is there such a thing as copyright?

[Arkteia]

There is a jeweller in our town - I never worked with him, he is more of a designer. But I pass by his shop often and admire his interesting work. He has a taste of his own, we have discussed some of his work. But recently I saw a ring on display - I saw an absolutely similar ring featured in Judith Crowe''s book, with brown Tahitian pearl, it is actually a semi-circle. The author was quite different. I could swear it was absolutely same design, it is very unusual, I never saw anything like it. I even wondered if it would stay on the finger since it is a semi-cirle. I told him I liked his ring, he looked at me, I looked at him...next time it was not on the display (maybe he sold it). I mean, I understand that people may get similar ideas at the same time, or be subconsciously guided by something nice they saw. But to copy something that is so unique? That is why I want to know if there are any regulations regarding jewelry design, or can a person just say, "oh, I am an artist, it might have just stuck in my subconscuous".

 

[Rachel9]

Oh yeah, to claim a copied design as yours it's illegal. Now, many times designers ask permission to the artist to recreate and that's fine. I know one of our locals [H Stevens] has displayed a 'few' pieces from another artist and that buddy has displayed Stevens. We are talking 1-2 pieces at a time

no harm.

 

[exturkconner]

Copyrighting only applies to mass market items. This would be more of whats reffered to as artistic rights. That is to say an artist has a right to his intellectual property. Now having said that court casses are based on damages. If you copy someones design for your own use and do not sell the item they have no losses and therefore no case. Even in a case like this where the jewelr sold a single ring unless it was a ring selling in the 10,000.00 range the lawyer fee's just to draft the paper work would likely out weight any potential gains. It's more a matter of morales and do you feel right about copying something someone put effort into making.

 

[Michael_E]

I''ve always thought that this was very interesting, particularly since the elements which make up any design have often been in general use for thousands of years. A prime example of this is Debeers "new" Everlon Knot collection which they have copyrighted and are vigorously protecting. This shape is the first knot learned in the Boy Scouts in the US. How this can be claimed as a unique design and then protected in court is beyond me. Everlon knot image on PS Other manufacturers use this as a way to claim design features which have likewise existed forever. I think that it''s more of a legal maneuver than anything and really doesn''t apply so much to small scale or one off artistic jewelers since they just don''t have the resources to protect their designs. Patents and trademarks are similar in that if you don''t have the $$$ to protect yourself with a pack of ravenous lawyers, they are worthless.

 

[exturkconner]

Copyright doesn''t apply to small manufacturing. You have a right to make what''s refereed to as "Fan items" or "Tribute items" using the likeness of any protected property. I believe the cut off is ten items. At that point you are considered to be mass producing the item. A responsible manufacturer wouldn''t make you 20 copies of something out of a magazine for example.

 

[Arkteia]

Date: 1/17/2010 3:36:44 PM
Author: Michael_E
I''ve always thought that this was very interesting, particularly since the elements which make up any design have often been in general use for thousands of years. A prime example of this is Debeers ''new'' Everlon Knot collection which they have copyrighted and are vigorously protecting. This shape is the first knot learned in the Boy Scouts in the US. How this can be claimed as a unique design and then protected in court is beyond me. Everlon knot image on PS Other manufacturers use this as a way to claim design features which have likewise existed forever. I think that it''s more of a legal maneuver than anything and really doesn''t apply so much to small scale or one off artistic jewelers since they just don''t have the resources to protect their designs. Patents and trademarks are similar in that if you don''t have the $$$ to protect yourself with a pack of ravenous lawyers, they are worthless.

I believe I saw Everlon knot many times, and definitely not in jewelry. You also use them in crochets or especially macrame. Funny!

This is to think all of you for responding to my post.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 1/17/2010 2:54:02 PM
Author: exturkconner
Copyrighting only applies to mass market items. This would be more of whats reffered to as artistic rights. That is to say an artist has a right to his intellectual property. Now having said that court casses are based on damages. If you copy someones design for your own use and do not sell the item they have no losses and therefore no case. Even in a case like this where the jewelr sold a single ring unless it was a ring selling in the 10,000.00 range the lawyer fee''s just to draft the paper work would likely out weight any potential gains. It''s more a matter of morales and do you feel right about copying something someone put effort into making.

Both of these statements are incorrect.

Copyright applies regardless of how widespread the copied item is, and resale isn''t required to have violated copyright law.

Whenever you copy someone else''s design without their express permission, it''s infringement.

That said, there may be economic considerations that come into play by which one wouldn''t be pursued. That doesn''t make the infringement any less illegal; it just means you might get away with taking something unlawfully.

