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

Status
Not open for further replies.
herisson said:
@Londinioum Armoury You have chosen a strange hill to die on. I can't fancy, I just can't, what is the goal here. Really. And, yes, I will trow rocks at you until you get less stupid, errr, I mean less unrelevant, of course.
Click to expand...

Why would I need to die on a hill, I don't see this as a battle it's a discussion, maybe some people are getting ruffled over this but I'm not I'm emotionally detached it's just a discussion about copying old knives Vs copying new knives. Also I think you mean irrelevant.
 
Londinium Armoury said:
CRK would have no claim under Trademark, name, patented mechanism on any functional part of their knives. They also could not claim under artistic protection due to transformative design loopholes. As soon as somebody changes a single part of the exact look it falls outside of artistic protection, especially since it is a working tool. It would be akin to a chisel or hammer factory trying to take another hammer maker to court because they also made a 4 lb club hammer with hickory handle.
Click to expand...
Clones are exact copies of the "look".
 
Irrelevant, good point. But you bating for Ganzo is silly. Whatever your stated primary point is. You are off the point, here.
 
Look guys if you are feeling like you are getting annoyed or bothered by this discussion it's probably best if you just go take part in another thread. I also want to remind people of what my own buying position is when it comes to clones and counterfeits. I am not on the side of supporting clones, but I am capable of playing devils advocate for the sake of debate and discussion.
Just because somebody is making arguments for or against something doesn't mean they hold that opinion or belief.
I don't own any Ganzo knives, I've never even handled one, I support original designs, it is possible I am just as much as a hypocrite and have double standards. Maybe I am confronting my own double standards by even making this thread.
 
danbot said:
Clones are exact copies of the "look".
Click to expand...

Yes that's my point about traditionals, don't you see, we all accept that copying the design of a Boker is fine, and copying an old sheffield knife is fine. But we don't accept copying a living maker, just because the guy we are allowing to copy is dead and we don't care about him or his original design as much as a living maker.
 
Now you're asking for a Legal answer to an Ethical problem. You're not going to get that answer because it doesn't exist.

Is making a clone of a Sebenza legal? Yes, as far as I know.

Is making a clone of a Sebenza ethical? No. You're stealing the design, time, and reputation from someone who has a claim to that design and currently manufactures that knife. There's a thousand ways to make a frame lock knife that functions exactly like a Sebenza. In fact, by not patenting the fame lock the creator of the Sebenza gave you free reign to make any frame lock knife to compete with his design.

Is making a traditional patterned knife like a Barlow considered cloning? No. There's thousands of different variations on that pattern already, nobody lays claim to the original design.

You're not grasping the concept of a pattern vs. a specific design. You started this argument on the flawed premise that a traditional pattern is the same as a single modern knife model. It's not, and you've been told it's not, but you don't want to accept that. Instead you are accusing others of "cognitive dissonance" instead of looking at the flaws in your logic.
 
Londinium Armoury said:
Yes that's my point about traditionals, don't you see, we all accept that copying the design of a Boker is fine, and copying an old sheffield knife is fine. But we don't accept copying a living maker, just because the guy we are allowing to copy is dead and we don't care about him or his original design as much as a living maker.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to be getting the fact that whether someone is alive or dead does in fact make a difference. When someone is dead, he no longer benefits from his work. If you are copying and selling knives of the exact design of a living and working knifemaker without his or her permission, you are stealing his designs and taking business away from him. You are profiting from someone else's labor without any recompense..
 
Londinium Armoury said:
It's okay to copy the design of a dead man
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not.

Not a lawyer, but had to take respective classes and have to apply them to software, among others.

There is 3 IP protection mechanisms:

from https://www.stopfakes.gov/:
  1. A U.S. utility patent, ... is generally granted for 20 years from the date the patent application is filed; however, periodic fees are required to maintain the enforceability of the patent. ...
  2. A U.S. trademark generally lasts as long as the trademark is used in commerce and defended against infringement.
  3. Copyright protection is for a limited term. For works created after January 1, 1978, copyrights last for 70 years after the death of the author. ...
For example, Spyderco/Sal patented the Spydie-hole, and after expiration of the patent has trademarked it. A patent is protecting a device in the "loosest" way, a mechanism with one or more implementations (like the Spydie-hole, a knife lock, pocket clip, etc.) will be protected. Some of the most famous patents are the inverted sewing needle from Singer, or pasteurized/melted cheese from Kraft.

Copyright protects designs/text/art/etc. from being copied more or less verbatim, and these copies being used commercially. For example, you can go to the library, photocopy a page of a book, and legally use it for your own purpose. But you can not publish the copy and make money. In other words, a knife design (or component of a design, like a blade) that is slightly different than another one, is not a copyright violation.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Londinium Armoury said:
Yes that's my point about traditionals, don't you see, we all accept that copying the design of a Boker is fine, and copying an old sheffield knife is fine. But we don't accept copying a living maker, just because the guy we are allowing to copy is dead and we don't care about him or his original design as much as a living maker.
Click to expand...
No, it's not the same. Making a traditional design does not harm the industry or our hobby. It also does not discourage innovation.
 
herisson said:
Irrelevant, good point. But you bating for Ganzo is silly. Whatever your stated primary point is. You are off the point, here.
Click to expand...

