Richard you are right. I apologize for my unkind remarks.
Alma Rands
To be small privately is one thing, but to do it publicly might be something to think about.
Too true Richard. Today I went to lunch with a community leader that
I will be working with in my capacity as the West Los Angeles
District Chair for the American Red Cross. During the course of our
conversation he mentioned his extensive charity work and that of his
very close friend…Jane Seymour
Lisa, (goat monsters got out today and had a lunch of rosebushes)
Topanga, CA USA
I think every Orchidian should have at lest open heart design for
sale on their website… can they sue 9000 members?
Mark with a big open heart
Daniel,
David Yurman being another example. Did he invent the torques that he has copyrighted, and pursues copyright on so aggressively? No, the Celts did quite awhile before he was alive. But he has the deep pockets to aggressively pursue the copyrights that were somehow awarded to him on those designs (first one to ask for it??).
I agree totally. About David Yurman.
The system does NOT work the, same for you or me as it does for Jane Seymour.
Is that a true statement? You have the same right she has. Regardless
of who she is, she has to prove that she has a right to protect her
product in a court of law. Is Jane breaking the law? Theoretically
the people who are producing work that has a copyright are. Basically
it is theft. Hello, anyone out there?
Jane’s lawsuit is still about business related issues. This is a
capitalist democracy, this is how the game is played. She is playing
by the rules. You have the same opportunity. It is still not Jane’s
fault she has the $$$ to defend her copyright… There have been other
lawsuits for copyright infringement during the time I have been a
member of Orchid. I do not remember anyone having a issue with the
other copyright lawsuits. I just got a letter from a titanium ring
company that they settled a lawsuit and can now sell their product as
they are now licensed. Please tell me why someone who has the money
to develop and market a product should not sue to protect what they
put hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce, when that is their
legal right?
Anyone have a problem with the Supreme Court decision that supports
Alaska to deny the right for incarcerated prisoners to have DNA tests
to prove innocence using a test for evidence not available at trials
in the past, but technology here now to prove innocence or guilt?
Even if prisoner can pay, Alaska says no. Four out of nine judges in
dissent. Decided it is a state issue, not constitutional issue.
Those of you who shake your head about this copyright lawsuit should
have your head spinning 360 about that. But that’s just my
opinion…and perhaps my perspective is distorted as this is about
basic promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or not.
Richard Hart G.G.
Denver, Co.
That little squiggly thing the object of a lawsuit. Whoa. Set a couple of diamonds in a squiggle
Just a representative quote… She’s rich and you’re (we’re) not.
See the thread on how to gauge what people will want/want to buy…
I believe it’s called, “Laughing all the way to the bank.”
Didn’t we just go through this whole stolen design lawsuit thing
recently (the past few years anyway) with cable design? I guess what
is old becomes new and what is new becomes old.
Mike DeBurgh, GJG
Henderson, NV
Well personally, I think this kind of thing is just stupid. Some
actress/celebrity decides they are going to become a jewelry
"designer" and do a little sketch of something and they slap a
name…
Wow, I expected better. You elder statesmen need to start looking at
yourselves as leaders. If there are 9,000 members as mentioned
earlier at ganoksin, there are only about 100 that contribute
regularly to orchid and ill bet there are 18,000 eye balls following
the banter. From her mouth to my ears Jane Seymour was approached by
Sterling to mass produce her custom made Open Heart Design On a
national scale.(she wears the original- Pre Sterling) Sterling Made
the investment, did all the heavy lifting on this project, all of it
at considerable risk. Sterling makes those types of commitments and
takes those types of risks which can produce huge returns. The
silver lining here is can we produce this type of commitment,
dedication, expertise, results, etc on any scale in our own
businesses? Can and How do we go about being successful? Taking the
Lead must come from Leaders like you.
Even if prisoner can pay, Alaska says no. Four out of nine judges in dissent. Decided it is a state issue, not constitutional issue.
Being a state issue is a Constitutional issue. The Constitution
states that all rights not expressly delegated to the Federal
government are reserved to the States or to the people.
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
But he has the deep pockets to aggressively pursue the copyrights that were somehow awarded to him on those designs (first one to ask for it??).
That’s an easy one. Copyrights are registered, not awarded. The
government makes no representation that your copyright registration
is worth the paper it’s written on.
