|
Post by glendon on May 14, 2022 0:04:30 GMT
Nitpick away, and thank you for it. I always enjoy learning, even if the lesson is painful. "I am not a lawyer, although I play one on T.V."
|
|
|
Post by Simpleman on May 14, 2022 0:58:59 GMT
I know a few that may have ok to good products, but where their behaviour just have to many "obstacles" for me. I would not buy from someone I feel uncomfortable with when it comes to business ethics. We all can encourge or discourage certain behavior. If it all matters? I am not sure all would agree, or to what extent it is relevant. When it comes to most of the "khukuri-houses" as mentioned they will just try and make customers happy and earn money, there is nothing called copyright or trademark in Nepal for a majority of manufacturers. If the discussion is about "copying" or "replicating" a blade/sword I think consensus is hard to find. Could it be done? Should it be done? Who decides? I dont expect this thread to even have a majority in agreement, but I would like to emphasize the topic of the discussion, is ethics relevant? Yes most definitely. Actually something to be spoken more of, not just what things cost for instance, but also to were money goes, especially when it comes to Nepal. Does the money end up in the right pocket? These perspectives are important I think. If one buys something really cheap, someone along the way is still paying for it. Many many things to consider.
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on May 14, 2022 2:25:09 GMT
I think people are being entirely too sensitive about this for a niche hobby of handmade items, especially when there are very few original ideas possible anymore in the tradition of bladesmithing. And if you send a smith your design and he makes it for someone else, I don’t see what there is to cry about. What are you losing? You can claim credit for the design here online for the two or three people who care.
As far as not stepping on a fellow smith’s toes, yes. Making copies of ZT pieces, especially with the intent to undercut their prices, would be sleazy.
Then again, we know ZT doesn’t take custom orders to make a modified version of one of their blades. If ZT won’t do it, why is it unethical to approach another smith for the job? I get that as a smith, you don’t want to be known for copying other people’s style. But I don’t see it as unethical if you’re not undercutting their sales.
|
|
|
Post by pellius on May 14, 2022 2:58:29 GMT
… Then again, we know ZT doesn’t take custom orders to make a modified version of one of their blades. If ZT won’t do it, why is it unethical to approach another smith for the job? … Exclusivity is part of the value of intellectual property. Being the single source of a design raises the price of each piece that is sold. Incidentally, ZT was taking custom orders before their build queue got so backed up. Hopefully they will open the service again at some point.
|
|
steveboy
Member
Measure twice, cut once.
Posts: 369
|
Post by steveboy on May 14, 2022 6:39:51 GMT
if you send a smith your design and he makes it for someone else, I don’t see what there is to cry about. What are you losing? You can claim credit for the design here online for the two or three people who care. Okay, do some Mickey Mouse drawings and sell them as your own work and see if Disney doesn't eat your lunch.
|
|
|
Post by soulfromheart on May 14, 2022 14:38:12 GMT
This thread has left me wondering : - What degree of divergence from a model is considered "enough" to be acceptable ? I understand that I'm not to copy the Albion Gallowglass in all proportions and design and call it my own "Gall Gaeil" but if I'm adding new elements, how does one judge the proportion needed for it to not step on somebody's toes ? What's the frontier between a pretty-up version of another's work and one's own custom ?
- How would copyright work for japanese swords actually : Hamon ? Blade shape ? Tsukaito ? Fittings ? Mei ? All of them ? (but only as a whole ?)
|
|
steveboy
Member
Measure twice, cut once.
Posts: 369
|
Post by steveboy on May 14, 2022 15:29:25 GMT
This thread has left me wondering : - What degree of divergence from a model is considered "enough" to be acceptable ? There's no rule or formula. These things tend to be determined by mostly subjective court interpretations of law in civil suits brought about by intellectual-property owners who feel infringed. Time and again, deciding factors aren't the degree of similarity but access and intent. The basis of those decisions varies from country, influenced by different laws and cultural attitudes regarding intellectual property.
Literary plagiarism is an interesting example. In the US, if I use someone else's written work verbatim as a reference, allusion, or quote, that's generally "fair use." If I use it in a way that encourages readers to think it originated with me, or as substantial to the work I'm presenting, it's plagiarism. But if I write my own version of someone else's novel -- even if I don't credit the work I'm deriving from -- there's usually little that can be done about it. That doesn't mean it's right. It just means it isn't illegal. So Robert McCammon can write Swan Song without being sued by Stephen King for clearly basing it on The Stand, even though readers might scratch their heads and say Hmmm.
Tom Waits won a landmark lawsuit against Frito-Lay for deliberately imitating him in a commercial. His main claim was that he was a brand, a unique and readily identifiable sound, that they had deliberately appropriated after he had turned down doing a commercial for them. So what they presented without his approval wasn't any specific work, but his identity as an artist.
There's overlap between legal and ethical, but there's also a wide and foggy valley between them that's filled with created works.
|
|
steveboy
Member
Measure twice, cut once.
