Why is it okay to clone a traditional, but not clone a modern knife?

[Londinium Armoury]

Just a simple question, I'm not talking about counterfeits and stealing brand names, like reverse engineering an exact copy of a popular knife and then printing that makers name on it and trying to sell it as a fake branded copy.
I'm talking about a blade shape, handle design and look-a-like without that makers name being used.
As somebody who is very interested in antique swords and knives and has handled quite a few blades from the 1800's-1900's etc I see modern makers copying traditional designs all the time and nobody says anything.
Tons of classic models from Sheffield in the 1800's are copied today by lots of modern knife makers, and nobody calls them out for "Copying" a knife design, it's allowed because it's traditional and paying "homage" is accepted, same with swords.
In fact it's actually the "Done thing" within historical sword reproduction market and collectors circles, everybody wants an "Exact replica" of a specific historical model, and if it isn't copied 100% accurately people complain.
Same goes for traditional slipjoints in the modern knife factories, most of them are exact copies of historical models from sheffield or other cutlers in the UK dating back to the Georgian, Victorian or Edwardian periods etc sometimes even earlier from the 1700's.
You try and copy a sebenza though or a PM2 and everybody will be up in arms, even if none of the design features are patents, the mere act of copying the blade shape is sometimes enough to have the community up in arms.
So what is it, a time lapse thing? in 200 years would it be okay to copy the Sebenza, is it just too soon to copy that knife? do we have to wait until everybody who designed it is dead before we are allowed to make copies of it.
I'd like to hear why it's okay to clone traditionals, and how long exactly does it take for it to become okay to do.
Same goes for locks, even when a lock patent has expired people still say "That's Benchmades Axis lock" and scoff at a maker for using it. But Everybody uses Michael Walkers liner lock, and Chris Reeve intergral (frame lock) and nobody cares.

 

[tltt]

Time and interaction with the makers, also being on a hobbyist board. Time is definitely a thing, for instance, Randall and Loveless have been knocked off for years, but the designs are older and were copied pre-internet, so it's considered ok by many. Also, there is a lot more interaction with individual makers now. It's a lot harder to rip off Spyderco when you're internet buddies with Sal Glasser. The disconnect isn't there. You are now hurting a real person rather than a faceless big company.

Also you're more cognizant of it because you're on a hobbyist board. Does the average guy not into knives really care if they buy a Ganzo or a Spyderco? probably not.

 

[Londinium Armoury]

Time and interaction with the makers, also being on a hobbyist board. Time is definitely a thing, for instance, Randall and Loveless have been knocked off for years, but the designs are older and were copied pre-internet, so it's considered ok by many. Also, there is a lot more interaction with individual makers now. It's a lot harder to rip off Spyderco when you're internet buddies with Sal Glasser. The disconnect isn't there. You are now hurting a real person rather than a faceless big company.

Also you're more cognizant of it because you're on a hobbyist board. Does the average guy not into knives really care if they buy a Ganzo or a Spyderco? probably not.

Those were my thoughts on it as well, I was just online shopping for some antique folding knives, mostly from the 1800's, I found some very nice ones for a good price as well, it's actually amazing what you can get for under 200 on the antique folding knife market.
I came across many knives and noticed there are 2 kinds of traditionals that no factories "clone" for lack of a better word, and I found it interesting that all of the modern traditional factories copy all of the jigged antler, stag and bone type of traditional slipjoints. They are everywhere, the common sheffield style of bone handled, wood handled and stag handled knives are some of the most cloned trad slippies in history.
But nobody copies the Georgian and Victorian mother of pearl fruit knife style slipjoints, the ornate fancy period pieces used to cut fruit. I always thought those were the most attractive knives of that time period. I just found a lovely one in mint condition from the early 1800's and I'm thinking to buy it. It's strange how all of the most basic ordinary plain styles have been copied by almost every knife factory that makes traditionals. But yet the best looking ones with the most interesting unique styles, nobody bothers copying those ones, they usually have immaculately intricate file worked spines as well, with beautiful mother of pearl scales and shaped bolsters, real works of art. But no knife company tried to reproduce those ones, they all just copy the jigged stag and bone sheffield working knives.

