new to Pricescope (and I apologize if this gets posted to the wrong place--I'm still trying to figure out how this site is organized) and found this site browsing for Michael B. jewelry on various search engines. (I wish I had found you years ago!!!) As a Michael B. ring owner, I know how difficult it is to find information about his jewelry online, especially pictures, so here are a couple of links.

http://www.michaelbjewelry.com
http://www.matthewsjewelry.com

Matthews Jewelry Store is home to the Michael B. Jewelry Studio. There is a listing of Michael B. retailers by state on the michaelbjewelry.com website.

I have also been reading the poll on the ethics of copying designer jewelry thread. According to Matthews, "All jewelry designs and collection names are guaranteed to be exclusive to Michael B. under U.S. copyright and trademark laws." I'm not exactly sure how that is enforced, but I thought it was interesting. After reading all (200!) the posts on that thread, I looked inside my Michael B. ring, and there is a copyright symbol engraved inside the band, along with a number (year? design number?) next to the Michael B. stamp. I then went to my jewelry box and looked for the copyright symbol on other pieces. Most of my designer pieces actually do have the copyright symbol, along with the hallmark or designer name. I never noticed before. So, in light of this discovery, I believe that if the designer has gone through the process to copyright a design, that it should be respected.

I was pleased to read on the ethical poll thread that 23rd Street Jewelers was the only jewelry store in Los Angeles who would NOT copy another designer's pieces.

Greg posted:
"In fact, the only store that didn't offer to copy the design I was looking for was 23rd Street Jewelers in Santa Monica. They're a bit pricier than other stores, but of the places I went to when looking for an e-ring, 23rd Street is the only one I'd return to."

23rd Street is also the only place I have purchased and/or had jewelry custom made in the past 15 years (starting with my engagement ring). It's definitely a boutique, but well worth the personal attention and exceptional quality!

Looking forward to spending way too much time on this site! What delicious eye candy!

Deborah

 

[hoorray]

Mara,

I agree with others that actions by people trying to "beat the system" are unethical and cost the general consumer population $$. That said, we're all entitled to our opinion, so I won't argue it with you.

On the software front, I think you have missed the point completely. So what if it costs less that $1 to burn the CD the software comes on. It costs between hundreads of thousands to millions of dollars on average to create, test, market, package, distribute, support and update that software. Adobe's business model is not about how much it costs to burn CD's. They need to recover all of their costs plus some reasonable profit margin (which is not $799/$1) to stay in business in order to continue to create and support software for us all to use. The fact that they let their employees purchase it for a minimal amount does not have anything to do with their overall cost structure and business model. People who steal software (and that is legally what it is) simply keep the prices higher for everyone else. There is nothing wrong with looking for a good deal, but there is a difference between a legal good deal and stealing.

 

[Greg]

23rd Street is pretty great. I'm sure there are others in the LA area that have their kind of integrity, but those who do are rare.

Also, Gary, I'm not sure if you're keeping up with this thread or not, but if you are, I have a question. Would you yourself be willing to copy someone else's design (by you, I mean Precious Metals)? Let's take the example I gave on page 5 with the whiteflash ring. Would you use their design for a ring if I asked you to?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Nup.
I would ask whiteFlash to supply the mount, with or without diamonds.
We get requests from all around Australia for mounts from other jewellers. We are usually happy to supply if the store is some distance from us.

Likewise we had a request to make a necklace like (not the same as) a piece made and advetised by a cometitor - we asked and they agreed to supply a casting of one part of the design.

This does not need to be war

 

[noobie]

----------------
On 7/19/2004 7:59:16 PM Garry H (Cut Nut) wrote:






This does not need to be war

----------------

Well Garry, your practical answers are refreshing.

You know 8 pages and over 200 posts and no one has even addressed what is infringement and what is inspiration?Where is the line crossed?Unfortunately we haven’t been able to have a good civil discussion on this without ethical and moral judgments and extreme positions.Ok, suppose that we agree that copying is bad. What is copying?I even read in one post that there is no such thing as inspiration, that it’s all copying and a rationalization of copying. Does that mean that anything custom made that resembles any other piece is ethically wrong? At an extreme if it’s a ring and round then it’s copied?

At the extremes, we have copying something as close to the original as possible including trademarks, akin to forgery.At the other extreme I hope we can agree that knocking off a plain gold band is OK.What about in the middle?It was mentioned that Tiffany clones that are close are OK.What if I copy one of the close to Tiffany settings? Is that OK?

