Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring?

[aljdewey]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

With respect to SG's pictures being printed out... that issue is complicated by the "fair use" stipulation in copyright. There might have been no infringement while using SG's photo's if it falls under fair use.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Also there is an argument that by posting on the internet, SG was giving permission (which she did rescind but not until after the PT thing) for people to download the pictures and even to print them out, so PT may not have been infringing at all even with the pictures by taking them to Ari because AT THAT TIME, SG's photo's where all over the place on the net.

Yep...didn't get into the whole fair use thing becuase it really just further complicates an already complex issue. Fair use isn't a definitive set of criteria; it's a subjective measurement of the four factors in any given use situation, and it can really only be conclusively determined in a court (at which point, one's already in the soup). It would also be largely irrelevant to this discussion seeing that fair use is an affirmative defense to infringement which would only become relevant after an infringement claim was filed (which wasn't happening here). It would be adding a level of minutae here that would be essentially superfluous in my view, given the nature of the discussion.

One very important point, though - the mere presence of something on the internet doesn't negate copyright protection, and that's a very important point for people to know. Making it publicly accessible/viewable doesn't obligate a copyright owner to surrender his rights....and even if that were to be argued, it would only likely be relevant against one of the four factors (potential market damage), but again.......I feel that's very far afield of the core of this discussion.

 

[Gypsy]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

With respect to SG's pictures being printed out... that issue is complicated by the "fair use" stipulation in copyright. There might have been no infringement while using SG's photo's if it falls under fair use.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Also there is an argument that by posting on the internet, SG was giving permission (which she did rescind but not until after the PT thing) for people to download the pictures and even to print them out, so PT may not have been infringing at all even with the pictures by taking them to Ari because AT THAT TIME, SG's photo's where all over the place on the net.

Yep...didn't get into the whole fair use thing becuase it really just further complicates an already complex issue. Fair use isn't a definitive set of criteria; it's a subjective measurement of the four factors in any given use situation, and it can really only be conclusively determined in a court (at which point, one's already in the soup). It would also be largely irrelevant to this discussion seeing that fair use is an affirmative defense to infringement which would only become relevant after an infringement claim was filed (which wasn't happening here). It would be adding a level of minutae here that would be essentially superfluous in my view, given the nature of the discussion.

One very important point, though - the mere presence of something on the internet doesn't negate copyright protection, and that's a very important point for people to know. Making it publicly accessible/viewable doesn't obligate a copyright owner to surrender his rights....and even if that were to be argued, it would only likely be relevant against one of the four factors (potential market damage), but again.......I feel that's very far afield of the core of this discussion.

And of course you are the authority for deciding what is relevant to all threads on PS and the arbitrator of what is superfluous and what isn't. I can't imagine how we've survived without your guidance.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

So between the two points you posted, they pretty much definitively absolve PT from any wrongdoing by 'copying' the design SG's ring itself, regardless of what emotional fallout SG may have felt by her doing so, because SG had no proprietary rights to that design.

*Given the age of the ring, it's unlikely that the design was still protected by copyright - in which case, no foul by PT.
*If it was still protected by copyright and the copy wasn't transformative (enough elements changed), the injured party would be the copyright owner and not SG.
*If the ring was still protected by copyright, it could possibly be argued that the changes in proportion, etc. were enough to meet the 'transformative' requirement to avoid being an infringement.

Any way you slice it, SG didn't own the design rights to the piece...that's correct.

And this is potentially the only thing she did 'wrong' (if she did in fact print the photos to take to him as opposed to him looking at them online, which would make sense for him to do regardless, as print outs would not have the same clarity of detail) is to print SG's photos? Assuming of course that it wasn't covered under 'fair use'.

Well, mayyyyyyyyyyybe......and then, only after a LOT of ifs. IF the use wouldn't qualify as fair. IF the rights survived the then-current PS terms of use. Even if all that were true, her only likely remedy would be to demand PT stop using the printouts and destroy them. It would have no impact on the creation of the ring at all.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

And of course you are the authority for deciding what is relevant to all threads on PS and the arbitrator of what is superfluous and what isn't. I can't imagine how we've survived without your guidance.

