Copying other makers designs

lmbhami

lmbhami

Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
351
I recently read an article in Blade about the the knives Gil Hibben designed and made for a new movie called The Expendables.


They talk about Gil Hibbens Old west Bowie and they picture the United reproduction of it.

Anyone can see that it is a copy of the Musso Bowie and nothing more. But yet there is no mention of Musso anywhere.


Which raised a question in my mind.

Why do some makers catch a lot of grief for reproducing other makers designs but yet other makers get praise


For example there are many makers who make thier living reproducing Loveless style knives and get nothing but praise

Look at the Blackjack line of knives they are based on Randall knives right down to the model #s

I am not looking for a morals argument on whether it is right or wrong.

Just why there seems to be a double standard.
 
That Expendables bowie is also very, very similar to a model Atlanta Cutlery used to sell (and probably still does). I think it was Hibben's idea to make it out of 420j2 and draw on the handle.
 
Good question. I hope this goes somewhere. Usually, I think a lot of it has to do with people's opinions of certain companies (not including foreign knock-offs). Nothing more, nothing less. Just my opinion.
 
The Musso Bowie is a design thats 150 yrs old.It's been reproduced hundreds of times in some variation.Mr. Hibben i assume was called on to build a antique style bad azz Bowie for the movie and that's what he did.Who is the maker you say he's copying?Jim Bowie?
 
Most of these makers know each other or at least have met each other and the vast majority will ask if they can use an original design and the vast majority of the time the answer is yes and the original designer will actually open their shop or answer questions. I have seen that happen time and time again and many more times than not over a span of 20 + years watching and learning. There are a lot of folks that do not like Gil's knives, but he certainly does not have to copy anyone. I consider him one of the more creative and giving makers I have met.

Best to be sure about the facts first. As far as companies, it just depends upon the sense of right and wrong in some cases.

There are too many makers/companies who exhibit ethics I admire for me to consider work from those that exhibit lower ethical standards no matter what the law says. YMMV and that is a decision each of us needs to make, but when some one says that there is "nothing wrong with copying without permission" I tend to not think very highly of those opinions.
 
It seems like people accept copies of classic/traditional designs a lot more readily than more modern designs. I am interested to see where this topic takes us as well.
 
There is a big difference between a well known maker or production company coming up with a knife that some may feel blurs the lines between innovation and copying. When a company like Benchmade uses a Spyderhole or Black Jack knives reproduces Randall customs there may be something in the background that we, as the consumer, are not privy too. As a whole, the knife community is a pretty tight knit group of people. While there are rifts that occur and sometimes bridges are burned, it still remains a relatively friendly and tight community. Makers share thoughts, information, designs, innovations, and they spread out there knowledge where they can. This is what makes us respect these people that create these things that we all love so much, whether it be the hottest custom maker at the time or a well liked production company. You go to shows and you can see these different makers talking, laughing, and showing off eachother's steel to the others. It's all comradery.

Then you have the other side of the coin when some company decides to rip off designs, plain and simple. No permission, no contracts, not even a handshake. These companies use others' creative ideas and just copy them. Some go so far as not only stealing another's creative ideas, but then market it under the same name and sometimes are even making complete forgeries. Examples of this can be found with the flood of fake Microtechs, Kershaws, Spydercos, and fixed blade CRK knives that are all over the internet. You also have companies like San Ren Mu that decides they just feel like using the Axis lock system in their knives and even call it an Axis Lock!! Unacceptable.

Like I said, there are huge differences between these two sides of the coin.
 
The Musso Bowie is a design thats 150 yrs old.It's been reproduced hundreds of times in some variation.Mr. Hibben i assume was called on to build a antique style bad azz Bowie for the movie and that's what he did.Who is the maker you say he's copying?Jim Bowie?
In response to the above

According to the article the movie knife is a variation of the Old West Bowie he did for United cutlery. The only difference is the handle material and it has an emblem scrim'd on it.

I know this knife has been reproduced over the years by numerous knife makers.

My arguement is that in 90% or more of the reproductions I have seen it is refered to as the Musso Bowie or based on the Musso Bowie.

In this case no credit is given when it is nothing more than a copy of an existing design that has been around for years.
 
