Open Hearts is suing over copyright infringement

What is clear from all this is most folks do not have a clue about
copyrights. A copyright does not say whether you have a unique
design but that you came up with it, on your own. There is no value
judgement or test of uniqueness required. Two identical designs could
conceivably both have a valid copyright as long as both designers
could show that they did not copy the other. There are millions of
heart designs, each with a copyright that exists from the moment of
creation. And if you design something that has copyright it is up to
you to prove in court that the infringing party copied you work and
did not come up with it on their own. This is exactly what Jane
Seymour is doing and what David Yurman does. Your aesthetic
judgement of the design or whether a torque or heart was done in
antiquity has nothing to do with it. Copyright is about protecting
YOUR design and as long as you did not directly copy someone else’s
exact design it is copyrightable.

James Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts

Listen folks,

If any of you attended the Womens Jewelry Association Women in the
Know Conference in NYC in February at The Fashion Institute of
Technology would know the entire truth and back story of this jewelry
design product, Jane Seymour and her inspiration and it’s quite
honest, believable and based on some pure ideas and hardship and
goodwill.

The negative backlash is typical of the uninformed, jealous
hater-trendsetters who assume everything is designed and created
under false pretenses - too bad for those who believe that the world
is based on conspiracy and manufactured B.S.

Jane Seymour is regarded as a celebrity - IN YOUR EYES - and has
suffered many hardships in her life comparable to yours and mine. She
has gone through near bankruptcy through a failed marriage and has
children. She didn’t have employment until she landed her award
winning role on the set of Dr. Quinn and started to rebuild her
career. Her mother was a captive prisoner of war and was forced to
eat bugs and snakes - Jane regards her strength and wisdom and her
philosophy for the idea for her “Open Hearts” design.

Maybe the skeptics in the group want to call B.S. to this - but this
woman is legit and went through real life drama and real life tragedy
to create an idea that just so happened to turn into a jewelry line
by accident. She asked her friend Charles Krypell to create her first
pendant piece, which reminded her of her mother who was ill and near
death, and her mother encouraged her to appear on Dancing with the
Stars. She wore the pendant for “good luck” and won. Other
contestants asked for copies of the pendant for good luck as well.

Sterling Jewelers offered to expand the idea into a line of jewelry
when she had a lunch with them by “accident” - she did not realize
she was lunching with one of the largest U.S. manufacturing jewelers.
Sure, you think this is not possible? But this is how it was relayed
to the audience in NY, and you know what? It’s true!

Sure, Jane Seymour in conjunction with Sterling Jewelers created a
line of jewelry based on a universal symbol that has used many times
before, but her idea was not manufactured. Believe what you want. I
am not affiliated with Jane, but I did listen to her tell us about
her “Open Hearts” designs in NYC in Feb.

I credit her for what she is doing. She takes time out of her
personal life to give back to the community and to people who have
children with illness. I recently learned she met with a high school
friend of mine in Omaha for a lunch to show her support, my high
school friend had a child who had leukemia, he has since passed.

Jane Seymour is just not some big time celebrity with a ton of money

  • in fact she has fought back from bankruptcy and she is an actress
    yet she is a human being. She deserves due respect and her message in
    admiral, please give her credit for that as she gives back to others
    and is trying to make a difference. Sometimes it take corporate
    dollars to make that happen, is that so bad?

We are all trying to stay in business by being in business, so why
fault anyone for making an honest dollar??

Sara

Helen, Van Cleef did file a lawsuit against her. They came first. And
again, IS it our place to criticize the designs of others? (are we
sure designers with Kay Jewelers did not create or work with Jane
Seymour and hire her to help market their line). I am not someone
they would target in their marketing, either, but many people
obviously love it. Are we better than they are?

Michelle

Part IV (V?).

Hypothetically, Jane Seymour has something happen in her life, she
gets hurt and over time she realizes that when she gets emotionally
hurt, she has to remember to keep her heart open to stay connected
to other people.