There was also a quote that said, “Vatche is a frequently mentioned name on this site, in terms of favorites for bridal jewelry. I don't know why. Their "designs" seem kinda' common, sort of like what the rest of the world is already doing/has done in bridal”.Now does this mean that Vatche copied everything from others or that it’s Ok to copy him because he has nothing original?Now please let’s not debate this, I was only using this as an example.

I am asking because I would like to know.Is it OK if you change one thing, two things, or three things? What about intent and independent work?What if someone comes up with something very close without ever being exposed to the other one?I suppose it’s timing in this case.First one copyrighted?I actually like custom work because I like to spec out details such as shank width and thickness, angles and prongs, weight and other things.I want to know when it may be getting close to be considered infringement even if unknowingly.I hope that we can have a good civil discussion on this in the spirit of Pricescope.

For clarity, I’m not asking because I want to save money, I can afford the original.If I want it to be exact I’ll buy the original.This is a follow-up to my question on page 2 “Can someone give me a unbiased view of what constitutes infringement?”

 

[starfire]

Actually questionRus, I do not have a problem with anyone in this forum.

Perhaps I was a little uncompromising in my stance, and if that makes people unconfortable then, ok, I will try to be more diplomatic in future.

But the door swings both ways about differing opinions. Clearly, since this is predominantly a consumer forum, it would appear that many posts are skewed towards the consumer side, with less regard to the vendor's points of view.

But really, when you think about it, getting a jeweller to re-create (for the sake of argument, less call it copying) a design results in the original designer not getting paid for his work.

In a real life situation, when this happens often enough, it becomes a disincentive for creativity. The designer loses, and the consumer also loses.

In response to Mara's posts, I was initially not clear if she is joking or being serious. But it seems clear that she was being provocative, and I took the bait While I am happy that it provided some much needed amusement, I do believe that trying to "beat the system" leads to the rest of the consumer population paying more.

She is entitled to her own opinion, however anti-social it may be, so I chose not to continue arguing the point with her.

Same for your points about buying cheap from ebay and returning to store at retail price. If it suits your worldview, go for it.

----------------
On 7/19/2004 11:13:08 AM questionsRus wrote:

----------------
----------------

maybe because you have such a tight ^&* you could make diamonds from coal? i thought maybe you just had a problem with me, but i see now that you have a problem with everyone who has a differing opinion.
----------------

 

[hoorray]

Noobie, You ask good questions. This thread has dealt with a lot of opinion about ethics and right and wrong. I believe that there are two issues at work here. The first is the legal issue of actual infringement on intellectual property. I don't know the specifics well enought to define the facts. Maybe someone else can, but there is clearly a line where some copying is a legal infringement of protected intellectual property.

Once you are out of the black and white, legally protected area, there is the issue of ethics in knocking off and taking inspiration from others where there is no legal protection. It's a much greyer area, and everyone seems to have their own sense of right and wrong.

Garry takes a healthy approach to it -- one of collaboration for the greater good of the overall industry and all it's players. It is always better to try to "make the pie bigger" rather than "try to get a larger piece of a smaller pie". I've worked in several start up companies, and that is an important lesson that we've had to keep reminding ourselves of.

 

[musette]

Hi all! This is going to be long. SORRY! (I'm an artist/musician and a retail arts & crafts shop owner, so this is important to me.) Plus, too many geeks in my house--I cannot believe my hubby and I have been researching copyright law for jewelry designs since our kids went to bed. After reading the following information I've pasted below, I feel even more strongly about my original stand that designer jewelry (especially marked pieces, such as my Michael B. ring, with the circle c, year, and name) should be respected as intellectual property. However, I also respect other opinions and interpretations, so I'm only posting the following as information for everyone to digest and ?

Again, while the concept of copyrighted jewelry is interesting, is it enforceable? I never even noticed the circle c's stamped on some of my jewelry until looking for them this morning after reading this thread. Not to mention that many designers don't take the time nor the expense to copyright "register" each design. However, this does not mean that their unregistered pieces are not protected by law. Since jewelry design is listed as a form of visual art, all pieces are protected whether or not they are registered. Exactly how much of a jewelry design is copyrightable appears to be debatable... Now my head's spinning again, any patent/trademark lawyers on this site?

Here is a link to a very informative page about copyright laws and jewelry design:

http://www.jewelersresource.com/Business/Studio/Copyright.html

And, here are some "highlights" from www.copyright.gov

WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, ARTISTIC, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works.

In addition, certain authors of works of VISUAL ART have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40, “Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts.”

VISUAL ART WORKS
For copyright purposes, VISUAL ARTS are original pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, which include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art.

