Design Ethics Question

[dlrion]

I got this idea from Cathy's latest post. She made a few very nice looking trivets, and someone asked if the designs were "shareable"

http://www.ncwoodworker.net/pp/data/208/medium/Interlaced_hearts_-_mahogany.jpg

Cathy admits that she got this design from someone else, and she did not want to share it with anybody for that reason.

I could get on Sketchup, and create the same design, or slightly alter it in about 30-45 minutes from the pictures that are on the internet, or from Cathy's picture.

My question is this:

"If I go to the trouble to re-design something, is this unethical for me to make, and/or share?"

 

[cskipper]

I know that scroll saw pattern designer's earn money for their designs. That's the reason I am still looking for this particular designer. I just had to make the pattern - it was calling my name. But I would be reluctant to even sell one cut because I basically stole a pattern. I don't know if other crafts have the designer-tie to income that scroller do or not.

On the other hand, I don't have a problem with the other pattern that I was re-working. But I got that one from a free scroll saw pattern site. I downloaded most of his patterns, but somehow missed this one. His hard drive crashed and he lost his patterns, but I was able to send him most of them back. I didn't even offer his on request until we exchanged emails a couple of times and I got a sense of when he wouldn't mind if released one.

I've seen a lot of folks say that they get a picture off the internet and consider it to be public domain. I don't think that's necessarily true. The photographer may never have meant their photo to be used in that manner.

However, if I was radically changing the pattern, I might feel differently.


Now, having said all of that... I do not believe that Mike Dunn was selling his patterns. I bought a 3-D coloring book at a Cracker Barrell which had most of those same designs in it. The only thing to change would be changing some of the "blocks" to solid so you actually had a pattern to cut. There is a lot of controversy about this topic in the scrolling world.

 

[ScottM]

This is really gray and if you ask 100 people expect 100 different answers.

I know most hard copy publications state you can make copies of pattern for your own use. You can even sell the finished product in limited quantities. What you can not do is makes copies for resale or redistribution with out written approval for the publisher.

This applies to patterns you find in WW magazines too. You can use the design, sell the finished product but you are not supposed to make a copy of the pattern to give away or sell.

 

[sawduster]

The whole ' public domain ' issue is a muddy swamp indeed :BangHead: There are a lot of conflicting opinions out there. a copyrighted photograph or drawing is indeed protected . Jeff Zaffino found himself in a bucket of trouble over some of his patterns. The main argument there boiled down to whether he was aware he was using copyrighted material . There are plenty of ' public domain " sites for photographs . I use several myself for wildlife and such. These sites are labeled as public domain . Dover Designs is a free-use company that gives you permission right out of the gate to use or change their designs .

A vector design is just that , a vector design. I could maybe create my own that looked like 100 others and call it my own. not sure how much " ownership " anyone has over something that is so easily copied. Myself, it is really about ethics. I applaud Cathy for recognizing that she is using someone else's work and keeping it on a personal use level until she can find out otherwise :eusa_clap. Sadly there are not enough people who think that way :nah: Having the skill and the knowledge to re-create it yourself and actually doing so gives you the right to use it or share it in my opinion ....but i am far from an expert.

As a pattern designer myself i have had the screws put to me a couple of times from a site who had some less-than-ethical membership . Imagine the surprise of opening a Wooden Teddy Bear pattern catalog and seeing work that you offered for free now for sale with someone else's name on it :kamahlitu I try as much as I can to give a designer credit when posting pics of work i did from their pattern . Often recognizing the magazine it came from as well. Am I perfect at it ? No , I forget sometimes but I try really hard to do it out of respect to the designer
Another case in point. A fellow member here wants a pattern of some wildlife I did from yet another member's photo. I will ask the member who took the photo if it is alright to share the pattern since he was nice enough to let me work with it . It is my pattern but it is his photo and was shared with me for my personal use . It is not copyrighted and not something I am legally required to do but it is just the right thing
You can google "scrollsaw pattern copyright" and find enough material to keep you reading for the next month. As Scott said, 100 people, 100 answers :eusa_dancScott shares other spot-on wisdom in his post as well:icon_thum
As some of you know, I often joke about the " pattern police " but sometimes I wish there were such a thing :gar-La;

Long-winded but i hope it helps some

 

[Vetteman9956]

Ok, let me muddy the waters further with this question. If I take a picture of the empire state building and then carve it to sell from that photo, does the buildings designer have the right to it or do I?

