Your thoughts on a maker reworking another makers blade. šŸ™„

In Canadian law it is more complicated than "the seller bought it, period". We have a thing called "Moral Copyright" that cannot be alienated from the original maker (or their heirs and assigns). So maker sells knife, they retain moral copyright. You can sell the "normal" copyright to a work and yet still retain moral copyright.

There was a Canadian artist that did a piece for a public installation that sued the folks that owned the site for putting Christmas ribbons on his sculpture, and won. (As I vaguely recall, mostly he wanted the ribbons taken off his sculpture, which happened.)

Personally, I probably wouldn't care if someone modified one of my knives, >so long as they ground off the makers mark in the process<. I'm with Scarfoot on the notion that it is troubling having work misrepresenting the brand. It would be potentially actionable, here.
 
Sharp & Fiery said:
I would own those Coca-Cola bottles and could put orange juice in them if I wanted too. The issue that you are describing is selling the Cola Bottles as an actual Coca-Cola product.
If I say Iā€™m making cola from my Soda Stream and selling it and if you have your own bottle then I will fill it for you, no problems.

People can modify their knives however they please. It becomes an issue if they SELL it as the work of the original maker.

If you buy a car, can you put a spoiler on it? Can you jack it up and put mud tires on it? Can you change the brand of the brakes? Can you do some body work and change the appearance? Can you make a different style bumper and put it on?
Click to expand...


Reselling/trading/gifting a heavily modified knife is exactly what Iā€™m talking about. I think indicating somewhere that it has been modified is the honest thing to do. In your car example yes you can modify however you want but if you go to sell it to someone the honest thing to do is list those mods.

Again, itā€™s not about the knife itā€™s about the brand. I honestly donā€™t care if somebody buys my most expensive or beautifully made knife, straps a stick of dynamite to it and blows it all to hell. I made my money off of it. However, I donā€™t want someone to take a field knife I made, turn into some tacticool zombie slayer tanto and misrepresent it as my work if they resell it. If someone buys one of my skinning knives and wants to grind a divot in the spine for their thumb to rest in to make it more comfortable for their personal use, more power to them.
 
AdamSmith said:
In Canadian law it is more complicated than "the seller bought it, period". We have a thing called "Moral Copyright" that cannot be alienated from the original maker (or their heirs and assigns). So maker sells knife, they retain moral copyright. You can sell the "normal" copyright to a work and yet still retain moral copyright.

There was a Canadian artist that did a piece for a public installation that sued the folks that owned the site for putting Christmas ribbons on his sculpture, and won. (As I vaguely recall, mostly he wanted the ribbons taken off his sculpture, which happened.)

Personally, I probably wouldn't care if someone modified one of my knives, >so long as they ground off the makers mark in the process<. I'm with Scarfoot on the notion that it is troubling having work misrepresenting the brand. It would be potentially actionable, here.
Click to expand...
So I guess that you would need to state that your knives are not a toolā€¦they are a piece of art. Not to be used, sharpened or have additions put onto them. There is no way that ā€œMoral Copyrightā€ applies to tools meant to be used.
 
David Mary said:
Thatā€™s a separate issue from the OP. He is exploring the idea that it is bad ethics to modify another makerā€™s work without permission from the maker. An idea I reject because that maker gave up ownership of the item in exchange for money. I do agree that it may be a laudable courtesy to contact the maker first but the situation specifics should inform this, not a blanket notion that another makerā€™s original creation is inherently sacrosanct.
Click to expand...

Iā€™m trying to explain why it could be an ethical issue. Most reasonable makers donā€™t care if a user modifies one of their knives to suit their use. In fact most of us probably started making knives or certain types of knives because we couldnā€™t find designs to suit us. However if the modification or reason behind it could misrepresent or damage the makers reputation/brand then it is a problem.
 
OK, I think we have had the topic explored pretty well.
In the OP question, if it is yours for your use, most seem to agree it is no big issue. If it is for sale, that is a very different situation.