Examples of visual arts works:
Advertisements, commercial prints, labels
Artificial flowers and plants
Artwork applied to clothing or to other useful articles
Bumper stickers, decals, stickers
Cartographic works, such as maps, globes, relief models
Cartoons, comic strips
Collages
Dolls, toys
Drawings, paintings, murals
Enamel works
Fabric, floor, and wallcovering designs
Games, puzzles
Greeting cards, postcards, stationery
Holograms, computer and laser artwork
***JEWELRY DESIGNS***
Models
Mosaics
Needlework and craft kits
Original prints, such as engravings, etchings, serigraphs, silk screen prints, woodblock prints
Patterns for sewing, knitting, crochet, needlework
Photographs, photomontages
Posters
Record jacket artwork or photography
Relief and intaglio prints
Reproductions, such as lithographs, collotypes
Sculpture, such as carvings, ceramics, figurines, maquettes, molds, relief sculptures
Stained glass designs
Stencils, cut-outs
Technical drawings, architectural drawings or plans, blueprints, diagrams, mechanical drawings
Weaving designs, lace designs, tapestries

It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.

NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT
The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.

Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in section 504(c)(2) of the copyright law. Innocent infringement occurs when the infringer did not realize that the work was protected.

The use of the copyright notice is the responsibility of the copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office.

Form of Notice for Visually Perceptible Copies
The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all the following three elements:

1. The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word "Copyright," or the abbreviation "Copr."; and

2. The year of first publication of the work. In the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful article; and

3. The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.

Example: © 2002 John Doe

--Deborah

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

A legal infringement can only take place if the design is registered by patent or copy right.

And then only if the copy is made in that juristiction. A US patent can not stop me in Oz. But I think copy right can.

But what is illegal is to sell it as if it was made by another - say Tiffany stuff on E-bay - 70% was found to be fake.
And it is illegal to copy a trade mark - even if it has not been registered.

tm is an un registered mark.
(r) ina circle is a registered trade mark.

 

[EdSkinner]

Jewelry design is a finate subject. No design is compleatly new. Everything is alittle bit borrowed from everybody else and slaped together then called an orginal design. About the only things that were ever orginal in jewlery is the Artist who invented a prong setting, or the other artist who invented the shank, and how about that genius who invented the bezel. So to me everything is just a knock off. Sort of like having Donald Trump copywrite the two words: your fired. Then when he gets it everybody will have to pay homage to him as the designer of that phrase.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/20/2004 1:10:45 AM lop wrote:

Noobie, You ask good questions. This thread has dealt with a lot of opinion about ethics and right and wrong. I believe that there are two issues at work here. The first is the legal issue of actual infringement on intellectual property. I don't know the specifics well enought to define the facts. Maybe someone else can, but there is clearly a line where some copying is a legal infringement of protected intellectual property.

Once you are out of the black and white, legally protected area, there is the issue of ethics in knocking off and taking inspiration from others where there is no legal protection. It's a much greyer area, and everyone seems to have their own sense of right and wrong.

----------------

That pretty much sums it up.

And, as I said before 99.95% of design has a precident. What genius invented the bezel set - check out Leonid's Roman ring he posted. My guess is even that *period* Roman ring had inspiration before it's design. As stated in another post, rumblings about another jeweler *copying* a martini pin is laughable. Truley, I have handled several of these pins (all knock off's of each other)from the late 40's.

As for the ethics, I think, IMHO, it goes to issue of intent. Get a photo & copy the design to the letter - not cool. Gather photos to get an idea of what design elements you like - another story. I think one also has to examine - What makes this setting somewhat unique? Copying that uniqueness is crossing the line. But, that's just my opinion.

Even if we did have a copyright lawyer who specializes in the jewelry trade, I don't think he/she may offer any opinion other than refering to the law.

But, I don't know for sure.

 

[questionsRus]

----------------
On 7/19/2004 10:47:34 PM starfire wrote:

Actually questionRus, I do not have a problem with anyone in this forum.

Perhaps I was a little uncompromising in my stance, and if that makes people unconfortable then, ok, I will try to be more diplomatic in future.

But the door swings both ways about differing opinions. Clearly, since this is predominantly a consumer forum, it would appear that many posts are skewed towards the consumer side, with less regard to the vendor's points of view.

But really, when you think about it, getting a jeweller to re-create (for the sake of argument, less call it copying) a design results in the original designer not getting paid for his work.

In a real life situation, when this happens often enough, it becomes a disincentive for creativity. The designer loses, and the consumer also loses.

In response to Mara's posts, I was initially not clear if she is joking or being serious. But it seems clear that she was being provocative, and I took the bait While I am happy that it provided some much needed amusement, I do believe that trying to 'beat the system' leads to the rest of the consumer population paying more.

