Vendors who don’t Copyright their designs

[MollyMalone]

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? * * *

Doing a reverse GoogleImages search will first tell you if-where Google has found that specific photographic image elsewhere in its database. It will also will retrieve photos of items that it perceives as similar in appearance to the item depicted in the photo that's the basis of your reverse search. You can also "tweak" the reverse Search box by typing in words that serve as one or more filters.to the Similar images. Here's a screen shot of my initial results of doing search using the first pic in @tlfiore 's initiating post in this thread -- and after typing Edwardian in Search box to see if that proved helpful to finding another pic like the one she posted:

But the foregoing will probably make more sense if you play around with this Google feature yourself

 

[MollyMalone]

* * * 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.

Copyright law does not consider jewelry to be a useful article; rather, it falls into the broad category of "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural work." The US Copyright Office has explanatory summaries of Works of the Visual Arts and Useful Articles on page 2 of this 2015 publication:
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf
Hope this helps

 

[the_mother_thing]

Thanks so much @MollyMalone but how do you get the image into google to search? I really need a for dummies tutorial on this. My reason for asking, I have a ring that I found an image of in a random jewelry search a couple years ago. The picture link led me to a completed eBay sale with no maker or hallmark information, but I saved the image to my iPad. I tried to find the maker to no avail. Here is the only image I have of the ring: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/show-me-your-french-cut-moissanite-please.242857/. I clicked ‘copy’ and pasted the image details from PS into Google, and got no responses, but maybe I did it wrong.

I don’t want an ‘exact copy’; rather, I just love the swoopy kite bezel details. This particular ring is likely not an antique, and I’ve seen similar details replicated by MANY designers, but if this ring IS protected by an active copyright of some sort, I have no way of knowing. And I don’t think it matters so much since I’d be changing a lot of the elements of it to include the shoulders, gallery and stone types if I had it recreated. But it highlights an example for the purposes of this thread that ‘hit home’ to me. And if there IS a way to find its maker, I’d love to do that because I might see if they are still in business and can replicate those exact kite bezels but with changes to the rest of the ring.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Thanks so much @MollyMalone but how do you get the image into google to search? I really need a for dummies tutorial on this. My reason for asking, I have a ring that I found an image of in a random jewelry search a couple years ago. The picture link led me to a completed eBay sale with no maker or hallmark information, but I saved the image to my iPad. I tried to find the maker to no avail. Here is the only image I have of the ring: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/show-me-your-french-cut-moissanite-please.242857/. I clicked ‘copy’ and pasted the image details from PS into Google, and got no responses, but maybe I did it wrong.

I don’t want an ‘exact copy’; rather, I just love the swoopy kite bezel details. This particular ring is likely not an antique, and I’ve seen similar details replicated by MANY designers, but if this ring IS protected by an active copyright of some sort, I have no way of knowing. And I don’t think it matters so much since I’d be changing a lot of the elements of it to include the shoulders, gallery and stone types if I had it recreated. But it highlights an example for the purposes of this thread that ‘hit home’ to me. And if there IS a way to find its maker, I’d love to do that because I might see if they are still in business and can replicate those exact kite bezels but with changes to the rest of the ring.

When you are on the google search page, look up in the upper right hand corner and click on "Images". That takes you to the search page for images and you can upload your photo.

 

[LLJsmom]

I don't have any problems with people copying ring designs for the reasons listed above. Probably the number one reason designs are copied is to get the same thing for a lower price. But the truth is that unless you go with the original designer, it is likely that your copy won't be exactly like the original anyway. You really do get what you pay for in most cases. Having a copy made is a gamble. If somebody wants to take that gamble, it's on them to be satisfied with the outcome. Some copies are successful but many are not. I understand that designers are not happy about this situation and I can understand their frustration, but I believe their best defense is to create an excellent, consistent product. Jewelry is a luxury good and there is room for multiple price points based on quality.

