Vendors who don’t Copyright their designs

[yssie]

I was talking with Vatche at the Vatche booth several years ago at the JCK show. He had just come out with some very nice designs, including the Swan and two or three other very nice and unique designs.

Suddenly he stiffened and looked daggers at another vendor who was blatantly taking photos of his banners with the new designs on them.

The guy turned around and left fairly quickly. Vatche turned to me and told me that the guy was a huge design thief and he would see versions of his new designs on this guy's site within a few weeks.

It is an unpleasant part of the life and it is hard to even slow it down.

Wink

I'll go ahead and turn this story into one that's intimately and regrettably relevant on PS:

A long time ago a newcomer to PS posted about wanting a very specific setting. He posted vendor photos of the piece.
The setting was made by David Klass. It was a clone of an original design by Burdeen's. And by "clone" - I do mean clone.
The poster had no idea the piece was not a David Klass custom work - and was, if I recall correctly, quite horrified by the discovery.

I've never worked with Burdeen's and have no personal association with them or reason to feel protective of them. That situation made my blood boil. That Klass had stolen another vendor's custom creation and already robbed that vendor of monetary compensation and publicity that was rightfully theirs, and now... could so easily have continued to benefit from that theft, had that newcomer not decided to ask his question on PS, was... just completely, utterly beyond the pale.

That theft is "an unpleasant part of the life" does not mean it must become (or remain) the norm. It's ultimately up to consumers to decide what standards of morality and business practices are acceptable and vote with their wallets - and all businesses, those with inherent professional ethic and those without, will be forced to comply. At the very least... vendors and consumers should have the courtesy and common sense to not post clones of existent vendors' existent designs publicly, as DS said.

 

[bludiva]

I'll preface this by saying I am not on board with forgery or theft of intellectual property, but I think there's a big grey area between inspiration and theft. I see all kinds of artisans facing a modern dilemma with people photographing their work because it's hard to say if they are out to share it or steal it. To Wink's point it's a fact of life in any design-related business that ideas will be appropriated - the hope is they are used in a way that builds on the original.

What I see on these boards is people don't like to see a beloved designer's artistry taken advantage of. But no one seems to mind replicas of the Tiffany solitaire, Soleste, Winston halo, etc. No one seems to mind having a more skilled jeweler replicate and refine a design from a mall store or a less renowned jeweler.

Is it wrong to copy something that is branded but not unique? It would be wrong to me to replicate a Cartier love band but Cartier didn't come up with the trinity, that design is also called a Russian Ring for a reason and lots of jewelers sell them. VCA didn't come up with the clover motif, but they execute it in a specific way. Do they now own the idea of having a clover with onyx or mother of pearl in a piece of jewelry? Some of the designer settings are themselves replicas of antiques...does only the first company with the audacity get to copy it?

Was the jeweler who made my ring shady because I gave him sketches and pictures of what I like inspired by CVB and MC2? Does that jeweler have a right to be upset if someone sees my setting and copies it? (I think no and no.)

In the case of the CVB Dahlia vs DK version (I had to look up what the drama was about!) I agree you would ideally have the originator of the design make such a ring but where is the line? What if the creator didn't want to do it or was too busy or went out of business or was too far out of someone's price range...are you not allowed to have something similar? What's a good enough reason to have someone else make it? At the end of the day those two rings look different to me. What is different enough?

I think I've read before the advice of changing 20% of a design in order to avoid copying. Arbitrary number, but if anyone is going to the trouble of having something custom made there should easily be enough of the design that you want tailored to your own vision to make this a non-issue.

 

[HDer]

I'll go ahead and turn this story into one that's intimately and regrettably relevant on PS:

A long time ago a newcomer to PS posted about wanting a very specific setting. He posted vendor photos of the piece.
The setting was made by David Klass. It was a clone of an original design by Burdeen's. And by "clone" - I do mean clone.
The poster had no idea the piece was not a David Klass custom work - and was, if I recall correctly, quite horrified by the discovery.

I've never worked with Burdeen's and have no personal association with them or reason to feel protective of them. That situation made my blood boil. That Klass had stolen another vendor's custom creation and already robbed that vendor of monetary compensation and publicity that was rightfully theirs, and now... could so easily have continued to benefit from that theft, had that newcomer not decided to ask his question on PS, was... just completely, utterly beyond the pale.