Ganzo was only used because that's a common one everybody has heard about, most people int he knife community know about Ganzo and their tendency to "pay a lot of homage" to popular selling knife designs.
My point is we don't care about dead designers, will future generations care about our current designers? Who will be the new Chinese CRK in the year 2200. they will release a knife called the Umnumchaan, and your great great grandchildren will say it's their top 5 EDC.
 
danbot said:
No, it's not the same. Making a traditional design does not harm the industry or our hobby. It also does not discourage innovation.
Click to expand...

I can picture a person in the year 2250 saying the same thing, "The Spyderco Manix 2 is a traditional" it's fair game, as long as you don't clone our diamond infused plasma 360 Gyro modern knife.
 
ferider said:
Actually, it's not.

Not a lawyer, but had to take respective classes and have to apply them to software, among others.

There is 3 IP protection mechanisms:

from https://www.stopfakes.gov/:
  1. A U.S. utility patent, ... is generally granted for 20 years from the date the patent application is filed; however, periodic fees are required to maintain the enforceability of the patent. ...
  2. A U.S. trademark generally lasts as long as the trademark is used in commerce and defended against infringement.
  3. Copyright protection is for a limited term. For works created after January 1, 1978, copyrights last for 70 years after the death of the author. ...
For example, Spyderco/Sal patented the Spydie-hole, and after expiration of the patent has trademarked it. A patent is protecting a device in the "loosest" way, a mechanism with one or more implementations (like the Spydie-hole, a knife lock, pocket clip, etc.) will be protected. Some of the most famous patents are the inverted sewing needle from Singer, or pasteurized/melted cheese from Kraft.

Copyright protects designs/text/art/etc. from being copied more or less verbatim, and these copies being used commercially. For example, you can go to the library, photocopy a page of a book, and legally use it for your own purpose. But you can not publish the copy and make money. In other words, a knife design (or component of a design, like a blade) that is slightly different than another one, is not a copyright violation.

Roland.
Click to expand...

That would depend if a publisher owns the works actually, if the book is public domain it can be copied and sold. transformative nature also protects changes in artistic design. For example you may have designed an artistic work, I can take that work and make slight alterations to it which enable it to be classed as a transformative work of art, I can then go on to use it myself, as long as I have changed it.
 
danbot said:
Clones are exact copies of the "look".
Click to expand...

Exactly. As I mentioned previously, everyone and their brother's sister's uncles former roommate has a swayback, peanut, barlow, etc. If I start a new company, and make a barlow, I'm copying a design. If I create a barlow that looks exactly like one from Case, down to every minute detail, then that is a clone and illegal and wrong.

It is the intent to con the unsuspecting by using the intellectual property of another without consent that is illegal. Cloning is using another's idea with the intent to do harm in my opinion.

danbot said:
And in the year 2250 that will be true.
Click to expand...
At that point I'll be dead and probably won't care. Unless they try to sell clone Manix's in the afterlife.
 
Londinium Armoury said:
My point is we don't care about dead designers, will future generations care about our current designers? Who will be the new Chinese CRK in the year 2200. they will release a knife called the Umnumchaan, and your great great grandchildren will say it's their top 5 EDC.
Click to expand...
There, you went from irritating to disgusting. Have you no idea what (as a knife lover) you owe to people like Tony Bose, A.G. Russell, Randall, Loveless, Dozier... Your merchandizing approach is revolting. And you summoning the future generations to comfort your pisspoor position is even worse.
 
Londinium Armoury said:
That would depend if a publisher owns the works actually, if the book is public domain it can be copied and sold.
Click to expand...

Correct. There is some interesting implications for knife designs these days, when you - the design owner - post a picture of your knife, say, on Facebook. Afterwards, you are not the sole owner of that picture anymore :)
 
danbot said:
And in the year 2250 that will be true.
Click to expand...

Lol yes that's why it isn't a sound argument for us to steal the designs and completely clone dead designers. I did mention before though that the only part that holds true is if that item is no longe rin production and if that specific company that first designed it has closed down.
That's why I mentioned that most of the companies that get cloned are actually still around, and somebody pointed out that if case came out with a design first, then rough rider copied them, and then case discontinued that pattern, now anybody who wants to buy that pattern is forced to go to the cloner, rough rider. So rough rider will now get all of the custom for that case model that they no longer make or sell.
Also earlier was mentioned giving credit tot he original designer, I don't think anybody does that, if you cloone a traditional design, you should probably say in your description "We took this design from so and so, and ar epaying homage to that makers design" Instead of just saying "here's our knife, we made this come buy it"
 
K.O.D. said:
Exactly. As I mentioned previously, everyone and their brother's sister's uncles former roommate has a swayback, peanut, barlow, etc. If I start a new company, and make a barlow, I'm copying a design. If I create a barlow that looks exactly like one from Case, down to every minute detail, then that is a clone and illegal and wrong.

It is the intent to con the unsuspecting by using the intellectual property of another without consent that is illegal. Cloning is using another's idea with the intent to do harm in my opinion.


At that point I'll be dead and probably won't care. Unless they try to sell clone Manix's in the afterlife.
Click to expand...
I would call that a counterfeit and that's even worse than a clone.
 
ferider said:
Correct. There is some interesting implications for knife designs these days, when you - the design owner - post a picture of your knife, say, on Facebook. Afterwards, you are not the sole owner of that picture anymore :)
Click to expand...

I know right, I actually had an argument years ago with one of my close friends because of this (not a knife but my own self) me and my at the time girlfriend were with him and his girlfriend at their new flat. He took a picture of us all and posted it to his facebook account. I said to him take that picture down, he said what why, then I told him because now facebook own that picture of me and I don't like that. He just laughed and refused to remove it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top