 

[Houlahound]

Probs because the makers of the traditional have long past and can not challenge you in court but say an Andrew Demko can.

 

[Houlahound]

Does the average guy not into knives really care if they buy a Ganzo or a Spyderco? probably not.

Ganzo and Spyderco are equally meaningless words and can both be replaced by the word Jztxytrmshep with no loss to the average guy's knowledge or willingness to purchase.

The average guy will just purchase the knife that cost less dollars.

 

[Londinium Armoury]

Probs because the makers of the traditional have long past and can not challenge you in court but say an Andrew Demko can.

Can you even patent a blade shape or handle shape of a knife? doesn't a patent have to include a name and or unique design function rather than just look like something. Because if a skateboard maker copies another skateboard design, aren't they both just skateboards. Like a butter knife, can you really patent a butter knife shape, and challenge another butterknife maker for cloning your butterknife design?
Demko can only patent the name of his product, and his lock function, not really his knife shape and style.
I mean aren't all of Demkos knives just drop point blades with sabre grinds (or 90% of them) He borrowed those designs from old makers anyway.

 

[Houlahound]

"Demko can only patent the name of his product, and his lock function, not really his knife shape and style."


You said clone, that would include lock function or it would not be a clone.

 

[Londinium Armoury]

"Demko can only patent the name of his product, and his lock function, not really his knife shape and style."


You said clone, that would include lock function of it would not be a clone.

So then all of the Ganzo "clones" wouldn't be clones in your opinion then since they have different locks than the originals.
Most knife collectors call the Ganzo PM2 lookalike a PM2 clone, but as far as I know it doesn't have a compression lock.

 

[Londinium Armoury]

Doesn't the Tri-ad lock patent expire in 4-5 years? is it open season on Demkos lock in a few years then, how long do you have to wait until after the patent runs out before people stop calling you a filthy cloner for using it lol.
I remember when the Axis lock patent expired, people were still insulting other makers for using it a year after it ended.
But those same people didn't bat an eye at people using Michael Walkers liner lock, they probably forgot who invented the liner lock.

 

[lieferung]

It's a very interesting topic, I never thought about it like this. Reminds me of how Disney lobbied to have copyright law rewritten so they could hold onto the rights to Mickey Mouse. I think the older knife patterns are from a time where intellectual property was not so heavily guarded. That doesn't stop anyone from cloning or copying anyone else but the discouragement is there.

 

[Londinium Armoury]

It's a very interesting topic, I never thought about it like this. Reminds me of how Disney lobbied to have copyright law rewritten so they could hold onto the rights to Mickey Mouse. I think the older knife patterns are from a time where intellectual property was not so heavily guarded. That doesn't stop anyone from cloning or copying anyone else but the discouragement is there.

I think it's a generational thing as well, you know if you are actively aware of a new design being put out by somebody and then a few years later you see another person copy that design, because the originator is fresh in your memory you take offense to it because you saw the original and come to know it as unique to the person you saw bring it out.
That's why I make the Benchmade Axis lock mechanism comparison to the Michael walker liner lock. Michael walker designed that lock when I was either just being born or a very small child. So I never saw that in my collecting time as "His lock" but maybe some older collectors remember Michael releasing the liner lock with the first knife model. They might have experienced a similar thing when the next few people begun to use his lock. "Hey that's Michaels lock"
The same way newer generations see makers using Benchmades Axis lock, "Hey that's Benchmades thing, you cant use that"
None of us were alive when traditional slipjoints were first designed so we see them as "Public domain knife designs"
Maybe the first ever traditional slipjoint maker and his towns folk saw another guy in the next town over copy the original "slipjoint" and it could have been seen as an inferior knock off to their towns folk. "that's just a copy of Mr Bakers slipjoint, it will never be as good as an original Baker knife"

 

[Billy The Hungry]

Wow, this is a great thread. I'm enjoying it very much. I'm glad to see something like this can be discussed without people getting heated, too.

I confess, I never gave it much thought as to why it's ok to copy a slipjoint pattern. You made me think!

 

[Londinium Armoury]

Wow, this is a great thread. I'm enjoying it very much. I'm glad to see something like this can be discussed without people getting heated, too.