That theft is "an unpleasant part of the life" does not mean it must become (or remain) the norm. It's ultimately up to consumers to decide what standards of morality and business practices are acceptable and vote with their wallets - and all businesses, those with inherent professional ethic and those without, will be forced to comply. At the very least... vendors and consumers should have the courtesy and common sense to not post clones of existent vendors' existent designs publicly, as DS said.

I had this sort of happen in our case. We saw a nice double halo "falling pave" setting on James Allen's website. Someone mentioned to me that hey a similar setting was on IDJ's Instagram. So I call up Yekeutiel, and he's says: actually the picture he posted was a Tiffany, specifically a Tiffany Soleste. We ended up going with James Allen's very similar setting over buying one from Tiffany for obvious reasons, but now I know what "inspired" James Allen.

I don't really view this kind of copying as a bad thing. You have to remember that copyright and patents, these monopolies the government grants, are artificial legal constructs. We aren't all paying royalties to the person who invented fire, or the person who built the first bridge, or forged the first knife, or for that matter, cut the first diamond. And that ability to take what others have built and copy it, modify it, make it better, is a big part of why we've made so much progress as a species. The current over a century copyright terms is what's unnatural, in my opinion, (even animals if you think about it, learn from others where the best food and water sources are) and slows down progress more than it encourages it.

So it might suck for someone like Vatche to see their designs copied immediately, but I'm also sure he makes a lot of money off his ability to sell the U-113. Similarly, the fact that H&M and Zara send people to the fashion shows to copy the best ideas may be frustrating for the designers but a great thing for ordinary shoppers. And I think this free exchange of ideas and designs on PS has been very instrumental in creating some amazing rings.

 

[soxfan]

I'll preface this by saying I am not on board with forgery or theft of intellectual property, but I think there's a big grey area between inspiration and theft. I see all kinds of artisans facing a modern dilemma with people photographing their work because it's hard to say if they are out to share it or steal it. To Wink's point it's a fact of life in any design-related business that ideas will be appropriated - the hope is they are used in a way that builds on the original.

What I see on these boards is people don't like to see a beloved designer's artistry taken advantage of. But no one seems to mind replicas of the Tiffany solitaire, Soleste, Winston halo, etc. No one seems to mind having a more skilled jeweler replicate and refine a design from a mall store or a less renowned jeweler.

Is it wrong to copy something that is branded but not unique? It would be wrong to me to replicate a Cartier love band but Cartier didn't come up with the trinity, that design is also called a Russian Ring for a reason and lots of jewelers sell them. VCA didn't come up with the clover motif, but they execute it in a specific way. Do they now own the idea of having a clover with onyx or mother of pearl in a piece of jewelry? Some of the designer settings are themselves replicas of antiques...does only the first company with the audacity get to copy it?

Was the jeweler who made my ring shady because I gave him sketches and pictures of what I like inspired by CVB and MC2? Does that jeweler have a right to be upset if someone sees my setting and copies it? (I think no and no.)

In the case of the CVB Dahlia vs DK version (I had to look up what the drama was about!) I agree you would ideally have the originator of the design make such a ring but where is the line? What if the creator didn't want to do it or was too busy or went out of business or was too far out of someone's price range...are you not allowed to have something similar? What's a good enough reason to have someone else make it? At the end of the day those two rings look different to me. What is different enough?

I think I've read before the advice of changing 20% of a design in order to avoid copying. Arbitrary number, but if anyone is going to the trouble of having something custom made there should easily be enough of the design that you want tailored to your own vision to make this a non-issue.

I don't remember the dahlia? Is there a thread here? I know he copied her chloe 100% down to every single detail. It wasn't as nice as hers, but it was copied 100%. It was posted on his IG, and he took it down when everyone gave him flack about it.

 

[soxfan]

I'll go ahead and turn this story into one that's intimately and regrettably relevant on PS:

A long time ago a newcomer to PS posted about wanting a very specific setting. He posted vendor photos of the piece.
The setting was made by David Klass. It was a clone of an original design by Burdeen's. And by "clone" - I do mean clone.
The poster had no idea the piece was not a David Klass custom work - and was, if I recall correctly, quite horrified by the discovery.