Then she gets the silly idea that she wants to communicate that idea.
She tells a a friend and someone knows someone, and she shares the
concept, and someone says great idea. She is asked to come up with a
symbol and this company likes the concept and is willing to support
her vision.

Jane did not do well in remedial Art 101, but she makes a squiggle
that a third grader could make, but it serves her purpose, as it is
the intention that is important.

The piece is made and it is advertised, and low and behold, someone
starts reproducing the design. Not just one company, but two. Jane
should be happy and flattered that her design has been copied.

But, no Just so happens that the company promoting Jane’s design got
a copyright, and they think the company manufacturing the same exact
design in infringing on their copyright. So now it is announced in
the press, and low and behold, there are people who have an issue
with the concept someone can obtain a copyright for such a simple
design, horror of horrors, they can use business law and protect
their design, as simple and unimaginative as it is, because they have
the money to do it, and if I can’t afford to copyright my designs and
sue, you should not be able to, it just isn’t fair.

It now becomes the subject of discussion on a message board and
rather than a discussion about the copyright procedure, what is wrong
or right with the process, it seems that Jane is judged and
criticized for her lack of design ability and there is lamenting and
gnashing of teeth over how unfair it is that people with money can
use it to prosecute or defend themselves. () How silly to obtain a
copyright, and then sue for infringement. Although it is the company
that holds the copyright and files the lawsuit, Jane is held
accountable, for her lack of imagination, and damn her, the company
that has the copyright can afford to sue. Just not fair. The company
that copied the design probably did not mean to do anything other
than make money by copying the design, can’t be anything wrong with
that. These companies just want to support Jane’s vision.

If you have a store and someone robs you, you get sympathy from other
people for suffering a loss.

Someone steals your design, it really wasn’t that great and you
should get over yourself.

Richard Hart G.G.
Denver, Co.

Wow, what a lot of responses and highly detailed.

First of all I have to apologize profusely to all for being unclear
in my question. I know that Orchid has been through the copyright
question before.

My interest was in the possible confluence of two laws. The
copyright protections are clear and available to all who want to
pursue such, but I wonder about the truth in advertising laws. I am
not saying that I know how this would work but rather am asking what
do Orchidians think about Jane Seymour’s stated desire to have the
open hearts design as a symbol for international peace or love ( I
can’t remember at this moment which she says).

Could this be taken to mean use “my” design to spread this
symbolism?

I am sure this is quite a Clintonian question, but do Orchidians
think the owner of the copyright could be forced to forfeit some or
all of their copyright protection because the advertisement has Jane
Seymour saying “I would like this to become a symbol of
international…”, and I could be alone in this, but I think this
is an invitation to use the design freely to spread this symbolism.

Do others see what I am seeing or am I alone after all?

If others do see this statement as an invitation to use the design,
do you think this could be used to break down the copyright
protection, or would copyright laws trump truth in advertising laws?

Have any of you ever been held to an unintended consequence because
of something you included in an ad? If so, did you cost you a great
deal?

Do you think wether legally, or just ethically, that Jane Seymour
and Sterling Jewelers could or are being duplicitous in their actions
pursuing copyright infringement knowing what was said in the
advertisement.

Again I am very sorry for being woefully less than clear and rushed
in my original question.

Thank you,
Daniel

And, my 9 and 5 year old daughters know better than to say unkind
things in the first place. 