No. I'm the authority for deciding what *I* will and won't include in MY post as I see fit. You can post whatever you wish.

Really, Gypsy.....the animosity is just getting old and unbecoming. Don't you have something better to bitch about?

 

[minitiki]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

ALJ - Oh! So I only have to have knowledge of the design? So if I took your ring drawing in to copy it, that's a problem. If a randomly came up the same design then that's fine. Is that correct? If so, how can it be proven that I knew about a particular design before copying it? What if we designed something a few years apart but I'd never seen your drawing?

If you come up with the design yourself without seeing the other design, you will be fine. As to determine whether you have seen the other design before, courts look at a number of factors. One obvious example is if the first design is famous.

However, if you are told that the design was copyrighted, you or a jeweler copies it, then it would be a violation of copyright law. That is the reason why I was saying earlier if you take a copyrighted jewelry from Canada and get a jeweler copy it in Australia, it would be a violation.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

At the heart of it, Gala, I honestly don't feel that PT did anything wrong. It's purely subjective, of course, but I agree there wasn't injury to be had there.

I think it was just an emotional thing, and it was sad that it impacted PT's enjoyment of her newly engaged status.

 

[Gypsy]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Aljd, you were the one who was dismissive and rude about my contributions to the discussion. I merely replied. If you think it's getting old, why don't you follow your own advice and stop your thinly veiled attacks that don't fool anyone into thinking you are merely being "informative" rather than condescending.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Upgradable]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

And I didn't think this thread could get any more ridiculous.

 

[galeteia]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

At the heart of it, Gala, I honestly don't feel that PT did anything wrong. It's purely subjective, of course, but I agree there wasn't injury to be had there.

I think it was just an emotional thing, and it was sad that it impacted PT's enjoyment of her newly engaged status.

I think nearly everyone agrees on these points. Ame has been arguing that there was wrongdoing on the part of Ari and PT, but it really seems cut-and-dried.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Yeah, Gala I agree it seems pretty cut-dried too.

 

[minitiki]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

At the heart of it, Gala, I honestly don't feel that PT did anything wrong. It's purely subjective, of course, but I agree there wasn't injury to be had there.

I think it was just an emotional thing, and it was sad that it impacted PT's enjoyment of her newly engaged status.

I have a question. I seem to remember that there was some discussion whether Surfgirl's ring was from 1950s rather than 1920s. If the ring is from 1950s, its design could still be protected under copyright law. Would it not be prudent for SS to check the copyright registration database to make sure that the design was not copyrighted before reproducing it? Thanks!

 

[aljdewey]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Man, you seriously need to get over your insecurity complex Gypsy.

In no way did I 'dismiss' your contributions. I explained why I hadn't included the fair use element in my prior comments, which you seemed to suggest were an omission.

You are most welcome to ignore any and everything I post, K? In fact, pleeeeeeeeeeeease do so with my explicit invitation. I'm fairly certain PS has the ignore capability, and I promise I won't be upset if you block me. I'd welcome it, believe me.

 

[galeteia]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

At the heart of it, Gala, I honestly don't feel that PT did anything wrong. It's purely subjective, of course, but I agree there wasn't injury to be had there.

I think it was just an emotional thing, and it was sad that it impacted PT's enjoyment of her newly engaged status.

I have a question. I seem to remember that there was some discussion whether Surfgirl's ring was from 1950s rather than 1920s. If the ring is from 1950s, its design could still be protected under copyright law. Would it not be prudent for SS to check the copyright registration database to make sure that the design was not copyrighted before reproducing it? Thanks!

I think the points in that scenario would be that if it was from the 50's, it would be a reproduction of an earlier ring and therefore itself a copy. Regardless, if there was an 'injured party' it would be the original owner of the ring who had it made (or vendor who originally made it) and not SG, despite her fury at having 'her' ring copied.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

I have a question. I seem to remember that there was some discussion whether Surfgirl's ring was from 1950s rather than 1920s. If the ring is from 1950s, its design could still be protected under copyright law. Would it not be prudent for SS to check the copyright registration database to make sure that the design was not copyrighted before reproducing it? Thanks!