I confess, I never gave it much thought as to why it's ok to copy a slipjoint pattern. You made me think!

I would think we can all discuss this in a civil way without it turning into knife wars attack of the clones 3, for the record I don't own any knife clones myself, only originals, I don't buy counterfeit knives either, all from authorized dealers.
I think it's an interesting subject, especially when you compare the reproduction sword market to the knife collectors market, it's night and day. Sword guys WANT the very best cloned copy of an old famous model. copied down to every single facet.
I think it's possible future generation may in fact request popular folding knife models from our time be copied by later generation custom knife makers.
It could have something to do with discontinuation and rarity as well. Imagine in 300 years time, when all of the original Sebenza 21's are either rusted away or in very few collections, none in working condition. A custom maker might get people coming to him saying "Can you make me an exact replica of a CRK Sebenza 21?"
Then the custom maker will try his best to reproduce a 21 for the customer.

 

[Ruari]

It's a number of factors I think.
1. Immediate availability. Clones or copies of knives currently in production, or elements thereof, can be seen as IP theft. Knives that are no longer commercially made by the original maker/s - well, someone has seen a market and thinks they can bring it back. The older it is, the less fuss.
2. Recency. Making a homage knife takes something that was once popular or well designed, but is no longer made. So a new version (materials) is made which brings back an older design. This doesn't 'hurt' any current maker because it's not breaking anyone's rice bowl.
3. Marketing. Are they marketing it as a 'Spidercho PM2'? Taking the identity and trading on the established name? Or is it just a very closely influenced, new name? Not excusing a different name that trades on an existing, current design looks, but you can have several makers trying to make either 'authentic' or improved knives (USN MK2 springs to mind...).
When it's something that is being tried to be passed off as an original antique, that's plain fake/fraud.
4. Manufacturers take. Look at Randall - they quite openly go through the knife making process for their 1-7 on their website and pretty clearly say 'have at it - we know what it takes to make one of these, you are welcome to try...' (thinking Bark River and Blackjack copies of the 1-7).

 

[Londinium Armoury]

It's a number of factors I think.
1. Immediate availability. Clones or copies of knives currently in production, or elements thereof, can be seen as IP theft. Knives that are no longer commercially made by the original maker/s - well, someone has seen a market and thinks they can bring it back. The older it is, the less fuss.
2. Recency. Making a homage knife takes something that was once popular or well designed, but is no longer made. So a new version (materials) is made which brings back an older design. This doesn't 'hurt' any current maker because it's not breaking anyone's rice bowl.
3. Marketing. Are they marketing it as a 'Spidercho PM2'? Taking the identity and trading on the established name? Or is it just a very closely influenced, new name? Not excusing a different name that trades on an existing, current design looks, but you can have several makers trying to make either 'authentic' or improved knives (USN MK2 springs to mind...).
When it's something that is being tried to be passed off as an original antique, that's plain fake/fraud.
4. Manufacturers take. Look at Randall - they quite openly go through the knife making process for their 1-7 on their website and pretty clearly say 'have at it - we know what it takes to make one of these, you are welcome to try...' (thinking Bark River and Blackjack copies of the 1-7).

You make some good points, similar to my own train of thought.
I found something interesting just now while looking around for antique slipjoints. I came across a pair of vintage/antique knives dating back to the 1960's and they look exactly like a Nowill and sons Sheffield jigged bone handled knife, or similar maker. But these were made in Japan in the late 1960's they even have a brass shield in the centre of the jigged scales. Using an early Vanadium stainless steel of some sort, it doesn't say which exact steel type.
I was shocked to see they are stamped "Japan" you would swear they are Sheffield made by looking at them, but nope they are Japanese made traditional western slipjoints.

 

[tltt]

4. Manufacturers take. Look at Randall - they quite openly go through the knife making process for their 1-7 on their website and pretty clearly say 'have at it - we know what it takes to make one of these, you are welcome to try...' (thinking Bark River and Blackjack copies of the 1-7).