With patents, there’s at least a nominal search for prior awards.
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
Hi Richard,
You have the same right she has
Yes, you’re right I do. But I don’t have the same ability to pursue
that right as she does. Is this fair? No. Is much in our capitalist
society fair? No. Does it bother me that I can’t do what she does?
No. But it still sits poorly with me when someone is allowed to do
something like this simply because they have the money. That is after
all what David Yurman does. Does anyone on here remember when Brad
Pitt sued a company for “copying” his wedding band design (that was
with his last wife, not the current one)? He doodled around and came
up with something he thought was unique. While I can’t say I had ever
done anything like it, I had seen other work that was quite similar,
and it was just pretty stupid in my mind that he would do that. If it
was Joe Blow on the street who had gone to Pitt’s jeweler with the
same design and then saw copies of it being made would he be able to
do anything about it? Only if he was as rich as Pitt. But most of us
aren’t.
Is Jane breaking the law?
Well possibly. How do we know where she got her design idea from?
Maybe she saw my work (admittedly highly unlikely), or someone else’s
who was using open hearts in their designs. Hearts are, after all, a
pretty universal design. Maybe she, just like David Yurman, simply
has the money to enforce it.
I do not remember anyone having a issue with the other copyright lawsuits. I
Actually the topic has come up a number of times before, especially
around David Yurman. I can’t remember if I’ve been on list longer
than you or not, but possibly it was before you joined the group.
But Richard, here’s my real problem with this whole issue.
Apparently what we do as jewelers/designers is so insignificant in
most people’s eyes that ANYONE can be a jewelry designer. Yup.
ANYONE. Because what we do just isn’t that hard apparently. Are you
familiar with the jewelry design contests for architects? A bunch of
well know architects get together and design, on paper, jewelry every
year. And one or two of them win awards every year for that. Has
anyone else on list actually worked with architects on jewelry
design? I have, and with a lot of them, and I can assure you that
they are absolutely, across the board, the worst people in the world
to be designing jewelry. Pretty much what they want is to put a
building on your finger. The designs are universally ugly, ungainly,
unwearable, doomed to failure, etc. Someday when I have an hour or
two of spare time, I’ll post a description of what I’ve had to do for
them. (I will say however, in their defense, that about 40% of them
understand they don’t make jewelry and often have great taste when
purchasing something I’ve made.)
And then we have all the celebrity designers. Like Jane Seymour and
Brad Pitt (among others whose names I can’t pull out of my aging
brain this instant). What training as an actor/actress actually
makes you a jewelry designer? Why are we, as a group of talented
individuals, often with dozens of years of experience under our
belts, so demeaned by so many people who think that what we do is so
easy and really has so little value that ANYONE can do it,
regardless of their background and training? For that matter, why do
we ALLOW them to do it?
Daniel R. Spirer, G.G.
Daniel R. Spirer Jewelers, LLC
Thank you Daniel -
this IS about basic promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
And, my 9 and 5 year old daughters know better than to say unkind
things in the first place.
Michelle Archer
Interesting discussion.
My disclaimer - I haven’t seen any “Open Hearts” by Jane Seymour or
anyone else for that matter…
… but the descriptions of them indicate that they are the sort of
simple design that absolutely anyone might have doodled and even
made. Like Yurman’s torques (mentioned in D. Spirer’s post,) they are
something of which the principle concept is so obvious and simple
that any example is, perforce, a member of that class of objects.
The concept itself is not new, even if some details of a
recently-made piece might be unique - it is still a “torque” or an
"open heart" and that description alone does not infringe upon
anyone’s intellectual property. I can’t believe anyone could claim to
actually own the concept of “torque” or “open heart.” If that were
possible then I am going to go out tomorrow and apply for copyrights
on “circles”, “squares”, and a few other useful concepts which are,
in my humble opinion, original creations of my own intellect. And, of
course, I’ll sue anyone who makes and sells “Circles.”
There must be more to this case than I have seen in this thread.
Have I missed something?
Still - it is an interesting discussion. I do have respect for
intellectual property. If people can make an honest living selling
"design" that they have created, then they deserve the fruits of
their labour and the ownership (copyright) of their creation.
The crux lies in whether they have actually created something or
simply woke up with a bright idea how they could sell… something.