Assuming this was directed at me (I’m never sure because my first
name isn’t unique to me), I’m a little confused. What exactly did I
say that was unkind? I noted that open hearts were something I’ve
done in the past so why should Jane Seymour have a claim to them.
That isn’t unkind. It’s a statement of fact. If I said the design was
ugly, now that would be unkind (although it should be noted that a
few Orchidians have dissed all modern art as being ugly, so I’m not
sure why it’s NOT okay to say the heart design is ugly—which I
didn’t say—but it IS okay to say that Picasso’s work is ugly). If I
said the design was ugly I would be offending myself as well since
I’ve done similar stuff. I also said that if the best she could come
up with is something that I was doing a long time ago I felt sorry
for her. Okay, maybe that could be considered unkind, but you could
also look at it as simply an art criticism. Art critics routinely
comment negatively on art work. Am I a jewelry critic? Well, not
professionally, but I’ve been in the business long enough that I
think I have a decent grasp of what is attractive and what isn’t, and
given that there is free speech in this country, I think I am allowed
to offer a personal critique.

Besides, this IS an open forum about jewelry. Inherent in the field
is a design ethic. It is going to be a topic. Some people are going
to like some things, some aren’t. Are we only going to give voice to
those who have positive things to say about a design? Do you only
want to hear the positive feedback and not the negative? If I didn’t
listen to my customer’s positive AND negative comments I’d be doing
both them and myself a disservice. Not that I get a lot of negative
ones…but that’s probably because I DO listen to ALL the
comments they make.

Daniel R. Spirer, G.G.
Daniel R. Spirer Jewelers, LLC

Im sure Jane seymour is a wonderful person and is an inspiration and
there are so many in this world who are the same and not noticed.

Anyway taking away all the emotion and personal experience that is
associat ed with her design, as I do not even know who she is or what
she does ive never even heard of her until seeing this subject on
orchid… Im in Au stralia and dont get caught up with all the
famous celebs.

So to say

The negative backlash is typical of the uninformed, jealous
hater-trendsetters who assume everything is designed and created
under false pretenses - too bad for those who believe that the
world is based on conspiracy and manufactured B.S.

Is as your perception of some of us on orchid is not correct.

I was only looking at the Design and reason of its copywrite lawsuit
while not caught up with the emtoinal experiences that is linked to
here design.

Anthony Galea Designer Jeweller

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. 

I haven’t read the article in JCK - frankly I don’t care very much,
except the discussion here has merit in a more general way.

I suspect, however, that this is a certain case. Meaning that very
often here on Orchid someone will say, “I do work like this, and
somebody else does work just like mine - what’s that about?” My
suspicion in Ms. Seymor e’s case is that she has a high-profile
product line that’s raking in cash (whether anybody here likes it or
not means nothing…) and somebody copied it verbatim, so to
speak. That is corporate or intellectual theft, and quite a different
matter than a “look-and-feel” suit. No different than copying a
Picasso and signing your name to it… I know Richard, for one, has
had much to say about the nature of money in the legal system - all
true, but welcome to the real world, too. I would side with Seymore
in having a right to be bugged if someone is making her ~exact~
product for their own profit, though…

BTW, I remember the story of Robert Kearns - the man who invented
the intermittent windshield wiper and won his suits against the auto
makers. “Flash of Genius” is a movie about him and his cause. I
don’t think it’s such a great film overall, but I’d suggest anybody
who’s thinking about a patent/design suit watch it - it’s greatest
strength, to me, is the portrayal of what such a thing does to a
person, and a family…

So I went back and looked at some of my wife's older pieces.= I use
hearts in many of the things I give her. I found a myriad of open
heart designs in them, going back twenty years. So should I sue
Jane Seymour? I did it first. I could prove it if I wanted to. But,
honestly, who gives a damn? If the best she can come up withis
something I was doing twenty years ago, I feel sorry for her.. 

I understand why it would bother some of you that a wealthy person
can design something that was done before and defend their exclusive
copyright in court against others who don’t have the same legal
resources. I also understand why you don’t try to sue the wealthy
person even when you can prove your own prior use because it would
be an unequal match in the court room…

If you can prove prior use, you are actually a very powerful person.
You could make a big difference if you contact the party being sued
and show them your proof of prior use. You could even be paid for
your time and trouble for testifying in court. I expect that it
would give you a good feeling for getting paid for doing the right
thing.