I'll leave it open for s little longer and then we all need to move on.
 
So letā€™s flip this questionā€¦

If a knife a maker made was modified by someone, other people saw it and it drove traffic to the original makers site, resulting in salesā€¦will that maker still complain?
 
Sharp & Fiery said:
So I guess that you would need to state that your knives are not a toolā€¦they are a piece of art. Not to be used, sharpened or have additions put onto them. There is no way that ā€œMoral Copyrightā€ applies to tools meant to be used.
Click to expand...
My recollection is vague, but yes I believe moral copyright applies to works of art. So yes you'd be fighting a definition of knives as art in court, to try and use the provision (I think: I'm not a lawyer!).
 
Sharp & Fiery said:
So letā€™s flip this questionā€¦

If a knife a maker made was modified by someone, other people saw it and it drove traffic to the original makers site, resulting in salesā€¦will that maker still complain?
Click to expand...

I canā€™t speak for everyone else but I stated in post #22 that I donā€™t want my work misrepresented good or bad. If the modifier was clear about the original base knife and what mods were made Iā€™m fine with that.
 
Personally, I have a penchant for modifying production knives to varying degrees, but as far as custom knives go I may have re-ground one or two? I have a few scruples about custom knives, but production is fair game imo.

I will say that if someone wanted one of my knives altered, I would like for them to come to me first. But if the alteration was something that another maker specialized in, such as thin grinds or premium sheaths, that's a different story. I don't necessarily see it as a taboo and it can be done well or badly.

I think it kind of goes both ways. Once you make a knife and sell it, it's no longer yours abd it's out of your hands. But if you're going to spend your hard earned money on a man's hard work, why not just buy something you'd like?
 
AdamSmith said:
My recollection is vague, but yes I believe moral copyright applies to works of art. So yes you'd be fighting a definition of knives as art in court, to try and use the provision (I think: I'm not a lawyer!).
Click to expand...

ScarFoot said:
I canā€™t speak for everyone else but I stated in post #22 that I donā€™t want my work misrepresented good or bad. If the modifier was clear about the original base knife and what mods were made Iā€™m fine with that.
Click to expand...

I think we are all on the same page, just processing it differently.

Iā€™m not trying to stir up the water, just asking questions to see where makers are at. šŸ‘šŸ¼
 
Stacy E. Apelt - Bladesmith said:
OK, I think we have had the topic explored pretty well.
In the OP question, if it is yours for your use, most seem to agree it is no big issue. If it is for sale, that is a very different situation.

I'll leave it open for s little longer and then we all need to move on.
Click to expand...
Stacy, with all due respect- I think it's a problem that you're putting a chill on this conversation, and I see no reason at all why you feel entitled to shut this down.

Everyone is being respectful and courteous. If things go off the rails with name calling etc, I'd expect a moderator to step in but that is not happening.

Please don't stifle a reasonable conversation. Seems like a power trip to me and is unbecoming.
 
From a slightly different angle, but somewhat on topic...I used to wonder why certain makers, like my buddy, Jerry Halfrich, wouldn't let knives which weren't up to their highest expectations out of their shop as either gifts or blems. Then Jerry explained to me that he didn't want them being sold in the aftermarket, number one, and also, for someone who didn't know better, to think the piece was representative of his work.

I suggested to him that he mark the blades in a fashion of his choosing, and I know he did so, but only with people he trusted to never let the knives get into other hands or sold.

I feel a lot more upset by makers who "steal" another maker's pattern and produce it as their own, than someone having a blade they legitimately own altered to their specs. (For the record, I've never done it.)

That said, Kit Carson told me when it was obvious to me that another maker was copying his Model 4 in virtually every respect, that "nothing was new under the Sun, and all makers stand on the shoulders of those who came before them..." and he didn't lose any sleep over it. (Kit was a better man than I'd have been under the same set of circumstances.)

