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

[verticalhorizon]

Big Pauly or Pauly Jr. vertical horizon?

Well, you have to have BOTH really. It's the only way the show works, Em!

Finally... some laughter!

 

[verticalhorizon]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 5:24:15 PM questionsRus wrote:

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

On 7/15/2004 5:22:14 PM verticalhorizon wrote:


I would definitely have to agree with Greg... it's VERY difficult to come up with examples that fit perfectly. I fear that too many people jump to conclusions without thinking about the comparisons, myself included. Name calling and quote twisting, well... that's another issue.


I think that Greg was onto something with the car analogy though. BWM would most certainly take issue with Honda making a similar car than a BWM. Although, it is quite interesting how many cars in their respective classes are quite similar. (And I'm not even counting those co-produced by multiple companies.)


Perhaps a better automotive example would be more like this:


Instead of Honda making a make-shift BWM... how about that guy from American Chopper (more like an independent jeweler) custom builds something similar to a Harley (but of course, chopper style), without Harley logos or the trademarked sound (they are very finicky about that)?

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

like the new honda (accura maybe?) looks like a mercedes in the back. i mistook one for a mercedes a while ago.


it's kind of freaking me out how i'm always the first one to post on a new page.----------------

Yes! And the difference here is that a company is doing the copying AND that they are not deceiving the public. But they are most certainly selling this car... to a similar audience that would LIKE to own a Mercedes, but can't afford it. Where's the line here?

 

[verticalhorizon]

But of course, there's more to a car than just the outside. If they copied the engine, for example, then I'm sure Benz would take more interest.

 

[Greg]

What would the Chopper and the Harley have in common (other than that they're both motorcycles)? Besides, they can't even stick to their own design throughout an episode, How are they going to stick to somebody else's?

...I think we're way off the topic.

 

[Greg]

Do you think Pauly would make my wedding band? I want titanium with flames on the side.

 

[verticalhorizon]

True dat. Peace and chicken grease.

 

[JHeebner]

Designer pieces don't have to be expensive. Sophisticated doesn't necessarily equal expensive. By sophisticated, I meant a very unique look. IE, some designers that you won't readily see in typical jewelry stores are Mattioli, Io Si Scavia, and Dominique Cohen. I love Al Zain, Rina Limor, and Gurhan, among others. These folks don't make common-looking pieces.

And, these are all jewelry---not just dia. engagement ring---makers.

Sorry for not being clear.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 5:04:14 PM Rank Amateur wrote:

JH

There has been a lot of jewelery produced in history. As I said, it is an interesting point since no man works in a vacuum.

Sounds like you have your 'balanced' article already written, even before the research is done.

R/A----------------

R/A mentions this & Ame mentions this. It's true. *Little* (if no) design is created in a vaccum. I am an Art & Antique dealer. Quite frankly, I could make a good case that Tacori is ripping off a past period design.

And, I *have* been exposed to a *VAST* amount of jewelry. Contemporary & old - that pesky Jewelry Historian in me. Even the cutting edge moderne designs are somewhat derivative.

That said, I wouldn't give it a second thought to create a Vatche "like" three stone ring like mine. At one point, when I thought the Vatche to be too expensive, I started to design my own incorporating several versions of this ring which is a classic design from years & years & years ago. Again, the Vatche is derivative of a former design. I even took a picture of a friends "family" ring designed quite a while ago.

Where is the hostility coming from? I can understand it if a one of a kind creation being copied right down to the last detail. But, most of these settings discussed on PS are pretty main stream.

I guess what I am trying to say is that many artist worked/still work in the impressionist style. Some with *very* similar scenes. But, one would have to paint the exact same scene, use the exact same technique & IMHO, even go as far as signing it - before I would cry "stealing intellectual property".

I'm someone who has to deal with "reproductions" having an impact on my business. So, I am not operating in a vaccum about this issue. In many ways, they can hurt; but, in many ways can help "popularize" a style. Some will always seek the "original".

 

[JHeebner]

Greg, there's an untapped niche: auto-inspired bridal bands. Titanium bands with enamel flames. Go for it! Everyone here promise not to knock it off.