Just a thought. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice; it just
eems to this amateur to be right.

Calvin Smith

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. 

[snip]

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? 

Not to put too fine a point on it… and I do not mean to claim
anywhere near the talent/skill of the true talented professional
designers here… but… “allow”? Who exactly would you have
governing who may or may not design jewelry? How, exactly, do I get
started in a field if I am not to be “allowed” to try, and have the
free market decide if my work has any value? Must I invest thousands
of dollars on education, or years and years of apprenticeship (while
still working a full-time job to support myself and perhaps my
family), just to find out if I have any talent or skill?

No, I think that celebrity or not, if there is no intrinsic value to
a person’s designs, their jewelry will be a flash in the pan, and
their line will disappear like a ship in the night. The genius
designers, like many here whose websites I’ve visited, will not
suffer significant harm from the celebrity jewelry fads.

I am sure this is quite a Clintonian question, but do Orchidians
think the owner of the copyright could be forced to forfeit some
or all of their copyright protection because the advertisement has
Jane Seymour saying "I would like this to become a symbol of
international....", and I could be alone in this, but I think this
is an invitation to use the design freely to spread this
symbolism. 

She definitely opened the door for the offending party, and their
lawyers will try to drive a truck through it. What many people fail
to realize is that, it is not enough to have a right. One must
affirmatively claim it, or it considered waived.

One popular example is a cop knocking on your door. If you open the
door and start conversing with the cop ( I am simplifying ), the cop
would have the right to enter your house. Leaving the door open and
allowing cop to see inside constitutes a waiver. You must step
outside
of your house and close the door behind you to affirmatively preserve
you right.

The question for court to decide will be whether or not she waived
her right by making the statement.

Leonid Surpin

Hi Michelle,

Van Cleef did file a lawsuit against her. They came first. 

Thanks for clearing that up. I’m not surprised they filed such a
suit as it is virtually identical in its motif.

And again, IS it our place to criticize the designs of others? 

I’ll comment more on this later, in response to something Daniel
Spirer said, but yes, I see nothing wrong in offering opinion - even
if it is negative - on other people’s work. It’s how we improve. I
said that I don’t personally like it - it reminds me more of a weird
snake than two open hearts - but that’s my own personal opinion.

However, it does bug me that it is highly unlikely that any ordinary
member of Joe public could come up with a squiggle and a major
manufacturing company would snap it up and put it into production,
no matter what hardship that member of the public had gone through.
I’ve never understood this hero-worship/celebrity thing. They are
just people like you and me, but folks get so star-struck - it’s
ridiculous. I’m not knocking Jane Seymour for being successful, or
for being famous. I remember her in her early acting years and
remember my mother liking her as an actress and although I don’t
think much of her design, I wish her all the success with it. She has
the right to be in business in whatever she chooses to do.

What I’m trying to say is that it smarts that people will buy
products just because it has some celebrity’s name attached to it.
Some might see it as being a case of the green eyed monster - but I
just see it as shallow. I will buy products which I find
aesthetically pleasing and which have some design merit. But I guess
me finding such hero- worship shallow is again just my own humble
opinion and as a tolerant person, I should be more tolerant of people
who admire those in the public eye and who want to wear their
products.

Helen
UK
http://www.hillsgems.co.uk
http://helensgems.ganoksin.com/blogs/

greeting

since this issue of copying someone else’s designs has come up the
last 35 years I’ve been a jeweler let me suggest that everyone
spends some time researching the terms patent, design patent,
copyright and trademark. They are complicated interesting but also
somewhat also rather simple and obvious. the best of my academic
research of these concepts of the terms above is as follows A patent
we all know of in reference to a unique,item ,machine.( not just an
idea) if you look say on the bottom of a vacuum cleaner or many other
items you’ll see patent number somewhere now in the six millions. The
idea patents goes back to Thomas Edison the thought was that people
could patent and invention they would then get protection and make
money and very importantly the patent will be published and could
possibly be improved upon in an important enough way for the next
person to get a patent and improved product would created.