Just to nitpick this a bit. Randall seems to be ok with individual knifemakers making homages to their models, but weren't too keen on the factory copies. They were asked about it by Fighting Knives magazine back in the early 90's. They took the stance that they couldn't stop it, so they were chalking it up to imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and they hoped the buyers would move up to the real versions.

Also I think crediting the original designers helps claim things a bit, I've seen, at least on the custom front, most makers will allow homages as long as credit is given as an inspiration. It's a lot easier to to take a guy making a copy if you know it's happening before hand, than just stumbling on to it in a magazine or website.

 

[GIRLYmann]

folks buy replicas because
1) the original makers or model no longer exist
2) clones are affordably much cheaper
3) they absolutely have no idea they have bought a clone.
folks make clones because
1) there is market demand
2) or they must really enjoy ripping others off
i seriously am of the opinion that
some matters are best left to those who hold or own the legal right to act and protect what which is righfully theirs.
if there are existing legal restrictions enforced in regards to a particular patented or registered design it is solely a matter for the owner to act and curb intellectual theft.
we can't do much to halt unethical practices.
more often than not, uninformed buyers fail to see the theft
because they are largely ignorant or couldn't
care less about such financial losses affecting some stranger.
if we knowingly buy stolen products we become accessory to crime.
but i seriosly doubt anyone would fear
the likelyhood of incarceration for buying clones.
its an issue of perception largely depending
upon which side of the issue one stands in

 

[Londinium Armoury]

folks buy replicas because
1) the original makers or model no longer exist
2) clones are affordably much cheaper
3) they absolutely have no idea they have bought a clone.
folks make clones because
1) there is market demand
2) or they must really enjoy ripping others off
i seriously am of the opinion that
some matters are best left to those who hold or own the legal right to act and protect what which is righfully theirs.
if there are existing legal restrictions enforced in regards to a particular patented or registered design it is solely a matter for the owner to act and curb intellectual theft.
we can't do much to halt unethical practices.
more often than not, uninformed buyers fail to see the theft
because they are largely ignorant or couldn't
care less about such financial losses affecting some stranger.
if we knowingly buy stolen products we become accessory to crime.
but i seriosly doubt anyone would fear
the likelyhood of incarceration for buying clones.
its an issue of perception largely depending
upon which side of the issue one stands in

Not being rude but you're post is missing the actual point of this thread, you are kind of answering the wrong distinctive question here. This isn't about why people buy clones or why makers clone knives. It's specifically about why the knife community view cloning modern knives as bad, but cloning traditionals is respected and fully accepted.
Not counterfeits or stealing brand names, but copying knife design, blade shape, handle shape, directly copying the look and style of a knife.
Copying a CRK design is a no no, copying a Joseph Rodgers, or Taylors Eye Witness that's A Okay.

 

[Blues]

I used to get angry when several companies and makers copied Fred Perrin's "Griffe". But to no avail. Some folks cannot be shamed, and if it isn't or wasn't against the law, it's not enforceable but by people voting with their wallets.

Copyrights and patents expire, and as my late, dear friend Harold "Kit" Carson used to say to me when we had this discussion about others copying his work, he'd say "there's nothing new under the sun and we all stood on the shoulders of others that came before us in producing our designs".

If he could have that level of equanimity on the matter, with the skin he had in the game, I felt it wasn't something I should let my blood pressure boil over.

I still try my best not to knowingly support ripoff artists.

 

[danbot]

Doesn't the Tri-ad lock patent expire in 4-5 years? is it open season on Demkos lock in a few years then, how long do you have to wait until after the patent runs out before people stop calling you a filthy cloner for using it lol.
I remember when the Axis lock patent expired, people were still insulting other makers for using it a year after it ended.
But those same people didn't bat an eye at people using Michael Walkers liner lock, they probably forgot who invented the liner lock.

Michael Walker didn't invent the liner lock. He improved it and popularized it, but it has been around since at least WWII.
Traditional knife patterns are not patented (or any patents have long expired) and you cannot patent a blade shape on its own.
The reason the knife community gets so up in arms over modern cloning is because it hurts our hobby and does financial damages to the companies that spend all of the time and resources to innovate and develop the tools that we love.
We respect those companies efforts, and clone makers disrespect them.