 

[fire&ice]

In the history of PS, the guys always seem to bring up the *car* analogy - and relate it to *any* situation discussed. I wonder what that says.

 

[moremoremore]

Greg- they don't stick to their designs b/c they are evolving works of art...lol...It's scary to think that something that people ride on the highway with was made by these guys with plain ol nuts and bolts!

 

[Greg]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 5:47:08 PM fire&ice wrote:

In the history of PS, the guys always seem to bring up the *car* analogy - and relate it to *any* situation discussed. I wonder what that says.

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

That's because baseball analogies usually don't work with material things...that's strange too, because theirs a diamond on the field...

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 5:38:29 PM JHeebner wrote:


And, these are all jewelry---not just dia. engagement ring---makers.

Sorry for not being clear.----------------

Yeah, but most here are searching for e-rings. And, I really find most to be deriviative.

Designers will always have people copying them. I take issue that one poster seems to feel that this is all of sudden a morality issue in America today.

This is not a new problem in the industry. In the 1930's, one designer I collect sued another designer in the area for basically "copying" him. Nothing ever became of it except "outing" the offender. Funny though, the man continued to work into his 80's & did start copywriting his designs.

 

[foundnemo]

Ethics is supposed to be clear but circumstances may not be.

What does being "ethical" mean?
What does "copying" mean? And "inspired", "similar", "style"?
What does "recreate" mean?

There is right and there is wrong. I'd like to say that I am doing the right thing all the time. However, nothing is absolute.

Stealing is wrong. Everyone knows that. But what about a father with no money or health insurance stealing a bottle of life-saving medicine for his kid?

Corporations can copy each other, but they can be unethical as well.

If I "create" wedding dresses with the top half looking like Vera Wang and bottom half looking like Amsale, and put my own label on it and sell them, is that okay? How about just for my own use?

Big display of moral relativism here.

Back to the original question. It's not answerable because there are multiple questions in the topic. (Hey, some people can feel comfortable being unethical!)

 

[Hest88]

Wait a minute...so now "jewelry has always been ripped off" is now a justification for us doing it as well?

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 5:58:31 PM Hest88 wrote:

Wait a minute...so now 'jewelry has always been ripped off' is now a justification for us doing it as well? ----------------

It certainly isn't something that should be a commentary about America *today*.

And, yes most things are derivative. Ripped off isn't a term I would use. But, it's human nature. But, then we live in a house (Architect designed

) that incorporated verbetum our molding in our period house. Where does one really draw the line? Again, I deal with this on a regular basis. And, one artist I collect reissued (at a significantly lower trading price) a few of his designs. While they are his, they aren't in context with today's history. So, does that make it a reproduction? Yes, in my book.

And, people have short memories. One could make an argument that all these "Pucci" fabrics I see today is a rip-off.

My point is this has been going on for a long long time. Very few cases are so cut & dry. IMHO, can't be judged on a wholesale level.

But, I don't know if situational ethics is what I'm talking about. More about the reality of the situation.

 

[JHeebner]

Yeah, but most here are searching for e-rings. And, I really find most to be deriviative.

Designers will always have people copying them. I take issue that one poster seems to feel that this is all of sudden a morality issue in America today.
----------------[/quote]



You're free to feel as you like, but I accomplished what I set out do today: see how you people feel about knockoffs, and see what you know about the topic.

Stealing has always been a morality issue--all over the world--but I care not about what you "take issue" with.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 6:09:48 PM JHeebner wrote:



Yeah, but most here are searching for e-rings. And, I really find most to be deriviative.

Designers will always have people copying them. I take issue that one poster seems to feel that this is all of sudden a morality issue in America today.
----------------

You're free to feel as you like, but I accomplished what I set out do today: see how you people feel about knockoffs, and see what you know about the topic.

Stealing has always been a morality issue--all over the world--but I care not about what you 'take issue' with.