I think both sides make good points here, but as a non-maker I think that once a customer buys the knife, it's theirs to do as they like. That said, if the knife has been modified, it is their responsibility to make sure that folks know that the result is not the original maker's work.
 
DeadPineKnives said:
if you're going to spend your hard earned money on a man's hard work, why not just buy something you'd like?
Click to expand...

I agree with you. However, it's not always entirely clear from photos exactly what you're getting, and getting it in hand may reveal desired changes, or sometimes preferences change.

I sold a knife to a gentleman which he decided to make a modification to the handle by grinding a divot into. He didn't ask me first. Where he put the divot could have been problematic on some of my knives to to a practice I have sometime shad of creating a hollow on the inside of the scales for weight reduction. When I saw the pic he sent me, I told him I wish he'd mentioned to me first that he wanted to do that, so I could have warned him of potential pitfalls (his grind was not sufficient to expose a hollow fortunately but that wasn't the point). He had every right to make the changes, but I still think prudence and courtesy would have been better exercised by reaching out to me first.

On more than one occasion I have been asked by knife owners to make modifications to their kitchen knives, which they received from the original maker with a recurve in the blade that prevented heel to tip cutting board contact. In one case the knife was made by a hobbyist and (IIRC) given to the customer as a gift, and in another case it was made (to my great surprise) by a maker who has been well known since before I was even doing this for a living. In neither case did I feel the need to reach out to the original maker. The knives were owned by the respective customers, who had every right to seek correction.

The customer in the second case also asked my advice on whether he should complain to the maker, or make a post in the GB&U. I said that the maker in question should be the one to fix the issue, and cover the cost of shipping, but the customer did not want to have the maker fix it. I can't remember if it was a once bitten, twice shy thing, or overseas shipping, or both, but it doesn't matter, that was his decision and he had the right to make it. I took the job, and insisted that he at least reach out to the maker, and let him know the issue with the blade, and that he has decided to have another maker regrind it. I also suggested that he do so amicably, and keep it from becoming a public situation, unless the maker's reply would somehow warrant a public response. To my knowledge the issue never went public, and since then I have seen many blades made by the maker in question posted on the forum, all of which which looked perfect.
 
Blues said:
I feel a lot more upset by makers who "steal" another maker's pattern and produce it as their own, than someone having a blade they legitimately own altered to their specs. (For the record, I've never done it.)

That said, Kit Carson told me when it was obvious to me that another maker was copying his Model 4 in virtually every respect, that "nothing was new under the Sun" and he didn't lose any sleep over it. (Kit was a better man than I'd have been under the same set of circumstances.)

I think both sides make good points here, but as a non-maker I think that once a customer buys the knife, it's theirs to do as they like. That said, if the knife has been modified, it is their responsibility to make sure that folks know that the result is not the original maker's work.
Click to expand...

A very interesting and nuanced discussion! Agreed on "nothing new under the sun", but the decorum of this topic nevertheless had a learning curve for me. When I was (more) green in the knife making community I had a notion that "if a design is discontinued, you're not stepping on anyone's toes by making an iteration of it".

And from a purely legal perspective, I think this holds up as long as the design is not being claimed as one's own, but from a courtesy and etiquette perspective, I now believe it is a good deal more nuanced than that, since there is still a question of moral rights, and community norms that I previously failed to consider, to my shame.

Two examples:

Early on I made a Fred Perrin Street Beat profile when a customer requested it, also thinking that because Spyderco had discontinued it, it would be perfectly okay. Made it, posted pics, people liked it, and the customer was pleased. I had requests trickle in for a couple more, and by the second of third one, it clicked with me that I had never even considered whether or not Fred Perrin was still active and making the design himself. I looked him up, found him on Instagram, and reached out. He was kind and said (paraphrase for brevity) "If anyone asks you to make one, go ahead, but don't make them to put up for sale". Made perfect sense to me, and since then I have been resistant to making more of them, even if requested.