With respect to the original poster''s comments: It''s possible to create a similar ring that doesn''t violate copyright law. For example, if I''m on the East Coast and you''re on the West, and we both independently create the same thing without having access to each others designs, that''s not infringement. Copyright doesn''t protect ideas; it protects creations in a fixed format. In jewelry, a mere element (i.e. 3 hearts in the baskets of 3 stones) isn''t protectable.

So, it''s possible that your local jeweler''s ring was similar (i.e. inspired) but not a dutiful replication.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 1/17/2010 5:13:40 PM
Author: exturkconner
Copyright doesn''t apply to small manufacturing. You have a right to make what''s refereed to as ''Fan items'' or ''Tribute items'' using the likeness of any protected property. I believe the cut off is ten items. At that point you are considered to be mass producing the item. A responsible manufacturer wouldn''t make you 20 copies of something out of a magazine for example.

Exturk, as someone who''s worked in the arena of copyright for over a decade, I can assure you this isn''t correct.

Copyright does apply to small manufacturing, and it applies regardless of the number of items.

 

[Sagebrush]

All,

We copyright our designs. That means we put the copyright symbol and the date in all of our one of a kind designs. Knockoffs are common. Unless you are vigilant and defend your copyrights they are of little use. Deep pockets are required.

One application of copyright is important in appraisals and all consumers should be aware of it. If a piece bears a copyright, it is proper appraisal practice to ask the designer and use his/her price as the basis for the appraisal and not use the price that someone else might be able to produce a knockoff! This becomes important in cases where jewelry insurance policies have a "like kind and quality" clause.

Insurance companies will accept almost any sort of bogus appraisal document because a poor quality document allow them more latitude. They maintain relationships with wholesalers and attempt to channel any loss through these companies. It allows them to sell you a policy at retail replacement and replace your loss at wholesale. With a copyright item, you do have recourse to require a replacement of the exact item by the original maker.

 

[exturkconner]

Date: 1/17/2010 8:28:31 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 1/17/2010 5:13:40 PM
Author: exturkconner
Copyright doesn''t apply to small manufacturing. You have a right to make what''s refereed to as ''Fan items'' or ''Tribute items'' using the likeness of any protected property. I believe the cut off is ten items. At that point you are considered to be mass producing the item. A responsible manufacturer wouldn''t make you 20 copies of something out of a magazine for example.

Exturk, as someone who''s worked in the arena of copyright for over a decade, I can assure you this isn''t correct.

Copyright does apply to small manufacturing, and it applies regardless of the number of items.

"In the United States the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act Codified in Section 10, 1992) prohibits action against consumers making noncommercial recordings of music, in return for royalties on both media and devices plus mandatory copy-control mechanisms on recorders.

Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action ever may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Later acts amended US Copyright law so that for certain purposes making 10 copies or more is construed to be commercial, but there is no general rule permitting such copying. Indeed making one complete copy of a work, or in many cases using a portion of it, for commercial purposes will not be considered fair use. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits the manufacture, importation, or distribution of devices whose intended use, or only significant commercial use, is to bypass an access or copy control put in place by a copyright owner. An appellate court has held that fair use is not a defense to engaging in such distribution.

Educational use is regarded as "fair use" in most jurisdictions, but the restrictions vary wildly from nation to nation.[24]

Recent Israeli District Court decision dated Sep. 2, 2009 [25] [26] accepted the defence of fair use for a site linking to P2P live feeds of soccer matches. The main reasoning was based on the public importance of certain sporting events, i.e. - the public''s rights as counter weight to the copyright holders rights."

While this specific ruling was in reguard to Audio it 100% applies. If you are making something noncommercially it is under the fair use guidelines. Which I reffered to earlier in street names. As long as you don''t massproduce or, commercialy produce, as they reffer to it there is nothing that can be done about it. They also mention the cut off as ten but apparently that isn''t quite as set in stone as I had gathered.

Again..court actions are bassed on losses if the "injured" party cannot prove a loss. IE loss of sales because you are selling the ring for cheaper than they do. They have no case.

 

[Arkteia]

Date: 1/18/2010 11:09:06 AM
Author: Richard W. Wise
All,

We copyright our designs. That means we put the copyright symbol and the date in all of our one of a kind designs. Knockoffs are common. Unless you are vigilant and defend your copyrights they are of little use. Deep pockets are required.

One application of copyright is important in appraisals and all consumers should be aware of it. If a piece bears a copyright, it is proper appraisal practice to ask the designer and use his/her price as the basis for the appraisal and not use the price that someone else might be able to produce a knockoff! This becomes important in cases where jewelry insurance policies have a 'like kind and quality' clause.