She is entitled to her own opinion, however anti-social it may be, so I chose not to continue arguing the point with her.

Same for your points about buying cheap from ebay and returning to store at retail price. If it suits your worldview, go for it.

----------------
On 7/19/2004 11:13:08 AM questionsRus wrote:

----------------
----------------

maybe because you have such a tight ^&* you could make diamonds from coal? i thought maybe you just had a problem with me, but i see now that you have a problem with everyone who has a differing opinion.
----------------

----------------

hm. maybe you are ok after all sorry for my previous statement.

 

[noobie]

musette, thanks for the info. It was interesting, but it does not help with application. It says original designs are subject to copyright, but gives no guidance as to what original means. Let me try this one more time and I'll drop it.




Michael B has been mentioned here several times as an original designer and worthy of protection. Here are some Michael B rings from the website musette listed






/idealbb/files/78.jpg




Can someone tell me what is copyright? To me they look like some pavee eternity bands with some basket or cathedral heads. I think they are beautiful, but how are they original?




I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, just trying to understand. Maybe this is just one big grey area subject to each of our interpretations and intentions.

 

[Hest88]

----------------
Can someone tell me what is copyright? To me they look like some pavee eternity bands with some basket or cathedral heads. I think they are beautiful, but how are they original?
----------------

Who cares? If you see a picture of something that is copyrighted, don't bring it to another jeweler, point to the picture, and say, "I want you to make this for me." The fact is that they have it copyrighted. Whether you think it deserved to be copyrighted is irrelevant.

 

[noobie]

Thank you Hest, that was very helpful. Copying wasn't the question nor was it the intent, but I guess we're back to just don't do it without understanding what it is.

 

[Hest88]

Sorry, Noobie. My snippiness wasn't really directed at you. I just think that the whole tenor of this thread with its "well, there are so many gray areas I can't really be stealing" is in most cases disingenuous.

 

[Greg]

Noobie,

I'll take a shot at this...

If, in your hypothetical example with Michael B., you don't see anything special about his design, but you don't like the price, then don't buy that ring. If they are everywhere, then buy it from someone else already has a similar setting at a price that's to your liking. There are nuances to the Michael B. design that either can't be seen in the picture, or are below our radar as consumers for this type of ring.

It would be fine to go to your jeweler and say, "I want a pave eternity band with a cathedral head." That's a general description, and not specific to Michael B's ring. To take this picture to the Jeweler and say "Make on that looks just like this." is crossing the line.

It's the difference between telling an artist that you want a painting of water lilies, or telling an artist to paint water lilies exactly like Monet did.

If you want to mix and match what others have done in the past, that's alright. The end product will be something new. Michael B's copyright is on the entire ring, not the cathedral head (lawyers may want to correct me on this). So to ask for cathedral like Michael B's on such-and-such a ring and put it on a titanium band with enamel flames is okay (at least that's my impression).

 

[jenwill]

OK- this is out of the jewelry bailiwick, but here goes some info fgrom my line of busines which is creation and manufacturing of utlrasound equipment.

We are often in the position of creating a new 'workflow' which is then copied by other companies- and vice verse. We can trademark a brand name on the product, and we can copyright the idea, however, anyone is free to look at our product and re-create it at will, as long as they do not claim the name we have trademarked, or claim that it is the same product as ours.

What Is a Copyright?

Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of "original works of authorship" including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished. The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly.

The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description exactly; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine. Copyrights are registered by the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress.

It is a very slippery slope, and while it is frustrating for us to see 'our' product on other manufacturers systems, it is also a selling point. The customer does notice when the other company copies something that we have done, and will oftne point it out themselves, while gaining a respect for our product and technology as thought leaders. This in turn will often influence them to buy with us, even though we are pricier, becaseu we have proven to be innovators, and they want to build a consumer relationship with a quality company comprised of foward thinking people.

If this 'copying' was done, and then the competitor told the customer that they had taken 'our' idea and implemented it, then they would be in copyright violation, as we are the only ones who can say we have our product. Most companies realize this, and just point out the benefits of their product as if it was their own original idea.

This topic is interesting, in that the same arguments have gone on here internally regarding technology since we started to build.

While we would all liek to think that what is ours is ours and no one should make any profit off of anything similar, that is not the case. There was a case recetnly that an author brought a lawsuit against the author of the DaVinci Code, due to the fact that the first author had written a book released 10 years earlier with such a similar premise it was almost impossible to tell the stories apart from a a summary of the two. The court ruled against the first author, since the author of the DaVinci Code had 3 character differences. But the stories both involved a murder of a curator of a museum in the museum, with a secret sect who was looking to uncover the Catholic Churchs past behavior in regards to Mary Magdalene, and other books written of the end of Christs days. The main characters were eerily similar, but the first author was ruled against- as there were enough differences to the court to tell the books apart. The same goes for manufactured goods- just the lack of the imprinted brand name would be enough to make them different enough to tell apart.