For me, I have always come to this conclusion in my own projects. Many years ago I fell in love with a very non-blingy Singlestone setting but it was just more than I wanted to pay. I really wanted to create something in the similar spirit but I knew that ONLY SS could create that antique-y smushy feeling of that setting that I just loved. No other vendor could do it, cast or hand forged. No series of pictures or words could convey the feeling of that setting. So I never even went that direction. If I ever wanted it done I would need to go back to SS. Because a true replica is not even possible. So for someone as anal as me, a replica is not a true replica because it will not capture the feel, the heft, the fine details, the perfection of one made my the original designer. However this may apply only to certain pieces. Tiffany or Cartier replicas May be easier to “copy”. In fact, I still wouldn’t copy them because I think even those designs can be improved upon. And since you are going custom why not make it better? Set lower? Finer prongs? More refined shank?

 

[MollyMalone]

Thanks so much @MollyMalone but how do you get the image into google to search? I really need a for dummies tutorial on this. * * *

If you use Google Chrome as your browser, all you have to do is right-click on your photo & choose Search Google for Image (well, that's the prompt for me, a Mac user, so what you see may be somewhat different). No need to copy-paste or drag photo file into search box

 

[HDer]

Copyright law does not consider jewelry to be a useful article; rather, it falls into the broad category of "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural work." The US Copyright Office has explanatory summaries of Works of the Visual Arts and Useful Articles on page 2 of this 2015 publication:
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf
Hope this helps

I have a hard time believing that the type of jewelry we are talking about: a precious jewelry mount for attaching a precious stone to a ring does not have any utility. Also the cases you cite generally have a much higher level of uniqueness or originality than what we see with ring mounts.

However if you're right and some company does get an enforceable copyright on a popular design then we will be in a brave new world as that will grant them a monopoly for almost a century. And even the 20% rule won't help people because derivative works are covered under copyright law.

Maybe it's time for jewelers to start investing in some copyleft designs.

 

[rockysalamander]

Copyright law is one of the more difficult and murky aspects of US law -- I don't know for other countries. In the US, there is a historical tension where the courts vacillate between jewelry as "useful objects" vs. "artwork" -- which then switches them between cannot and can be copyright protected. But, many cases have shown that just because you make it -- it may not be sufficient to be original and warrant copyright protection if the combination of all elements were not sufficiently original (see Herbert Resenthal Jewelry Corp. v Kalpakian, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/509/64/222704/).

There are a lot of design elements and whole designs that are old enough to be "fair use". There are many designs that the holder of the copyright simply has no wish/funding/desire to fight the copyright violation unless it is being copied at a large, commercially important scale...especially if that ends up competing with the designer. Also, many of the large, commercially important violations are from overseas companies which leave the holder in a very difficult enforcement position even if they wanted to enforce that design. So, there is an erosion of traditional copyright/trademark/patent by the international nature of our times.

For a consumer, I think we have to be respectful of designers. They make a living in this field that we love and there are real innovators in this field. However, having been involved in jewelery design for decades, many of the design elements seen to create a "look" by many designers often seen here on PS are simply not new or even new in their execution. They are all very vintage/antique based designs. Even Verragio and Tacori, who have a trade-mark "look", started those designs from vintage and antique designs. Their design innovation was really the double-shank and mixed metal...which needed process-innovation to occur first...and they now fight to protect the look of the whole. There are many innovators out there making very unique pieces, but those tend to be under the "modern" or "contemporary" heading that is not frequently seen here on PS. Even some of the settings with loads of colored stones in strong arrangements are, fundamentally, using established colored schemes and very simple settings.

These same issues are being faced in many industries with the quick and high-quality distribution of images online. Its a whole new world for many designers and the courts and law tend to lag decades behind reality. Derivative works have sparked wild-fires in multiple artistic fields and are much more difficult that actual copies to figure out the line between infringement and not. There simply is no international "design book" you can refer to and see if something has already been copy-written at some point in history by someone in some country. So, there will always be some risk of inadvertent infringement. A classic fight is really when a design (say a tiffany solitaire) is used in another fields that are commercially important. So, a rug designer take a picture of a Tiffany solitaire (let's assume they own both the ring and images) and uses it to make a tiled design for industrial carpet in office buildings.