----------------[/quote]


Well then, maybe I should clarify my issue "you care not about" - as it's important to me. As an American, I take issue with this problem being addressed as an *American Morality* commentary on the state of our nation today. It's nothing new. And, shouldn't be politicized. But, then that particular poster agreed with your position on "copies".

So, it's clear that if one doesn't agree with your viewpoint totally, one's opinion doesn't matter. Even, if the opinion is based on a well versed history of jewelry styles.

You never defined "copy". And, unless it is a clear violation of a copyright, I don't think one can.

 

[noobie]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 6:09:48 PM JHeebner wrote:







You're free to feel as you like, but I accomplished what I set out do today: see how you people feel about knockoffs, and see what you know about the topic.

Stealing has always been a morality issue--all over the world--but I care not about what you 'take issue' with.

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

This is a very strong inference on a topic that has not been well defined. Where is the line between inspiration and infringment? I'm not even talking about whether or not having a replica made is ethical. Inferring that people who have done that are "stealing" as a blanket statement is inappropriate.

 

[JHeebner]

On some earlier page, "copies" were discussed. And I pretty much stated what you said on some of your string on this page: "the exact same scene, use the exact same technique & IMHO, even go as far as signing it - before I would cry "stealing intellectual property".

But swiping at another b/c the person introduced a thought-provoking poll? That's not nice. Heck, this poll is a good thing. Look at this series of conversations! Isn't that what this site is all about? Discussions, trade and consumers talking, learing, exchanging ideas?

I don't know what your politicism is all about, honestly, I don't care about that, I'm just here for work--reading everybody's opinions to better understand what consumers think.

 

[JHeebner]

Fire&Ice, I also understand your references about Tacori and Pucci, and what you do with your designs in your job, but I don't see those things as knockoffs. That is what I call inpiration. I gave a more clear-cut explanation on an earlier page in this string, involing Tiffany's six-prong setting.

 

[Greg]

For your research, you might want to post a similar question on an artists' message board. They will have a better understanding of the "inspired by" vs. "theft" issue. It could be a neat contrast of perspectives to those on a diamond consumers' forum.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 6:37:47 PM JHeebner wrote:

Fire&Ice, I also understand your references about Tacori and Pucci, and what you do with your designs in your job, but I don't see those things as knockoffs. That is what I call inpiration. I gave a more clear-cut explanation on an earlier page in this string, involing Tiffany's six-prong setting.----------------

Well, we are going have to agree to disagree. Because -I don't think Tacori or the Pucci type knockoffs are inspiration. They are copies of a previous design. Statue of limitations on recycling ( no legal def. here)or inspiration? Fine line.

I draw the line at "fakes". But, the definition of "copies" is a fine one and a slippery slope.

And, this should not be a political disscusion on American morality as suggested in a post. That was my issue.

 

[noobie]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 6:37:47 PM JHeebner wrote:





Fire&Ice, I also understand your references about Tacori and Pucci, and what you do with your designs in your job, but I don't see those things as knockoffs. That is what I call inpiration. I gave a more clear-cut explanation on an earlier page in this string, involing Tiffany's six-prong setting.
----------------

Jennifer, just for clarification. Suppose I looked at 20 designer settings and didn't like any of them. I then went to a custom jeweler and had them make me something that was very similar, but not exactly the same, say shank thickness or width, rounding of a knife edge, single prong versus double prong. I do that so that I get exactly what I want, is that stealing? You know doing this may even cost me more than the original piece.

I'll leave you with another thought for your research. Obviously the trade is concerned about this or they wouldn't have such strong feelings about it. But instead of trying to decide whether or not consumers are criminals why don't you focus on why they are doing it and how the trade can increase the value of their designs and serve consumers better. Learn from the music industry. Don't stick your head in the sand and say "you're wrong, you're wrong, you should stop" Figure how to meet their needs better. Let's face it, the bottom line is money. Who gets it and who has to pay and how much.

I'm not saying I condone it or I object to it. This is a free market economy and if the paying consumers, which are your lifeblood, don't see value in your offer, they are going find other ways to meet their needs. Aside from the ethical debate, this reminds me somewhat of the B&M stores objection to online diamond sales.

