-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
.
- Thread starter stbob
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 3,215
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 3,215
According to some yes, according to others no.
According to the law something can only be stolen if you actually own it.
According to the law something can only be stolen if you actually own it.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 29,050
It is that simple.
(Asked in earnest) Is it that simple?
Is the shape of a knife handle or blade (a CRK for this conversation) unique enough that it is/can copyrighted?
Can the materials used be copyrighted?
Is the framelock protected as only to be used by CRK?
This all has an effect on whether a sterile clone of a knife is "stealing".
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 29,050
It is that simple. Good people know what is right and what is wrong. Simple.
If the clone in question is intended to fool people into believing it's an actual CRK knife, then yes, it's stealing. This is true regardless of whether the knife is well-made or not. The fact is, it's not what it pretends to be.
A knife may have similar features, and may even be inspired by the Sebenza; but if it is NOT intended to fool anyone by passing as a Sebenza (example: Bradley Alias), then no, it's not stealing. Just because a knife is a titanium frame lock with some general similarities to a Sebenza doesn't make it stealing from CRK.
But anyone should be able to see that the Sebenza clone's purpose is not so benign as to merely give those who can't (or won't) afford the real thing a chance to own one cheaply. Its reason for being is parasitic.
Jim
Many good people also own Buck 110 knives and Schrade Bear Paw knives, which are visually very similar.
Many good people own Rolex Submariners and Invicta diver watches, which are visually very similar.
There are many hollow-handled survival knives that look strikingly like the Lile(?) Rambo knife. They get praise on this forum for what great knives they are, with no bashing of the fact that they are blatant copies.
Pepsi makes a cola that (according to some blind testing) can't be distinguished from Coke. Both companies prosper greatly.
Some Reeve knives use a frame lock, which is really no different than the liner lock that was invented by someone else (both concepts of which are in use in a multitude of knives today).
Is a good person one who doesn't copy a design? If that's the case, there are a ton of bad people out there that the members of this forum are supporting, and probably quite a few members themselves that are "bad" as they are producing their own knives which emulate or even clone designs that have been around far longer than any of us.
I'm not supporting passing off clones as real, but I think the whole concept under discussion here is not nearly as simple as some would think.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 29,050
Those are indeed a quote of my words.
You know what is right and wrong.
Which side do my examples fall on, right or wrong?
AusLoX: Your input on any discussion may be regarded much better if you avoided the use of crayons altogether. Most people give them up around age 8. Most 8-year-olds are unable to provide any good input to an adult conversation.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 29,050
If you don't know that a sterile clone of a knife is wrong then I don't think there is much for us to discuss. Good luck to you.
Who is in the right and who is in the wrong with the examples below?
What about a non-sterile copy/clone of a knife that has no legal protections?
Not trolling you, just adding what I think are valid points to a discussion (debate?).
If you feel you can't answer and just want to stick with your gut feelings, I'm fine with that and accept continued comments from anyone else.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 3,215
A clone trying to pass off itself as not a clone isn't a clone, it's a fake.
bodog
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,097
Just for discussion's sake, would you mind it if it looked like a Sebenza in every way except had a different maker's mark on it? He brought up a good point. The AR rifle style is almost exactly the same design just different makers with different manufacturing tolerances and prices. Same with the 1911 and buck 110 design. What about facial tissues? Or toilet paper? A bunch if companies making pretty much the exact same thing in the same way with essentially the same materials. Would it be OK to copy the design if they didn't mark it with the CRK logo?
AusLoX
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2015
- Messages
- 2,980
Oh well.... I was following with mild interest this thread hoping to get some real tech data regarding the materials and quality of the real knife VS the clone... and all we get after soooooo many posts, is just a few lines stating that the "tech" (whoever he/she is) doesn't want to face legal isues... How could he face any legal issues if you just post the results omitting who did the testing? This is a real bummer...
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 3,215
Well it's tricky. I don't feel it's completely right. And if I were to purchase something that looked like a sebenza...I'd want it to be a sebenza.
At the same time. From a legal standpoint people are allowed to do just that.
We have more copiers than just Xerox yet, everyone talks about a xerox when they mean a copier.
We have more tissue brands than Kleenex, yet in the folkmouth a tissue is a kleenex.
Even though there are copies out there, the premium value of the real thing is established.
There are more brands than just coke. Yet when you want a GOOD coke you get one from the Coca-Cola company.
But like I said...if I can I'll buy the original every time.