rant on plagerism

Bill Burke

Bill Burke

Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Messages
1,762
So I know there has been several discussions on here about makers who copy someone else's designs or idea and then claims it as their own. No one seems to think it is ethical or even alright. Most makers, when asked will freely give permission for another to use design features or even outright copy their own work. If I see something that someone does that I like and want to use I try to find the originator and ask permission to use this feature on my own work. There are many thing in knife making that have been done or are being done that it is common place. in this case it is accepted that it is ok for anyone to do so and is an accepted practice.

My rant is about others who make Damascus Ie... a specific pattern that someone else developed that was not made a lot or not well known and claim it as a new pattern or a new variation.

this has recently happened to me. now I am not saying that no one can use this pattern or even make it. I don't even care if I am given credit for making it or not It does irritate me that someone else is trying to claim it.

So sound off what does everyone think Am I off my rocker or do I have a right to be a bit irritated by this.
 
I wonder if you could trademark a Damascus pattern as your own?

-Ron
 
It comes down to the differences between ethical, moral, and legal. They all have different standards.
 
If you have some cause to think it's more than a coincidence, then I agree, it's kind of a scummy way for a person to operate.
Gee, now I'm curious what the 'mascus looks like...
 
You are not off your rocker. If this happened to me, I'd raise an eyebrow. Although, within the last years, copies of items (all manner of things) are being duplicated en masse. Fakes abound and the copyright lawyers are booked to the hilt. In this information society, almost anyone can have access to photos, details, material composition etc. And in truth, Eustace Budgell chimed in on this topic back in October of 1714...'Imitation is a kind of artless flattery'. Of course, he had spent scant time over any type of anvil. I doubt seriously that he'd ever seen any form of Damascus. Before the advent of the internet, scores of knife makers had no idea what others were making unless they had witnessed the process in person.

Last year I stumbled on what I thought was a Bowie knife in San Mai by Cold steel. I should have been alerted by the price to that fact that I was getting a swiftly made facsimile. Also found a fake Fallkniven two weeks ago that was sitting in a pawn shop. The owner had no idea that the knife was an imposter of the worst ilk. When I alerted him he was shocked and semi-thankful. Even Mission Knives have suffered from this bizarre and irritating malady that infects the trusting buyer searching for a deal.

Some pawn shop owners are knife experts, some not. When I showed him your online query, he seemed a bit perplexed. What is to say that someone from a long forgotten era had already made a Damascus pattern that we now deem 'current' in 2015? Food for thought.
 
My personal opinion is that I think those of us crazy enough to make knives knows that there is not likely any new shape or pattern of knife or damascus that hasn't been made at some point in the last 3000+ years by some smith, culture or random hobbyist. Any claim contrary to that is just chalked up as an advertising gimmick in my book.

The only exception would be something outlandish or for artistic purposes like fiber optic cables in a handle connected to LEDs, a chainsaw sword or a mechanical 3 pronged klingon knife, because in most cases they are using technology that hasn't been available for thousands of years. The gun knife is another good example.

All that said I think one can blatantly copy a complete knife. And I think that is a different discussion altogether.

Just my two cents.

For the record the only new idea I care about is a working light saber :D
 
Almost all of what we do is derivative in some way. You can't help that with maybe up to 4000 years of making tools out of iron and its alloys without even talking about bronze/copper!! :D However, I can see the issue with a specify damascus pattern or design feature that a maker is known for. You are correct about most folks being willing to let you take a crack at it. How guys have done damascus using the "Ferry Flip" method or gotten the okay from Jimmy Fikes to riff on his Jungle Honey design? Making knives "in the style of" is pretty common and considered okay by many. Taking something specific and claiming as your own with no permission or even attribution? Not so cool.
 
Last edited:
You aren't successful until the Chinese have copied one of your items! :rolleyes:
 
I think I saw the pattern you are talking about and I dont think I saw anyone claiming they invented it. I remember when Bruce Bump, appeared to accidentally discover the pattern in one of his wips as well. Who do we all credit for ladder pattern or Turkish twist, or raindrop? There is nothing new under the sun and i would not let it bother you too much. Unless someone is trying to pass of their work as your actual work, there is not really much to be done and even then with the case of Chinese forgeries, it hard to stop.
 
I remember that case where a fellow had posted a cropped photo of a Nick Wheeler's hamon and claimed it as his own.



That's pretty clear cut plagerism and he got a virtual but kicking for that.


pattern welded patterns, that's pretty hard to claim or prove as unique.
 
Well it isn't the Chinese but a maker with a company in Thailand. But they do it too many others as well. They have copied many of my folders and for quite some time now are even using the same individual's Damascus I was . What to do? I have long ago moved on. I still on occasion come up with a new pattern in the styling I use and never hesitate to go with it not caring in the least if it be copied or not. To help me get over any upset on this I freely will give out hard patterns to those who ask for them. And yes, my patterns do reflect the work of others. How can that not happen?
Frank
 
I must chime in with jdm61 that much of what we do is derivative of what comes before - if not intentionally then because it is a natural progression of an earlier style.

I too believe I know the particular pattern being discussed and please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that South East Asian sword smiths have been creating blades with feather patterns for centuries, and when this pattern is ALSO made for a sword (keris) that has curves (luk) then the resulting pattern is essentially the same structure as the "serpentine" feather pattern under question, and hence has been around for a long time.

Variants of these pamors (patterning of the damascus) on these blades is often referred to as "Ron Pakis", "Blarak Ngirid" or "Ron Genduru" and is often translated into English as "chicken feather" or "fern leaf" pattern, Googling images of the above phrases will show examples of what I mean - be sure to view these patterns on the blades that have the serpentine curves.

I am curious if those of you who "created" this pattern did it independently of these historical examples? I could very well see how this could be the case, it being a quite natural progression from the regular feather pattern - or did you just consider this new to modern Western damascus patterns?

- Shiroshi
 
Mr. Burke, Could we see a photo of the Damascus pattern you forged? I am just curious now that you commented on the problem. Is it possible that the other fellow happened on the pattern while forging away with no knowledge of your pattern? Certainly no one could approve of copying another's work without the mention that it was copied but maybe it was an innocent mistake. Thank you, Larry Lehman
 
I'm fairly new to this forum so forgive my ignorance, but after reading everyone's comments, it would seem to me that it is ok to copy someone else's pattern/design simply because it would automatically be a copy itself (or some part of it) of some other blade that has been made in the last 3000 years. In other words, there is no pure "new" design out there, everything is an evolution of something else, yes or no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top