I know how frustrating it is but any more and with the computer programs on the market, it is easy to copy a drawing as Robert noted or redraw it. I think if you look back through history, There has been "borrowing" of ideas and design elements since the Aztecs. Look at how many people over the years have reproduced the aztec calendar.

As an artist, I look at it this way, if someone wanted to use one of my designs then I consider it a complement as it must be worth copying. Granted I don't make a living as a designer but look at the number of fonts there are out there and everybody expects to be paid for thiers, and more than most are worth for the liitle time they put into it. I have paid up to $10 for a certain font because that what my customer wanted even thought I have about 10,000 already here. They still got the basis of the design from someone else.

Sorry for being long winded but I think we sometimes get carried away with anyone else making a few bucks from something we designed, I know no one has gotten rich off of any of my designs.

 

[dlrion]

I think a lot of the debate may be in respect to symmetrical patterns vs. complicated patterns.


The vector design where you just arrange a bunch of similiar images, really seems similiar to segmented turning. Malcom Tibbets is not suing Earl, because his bowls look similiar.

But I totally understand anger, after working on an image that takes a lot of effort and having someone use it without your permission. (like Robert's example)

:eusa_thin

Dan

 

[sawduster]

I think a lot of the debate may be in respect to symmetrical patterns vs. complicated patterns.


The vector design where you just arrange a bunch of similiar images, really seems similiar to segmented turning. Malcom Tibbets is not suing Earl, because his bowls look similiar.

But I totally understand anger, after working on an image that takes a lot of effort and having someone use it without your permission. (like Robert's example)

:eusa_thin

Dan

I edited my post slightly with you in mind Dan . It now reads if you have the skill and knowledge to REcreate a vector design then you have certain rights to it in my opinion

Being the ethical type person I am , I would be honor-bound to give Brad credit for his inspiration. But only after speaking with him first about using his work. Amazingly a lot of artists will grant permission and I have had a lot of succes with that. Most don't want money, just recognition

 

[cpw]

Basically, this is all a matter of copyright, and the copyright will all depend on 1) when and where it was first created, 2) who created it, and 3) if they are still living or dead and how long they have been dead.

For "unpublished" works copyright is the creator's life plus 70 years, or 120 years for anonymous works or works for hire. That is the SIMPLEST scenario. It gets MUCH more complicated very quickly: http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/copyright-duration1.html

The key would be to find on when and where and by whom it was first created. If it turns out to be a Celtic design or you find it on a piece of 18th century furniture, then the design is old enough to be in public domain - no problem. Use it all you want.

Brad: If YOU took the photo there shouldn't be any problems reproducing the image. The outside of a building is part of a public space. Plus, there is no protection of building designed and built before Dec. 1, 1990; only the plans and drawings are protected.

Dan and Robert: Symmetry or simplicity has nothing to do with whether a work is eligible for copyright or not, UNLESS the design is so simple as to be commonplace like geometric forms.

BTW:
1) Currently in the U.S. copyright is AUTOMATIC at the moment an expression of a work is "fixed" in a tangible form (written down, drawn, carved, cut out, published on a web page, etc.)
2) MOST of the content on the Web IS copyrighted.

 

[Vetteman9956]

Thats kinda what I figured Charles but thought I would ask. Just an example of how complicated things can become. I wish everyone had the personal ethics of most of the people on this site but we all know it isn't going to happen.

I guess the point I was getting to was that in a perfect world people would have the ethics to do the right thing as it relates here but since they don't and you will always have a part of the population that doesn't care, Is it worth the stress of putting yourself through it because some one borrowed your plans or picture and made a few bucks on it. I just feel I have better things to focus on.

We all do the best we can but this is a mine field if someone want to make it that way, I only know of 2 companies that take anything no matter have minor to limits. The are Disney and Harley. The have the pockets to be able to do it unlike most of us.

 

[cpw]

I only know of 2 companies that take anything no matter have minor to limits. The are Disney and Harley. The have the pockets to be able to do it unlike most of us.

It's getting more and more litigious. There are now companies who are buying up copyrights on relatively innocuous content like newspaper articles and trolling the Web looking for violations with the express intent of suing. Each infringement can be worth up to $150,000 IF the material is registered.

 

[CarvedTones]

I am a lousy artist. This is not humility, it is reality. The precious few of you who might want to disagree may have seen some of my drawings or seemingly original scroll work. I am a decent illustrator, though. I draw a lot of my own patterns, but i don't necessarily think them up. I don't sell the patterns nor the produced work so I think I am OK, but would love to hear informed opinions...

