Imitation is...

[Lorien]

I think this thread is being misunderstood. Its not about influence of design its about direct copies of a particular work. At least I think thats what Lorien is talking about.

Jon, you are right on the money. It surprises me that some posts have reflected an absolute misunderstanding of the topic, even though I tried to make it very clear. Clear as mud, to some, I guess

 

[Lorien]

wtf double post

 

[brownshoe]

...Now, to get to the point of this thread...

A knife being offered by this online cutlery purveyor that I like to visit, (made by Dewayne Chancellor), is a spitting image of Don's unique folder design.

It could be that a client of his provided the design without him knowing it was stolen, it could be that the purveyor is also unfamiliar with Don's design. In either case, whomever commissioned the knife did so without permission and is as culpable as either the purveyor or the knife maker had they prior knowledge of Don's pattern. Really, just bad form all around...

What's the misunderstanding? You made a value judgement "bad form". Copying is a long tradition for the human race. There are whole cultures that believe in sharing where patents have no place. Outside of a western orientated capitalistic system, many human value systems place great worth on sharing and copying. Why not copy something that works and is pretty? The subject knife is certainly not an exact copy. As were the other examples. I'll bet the copies don't even feel like the original.

IIRC some of the makers on this forum started out by making direct copies of other's knives and production knives. The greatest knife makers say "come on copy my designs" because they have a deeper understanding of what is important.

 

[Lorien]

There is one significant error in your post, Mr.(what's your actual name?). The subject knife is very clearly as exact a copy as the maker could do, and the knife is for sale on a prominent custom knife purveyor's site. I suppose my tone could be construed to be a little harsh, but I feel that it was well supported by the point of view of the man whose design was trespassed upon, who I asked before starting this thread how he felt about it.

When it comes to capitalism, patents and intellectual property are the fuel for the engine. The engine that powers our ability to have this conversation, among other things.

It would be instructive to look into the exploits of Emerson and Busse to see how carefully monitored intellectual property is, and how tenaciously it's protected.

But those are well capitalized companies with the means by which to protect their intellectual property. They even pale in comparison to the larger production companies who are even more protective of their patents and property.

Don Hanson III likely doesn't have the budget to protect his intellectual property in court, so I suppose it's perfectly fine to steal from him since there are no consequences...oh wait- there are consequences! Like this thread for example.

If you can't understand that, there is nothing more I can tell you to help you get it.

 

[chuxwan]

I don't see an issue unless they are trying to trick people into thinking it is Don's blade, or stating that they designed the knife from scratch. I think the title of the thread references a saying which is a true fact.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It really is.
As someone whose work is being copied, you can choose to become upset or you can choose to be flattered.
If I get offended, I inevitably later realize that I was letting my ego get the best of me. It's better to just keep on going being true to yourself.

 

[Kevin Jones]

Being influenced by another maker's work or adapting another's style can be a positive thing. One example would be the tremendous positive impact that Loveless designs have had on not only stockremoval knives but custom knives in general.
However, there's never a legitimate reason or excuse for one artist or craftsman to attempt to make a direct copy of another's work.

 

[North]

Lorien,
You called attention to the copy, but did you mention who the maker is that produced it, and also who the purveyor is? Perhaps you did and I missed it.
Thanks,
Bill

 

[Lorien]

ahhh...I can only do so much.

 

[The Amazing Virginian]

Being influenced by another maker's work or adapting another's style can be a positive thing. One example would be the tremendous positive impact that Loveless designs have had on not only stockremoval knives but custom knives in general.
However, there's never a legitimate reason or excuse for one artist or craftsman to attempt to make a direct copy of another's work.

What is the difference between the dozens or more knifemakers who make "direct" copies of New York Specials, Junior Bears, Archer Chutes, Stiff Horns . . . and whatever it is that you are talking about when you reference "one artist or craftsman to attempt to make a direct copy of another's work?"

TIA.

 

[Don Hanson III]

I was more surprised than 'upset' when Lorien first showed me the copy. Wondering why someone would want to make such a copy, even down to the smallest details. Then got to looking at the faux damascus. Now it's just kind of funny to me.

I have shared many patterns with other makers, including 'my' old sunfish pattern. I even let one maker trace around a few of my finished knives with pencil & paper at a show. I don't mind sharing and have borrowed aspects of other makers work. Have a few of Tony Bose's patterns that he graciously offered.

I would never copy another maker's design, but if I did I would sure ask first... When I share a pattern or design, all I ask is take what you like of mine and make it your own.

 

[Kevin Jones]

What is the difference between the dozens or more knifemakers who make "direct" copies of New York Specials, Junior Bears, Archer Chutes, Stiff Horns . . . and whatever it is that you are talking about when you reference "one artist or craftsman to attempt to make a direct copy of another's work?"

TIA.

Read it again and perhaps you can figure it out.

 

[The Amazing Virginian]

Read it again and perhaps you can figure it out.

Thanks for the smartass "answer." Then again, I would expect nothing more.

 

[North]

I apologize, Lorien. I see now that you did name the maker. I don’t know how I missed it!

Bill

 

[chuxwan]

Don, I wasn't trying to imply that you were upset. It can only be funny

 

[Don Hanson III]

Don, I wasn't trying to imply that you were upset. It can only be funny

Thanks man!

 

[Mecha]

I just want to know if Ka-Bar is gonna sue me if I make a "ka-barr" for my friend :[

 

[The Amazing Virginian]

IMO, it would be more productive if one of you folks who seem to have a problem with some of the knives posted here would define the parameters of what constitutes "unacceptable" copying of a design that no one cared enough about to obtain a design patent for . . .

We could start here . . .

 

[AVigil]

Probably should start with another example since Bob freely encouraged people to make his designs and gave away his patterns and techniques.

 

[The Amazing Virginian]

Probably should start with another example since Bob freely encouraged people to make his designs and gave away his patterns and techniques.

On the contrary, I think that is the perfect place to start defining the the parameters of what constitutes "unacceptable" copying of a design.

You seem to believe that this lies outside the parameters of what constitutes "unacceptable" copying of a design. Probably most folks here would agree.

Why? Did Loveless specifically authorize or approve of these particular folks making his design? Is that required? Or did he make a public pronouncement inviting anyone to use his designs? I don't know - maybe you do. And if he did, does that then define the boundary: can't use a knife design without a dedication to the public by the original designer.

Or is just giving credit to whoever's design you are imitating "good enough?" And what if it is a knife that is never intended to be publicly shown - then how would you even do that?

And how close does it have to be before it is unacceptable? ALL of these knives include various combinations of elements of earlier knives made by others. How close does it have to be to something else before it is unacceptable?

One could take the position that knifemaking is like any other business in this world, and if you don't want folks copying what you have designed, you need to legally protect it or STFU. In one of my many former lives I used to design two-way radios for Motorola. They had folks on staff who did NOTHING but purchase and dissect radios made by their competitors to see what ideas were incorporated and which ones they could "borrow." And I can assure you that all of their competitors did the same thing. Pretty common (or at least used to be) in electronics. Probably cars, too. It is not like knifemakers have never obtained patents on their designs. We know that they have. Why should someone who went to the trouble and expense to do that be in the same position as someone who did not care or think it was valuable enough for them to do that with their own designs?

Sorry, we do not live in a black and white world, and I do not see this issue as being as "black and white" as some of you seem to think it is.

 

[Shaw Blades]

Good point. I do know that people I have talked to that make direct Loveless and Herron knives from patterns don't share the patterns they have (ironic).

It should come down to at least showing respect and asking permission.