Design patent, something I’ve never seen mentioned in all this
discussion about “copyright” a design patent is just that,it is a
patent on a specific, I repeat specific design. You can see that on
some items also around your house. It begins with letter D. in front
of the numbers which are much less than a regular patent.

A design patent would protect a piece of jewelry from being taken
and molded and copied.(or the specific shape of a vacuum cleaner) If
though you take some someone’s design and modify it slightly and you
can make as many as you want and you’re not violating the design
patent because of the change you made.(Hence the number of many
slightly different but very similar shapes of vacuum cleaners)
Copyright, it is the right to copy, which in my interpretation
applies to written material photographs and all two-dimensional
creations. Think of it in reference to a book that has copyright
protection meaning of course you could not take the book and go make
copies made yourself and sell them. One could also apply this to
illegal downloading of music, you’re violating a copyright, that is
the right to copy.

Trademark, again self-explanatory it is your “trade” mark, meaning
that it is made by you. Trademark if you do a quick google search on
it you will learn that it is a specific name, term, picture or Mark
that you’ve decided will identify your work. Obviously a trademark
that is extremely similar to someone else’s trademark and only very
slightly could easily confuse a customer and therefore likely be
illegal or what is known as “trademark infringement” so the term
"open
heart" along with some picture is too me considered a trademark that
is it identifies the entire line of work made by Ms. Seymour has her
property.

But the actual piece of jewelry (that I have not seen) that has an
open heart as its primary design would be subject to the question of
a design patent, meaning that if a piece of jewelry although very
similar but reasonably different (think vacuum cleaners) that you
made would unlikely to be subject to a design patent restriction.

Or again if the design itself was so very common that no one could
get a design patent on it as one person commented about making a
circle in the having that “design” protected.

How else would jewelry have ever moved forward from the scribbling
found on cave walls of say buffaloes. Would that are prohibited any
jewelry that showed buffaloes from being made or made the buffalo
nickel (for the next 5000 years) be a legal violation of the design
patent? (Or trademark as everyone seems to call it) as a jeweler and
not an attorney I’m not recommending the above be used as legal
advice (disclaimer) but if jewelers are truly interested in finding
out what their legal rights are and are not they should do a little
research themselves.

Probably the most accurate comments I have read is the effect of
having lawyers defend any of the above protections. The government
does not as was stated “award” these protections. The simple threat
of a lawsuit is enough to make in my mind and an invalid protection
effective considering the cost of litigation.

bill g

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. 

Hmmmmm. Quite a spirited discussion going on here. Seems there is an
inverse relationship between the level of creativity embodied in a
piece of jewelry and the need for copyright protection. The public
masses are to blame for shallow taste of mass produced goods and
titians clashing over the spoils?? wink!

Changing topic slightly, concerning copyright infringement, how many
Orchid’s members have had images from their websites lifted and
posted to another site without permission? Do you even get the
courtesy of a notification or a link back from the lifter? Should you
pursue and notify that the image is copyrighted even if the re-post
is flattering?

People lift stories, images, jokes, artwork, videos, etc. and
re-post them without so much as a second thought… so often that
surely some of this creative work would have to be considered part of
the public domain. Is this what is to be expected in the world of the
internet?

Some mountains just are not worth dying on, so we have to pick and
choose our battles. How many of you would go to war if you saw
Michele Obama wearing one of your designs… that someone else
lifted. Ha!

All the best,
j

J Collier
Metalsmith

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.

I believe I did no such thing. That is your perception and
interpretation of what I said.

What I feel I clearly communicated is that there are rules of
business, breach the rules, suffer the consequences. The companies
that knocked off the design took a risk, they are being sued for
copyright infringement.