Posts: 369
|
Post by steveboy on May 14, 2022 15:33:51 GMT
if you send a smith your design and he makes it for someone else, I don’t see what there is to cry about. What are you losing? You can claim credit for the design here online for the two or three people who care. Okay, do some Mickey Mouse drawings and sell them as your own work and see if Disney doesn't eat your lunch. I think this probably came across snarkier than I intended. I only meant to say that the legality and the ethicality of plagiarism have nothing to do with scale. If it's wrong on its face -- legally or ethically -- it's wrong no matter how many people or how much money is involved.
|
|
|
Post by yelman on Jun 16, 2022 19:01:39 GMT
I find this type of thread odd on a weapons forum. Weapons have been copied exactly since the stone age, for example, Identical spear point designs-hundreds unearthed and never a claim that they came from a single maker. Everyone copies everyone else since the beginning of time, especially in the weapons industry.
Everyone who produces anything has the option of protecting their work legally If they choose to do so. If they don’t they automatically forfeit their rights. So nothing unethical about copying an unprotected design.
|
|
steveboy
Member
Measure twice, cut once.
Posts: 369
|
Post by steveboy on Jun 16, 2022 20:30:34 GMT
Everyone who produces anything has the option of protecting their work legally If they choose to do so. If they don’t they automatically forfeit their rights. So nothing unethical about copying an unprotected design. Very much depends on the country. In the US, a lot of people believe that you have to somehow "copyright" a work to protect it as your intellectual property. That isn't at all the case. "Common-law copyright" means that simply creating an "original" work makes it yours, and you own the copyright (literally, the right to copy). What you can do is register the copyright (with ideas/processes, via patent through the PTO; with written works, via registration with the Library of Congress; with most other created works, with an announcement of copyright in a public forum or on the work itself).
People's notions of what is & isn't an "unprotected design" are generally uninformed and very often incorrect. Digital media have enormously complicated -- and utterly dated -- notions of intellectual property, derivation, origination, right to duplicate, right to modify.
"Copyright" is a legal notion that really has only existed for a few hundred years, as a way to allow artists to earn a living from their work by selling it (or reproductions of it), rather than by having a patron. It came about precisely as technology allowed the means to duplicate works of art and literature.
A lot of the discussion here centers around the difference between what is legal and what is ethical. And a lot of the attitude toward that -- apart from cultural differences -- centers around whether you think of a sword as a tool or a work of art. 500 years ago an innovation that improved design or effectiveness of a weapon was bound to be copied without an ounce of regard or guilt regarding who invented it and what might be owed them. Nowadays wqeapons innovations can be patented and monetized by the inventor.
The reason it isn't odd on a forum where people buy, sell, and commission modern swords is because we aren't talking about innovations that improve hunting or effectiveness in warfare. We're talking about artisans trying to make a living from their work. Ideas of intellectual property, imitation, outright theft, influence, etc., aren't as clearcut (pun intended, sorry), and there's a lot of gray area.
To my mind, if you commission a work in clear imitation of a living artisan, you are taking income from that artisan. If you create an imitation, it may be creatively dubious, but you haven't really hurt the artisan. It's why Disney doesn't care if you draw Mickey Mouse; they care if you sell drawings of Mickey Mouse.
Of course this is idealized and largely moot, as 75% of the content on Youtube indicates.
|
|
|
Post by yelman on Jun 16, 2022 21:32:02 GMT
I think this thread is perhaps more appropriate for fantasy swords, where the designs are more original than your more traditional swords, where the ‘designs’ have already been copied. For traditional swords, I don’t think an artisan can lay claim to any of it unless he produces something completely out of the ordinary, like a glass hilt, for example.
|
|
steveboy
Member
Measure twice, cut once.
Posts: 369
|
Post by steveboy on Jun 16, 2022 23:31:31 GMT
I think this thread is perhaps more appropriate for fantasy swords, where the designs are more original than your more traditional swords, where the ‘designs’ have already been copied. For traditional swords, I don’t think an artisan can lay claim to any of it unless he produces something completely out of the ordinary, like a glass hilt, for example. I agree to the extent that I think it's a shame that more original design isn't being done on traditional swords, and so largely the issue is moot. If you want to hire someone to do a cheaper version of a Paul Chen sword that really just a combines traditional designs, creatively you aren't taking anything from Paul Chen.
But there's no shortage of people applying their own designs and artwork to traditional swords. If you like the hotrod-flame job I did on a traditional katana that I'm selling, and you hire someone to do a hotrod-flame design for yours, absolutely, go for it. If you hire someone to copy the design I'm selling, then I'm gonna be annoyed. And if you copy it on swords that you sell, I'm gonna make a stink.
As I said, I find it less likely because not a lot of new stuff is being done. But there are people here who do their own designs that are more consistent with traditional approaches, and if I saw someone copying & selling those, I'd object.
The fact that it's a niche market changes the scale, but it doesn't change what's being done. And it doesn't change the impact on the artist.
|
|