 

[Dancing Fire]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 1:07:22 PM starfire wrote:

So it is ok to ignore intellectual property rights if you feel like it. But it is not ok to ignore intellectual property rights if it is your own?

Sounds like hypocrisy and unethical to me. Seems to me like if Microsoft wants to find software pirates and the like, you guys are the kind of people to go for.

I certainly hope that those of you who are in favour of ripping off someone else's copyrights are not the general rule in this forum. To me, people who rip off copyrights are no better than pirates.

I had thought that Americans in general take a high moral stand on intellectual property. Perhaps I was mistaken. Then again, Abu Ghraib and Guantanemo showed the world the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, so why not intellectual property.

If you like something, don't be too cheap to pay for it.

Sorry, but I have to take a stand somewhere.

Stephen Tan
Charlotte Atelier ----------------

stephen,

i'm surprised this is coming out of your mouth. one of the reasons i am anti-china (and you are pro china)is that they never heard of intellectual property rights. they sell anything that is copied there and think nothing of it.

 

[Superidealist]

When I saw the subject of this thread, I knew there would be fireworks. This is one of my hot button issues so I'll try to restrain myself.

It's not ethical, I would not do it, and I have refused to do business with vendors who have offered this "service". If you can't afford it, punish the manufacturer by not buying it but please don't steal it.

To those who say there is nothing new under the sun, Juan Lozano (of van-Graff), a sixth generation jeweler, offered to prove this to me by producing "at least ten identical models" of prior designs for a specific setting I showed him. It's been almost two and a half years since he made that promise and he has yet come up with a single one. [link]

 

[mzeta]

Here's my 2cents. If you truly love a design, I would suggest saving for the real thing. How satisfying is it owning a fake anyway? It's so tacky buying it and trying to pass it off for the geniune article. It's very hard to create beautiful designs. Give credit to the designers for their great work.

 

[starfire]

Hi vtigger86,

Sorry I don't get your point. I am against intellectual property infringement, not for.

By the way, I am not pro-China in all issues. It is just that China is too complex a country to simply use generalizations and sweeping statements that you used in another post. (And which you are doing now)

In anycase, China is in the midst of building up their judiciary and legislative infra-structure as I understand it.

Try not to let your prejudice do the talking here. My view about China does not conflict with the view that any intellectual infringement is fundamentally, ethically and morally wrong.

----------------
On 7/15/2004 8:04:53 PM vtigger86 wrote:

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

stephen,

i'm surprised this is coming out of your mouth. one of the reasons i am anti-china (and you are pro china)is that they never heard of intellectual property rights. they sell anything that is copied there and think nothing of it. ----------------

 

[noobie]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 9:27:36 PM starfire wrote:





any intellectual infringement is fundamentally, ethically and morally wrong.

Can anybody give me an UNBIASED legal and practical view of infringement and some examples and cases?

 

[JHeebner]

"Jennifer, just for clarification. Suppose I looked at 20 designer settings and didn't like any of them. I then went to a custom jeweler and had them make me something that was very similar, but not exactly the same, say shank thickness or width, rounding of a knife edge, single prong versus double prong. I do that so that I get exactly what I want, is that stealing?"


No, not stealing or knocking off. You were *inspired*, the word of the day.

"But instead of trying to decide whether or not consumers are criminals why don't you focus on why they are doing it and how the trade can increase the value of their designs and serve consumers better. ... Don't stick your head in the sand and say 'you're wrong, you're wrong, you should stop' Figure how to meet their needs better. Let's face it, the bottom line is money. Who gets it and who has to pay and how much".

My point here is not to finger anyone as a criminal, I am on an exploratory mission here, collecting opinions on a topic. Anyone who knocksoff a design does so to get what they want for less, right? Well, folks, people are in business to make money, and if you don't want to pay for the original ... there is no other way to serve consumer better on THIS particular rant. You want X design, jeweler has it, you don't want to pay the money ... ???

B&M stores objection to online diamond sales.
----------------[/quote]


Enough for one day ... that's a whole 'nother day. I'm tired!