I used the word game as in a company took a risk to produce a
product that has a copyright, they are being challenged to defend
their right to produce it, and if they are found in the wrong they
might suffer consequences. A game has two sides and a goal. Prosecute
and defend. Points are scored as dollars.

There is no value judgement or test of uniqueness required. Two
identical designs could conceivably both have a valid copyright as
long as both designers could show that they did not copy the other. 

And Henry Moore revolutionized sculpture with his amorphous
shapes. Many, many artists have adopted the style of sculpture
since, which is OK. If you make a copy of one of his sculptures - not
“in the style of”, but an actual copy with every curve and contour
just exactly the same, THAT is copyright infingement, or potentially
so.

Ms. Seymore (as I understand it) is NOT suing over “~an~ open heart
design”, she is suing over HER design - the way the curves curve
just so, the way the bottom tip has some certain flair, what have
you. Everybody here works “in the style of” somebody. When you
willfully go out and make an exact duplicate of somebody else’s
design in every detail, that’s piracy…

Whether it is simple or complex is another thing that is of no
meaning…

If I said the design was ugly Okay, maybe that could be considered
unkind, but you could also look at it as simply an art criticism.
Art critics routinely comment negatively on art work. 

I wholeheartedly agree Daniel. I was going to write a similar post
today but you beat me to it. We are in the business of making
something that people will judge aesthetically - call it art if you
like. As such we should be open to both negative as well as positive
criticism.

I grew up in an era when teachers would tell you when you were doing
something wrong, just as they would tell you when you did well. That
is healthy for one’s development in any field. I develop my own
design aesthetic by looking at other people’s work and analysing it.
Asking myself “do I like it?”. If not, why not? If I do like it, then
what do I like about it? If I like an element in a piece, I might
take that element and change it into something similar but different
and use it in a different context so that it’s not a copy, but an
interpretation. If I don’t like an element, I think about what that
person could have done to improve it so that I and others might like
it better. I put efforts into creating a piece with pleasing visual
balance. I will have an opinion on whether or not I like someone
else’s work and I may or may not express it openly - and I have no
problem with doing so. I also have an opinion on whether or not I
like my own work. I have pieces which I’ve ripped apart and recycled
because I did not like them at all. I’ve learned from them and moved
on. I don’t hold with today’s namby pamby attitude of only praising
people for what they do, no matter what the standard of work.

I joined another forum a few months back and posted regularly to it
for a few weeks. I then stopped posting to it or reading it
altogether, because it was pointless. Every single piece of work
that someone showed a picture of, got a positive “beautiful work”
comment, even if it was butt-ugly - and believe me, there was lots of
work which was butt-ugly and of very poor quality. I wanted a
sounding board that could honestly say “that would look better
if…”, etc, etc. But sadly, nobody had the guts to be honest with
people when their work left a lot to be desired. There is nothing to
be gained by simply massaging egos. That’s why I suggested the design
competition idea a few months back (which Hanuman is still working on
btw). I suggested it as a way for people to get their work seen and
for a platform for some constructive feedback. Hanuman has since
introduced the blog network which has satisfied such needs nicely -
although people still won’t offer any negative feedback for people to
improve, because others will slate them for being unkind. Still
hoping the design competition will work out though.

Somebody said the other day something along the lines that there is
lots of work shown on this forum that wouldn’t ever make it into
shops/ galleries, etc, and I’m in agreement with that. A couple of
years ago, when I first started out, my own work was of a very poor
standard indeed and below that needed for it to have been sold. I was
fortunate to have a few members who I correspond with offline, tell
me where I could make improvements, and I’ve worked hard to make such
improvements, to the point where people keep telling me to get my
work into stores because it would sell. I’m still dubious in some
cases and feel that only some of my pieces would make the grade - I’m
still working on it. Some of the pieces still on my website have been
pulled apart because they were of a poor standard which I was not
happy with. But if nobody ever tells others where they’re going
wrong and what they can do to put it right, how can they ever get
better at what they do?