Is it ok to copy a ring from one of the big jewelry houses such as Tiffany or Cartier? Why is this different to having a replica made of a smaller designer such as CVB or Victor Canera?

It may or may not be different in a specific design. I would argue that several of the big houses' designs have been around long enough and have already been copied at an industrial scale to really fall within "fair use." But, there are some designs that are totally unique in all their elements. The tension sometimes comes in that you love some element (think of the Cartier screw-head) but they don't make the specific thing you want. But, the emotional part of this is that those companies are not perceived as people. The smaller designers we all know are people making a living in this field. We know their names, kids, hobbies, etc. If feels more personal when their livelihood is at issue. Personally, my comfort is based on the unique nature of the item or design. Also, when we recommend a mall-store design be duplicated -- I know that we will make sufficient changes that will keep the overall aesthetic but make it better and more thus push further from the original design. I also personally feel several of the big, popular design houses have fallen very short in the quality of the product they used to produce and are living on their reputation.

Would you copy a design with no qualms whatsoever? If not, do you care if someone else does?

No and maybe. (but I also doubt anyone will tell the truth to this one if they would, its like asking "do you lie" ). There are many designs that I love that I feel are totally unique and I would not copy or help someone do so. That said, there are designs that I love that I would copy as I feel they are either "fair use" or simply not unique enough. I'm sure HW feels they innovated the halo as we know think of it, but its been copied so many times by so many people that its lost its unique nature. I think there are several PS members who have a clear/bright ethical line and walk the walk, so to say. I have total respect for that, as well. In the end, there is a legal line and a personal ethical line.

Does it make you angry to see a replica ring? Is this because you’ve worked with a designer and feel protective over them?

See above. I think this is human nature. I don't see many people fighting to protect Scott Simon or Jeff Cooper designs, but we feel protective of those we know personally.

 

[MollyMalone]

I have a hard time believing that the type of jewelry we are talking about: a precious jewelry mount for attaching a precious stone to a ring does not have any utility. * * *

Well, Congress and the Copyright Office haven't made "any utility" [emphasis added] the litmus test for "useful article," outside the scope of possible copyright protections. But hey, if you'd like to continue to argue that "any utility" is indeed the determinant, I'll show myself to the door. I argue for a living; it's rarely my idea of giddy, after-hours recreational fun.

As an informational aside to @rockysalamander 's observation about how

many of the large, commercially important violations are from overseas companies which leave the holder in a very difficult enforcement position

one might say the U.S. was "dragged into" enacting the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act by the European Union. By virtue of a 1993 EU Directive, member countries were expected to extend copyright protection for the life of the creator plus 70 years. Moreover, member countries are to apply "the rule of shorter terms" to the copyrights of countries outside the EU. Consequently,

"[f]ailure on the part of the United States to provide equal protection for works in the United States will result in a loss for American creators and [our] economy of the benefits of 20 years of international copyright protection that they might otherwise have."​

1996 Senate Report 104-315, p. 7.
https://www.congress.gov/104/crpt/srpt315/CRPT-104srpt315.pdf

 

[the_mother_thing]

I downloaded Chrome to my iPad and tried searching for that image ... nada (I looked through the results as well).

 

[rockysalamander]

As an informational aside to @rockysalamander 's observation about how

one might say the U.S. was "dragged into" enacting the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act by the European Union. By virtue of a 1993 EU Directive, member countries were expected to extend copyright protection for the life of the creator plus 70 years. Moreover, member countries are to apply "the rule of shorter terms" to the copyrights of countries outside the EU. Consequently,

"[f]ailure on the part of the United States to provide equal protection for works in the United States will result in a loss for American creators and [our] economy of the benefits of 20 years of international copyright protection that they might otherwise have."​

1996 Senate Report 104-315, p. 7.
https://www.congress.gov/104/crpt/srpt315/CRPT-104srpt315.pdf[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, China and India seem to be the source of most direct copies that I've seen...so outside the EU. Bummer that....