To me that kind of bright idea is a vital part of any business and
might, by some stretch of imagination, be called “creative” - but it
is a business tactic, a marketing tactic, not an act of generative
creativity, certainly not an act of “origination”.
As I said, it is common to any business. If you can sell more of
anything; soap, cars, shirts, jewelry by putting a celebrity’s name
on it, then go right ahead, but that has nothing to do with the
originality of the product. It is packaging. It has to do with the
profitability of the enterprise. That is the focus of the "business"
part of the enterprise.
It is no news that there are plenty of fools who will buy a "name"
without looking at the product for what it is.
So, whatever it is - the soap, the car, the shirt, the jewelry - the
product - It still needs to have some quality of its own -
originality, superiority on some functional or esthetic level - or it
won’t sell.
Superior function or esthetic excellence are positives and good
selling points, just like good packaging - if they are present - yet,
in my way of seeing things, it is only the issue of originality which
is central to whether one should own copyright on a design.
An investment of money is necessary to a business also, but is still
just another necessity, not to be glorified along with all those
other necessities like packaging and celebrity endorsements as
"creativity". No matter what one invests in all those business
necessities, it is still a business, a gamble, something which can
fail as well as succeed. Investing does not buy the right to a
profit. It only buys an opportunity, a chance.
A dollar is only as good as another dollar. It is not unique. It
cannot have a flash of inspiration and actually create something new.
It is a dull little creature of necessity. How come all the
capitalists forget the “venture” part of their game so easily? Ya
gotta contribute more than just money to an enterprise to rise above
the flatline.
For me, something worth being called “intellectual property” and
worth defending as such, requires at least some portion of original
creativity, not mere investment, to warrant the label.
Richard Hart - if I understand him correctly - went on at length
about Jane Seymour’s right to sue - just the same as any of us can
do.
Where’s the injustice in that? he asks. She can buy a lawyer’s time
to make her arguments for her.
Just the same as anyone else can do. For example, I could buy a
lawyer’s time to protect my copyright of “the circle” if I had a pile
of money to play with. In this wonderful world of capitalist
democracy, says Richard Hart, them’s the rules. What’s wrong with
playing by the rules? Having the “same opportunity” to spend vast
sums on a dispute is only a meaningful concept when all parties to a
dispute have equally vast sums to spend. Otherwise it is sheer
nonsense.
The party who runs short of cash simply never gets his/her day in
court. The most democratic and impartial judicial system imaginable
is of no use whatsoever if a person cannot afford to get his case in
front of the bench.
Looking at Richard Hart’s couple of paragraphs on this subject I see
a great display of attention paid, not to justice, but to how the
"game" is played. - He implies that because the dispute is about
"business- related issues" it has its own different rules. Different
from… what? From the rest of life? I wonder. It is as if issues of
justice do not have any relevance in the business world. Is that so?
(Harvard Business School, please take note!)
I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you! (Couldn’t resist that, all you
Casablanca fans.)
Listen - moderator - I want a little slack here. Richard Hart even
got to introduce a whole other story line about Alaskan criminals
and DNA tests - also interesting, but what’s it got to do with this
thread?
Hart describes our situation thusly "This is a capitalist democracy.“
Now perhaps he assumes a necessary connection between the two words
"capitalist” and “democracy”. Many people make that assumption. Is it
true? They might exist together or separately or in other
combinations. For example, there might be a “socialist democracy” or
a “capitalist dictatorship” etc. So in this particular time and
place, our proud democratic blather about “rights” and "opportunity"
gets sort of cancelled out, Hart tells us, by the capitalist half of
the combo, the deep-pockets, pay-to-play rules.
I agree Hart is describing the sad reality fairly accurately, but I
wish I had detected a little more sadness in his feelings about it.
And, oh yeah, Richard. I think that Alaska DNA decision was a bizarre
miscarriage of justice.
Marty Hykin
That's an easy one. Copyrights are registered, not awarded. The government makes no representation that your copyright registration is worth the paper it's written on.
If you just think it there is no copyright, make it and there
automatically is with no paperwork. If you want to sue for
infringement registering with the govt helps, but your lawyer still
gets a new boat. Being in the right usually is damned expensive and
futile.