There have been some quite derogatory posts, chastising members for
expressing a negative opinion of the jewellery in question. There’s
nothing wrong in offering an opinion if you also state why you don’t
like something - it makes it a valid opinion if you can back it up
with a reason. I don’t think people are merely dissing it because it
has celebrity connections, although there are more complicated
things going on in this case. For me personally, there are two
issues:

a) I don’t personally like the design (it resembles a snake to me,
more than hearts) and is fairly weak design-wise imho (but my opinion
is irrelevant to the question the original poster posed), and

b) I don’t like that people will buy something merely because it is
associated with celebrity - I find it shallow (also a personal
opinion).

I do, however, still feel that she has every right to pursue her
lawsuit. Also, in answer to the poster’s question, I don’t think she
was agreeing to let her design be freely made by others when she said
she wanted it to become an internationally recognised symbol - just
that she hoped it would become so popular and bought by so many, that
it would become internationally recognised.

Sorry for going on for so long!

Helen
UK
http://www.hillsgems.co.uk
http://helensgems.ganoksin.com/blogs/

I wonder how the music community reacts to plagiarism and and
copyright lawsuits.

I remember when George Harrison was sued. I looked it up at:

http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/mysweet.htm

If you have opinions about how fair or unfair copyright laws are, the
judge had to consider the value My Sweet Lord contributed to each
album, the original and greatest hits and another album to determine
penalty.

“from the single, $130,629. from “All Things Must Pass”, $925,731.
from “The Best of George Harrison”, $21,598, for a total of
$1,077,958.”

How about them Apples. Pun intended.

Richard Hart G.G.
Denver, Co.

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. 

[snip]

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? 

Oh, wow. Was this quote for real?

First, yes. Jewelry design is, in fact, such a trivially easy thing
to do that even my 12-year-old son can do it. He has done it, in
fact. I am quite proud of his effort, but his product still lacks a
certain something, if you get my drift. In my wife’s jewelry box sits
her pride and joy, a unique, one-of-a-kind orange garnet and gold
pendant that she designed herself. It is quite nice, but I doubt that
it will ever become iconic, and I seriously doubt that copies will
ever adorn large numbers of haute society women. Of course, that was
hardly the point.

The thing is, designing jewelry is easy. Doing it well is hard.
Executing it well is even harder. Anyone who can consistently come
up with designs that catch the eye, fire the imagination, and/or tug
at the heartstrings can be proud of what they do, and should be
compensated for it. Anyone might stumble across a one-off wonder, and
if they can make a buck from it, more power to them. Doing it
consistently and deliberately is what makes one a successful
professional.

The whole point of a free market is that anyone is, in fact,
allowed to do anything they feel capable of doing. The good ones
prosper, and the rest eventually get the message and try something
else. How many successful experienced Orchidians would be where they
are today if they were not allowed to try designing their first
pieces?

For good or ill, the Open Heart has become a widely recognized
symbol, and is popular enough to warrant copyright protection. It is
also unique enough that such protection is practical. I say it should
be protected and preserved, if for no other reason than to ensure
that its meaning and its message is not corrupted by copycat
exploiters.

Steve McQueen
Gems Evermore

I wonder how the music community reacts to plagiarism and and
copyright lawsuits. 

It’s interesting that you brought music up. What I’d like to ask the
Orchid community is how many of you have downloaded music? Not
bought, just downloaded it? I’d particularly be curious about how
many who have so vehemently defended Ms. Seymour’s right to sue over
copyright violation have done this. Because, you do know that
everytime you’re doing that you’re stealing from the music artist
and their right to protect their music through copyright. BTW, I have
never done it. I’ve always paid cash for the music I own. Just
another thought on the matter.

Daniel R. Spirer, G.G.
Daniel R. Spirer Jewelers, LLC