Women who could unlock the puzzle rings supposedly had the intellect and character of a faithful wife.
Actually the idea was that a woman, being unintellectual, would be
unable to put it back together if she took it off!
Hi Peter,
Living on the other side of the globe means I sometimes post before
some clarifications.
Trademarking is a very powerful tool, as youāve outlined.
By trademarking (Iām assuming an international trademark) a specific
jewellery item means that I cannot make a similar ring with that
name, however I can make a āTrinityā ring that has nothing in common
with that design. I could also make a range of power tool with the
name āTrinityā (as long as it wasnāt already trade marked) without
issue.
I didnāt think of looking on the Cartier website thanks for that,
itās an interesting site.
Regards Charles A.
Women who could unlock the puzzle rings supposedly had the intellect and character of a faithful wife.
Actually the idea was that a woman, being unintellectual, would be
unable to put it back together if she took it off!
Peter,
Everyone seems to be assuming they're very old and generic. But 1924 is older than most of us can recall, I'm pretty sure, and once something is "history" rather than personal memory, people can get easily confused as to just how old something is, or isn't. Can anyone show me a photo or other documentation of a non-Cartier version of this, dated reliably to before 1924? I can't find any such thing in the references I have...
Gimmel rings (or gimmal rings) are dual or triple intertwined rings
which date back to the 1500ās. I donāt know what Cartierās copyright
covers, but they didnāt invent this concept.
Jamie
Iām rather baffled by the copyright controversy here, since this is
a ring construction that is widely available in books and is, in
fact, the first thing I teach to novice metalsmiths (in silver).
I would think that if it was copyrighted or trademarked in 3 colors
of gold, Cartier would be coming down on Rio Grande like a ton of
bricks, because they sell such a ring and itās not from Cartier.
Itās trivial to get and claim a copyright. Itās a lot harder to
defend it. Since Cartier has the money to defend it if it were
defensible, Iād think that the fact that they are not doing so is
tacit acceptance that they do not, in fact, have a sole copyright to
anything except their logo here, and they possibly have a trademark
on the āTrinityā word for this particular use.
Just common sense. I made such a ring out of gold for my husband and
myself, and it was copied- if thatās how you want to look at it- from
the one in the Rio catalogā¦ though it was mostly inspired by me
wanting to work with the various colors of gold, and the fact that I
was teaching this ring construction already.
Amanda Fisher
Gimmel rings (or gimmal rings) are dual or triple intertwined rings which date back to the 1500's. I don't know what Cartier's copyright covers, but they didn't invent this concept.
Thanks, Jamie. Between your reference, and Amanda Fisher pointing
out that such rings can be bought from Rioā¦
Well, I guess I have to conceed that Iāve been wrong on the
copyright protection of this design.
I still think that Cartier is the prime reason this design is as
known and popular as it is. According to the Cartier web site, the
ring because quickly popular in europe after itās introduction due to
the promotion (efforts?) by Jean Cocteau. They donāt go into further
details about what that might be.
And I know that at least I, and many others Iāve worked with or
known in this field, strongly associate that design with Cartier.
But perhaps iāve been wrong on whether they have any sort of
exclusivity to the design, and for that, if Iāve stepped on any toes,
I apologize.
For me, I still donāt feel enthousiastic about making these, simply
because for me, even if Iām not correct, it would feel like copying
someone elses design, or at least, hitchhiking on the Cartier
popularity and marketing.
But thatās me. What all of you do, is up to you.
Just for interest though, I think Iāll send an email to Cartierās
ācontactā on their web site, and actually ask. It might be
interesting to see how they feel about the issue. I might just get a
bunch of huffy fluff back, but perhaps Iāll get an actual informed
answer. Probably what I should have done in the first placeā¦
cheers
Peter Rowe
Women who could unlock the puzzle rings supposedly had the
intellect and character of a faithful wife.
Actually the idea was that a woman, being unintellectual, would be unable to put it back together if she took it off!