Another face palm moment, I was once looking for a CPK knife, and someone offered me a trade, saying basically "Hey CPK discontinued this boot dagger model, can ya make me a knife with this profile and I will trade you this other CPK knife?" At the time I jumped on it because, in my lack of thinking it through, I oversimplified it to "Well it's discontinued, and so I am not competing with CPK"... I don't think I violated any laws, but I made it worse when my steel and blank cutting provider messaged me and said "Hey you still have room on this sheet, and I could fit a bunch more daggers on it if you want", to which I just said, "okay sure". All without reaching out to CPK..... I'd already put half a dozen or so in the wild before it came to my attention that Nathan was put off by what I'd done, and I think my face turned about ten shades of red in that moment, as the floodgates of common sense hit me. Needless to say I didn't make any more.

All that said, the more a knifeā€™s profile is dictated by function the less likely copyright will apply to the shape itself, and it is more than possible for two makers to independently design nearly or even completely identical knife profiles. I saw a knife design by our beloved Crag the Brewer, and I asked him it it was meant to be "Wharnanimous". I admit it was a little jarring to see it at first. But he told me that my design was not even something he had considered when coming up with it, and said that it's just a wharncliffe with a certain blade to handle angle, and pointed out a subtle, but definite difference in the handle shape. I trust and love him, so I accept his answer. He had come up with a knife that suited a specific style of function and ergonomics he wanted to build for, and it just happened to look very similar to a knife I designed to fill very much the same role. I don't take the existence of his knife as a violation of ethics or stepping on my moral rights, or intellectual effort, but as the coincidental overlap of our views on knife design.
 
It's funny you mention Fred Perrin, because Fred was a friend of mine going back to the late 90's and I've visited him in Paris and traveled to the Blade Show with him in the past.

I can remember being very upset when a maker of some notoriety came out with a virtual clone of his La Griffe pattern. I was pretty upset by what was pretty clearly a copy, with no attribution. (And I am the owner of a couple of Fred's Griffes, and also own the original Subway Bowie, which he made for me while in Paris without my having an inkling in advance.)

There's the law and there's ethics. They don't always follow the same path.
 
Blues Blues I can't help but wonder if you're referring to me as the "maker of some notoriety" šŸ˜¬

My first experience with a ring knife was the Cold Steel "Point Guard" which eventually got renamed to "Pro Guard". I owned one, and liked it well enough, but always thought it could use a redesign to better fit my preferences. I eventually learned the design was inspired by the La Griffe by M. Perrin, which looked better to me, but not quite exactly what I would have wanted for myself. I always liked the idea of a ring knife, and had some ideas on how I would make one myself, which eventually happened. Not identically, of course, and with a customizability of blade shapes including some M. Perrin didn't make. Is this what you are referring to?

I also made a knife design at the request of a friend who owned the Spyderco Ark. He always wished it were a little bigger, and a wharncliffe. Spyderco doesn't make that variant, and John Shirley isn't a custom knife maker. So I agreed to make the design for him, and since it is a new variant, I also felt justified in making it available to others as well. My friend's name is Ouderkirk, and so to tribute both him, and the original design I called it the Ouderk-Ark, disclaiming any real "ownership" of the design. if anyone asked me to make a version with the original size and blade shape of the Ark, it would be a hard "no, you can get that from Spyderco".

For my part, I try to be as transparent as possible when I make a knife if the design was a collaboration, or heavily influenced by another maker's design. But I have made many designs, and not a single one was without some inspiration from another design or designs. I don't know if there is a cut and dried objective answer everyone would agree to on "how many features and/or angles can you duplicate from other maker's designs before you violate ethics?"
 
Ah I just learned from a bit of research that the CRKT Bear Claw was marketed as a licensed design by Russ Kommer, and CRKT reportedly paid royalties to Kommer for this version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top