I have no issues with other makers reproducing other makers work. Like Tony stated above " When a company like Benchmade uses a Spyderhole or Black Jack knives reproduces Randall customs there may be something in the background that we, as the consumer, are not privy too. As a whole, the knife community is a pretty tight knit group of people. While there are rifts that occur and sometimes bridges are burned, it still remains a relatively friendly and tight community. Makers share thoughts, information, designs, innovations, and they spread out there knowledge where they can. This is what makes us respect these people that create these things that we all love so much, whether it be the hottest custom maker at the time or a well liked production company. "

My question is why some makers seem to get flack for doing so and others do not.
OR
Are some makers just above being commented on?
 
Most knives are based on previous designs. There is nothing wrong with that. It makes no sense to reinvent the wheel each time a new knife goes in to production. I’m sure the first production Bowie Knife was at the very least inspired by previous models.

A homage to a classic design that is over 50 years old, also makes sense. Often no one remembers the original designer and the consumer should not be denied access to tried and proven concepts.

A copy of a modern design is something else entirely.

If a person or a company spends time and money to come up with a truly original design, it is wrong to copy that design without permission.

Not only is the company that steals the design profiting from the inventiveness and hard work from somebody else without paying for both, they may actually devalue the original design.

If design X by company A (a 100 dollar knife) becomes associated with 10 dollar copies by companies B to Z, the brand image of company A is going to suffer.

It’s also a possible deception of the consumer, if the copy is inferior to the original.

To answer the original question: it really depends on the particular circumstances.

Rafael
 
lmbhami said:
The Musso Bowie is a design thats 150 yrs old.It's been reproduced hundreds of times in some variation.Mr. Hibben i assume was called on to build a antique style bad azz Bowie for the movie and that's what he did.Who is the maker you say he's copying?Jim Bowie?
In response to the above

According to the article the movie knife is a variation of the Old West Bowie he did for United cutlery. The only difference is the handle material and it has an emblem scrim'd on it.

I know this knife has been reproduced over the years by numerous knife makers.

My arguement is that in 90% or more of the reproductions I have seen it is refered to as the Musso Bowie or based on the Musso Bowie.

In this case no credit is given when it is nothing more than a copy of an existing design that has been around for years.
Click to expand...

OK,I didnt read the article,but i am not sure you realize who Musso is.He is a collector /historian who once owned a Bowie knife much like the one discussed.This knife was said to be a knife once owned and designed by Jim Bowie.Musso didnt design it,build it,or anything else.That's why i said if Gil stole anybodys design it would be that of Jim Bowie and he died down here in Texas a few years ago.(hats off,bowed heads)Besides that it looks an awful lot like many late 18th century Bowies ive seen in museums and pictures.
 
lmbhami said:
My question is why some makers seem to get flack for doing so and others do not.
OR
Are some makers just above being commented on?
Click to expand...

Which makers are receiving flack for copying designs and which are not? I need a name of a person or a company. No one is above anything, but without some kind of example I have no idea which makers your are talking about.
 
Alright, Tony, I'll bite. I've been watching this thread w/a lot of interest, b/c I agree w/the OP.

Only one example is Lynn Thompson and Cold Steel. Recently, he was accused here of ripping off Ernie Emerson's flipper and putting it on the Ti-Lite. IMO, here are the relevant facts, as viewed by some:

-Ernie Emerson is by all accounts a great guy who makes excellent knives
-EE d/n market aggressively
-Emerson knives is not a huge company
-LT, at least in his ads, has a personality that rubs some the wrong way
-CS markets aggressively
-Cold Steel is a comparatively larger company
-The flipper on the Ti-Lite looks similar to the Emerson wave.

Looking at ONLY those facts, LT was in the eyes of a few people unethical, immoral and thieving.

To me, here's the additional facts, and the truth:
-CS's catalog gives credit to other designers, over and over again, including Phil Boguszewski for the Ti-Lite design, and even going so far as to credit the designer who came up with the locking mechanism Andrew Demko developed and built-on to create the Tri-Ad lock.
-The Ti-Lite is designed to look like a traditional switchblade, and doesn't look even remotely like Ernie Emerson's designs, either custom or production.
-Emerson's wave knives are more up-market than the CS Ti-Lite, which would also tend to eliminate cross-shopping.

Can anyone show that Emerson knives has lost so much as a single sale to the Ti-Lite? Considering the same facts, what is the motive for CS to both ripoff the "wave" and not credit EE?

On another forum, I've also seen similar accusations about the CS Sisu. It's simply impossible to give credit for all the design features of all CS's knives.

CS is only one example, but I do think there's a bias based on personalities/companies when it comes to knife feature ripoff accusations. Similar design features are just gonna appear, w/o any intent to be unethical, steal or ripoff somebody.