Interesting article from 2008, so a bit dated but still useful.
https://saperlaw.com/2008/09/18/“designer”-jewelry-vs-“inspired-by”-jewelry-intellectual-property-infringement-and-unfair-competition-considerations/

 

[rockysalamander]

I downloaded Chrome to my iPad and tried searching for that image ... nada (I looked through the results as well).

Reverse search is really only useful if the original image has the correct source information and or is named in a unique way. For example, my mom found a building detail she liked. I lost several hours of my life looking for the source as the image she found was on Pinterest and that image from from an image hosting service. So, I could only track to the image host...never the designer. I always try it, but I'm not surprised when I hit a brick wall. My online search 'fu' fails at times...

 

[HDer]

Well, Congress and the Copyright Office haven't made "any utility" [emphasis added] the litmus test for "useful article," outside the scope of possible copyright protections. But hey, if you'd like to continue to argue that "any utility" is indeed the determinant, I'll show myself to the door. I argue for a living; it's rarely my idea of giddy, after-hours recreational fun.

I did a little more research, and what can I say? When you're right you're right. Will be interesting if one of the big houses decides to launch a bunch of lawsuits. Lots of money for your friends is what I would guess.

 

[bludiva]

I downloaded Chrome to my iPad and tried searching for that image ... nada (I looked through the results as well).

reverse image search usually brings up a bunch of random things in a similar color/pattern. i wouldn't count on it for anything. it can pull up other instances of the same image from various sites, like if something is on pinterest and you're trying to find out where it was reposted from.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I appreciate the suggestions/directions on the google search. I’ve long given up hope of finding who made that 3-stone ring, given it was a random eBay listing, so if/when I do have something similiar made I’ll just figure out who best might be able to execute it and go that route.

 

[rockysalamander]

One thing that has no been mentioned is our use of images from online sources relative to copyright. I know *I* often fail to link to the original source or mention the owner by name and I certainly don't check that every image to see if there is a copyright warning allowing re-using or derivative work (i.e., using the images we all mash together; draw on; or otherwise alter). Those photographs are the creative work of the owner of the image -- regardless of the content is public or fair-use. Of the many elements discussed, this is probably our most common copyright infringement of us PS members. As we are not using them for our own commercial gain, even if our use impact the commercial output of the owner, I suspect we won't have much complaint...especially as image owners struggle with the reality of digital media and mass-distribution of images.

 

[Rfisher]

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.

Not to drag this out further-
And not necessarily looking for answer from the quoted poster- but to anyone who knows.
But the mentioned Burdeen's ring is I assume is Haven's ring.
Is Schubach's scroll ring a copy of havens original? Is Schubachs as a jeweler a partner of Burdeens in any way?
I have in no way done any reasearch on which came first, I'm just assuming the reverence given to Havens ring would elude to hers is the original.
I'm just curious because I see Schubachs scroll ring mentioned on PS and ultimately no one eludes to it being a copy like DK's versions are.

 

[yssie]

Since you quoted my post and I got the alert - if you read through Haven’s SMTB thread and follow any links (you’ll likely need to look at Google cache pages as I’m sure some links are now dead), and correlate post timing with posts in the alternate PS threads linked on Pg 1 of this thread, you’ll discover that yes, Haven’s is the original of this design, and yes, all other vendors offering “custom” copies of it are simply that - copies.

Edit - I personally will not be replying in his thread any longer, just a heads up here.

 

[mellowyellowgirl]

I've been guilty to sending a pic of a ring I like on the net and getting it made to look like that.

If you are a lazy person who has no inclination or ability to analyse CADs etc how would one go about getting a nice ring that one likes without sending a googled pic and saying "Can you make me one exactly like this?"

This thread has given me a lot of think about. For custom pieces I have in the past just sent a pic and said "Can you make it exactly like this but with different prongs" or something in that vein without thinking much about it.

That said I have pulled random pics of pretty generic designs so I haven't copied one of the small designers (to my knowledge). Hehe it helps that I have very common tastes so all the fancy schmancy rings with the intricate details are totally lost on me