I say just make another piece (maybe harder to clone) Keep the boats
out of lawyers paws.
jeffD
Demand Designs
Analog/Digital Modelling & Goldsmithing
http://www.gmavt.net/~jdemand
Here is another snippy remark... now these designs are worth copywriting http://www.vancleef-arpels.com
Talking of breech of copyright, perhaps Vancleef and Arpels should
be suing Heidi Klum or the other way round. Their “Alhambra” “Magic”
collection is virtually identical to Heidi Klum’s “Clover”
collection motif. Which came first? I LOVE looking at Vancleef and
Arpels jewellery from time to time - a real treat.
There’s not much that is new. Incidentally, I don’t personally think
much of Jane Seymour’s “Open Hearts” motif jewellery. It resembles a
weird snake to me but it’s just my personal opinion. People are
obviously buying it. Oh, to have her budget for business-building,
promotion, etc.
Helen
UK
http://www.hillsgems.co.uk
http://helensgems.ganoksin.com/blogs/
Daniel,
I do understand what you are saying. Theoretically there is justice
for all in theory, but not in reality, civil law or criminal law.
My issue with David Yurman’s copyright is that what he “designed” had
been previously been designed and can be found in museums. Jane
Seymour’s design has not been produced in that form. Show me a
picture in a book, on line, ect. That someone made one piece sort of
like Jane’s does not make a relevant point to me that Jane does not
deserve a copyright on her specific design. If someone was smart
enough to think their design had merit, they would have applied for a
copyright, and Jane would be the one getting sued, so someone missed
their opportunity.
The part about the unfairness of you not being able to protect your
design like Jane can solely based on the issue of she has dollars
you don’t is not a good point. Copyrights are not that expensive for
the protection they provide in relationship to the money invested
when a large quantity of product is expected to be made and sold, and
I am pretty sure that if a significant amount of money is involved,
you can find a lawyer who will work for a percent of the judgment.
Dollars invested in a copyright protect either your financial
investment or the amount of time spent to develop something you
derive income from.
I was thinking about this, there are people who make jewelry who
probably do not copyright their work as the work is either design
driven, or technique driven. What I mean is that their style
developed either by the uniqueness of their design or some technique
they perfected in a unique way or both. Their designs are usually one
of a kind, but they may be part of a series of a similar style or a
signature technique they developed The people that easily come to mind
for me are Marne Ryan, Jeff and Susan Wise, David Freeland, James
Binnion, Andy Cooperman, Harold O’Connor, Michael Zobel, Daniel
Brush, Stephan Webster, and Heyoka Merrifield. I know there are more,
the point I want to make is that the work of these few people are not
likely to be copied by a manufacturer and mass produced. Pieces that
do get copyright protection are more mundane and more attractive to
the public masses. Ubiquitous and mass produced. People want one
because they saw someone with one and they want one.
The artists I mentioned get some protection for their development of
their product and their work to market themselves as they create a
product that by virtue of the uniqueness of design and how technique
is used creates their market. These artists work are shown mainly in
galleries.
The proportion of unique work to mass produced is that the unique
work is minuscule by volume.
So that basically leaves most of us doing work that is different yet
not that different that anyone else’s. Some of the work I see by
people on this forum cannot be sold in jewelry stores or galleries.
Some of the work I see from people on this forum is not that much
better or worse than Jane Seymour’s. There are not many people who I
feel have work that is good enough to be a judge of Jane’s design,
and the one’s that in my opinion do probably would not bother, and
might be more polite if asked. I learned a long time ago that there is
a lot of people making a lot of jewelry and I like some, love some,
and some I do not appreciate, but there usually is some one that will
appreciate and buy the work I do not care for. This has lead me to
have an attitude that I congratulate those that are successful at
what they do and I know I have the same opportunity for success.
There are people who have been successful through hard work and
perseverance and more hard work. Sometimes the hard work is not as
much in the design or production of the work, but in the marketing…
I see the work of one artist in a lot of publications and I just
cannot comprehend who is buying this person’s work as the intrinsic
value of the work is not much is relationship to the phenomenal
prices I see, and the work just is not attractive in design. For the
length of time I have seen this work, and the prices I have seen,
there must be a market for this work, and it is a different world
than one I know.
The last thing I would like to mention is that if you think about it,
we are only as successful as we are in relationship to the
competition in our neighborhood. If there was someone close to us
whose work was similar, but a little better in design, who had
better marketing, price was similar, we would have a tougher time
making a living. In this day and age, there is always someone who is
looking for an opportunity, and if someone sees someone doing
something and being successful, they want to copy what you do.