Insurance companies will accept almost any sort of bogus appraisal document because a poor quality document allow them more latitude. They maintain relationships with wholesalers and attempt to channel any loss through these companies. It allows them to sell you a policy at retail replacement and replace your loss at wholesale. With a copyright item, you do have recourse to require a replacement of the exact item by the original maker.

Richard,

There are artists who have such a unique style that it is impossible to independently create similar items. For example, Alex Sepkus. His rings are instantaneously recognizable. What should I think if I see them sold in a small store of a person who claims he is the orignial designer? Even one?
Now the ring I am talking about is extremely unusual, and (this is in answer to Allison D.) I highly doubt that anyone could think of such a design except for that author. I do not know if I can post it here but if anyone has Judith Crowe's book - it is a ring which actually forms a semi-circle around your finger, with a brown pearl on top.

And another thing - there are companies that reproduce items made by well-known companies, such as Tiffany or Mitsuko. Somehow I doubt that they are asking Tiffany if they can do it. Once in my life I bought something at Bidz.com. They had lots of stuff sold as Baraka, Cartier, Charriol, etc. I doubt it came from these companies. I do not know if they infringe copyright laws or they ask the companies's permission to use their name. Their posts never siad, "inspired by Baraka", no, they sold it as Baraka.

 

[exturkconner]

Date: 1/18/2010 2:45:12 PM
Author: crasru

Date: 1/18/2010 11:09:06 AM
Author: Richard W. Wise
All,

We copyright our designs. That means we put the copyright symbol and the date in all of our one of a kind designs. Knockoffs are common. Unless you are vigilant and defend your copyrights they are of little use. Deep pockets are required.

One application of copyright is important in appraisals and all consumers should be aware of it. If a piece bears a copyright, it is proper appraisal practice to ask the designer and use his/her price as the basis for the appraisal and not use the price that someone else might be able to produce a knockoff! This becomes important in cases where jewelry insurance policies have a ''like kind and quality'' clause.

Insurance companies will accept almost any sort of bogus appraisal document because a poor quality document allow them more latitude. They maintain relationships with wholesalers and attempt to channel any loss through these companies. It allows them to sell you a policy at retail replacement and replace your loss at wholesale. With a copyright item, you do have recourse to require a replacement of the exact item by the original maker.

Richard,

There are artists who have such a unique style that it is impossible to independently create similar items. For example, Alex Sepkus. His rings are instantaneously recognizable. What should I think if I see them sold in a small store of a person who claims he is the orignial designer? Even one?
Now the ring I am talking about is extremely unusual, and (this is in answer to Allison D.) I highly doubt that anyone could think of such a design except for that author. I do not know if I can post it here but if anyone has Judith Crowe''s book - it is a ring which actually forms a semi-circle around your finger, with a brown pearl on top.

And another thing - there are companies that reproduce items made by well-known companies, such as Tiffany or Mitsuko. Somehow I doubt that they are asking Tiffany if they can do it. Once in my life I bought something at Bidz.com. They had lots of stuff sold as Baraka, Cartier, Charriol, etc. I doubt it came from these companies. I do not know if they infringe copyright laws or they ask the companies''s permission to use their name. Their posts never siad, ''inspired by Baraka'', no, they sold it as Baraka.

In this circumstance you can be sure they are not using the company names with permission. If they were they would have something along the lines of "A desgined based on" yadda yadda''s. If they are just reffering to themselves as the company it''s no doubt a knockoff. So how can this be done? Well in a few ways really. Some countries are more lax on the codes and so items can be produced in this fashion with no penalty. Technically it''s illegal to sell knock-offs but the company can always plead ignorance and say they didn''t know the merchandise wasn''t comming from some manufacturing plant in another country.
It can also be as simple as the knock-offs having a narrow profit margin. The only dammages a company can prove are profits. So if the making,and manufacturing of the rings leaves very little profit then it would do little good for Tiffany to sue them. Also there is of course the fact that bringing a case like that to court shows exactly how much money a company can make by copying and is only more likely to create more copiers in the market place.

 

[Sagebrush]

Copyright is a difficult thing to defend, how similar is similar, that can cost a bunch of money to find out.

 

[Nacre]

There is a jewellery designer in Australia who makes castings from commercial potato chips (cheezles and twisties)...

I have always wondered if she is able to copyright those shapes seeing as they are direct casts from a (copyrighted) chip?

What if someone copied her copies?

 

[Arkteia]

Date: 1/18/2010 8:57:17 PM
Author: Nacre
There is a jewellery designer in Australia who makes castings from commercial potato chips (cheezles and twisties)...

I have always wondered if she is able to copyright those shapes seeing as they are direct casts from a (copyrighted) chip?

What if someone copied her copies?

Well...then the Everlon knot that Debeers has copyrighted (see Michael E''s post) is actually copied by any rug weaver in India or Persia...