God forbid I answer this lest I be "the evil of ALL AUTHORITY".....but eh, I'm game.

Mini, if the ring is still under copyright protection, an exact duplication would be an infringement. That's why most jewelers (especially those who commission custom work) insist on not copying other designs exactly. There is no hard/fast rule about how much can/can't be copied (I hear tons of folks throwing around a 20% number, but that's a guideline).

Most jewelers just want to change enough elements to say that there is a transformative enough change. One could argue that the proportions of PT's ring might be different enough from the inspiration to qualify as transformative. My (uninformed) guess would be that SS felt it was transformative enough; otherwise, they likely owuldn't have made the ring.

 

[minitiki]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

At the heart of it, Gala, I honestly don't feel that PT did anything wrong. It's purely subjective, of course, but I agree there wasn't injury to be had there.

I think it was just an emotional thing, and it was sad that it impacted PT's enjoyment of her newly engaged status.

I have a question. I seem to remember that there was some discussion whether Surfgirl's ring was from 1950s rather than 1920s. If the ring is from 1950s, its design could still be protected under copyright law. Would it not be prudent for SS to check the copyright registration database to make sure that the design was not copyrighted before reproducing it? Thanks!

I think the points in that scenario would be that if it was from the 50's, it would be a reproduction of an earlier ring and therefore itself a copy. Regardless, if there was an 'injured party' it would be the original owner of the ring who had it made (or vendor who originally made it) and not SG, despite her fury at having 'her' ring copied.

Yes, I agree that the injured party would be the copyright holder, not SG. SG does not get copyright rights to the design by owning the ring unless the designer assigns them to her (that is assuming the design was copyrighted in the first place and was still under copyright protection).

 

[Kaleigh]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

My last post in this thread.... Promise.

SG, bought a ring.. It happened to be an old ring, as in Antique. She happened upon it. She had nothing to do with it's design, or anything else. But write a check and walk away with a lovely and amazing heirloom. I see this ring a lot in my travels. It's not a one of a kind...

 

[Maisie]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

I don't really understand why this repeatedly comes up on this forum especially after the Admin explained that her rings shouldn't be posted on here. It seems like it comes up for the sole purpose of stirring up sh!t on here, and making drama when things get "boring".

That's my two dollars on that subject. Maybe one day she'll get over her deep disgust for that scenario and try to put it past her, but the way she was treated for how she felt burned by that vendor...? I wouldn't be able to for a while either. Like I said, not my favorite on the internets, but I defend her reaction and disgust to the death bec I do not believe it was unwarranted at all. And I often think sometimes that people on here reopen this can of drama to reopen that wound in an attempt to either bring her back swinging or make her go back away from pondering reinstating her account. Just because they can and they're bored.

Thats not very nice. I didn't start this thread to start 'sh!t'.

I actually asked for pictures because I remember seeing it and thinking it was one of the most beautiful rings on PS. I didn't save a photo at the time. I bought an OEC stone (the type of which shall not be mentioned) on that other site and wanted to make an antique style setting for it. I'm not bored, in fact I am quite busy what with planning a baby and my kidney stones! I don't know SG and have no interest in whether she reinstates her account or not.

 

[minitiki]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

I have a question. I seem to remember that there was some discussion whether Surfgirl's ring was from 1950s rather than 1920s. If the ring is from 1950s, its design could still be protected under copyright law. Would it not be prudent for SS to check the copyright registration database to make sure that the design was not copyrighted before reproducing it? Thanks!

God forbid I answer this lest I be "the evil of ALL AUTHORITY".....but eh, I'm game.

Mini, if the ring is still under copyright protection, an exact duplication would be an infringement. That's why most jewelers (especially those who commission custom work) insist on not copying other designs exactly. There is no hard/fast rule about how much can/can't be copied (I hear tons of folks throwing around a 20% number, but that's a guideline).