So now the question is, for all the hard work: financial, time, or
sweat that someone puts into a product, is a copyright really unfair
if the purpose is for a person to protect what they created so others
do not profit from the work they did. Seems to me without copyrights
and patents a lot of things would not have been created or developed.
Richard Hart G.G.
Jewelers Gallery
Denver, Co.
Anyone have a problem with the Supreme Court decision that supports Alaska to deny the right for incarcerated prisoners to have DNA tests to prove innocence using a test for evidence not available at trials in the past, but technology here now to prove innocence or guilt?
I was sitting at the bench, listening to NPR, when this story was
broadcast and nearly fell off of my chair in shock. One would think
a branch of the judiciary, state or federal, would jump at the chance
for a private person to foot the bill for a DNA test that presumably
could determine once and for all a person’s guilt or innocence. I
disagree that this is not aconstitutional issue since it deprives a
citizen of the due process guaranteed by the document. (Plus I have
huge issues with the governor of Alaska.)
That said, I have little regard for the keepers of the gate, so to
speak. As in many places, fairness is often based on the
“bak-sheesh” one can dish out. If one has copious amounts of money,
as already mentioned, to hire lawyers to protect one’s intellectual
property, as hackneyed as it might be, then all is well with the
world. Even copyrights do not guarantee someone else will not copy
your design, perhaps get a patent on it, and make millions while you
toil in relative obscurity to eke out a meager living. People
constantly cite the 10% myth, and the rights to make a one-off for
“personal” use.
Kate Wolf said it well when I was there last year…“Jewelers are
walking copy machines.” I think this applies to humans in general.
Not only are most people lazy to a certain degree, but it is tricky
to come up with something new, not to mention something that is
visually stunning and easy to wear for hours or days at a time, as
John Donivan wrote about. Still, it is a wonderful job to have,
isn’t it?
Nel Bringsjord
GIA Diamonds Graduate, AJP
Currently visiting my daughter in gray and COLD Portland, Oregon for
the weekend. Brrrr. Monday flying down to sunny Southern California
for four days to visit with my 3 year old granddaughter, and her
parents, before heading back to sunny, hot, and humid Tampa. I don’t
think I shall grumble about the heat this summer.
Daniel- Add to that list Engineers. Architects and Engineers drive us
crazy.
I usually end up telling them that I’d have to run their design
through a worm hole into another universe to make it work. They may
have big egos, but are teachable.
We usually end up doing what we wanted to in the first place. Oh
yeah, I forgot lab geeks that have their own microscopes. Can’t sell
them stones. They put everything under a zillion power microscope
and then we have to explain every little flaw. Tim and I have worked
together for s o many years that when a “designer” come into our shop,
we can just look at each other and telepathically say “Run! Run
away!” Thanks to Monty Python for that line.
Have fun and make lots of jewelry.
Jo Haemer
www.timothywgreen.com
Here is another snippy remark... now these designs are worth copywriting http://www.vancleef-arpels.com
Sorry, it’s the whole Vancleef and Arpels “Alhambra” collection that
is extremely similar to Heidi Klum’s “Clover” collection, not just
the “Magic” part of the collection. Has anybody else noticed the
resemblance?
Helen
UK
And, my 9 and 5 year old daughters know better than to say unkind things in the first place.
Thank YOU Michelle… Ms. Seymore is a lady trying to have a life,
no more or less than anyone else. The fact that she has financial
backing and a successful career makes her no less protected by ALL
laws. And I have two (count em) heart models that are unique -
unique enough, at any rate… Ah, I remember the outrage when an
Orchid member wrote that someone had knocked off THEIR designs…
John,
Ah, I remember the outrage when an Orchid member wrote that someone had knocked off THEIR designs...
I actually remember a couple of these discussions and I believe that
every time there is a pretty equal mix of people saying go out and
sue (or what an outrage) and others who say, get over it and design
something else and don’t worry about it (myself included). I think
the group is pretty evenly split on this topic whenever it comes up.
Matter of fact I think you’ve occasionally weighed in on both sides!
Makes for some lively discussions however.
Daniel R. Spirer, G.G.
Daniel R. Spirer Jewelers, LLC