I've never worked with Burdeen's and have no personal association with them or reason to feel protective of them. That situation made my blood boil. That Klass had stolen another vendor's custom creation and already robbed that vendor of monetary compensation and publicity that was rightfully theirs, and now... could so easily have continued to benefit from that theft, had that newcomer not decided to ask his question on PS, was... just completely, utterly beyond the pale.

That theft is "an unpleasant part of the life" does not mean it must become (or remain) the norm. It's ultimately up to consumers to decide what standards of morality and business practices are acceptable and vote with their wallets - and all businesses, those with inherent professional ethic and those without, will be forced to comply. At the very least... vendors and consumers should have the courtesy and common sense to not post clones of existent vendors' existent designs publicly, as DS said.

I agree.

 

[bludiva]

oh i didn't know about that, i'm not sure which one the chloe is. i had seen a ring like the dahlia on his IG and a comment from another designer like "this looks familiar, " and figured that's what the drama was about. i think it looked similar but i wouldn't mistake it for cvb. can't find it now.

eta: found it....i think it's goldenfire's ring? it looks sufficiently different to me that i wouldn't call it a replica.

 

[soxfan]

oh i didn't know about that, i'm not sure which one the chloe is. i had seen a ring like the dahlia on his IG and a comment from another designer like "this looks familiar, " and figured that's what the drama was about. i think it looked similar but i wouldn't mistake it for cvb. can't find it now.

Oh ok! I get what you are saying. I never go on IG so I miss a lot!

 

[bludiva]

Oh ok! I get what you are saying. I never go on IG so I miss a lot!

IG = another time suck! i try to stay off of it!

 

[JPie]

I think it depends on the style in question. As others have pointed out, things like pave halo rings and six-prong solitaires are pretty common so I wouldn't think twice if someone had a ring modeled after the Tiffany Soleste or solitaire. On the other hand, Paloma Picasso does some very distinct pieces for Tiffany and I don't think it's cool to steal those designs.

At the end of the day it's a little subjective and really depends on how much you respect a designer's intellectual property.

 

[HDer]

oh i didn't know about that, i'm not sure which one the chloe is. i had seen a ring like the dahlia on his IG and a comment from another designer like "this looks familiar, " and figured that's what the drama was about. i think it looked similar but i wouldn't mistake it for cvb. can't find it now.

eta: found it....i think it's goldenfire's ring? it looks sufficiently different to me that i wouldn't call it a replica.

Love the comment! That does look very much like one of their designs.

 

[ccuheartnurse]

Where did the 20% rule come from? We use it a lot on PS & I thought was part of the US copyright regulations.

For me personally, I use DK, but I usually are well beyond the 20% change which I strive for at minimum. I’ve not come across a design I would 100% copy. I have 100’s of bling pics on my computer in various folders. I circle specific elements or make notions that I love which is the reason I’m saving that picture. But then, when I’m considering a new piece, I hit my references & puzzle my way to a design. I hope none of my stuff looks like an exact copy. This is probably not going to sound good but what a manufacturer does with their other clients doesn’t affect me.

 

[bludiva]

It's just some random number that keeps getting repeated but I agree with the spirit of it: take the inspiration and make it yours. If you're going to the trouble of custom, why wouldn't you?

 

[MollyMalone]

Here is some more explanation about what designs can be protected:
https://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html

There is a difference between the copyright for a photo, and the copyright or design patent for the design of an item. Most designs are very hard to copyright because they are "utilitarian."

psst... that Copyright Office paper does not address jewelry, which -- unlike apparel a/k/a fashion designs -- has never been deemed "utilitarian."

A good friend of mine heads up the intellectual property law department of a national law firm. Here's a relatively short, jewelry-related article for non-lawyers that she suggested I post here because she thinks it does a decent job of summarizing basics -- although it does not sufficiently emphasize that a copyright does not depend on registration with the US Copyright Office.
http://creativeartsadvocate.com/bling-it-on-copyright-the-rise-of-jewelry-infringement-lawsuits/

But Office registration (or at least a pending application) is a prerequisite to an effort to enforce your copyright rights via legal action for infringement.
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#411

 

[HDer]

psst... that Copyright Office paper does not address jewelry, which -- unlike apparel a/k/a fashion designs -- has never been deemed "utilitarian."