Alright. I know I'm gonna catch it for defending Darth Thompson and the evil empire. Flame suit on.
 
I know that recently not sure if on this forum or another am maker by the lat name Reece.

I do knot know this maker and just heard of him on that thread. nor I am giving an opion on wheter I think its right or wrong.
 
I love the Loveless style drop point hunter. If it weren't for those who copy the design, I would never be able to afford one.
 
dobervol said:
Only one example is Lynn Thompson and Cold Steel. Recently, he was accused here of ripping off Ernie Emerson's flipper and putting it on the Ti-Lite. ...

...
-Emerson knives is not a huge company
-Cold Steel is a comparatively larger company
...
Click to expand...

Based on the facts that you mention, Cold Steel should pay Emerson Knives some money. A business deal should be worked out. Maybe it has.

For me it boils down to this:

Companies should invest in innovation, not just copy designs by other companies.

Companies that invest in innovation should get a financial reward if other companies copy their designs.

A copy should not devalue the original design, unless there is an agreement that makes both parties happy.

Consumers should get the right information, so they understand the differences between product A and B.
 
lmbhami said:
The Musso Bowie is a design thats 150 yrs old.It's been reproduced hundreds of times in some variation.Mr. Hibben i assume was called on to build a antique style bad azz Bowie for the movie and that's what he did.Who is the maker you say he's copying?Jim Bowie?
In response to the above

According to the article the movie knife is a variation of the Old West Bowie he did for United cutlery. The only difference is the handle material and it has an emblem scrim'd on it.

I know this knife has been reproduced over the years by numerous knife makers.

My arguement is that in 90% or more of the reproductions I have seen it is refered to as the Musso Bowie or based on the Musso Bowie.

In this case no credit is given when it is nothing more than a copy of an existing design that has been around for years.
Click to expand...


Find a copy of Harold Peterson's 1958 book "American Knives" and check out what is on the cover. Most Bowie knife experts consider that style of knife a modern fantasy piece despite what Musso's physic may have told him.
 
A knife, in and of itself, in pretty much all its forms, is one of the most ancient and unoriginal tools in the human toolbox. There truly is nothing new under the sun. For example, assisted opening is nothing but a "marketing ploy" to some, and to anyone is really just a ripoff of full auto. I'm a knife nut, just like all of us, but I do think knife people tend to magnify any and every tiny little difference as if it's some huge "innovation."

If someone "should pay EK some $$," then it's Phil B's design, so he gets off scott free in your example, w/CS to pay all the damages? Just an example of the bias the OP and I are talking about.

Second, you have every right to talk about what you think "should" be the case, but the law requires you to PROVE those damages, if you want to win a lawsuit. You have to prove you properly patented your design, and then that you were harmed in the marketplace in the form of lost sales and/or as you put it, "devalue the original design". Where's your evidence a flipper on a Ti-Lite devalues a more upscale, completely different knife w/the Emerson Wave? If that's true, every $5.00 gas station knife that's pointy and can fold and cut someone devalues a Sebenza, because they're at least somewhat alike in that regard and the Sebbie came first.

Finally, how has the consumer been misled? A Ti-Lite is a completely different knife, from a different designer and different company at a completely different price point, but like the Emerson and a bazillion other knives out there today, it has a flipper. Who is going to be misled into buying a Ti-Lite when they would have bought an Emerson instead?

I still respectfully maintain that it's simply impossible to market any knife today and not have copied about 50 people's different designs in one way, shape, form or fashion, from CS to BM to Spydie to Kershaw and every smaller company in between. There's not enough room in any knife catalog to give credit to everyone whose designs were "borrowed from".

Don't get me wrong; I understand that ethical obligations go above and beyond the law's requirements, but I still think that if a smaller company with a likeable owner puts a similar design characteristic to a larger company's knife on one of theirs, the small company is more likely to get a pass than a large company, especially one that markets aggressively, if the reverse were true, thus the double standard.

JMO, ;)

RafaelHerschel said:
Based on the facts that you mention, Cold Steel should pay Emerson Knives some money. A business deal should be worked out. Maybe it has.

For me it boils down to this:

Companies should invest in innovation, not just copy designs by other companies.

Companies that invest in innovation should get a financial reward if other companies copy their designs.

A copy should not devalue the original design, unless there is an agreement that makes both parties happy.

Consumers should get the right information, so they understand the differences between product A and B.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top