Most jewelers just want to change enough elements to say that there is a transformative enough change. One could argue that the proportions of PT's ring might be different enough from the inspiration to qualify as transformative. My (uninformed) guess would be that SS felt it was transformative enough; otherwise, they likely owuldn't have made the ring.

Thank you.

 

[Maria D]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Man, you seriously need to get over your insecurity complex Gypsy.

In no way did I 'dismiss' your contributions. I explained why I hadn't included the fair use element in my prior comments, which you seemed to suggest were an omission.

You are most welcome to ignore any and everything I post, K? In fact, pleeeeeeeeeeeease do so with my explicit invitation. I'm fairly certain PS has the ignore capability, and I promise I won't be upset if you block me. I'd welcome it, believe me.

You know, aljdewey, if you really were not trying to be condescending, a much better response than the one above would have been:

"In no way was I attempting to dismiss your contributions Gypsy. I was merely trying to explain why I hadn't included the fair use element in prior comments."

I found your overreaction to be entertaining, but only because I enjoy the drama here.

By the way, I don't think there is an ignore capability here. If you can find one, please feel free to ignore me.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

And of course you are the authority for deciding what is relevant to all threads on PS and the arbitrator of what is superfluous and what isn't. I can't imagine how we've survived without your guidance.

No. I'm the authority for deciding what *I* will and won't include in MY post as I see fit. You can post whatever you wish.

Really, Gypsy.....the animosity is just getting old and unbecoming. Don't you have something better to bitch about?

who let Alj out of the cage? this is like the old days...

 

[aljdewey]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Maria, it's understandable that it would seem that way to you since you don't have the context of the interactions from other avenues.

You're really free to see it any way you want to, but please don't take offense if I disregard your suggestions as I wasn't soliciting advice. I don't spend a ton of time worrying about how they'll be taken; people who know me well enough know precisely where I come from.

 

[Maria D]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

alj, I never take offense to anything you have said to me over the years. I find you endlessly entertaining actually, in the same way I find Donald Trump entertaining. He also has the habit of completely overreacting to small slights while at the same time claiming not to be bothered by any of it.

The lovely irony here is that you are defending yourself against the accusation of being condescending by again adopting your condescending tone. You really can't help yourself!

 

[Ravinmad]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Funny reading Leon's blog to come up with an article or post by him that fits this very topic

http://leonmege.wordpress.com/

For what its worth.

 

[Enerchi]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Interesting read. Thanks for posting that Ravinmad.

 

[hlmr]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

alj, I never take offense to anything you have said to me over the years. I find you endlessly entertaining actually, in the same way I find Donald Trump entertaining. He also has the habit of completely overreacting to small slights while at the same time claiming not to be bothered by any of it.
The lovely irony here is that you are defending yourself against the accusation of being condescending, by again adopting a condescending tone. You really can't help yourself!

[/i]


Irony = condescending = irony = condescention. Perhaps you are overreacting to a perceived overreaction.

Let the logical people speak, and those of us who may tend to be emotional, think before we spew.

 

[risingsun]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

alj, I never take offense to anything you have said to me over the years. I find you endlessly entertaining actually, in the same way I find Donald Trump entertaining. He also has the habit of completely overreacting to small slights while at the same time claiming not to be bothered by any of it.

The lovely irony here is that you are defending yourself against the accusation of being condescending by again adopting your condescending tone. You really can't help yourself!

Seriously? You have stepped into the middle of something for which you have no context. I think you have won the prize for condescension on this thread

 

[Lula]

Re: Does anyone have a photo of Surfgirl's Single Stone ring

Doesn't a design have to be registered in order to be protected under copyright law? http://www.copyrightwitness.com/register/p26_howto_register_artwork
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register
Would SG have anyway of knowing whether the design of her ring was registered by the original designer, jeweler, etc.?
I'm not a lawyer; this is a question I'm asking in all seriousness.