 

[cskipper]

Andy, I'm the same way. I have designed a couple of patterns, but I prefer to spend time scrolling instead of frustrating myself designing. For example, two of the pieces I posted are technically my design. I did them in Excel of all things, because I know Excel. I'm still trying to get the 3-D effect, so I've spent a bunch more time.

 

[dlrion]

I was in the Air Force in Monterey California for a while, and they have a tree there that is a sort of a regional symbol... sort of like the lighthouses everywhere for NC.

http://tinyurl.com/2c8cdl6

The owner of the piece of land that the tree sits on got a trademark for the actual tree itself, and is sue happy. The Air Force painted the tree on the side of one of their buildings there, and got sued. They eventually had to paint over it with some other image.

I think this particular situation is REALLY DUMB.

I own a house cat, so I am going to copy write all images of house cats from now on.

I mean Come On!

I understand giving credit where credit is due, but the guy did nothing except get lucky.

 

[CarvedTones]

Andy, I'm the same way. I have designed a couple of patterns, but I prefer to spend time scrolling instead of frustrating myself designing. For example, two of the pieces I posted are technically my design. I did them in Excel of all things, because I know Excel. I'm still trying to get the 3-D effect, so I've spent a bunch more time.

My daughter has a pad and stylus to do some really good art on the computer, but as for me, despite being a software developer and working with computers for 30+ years, when it comes to sketching designs I am decidedly low tech...

 

[cskipper]

As evidenced by this discussion this is a interesting and controversial topic. I think it would be great to continue the discussion, but let's try to not get so frustrated/aggravated that it needs to be closed prematurely.

 

[dlrion]

OK... sorry for my rant... moderators... don't kill it cause of me.

Dan

 

[CarvedTones]

Another facet of this is trying to figure out where inspiration becomes imitation. I have made stuff for my kids where they start the discussion with pictures of similar items from the net and if it is something I can make, then the wish list comes out with modifications to make. Often it starts with more than one picture - "I like this, but with this style of handle" or whatever. If these were items produced as work for hire or to be sold, this could get sticky.
A related trap I have to be careful about also is thinking that anything I draw is mine. It doesn't matter whether you copy something with pencil and paper or a laser copier; if it is copied, it is not an original.

 

[CaptnA]

Interesting.
Ethics vs legal.
Ethics - We all have that inside voice that tells us when we are pushing ethical boundaries. Like my dad used to say, if you have to ask, you already know.
Legal is different. I know very little about the law. All my life I've heard ignorance of the law is no excuse. I have no excuse. How harsh it would be to find you've violated someone's rights and are laible either in a legal or civil court.
I see this more on another site. People have talked about casting things and "can I cast a candy bar wrapper, college logo, etc etc etc".
It seems that legally you can make anything for your own use. Doing it for profit is something else.
One thought was 'pepsi' should be glad to see their logo in my pen, free advertising. Another thought was 'pepsi' has enough problems not to come after John Doe for using their logo in a $20 pen blank.
There is someone there who started making a particular blank and selling them. Very unique. Now one of the big vendors offers that same style blank. Someone with the company frequents the site. Lots of hard feelings.
Who is right?? I think ethics can be swayed by the teller intenionally or not. Legally it comes down to the judge and or jury.

 

[christopheralan]

This topic kills me. Every scroll I have ever done is my pattern. I have never used anyone's design to make my own. However, the picture I use is where the question is. Lets say I did a picture of JFK. I would find a good picture and use that to make my own design. Is that wrong? I don't see how it could be, due to the fact that I can't really get a current photo of the guy with my own camera. How about the Avatar scroll and pattern I did. I don't think I could talk with Jams Cameron and get the cast to dress up again for me to fly LA to take a picture. I simply used the best picture that I could find, and made my own pattern. Is that wrong?

Now lets say I could draw really well. Lets also say that I drew, without any picture to reference, a picture of JFK. What are the chances that whatever I came up with resembles another existing photo or drawing. Could I be sued? I doubt it.

Everyone wants to get paid. I get that. But I think too many take this too seriously. What gets me is the fact that Harley, Disney and the NFL are so worried about everyone profiting off of their stuff. Anyone can go out and buy crap from these guys, but every now and then, people want things made from wood. These companys don't provide that, and if you or I try to, we get sued.

My .02

 

[CarvedTones]

Christopher,

I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet... :rolf:

There is a big difference between a public figure and a privately funded movie. Q - Why is Avatar any different than Star Wars? A - It isn't. As long as it was something that isn't made for hire or to sell, I think it doesn't matter though.