A good friend of mine heads up the intellectual property law department of a national law firm. Here's a relatively short, jewelry-related article for non-lawyers that she suggested I post here because she thinks it does a decent job of summarizing basics -- although it does not sufficiently emphasize that a copyright does not depend on registration with the US Copyright Office.
http://creativeartsadvocate.com/bling-it-on-copyright-the-rise-of-jewelry-infringement-lawsuits/

But Office registration (or at least a pending application) is a prerequisite to an effort to enforce your copyright rights via legal action for infringement.
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#411

The article you sent says that costume jewelry has been deemed to have no utility. I sort of buy that. What about precious jewelry?

 

[nala]

So is every jewelry supposed to know who the original designer of every ring is? Many designs, even CBV and VC, etc, all begin to look the same. CvB reminds me of Singlestone, actually, and VC of Harry Winston... I mean... really? Where do we start to nitpick.
As to these merchants missing out on the business. I doubt that the people who commission less expensive versions of their design would have spent their money with said merchants. Maybe said merchants can come up with a less luxurious line to accommodate all their lost customers. Kind of like Coach outlet handbags. Lol.
And I’m tired of the whole it’s ok to rip off Tiffany bc yaddah yadahh. But guess what? Tiffany made that setting famous! Yes they did. They spent millions to advertise it and feed it to us. Yet many of you think it’s ok to rip it off bc it’s not intellectual property, I suppose? But they are heavily invested. Sorry. Make up your mind. You can’t have it both ways. By your logic, Tiffany is missing out on thousands of customers whom many here send to Vatche, etc.

 

[the_mother_thing]

psst... that Copyright Office paper does not address jewelry, which -- unlike apparel a/k/a fashion designs -- has never been deemed "utilitarian."

A good friend of mine heads up the intellectual property law department of a national law firm. Here's a relatively short, jewelry-related article for non-lawyers that she suggested I post here because she thinks it does a decent job of summarizing basics -- although it does not sufficiently emphasize that a copyright does not depend on registration with the US Copyright Office.
http://creativeartsadvocate.com/bling-it-on-copyright-the-rise-of-jewelry-infringement-lawsuits/

But Office registration (or at least a pending application) is a prerequisite to an effort to enforce your copyright rights via legal action for infringement.
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#411

Good reads; thank you for posting.

I’m curious: would/can the client who commissions an ‘identical copy’ also be held liable, I wonder? Playing devils advocate, if a customer knowingly ‘drew’ up something based entirely on an existing/copyrighted design, and gave it to X,Y,Z bench to make, and that benchperson wasn’t aware of the existing design, that seems like it’d place them unfairly in the land of litigation, and there should be some repercussion for the commissioner of the item. Also, in this age of the internet and googling images for inspiration, if the average consumer stumbles upon a ring picwith no attribution as to it’s designer/originator, what are they to do?

I have mixed feelings on this topic because I don’t agree with outright theft of designs, but I also don’t agree with drawing some imaginary line between big or small owners of designs. To say it’s okay to rip off Tiffany, VCA, etc. but not the small biz/designer is almost like punishing the big companies for their success, and that doesn’t feel right to me either. So if it’s not okay for it to happen to the small shops, then the same rule should apply to the big shops. Yea, I know, big shops can afford big attorneys ... but they can do so for a reason - they worked hard for their success to achieve that protection. If you say “only the little guys should be able to sue”, then you might as well say “the people who cannot afford Tiffany & VCA should be allowed to have copies if they want.” I really don’t see any difference there.

The rules/laws should apply fairly & equally to all, not subjectively because one design appears ‘simple’ and another appears complex. Sometimes, the ‘simple’ is the most desireable and easy to replicate, but that doesn’t make it any more “okay” really, does it?

 

[yssie]

I have mixed feelings on this topic because I don’t agree with outright theft of designs, but I also don’t agree with drawing some imaginary line between big or small owners of designs. To say it’s okay to rip off Tiffany, VCA, etc. but not the small biz/designer is almost like punishing the big companies for their success, and that doesn’t feel right to me either. So if it’s not okay for it to happen to the small shops, then the same rule should apply to the big shops. Yea, I know, big shops can afford big attorneys ... but they can do so for a reason - they worked hard for their success to achieve that protection. If you say “only the little guys should be able to sue”, then you might as well say “the people who cannot afford Tiffany & VCA should be allowed to have copies if they want.” I really don’t see any difference there.