It is only when someone claims it to be a Tiffany or a Rolex that they cross the line- placing the Rolex insignia on the face of the watch violates there trademark.

 

[noobie]

----------------
On 7/20/2004 3:41:24 PM Hest88 wrote:





'well, there are so many gray areas I can't really be stealing' is in most cases disingenuous.
----------------

Yes, I understand. I'm not comfortable with it either, but I'm also not comfortable with sweeping ethical and moral judgments without understanding what the judgment is.

It's about intent and substance. Don't have any intent (to copy), just want to understand the substance.

 

[Greg]

"It is only when someone claims it to be a Tiffany or a Rolex that they cross the line- placing the Rolex insignia on the face of the watch violates there trademark."

Trademark, yes, but the copyright is something different. Also, keep in mind that the copyright doesn't need to be registered. It's automatic when the work is created (in the US).

From the US Copyright Office:

"The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright"

"Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created."

"The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law" ...so just because a picture (or ring) doesn't have the © notice, it is not automatically public domain.

"In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection"

 

[Greg]

Jenwill,

Do you know who wrote the pre Da Vinci Code book? I'd like to try to find a copy.

 

[jenwill]

From sfgate.com earlier this year:

This is a story of two novels.

In novel one, curators slump to the floor dead, and the hero and heroine elude secret brotherhoods and Vatican renegades across Europe to find a secret that will destroy Christianity. Da Vinci is mixed up in the plots, as is the idea that the early role of women in the church was suppressed.

In novel two, which came out 20 years later, curators slump to the floor dead, and the hero and heroine elude secret brotherhoods and Vatican renegades across Europe to find a secret that will destroy Christianity. Da Vinci is mixed up in the plots, as is the idea that the early role of women in the church was suppressed.

The first book, "The Da Vinci Legacy," written by Lewis Perdue, who lives with his wife and two children in the modest town of El Verano in Sonoma County, was published by Tor in 1983. It sold, but not spectacularly.

The second, "The Da Vinci Code," by New Hampshire author Dan Brown and published by Doubleday, has sold 6.5 million copies since it came out a year ago, which makes it, says Suzanne Herz, head of publicity at the undoubtedly thrilled Doubleday, "the fastest-selling adult book of all time."

I have read both- the first one is not written as well as the DaVinci Code- didn't hook me nearly as quickly- but when debating copyright, it did come first, has much the same story, just did not sell as well.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/20/2004 3:41:24 PM Hest88 wrote:

Sorry, Noobie. My snippiness wasn't really directed at you. I just think that the whole tenor of this thread with its 'well, there are so many gray areas I can't really be stealing' is in most cases disingenuous.----------------

As Noobie raises the questions, they can not really be answered. In many instances, it is such a grey area. I'm talking ethically rather than legally. Judgements/rulings have to have an answer.

I am not familiar w/ these Michael B settings. Does he have some sort of special setting technique which can not be copied? Because that sort of pave work has been used ad nauseum. I really can't see what is special about the design posted.

And, I think some design is created either simultaneously or birthed from images w/o hard reference (i.e. pics). Are these copies?

Putting the legal trademark infringement/copyright aside, the definition of copy, inspired by, etc. really is different in people's mind. I was on some dopey juried expo exhibit of period object w/ the introduction of items that were supposed to be "inspired by the movement". A consense was never reached. The polarity between the purists & the anything goes couldn't be breached.

BTW, the reason why Rolex is so successful at maintaining their "brand" & "marketing practices" (for want of a better word) isn't outward design. They have a scientific patent which has let them continue to win cases. Also, I remember when we bought my Gemloks. It wasn't the design that couldn't be copied. It was the setting process.

Design for the sake of design is not easy to keep as one's own. What is ethical is one thing. What one can pursue legally is another.

Ya know, in the end, one has to feel comfortable with what one does. And, as a consumer, I'm not taking the heat for what is an industry problem.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/20/2004 4:18:17 PM noobie wrote:

----------------
On 7/20/2004 3:41:24 PM Hest88 wrote:



It's about intent and substance. Don't have any intent (to copy), just want to understand the substance.
----------------

That is the grayist of areas - substance. I was driving on the highway today & passed a Ritani billboard. Center stone surrounded by diamonds. I thought what in the world makes that special? My friend has the same ring except hers has sapphires. Her's was created long before Ritani had the brilliant design idea.