The variant I recall hearing was that the unfaithful wife, having
taken the ring off, would not be able to put the thing back together
quick enough, should hubby come home early unexpectedly (one presumes
the postman or whomever could get out the window fast enoughā¦)
Iām not 100% clear on this but I donāt believe you can copyright the
design of an object. Well, at least not in an enforcable way. The
name should be trademarked, the ad copy can be copyright.
From the US Copyright office: Copyright, a form of intellectual
property law, protects original works of authorship including
literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry,
novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture.
Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of
operation, although it may protect the way these things are
expressed.
A trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs
identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and
distinguishing them from those of others.
So this should be trademarked, not copyright. Additionally as Cartier
is a corporate entity, I believe that US copyright is expired if it
was first obtained in 1924. At this time I think only works created
on or after 1934 are still covered and for corporate works it may be
much more recent. French copyright I cannot address.
Ben Brauchler
www.BenzGemz.com
I'm not 100% clear on this but I don't believe you can copyright the design of an object. Well, at least not in an enforcable way. The name should be trademarked, the ad copy can be copyright.
yes. But the design itself, would also be copyrighted. Itās the
creative, artistic element. Trademark is like the brand name. The art
itself, gets copyrighted.
From the US Copyright office: Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture.
In all these cases, itās the creative input, or art, thatās
elligable for copyright protection, as near as I can tell. Like you,
Iām not a lawyer, but this just makes sense.
Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.
yes. Facts would not be an invention. USE of newly discovered
scientific facts, though, might be patented, or copyrighted,
depending on the nature of the use. And some of it is a bit of a grey
area. Iām thinking of some of the arguments over patents on various
Genetic codes discoveredā¦ The discoverers didnāt create it, but
found it, and then want patent protection on the uses derived from
those discoveries. That all gets way too detailed for poor old meā¦
A trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others.
Yes.
So this should be trademarked, not copyright.
The name Trinity would be trademarked. But the designs of the
jewelry would be copyrighted, if they are elligable as unique
original works.
Additionally as Cartier is a corporate entity, I believe that US copyright is expired if it was first obtained in 1924. At this time I think only works created on or after 1934 are still covered and for corporate works it may be much more recent. French copyright I cannot address.
I wasnāt aware thereās a difference between personal or corporate
entityā¦ The only thing I found was that copyrights granted before a
certain date were given 95 years to run. after that date (which Iām
being too lazy to go look up again), you got 70 years, but could
renew it for another 70. That required someone, estate, etc, to be
around to want to keep the protection and actually renew it before it
became public domain.
But the fact that we can find things like those three rings in Rioās
catalog suggests that youāre correct that Cartierās copyright has
expired. Donāt know.
As to whether jewelry should be copyrighted or trademarked, the
pragmatic observation is to note that one sees copyright marks on a
lot of jewelry, but generally not tradmark marks. So either everyone
is doing it wrong, or the design of a piece of jewelry gets a
copyright, not a trademarkā¦
cheers
Peter Rowe
I'm not 100% clear on this but I don't believe you can copyright the design of an object.
Yes you are definitely not clear on this. You can most certainly
copyright a design of an object. Basically any form of creative
expression can be copyrighted. Jewelry designs are routinely
protected by registered copyright. But if you read a little further
you will find that the copyright does not even need to be registered
it exists from the moment of creation. Jewelry design, writing,
music, sculpture etc all have an inherent copyright in the eyes of
the US law but you will make your life easier if it ever comes to
litigation if it is registered.
James Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts
But the fact that we can find things like those three rings in Rio's catalog suggests that you're correct that Cartier's copyright has expired.
Not necessarily. It is illegal to use the copyright symbol (or
trademark, patent, etc.) unless you have a valid, in-force copyright.
I would think that Cartier would know this. Thatās why it would be
soooooo interesting to know what copyright number that they are
relying on, in order to read it and determine the actual claim(s)
that were granted.
Jamie
Is that two US sizes over or on another scale please?