The rules/laws should apply fairly & equally to all, not subjectively because one design appears ‘simple’ and another appears complex. Sometimes, the ‘simple’ is the most desireable and easy to replicate, but that doesn’t make it any more “okay” really, does it?

Agreed: if you can't afford a particular original design from a given vendor... that does NOT make it okay to take that design to a cheaper bench and have it ripped off. It doesn't matter what size the original vendor is, or how popular, or how lawsuit-happy.
Theft is theft, and theft isn't ever a solution to a lower-than-permissive budget - in any facet of life.

I object to the "help me tweak my prongs so they look exactly like Tiffany's!!" threads and will not participate in them, aside from encouraging the OP to find alternate nuances of design that he/she enjoys.

 

[yssie]

So is every jewelry supposed to know who the original designer of every ring is? Many designs, even CBV and VC, etc, all begin to look the same. CvB reminds me of Singlestone, actually, and VC of Harry Winston... I mean... really? Where do we start to nitpick.

You don't think it's a vendor's responsibility to do due diligence to avoid copyright infringement and professional Stepping-On-Toes before committing to a client request?

I expect that an author will do due diligence to avoid plagiarism.
I expect that a manufacturer or R&D center will do due diligence to avoid patent infringement.
I expect that a jeweller will hold himself to that same standard of professional ethic.

It's awfully easy to "Google images" a photo... and in the majority of cases that search will yield a concrete originator within five more clicks these days. But it's certainly easier to say "hey, well, I dunno where this design came from, it didn't have a vendor logo, shrug".

And in the case of the vendor under primary scrutiny in this particular thread - the original designer's logo can be in client-provided photos, clear as day, and it makes absolutely no difference in his decision-making.

 

[soxfan]

You don't think it's a vendor's responsibility to do due diligence to avoid copyright infringement and professional Stepping-On-Toes before committing to a client request?

I expect that an author will do due diligence to avoid plagiarism.
I expect that a manufacturer or R&D center will do due diligence to avoid patent infringement.
I expect that a jeweller will hold himself to that same standard of professional ethic.

It's awfully easy to "Google images" a photo... and in the majority of cases that search will yield a concrete originator within five more clicks these days. But it's certainly easier to say "hey, well, I dunno where this design came from, it didn't have a vendor logo, shrug".

And in the case of the vendor under primary scrutiny in this particular thread - the original vendor's logo can be in client-provided photos, clear as day, and it makes absolutely no difference in his decision-making.

 

[nala]

You don't think it's a vendor's responsibility to do due diligence to avoid copyright infringement and professional Stepping-On-Toes before committing to a client request?

I expect that an author will do due diligence to avoid plagiarism.
I expect that a manufacturer or R&D center will do due diligence to avoid patent infringement.
I expect that a jeweller will hold himself to that same standard of professional ethic.

It's awfully easy to "Google images" a photo... and in the majority of cases that search will yield a concrete originator within five more clicks these days. But it's certainly easier to say "hey, well, I dunno where this design came from, it didn't have a vendor logo, shrug".

And in the case of the vendor under primary scrutiny in this particular thread - the original designer's logo can be in client-provided photos, clear as day, and it makes absolutely no difference in his decision-making.

Will google yield the original design? Bc that’s the part of my post that you conveniently did not address. Every ring these days evokes another. Especially when most designers these days are going after an antique or period inspired piece.

 

[yssie]

Will google yield the original design? Bc that’s the part of my post that you conveniently did not address. Every ring these days evokes another. Especially when most designers these days are going after an antique or period inspired piece.

I quote my own post:
It's awfully easy to "Google images" a photo... and in the majority of cases that search will yield a concrete originator within five more clicks these days.

Try it with ten pieces he's copied... and let me know how many you don't succeed with. My betting line is 8.5

 

[nala]

I quote my own post:
It's awfully easy to "Google images" a photo... and in the majority of cases that search will yield a concrete originator within five more clicks these days.

Try it with ten pieces he's copied... and let me know how many you don't succeed with. My betting line is 8.5.

Im sorry. I didn’t realize you were so triggered by one particular vendor. I’m out. I was just discussing for discussion’s sake.

 

[soxfan]

Im sorry. I didn’t realize you were so triggered by one particular vendor. I’m out. I was just discussing for discussion’s sake.

Someone is definitely triggered in this thread. But it’s not Yssie....

 

[MollyMalone]

The article you sent says that costume jewelry has been deemed to have no utility. I sort of buy that. What about precious jewelry?

Also considered to be decorative, not "utilitarian," according to my friend. She thinks that article she suggested I post here may have been geared to, e.g., craft show vendors who typically are not higher end jewelers.

You might find it this landmark 1980 decision from the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York -- Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories by Pearl, Inc. -- to be helpful in this regard:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1778794882377500420

 

[yssie]

@nala - I apologize, that was snarky. To back up to the more general discussion as requested -

1. I do think that a simple images search in many cases will yield a concrete original designer - people tend to use photos as-is, perhaps with a vendor logo cropped out. In cases where it doesn't, I feel more digging isn't just the responsible thing to do - it's necessary and non-optional.
2. If, after thorough investigation, it is not possible to explicitly identify an inspiration piece as either antique or deprecated, then the vendor's default should be "let's tweak this to suit your style and your stone(s) just to be on the safe side", not "okay, let's clone it".

All that investigation and fact-checking takes time, and time is money. And saying "no, I won't clone this piece for you" means possibly turning a customer away. To me - those are the costs of being a morally-upstanding businessperson.

Edit - I, too, am out. This thread is bad for my blood pressure.

 

[nala]

@nala - I apologize, that was snarky. To back up to the more general discussion as requested -

1. I do think that a simple images search in many cases will yield a concrete original designer - people tend to use photos as-is, perhaps with a vendor logo cropped out. In cases where it doesn't, I feel more digging isn't just the responsible thing to do - it's necessary and non-optional.
2. If, after thorough investigation, it is not possible to explicitly identify an inspiration piece as either antique or deprecated, then the vendor's default should be "let's tweak this to suit your style and your stone(s) just to be on the safe side", not "okay, let's clone it".

I appreciate your apology.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I had this sort of happen in our case. We saw a nice double halo "falling pave" setting on James Allen's website. Someone mentioned to me that hey a similar setting was on IDJ's Instagram. So I call up Yekeutiel, and he's says: actually the picture he posted was a Tiffany, specifically a Tiffany Soleste. We ended up going with James Allen's very similar setting over buying one from Tiffany for obvious reasons, but now I know what "inspired" James Allen.

Tiffany is certainly not the originator of the double halo, although they have done a good job with marketing their line. Here are some from the 1950's all the way back to Art Deco and Edwardian periods. The pave rings are newer, but I still would not call the Soleste design original to Tiffany. If I wanted a double halo, it wouldn't occur to me that I'd be copying Tiffany.

https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/rin...old-cut-cluster-ring-circa-1955/id-j_4708401/

https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/rings/cocktail-rings/opal-double-halo-diamond-gold-ring/id-j_735702/

https://jewelsbygrace.smugmug.com/V...e-Cusion-Cushion-Cut-Diamond-Double/i-7pnTNWB

https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/rin...amond-double-halo-cocktail-ring/id-j_4793033/

 

[the_mother_thing]

For clarity sake, with regard to my analogy, I was thinking more around if a person takes a pic of heir ring, and shares it online somewhere vs a vendor taking a pic. I honestly don’t know how google image searches work. Does it search for ‘that’ specific image, or a likeness of what appears in that image?

ETA: can someone please clarify if jewelry designs are intended - from a legal perspective - to be ‘utilitarian’? If so, how? How is jewelry classified as ‘useful’ from a legal perspective? And I;m not asking from one vantage point or another - just for clarity sake.

 

[Maisie]

After the comments made in my thread I accepted help to design something completely my own. I am grateful for all the help I received. I do feel better about the whole thing. The last thing I want to do is copy something directly (which has already been established that was never my intention). I’m super excited about my new ring. I’m glad I posted.

I wonder how many of the PS vendors have copied another persons design. Do they refuse? I would love to hear what vendors opinions are.

 

[Maisie]

An aside...
@Maisie - I wasn't aware of the context for this question so I went through your recent threads - the impetus is easy to find. @the_mother_thing was spot on when she iterated that your intentions were - are - quite clearly to take inspiration and avoid creating a replica, and that is both acknowledged and appreciated by your fellow consumers!! You're a class act. But we already knew that.

Aww thank you so much!