I believe the name of the designer who suspends/supports the bezel
between 2 posts is Whitney Boin.
Andy
By the way, Ecclesiastes 1:
What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10
Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has already been,
in the ages before us.
11
The people of long ago are not remembered,
nor will there be any remembrance
of people yet to come
by those who come after them.
a little research and there it is: your new, brilliant idea, done originally during the Bronze Age ! Humiliating, isn't it ? "
There is another way to see all this, that traditional forms and
materials are just fine, and the ‘touch’ of the maker’s eye and
imagination are what make it personal, and indeed completely
different-- there is a reason ancient wood-fired kim-chee jars from
Korea are some of the most sought-after and expensive collector’s
items in the pottery realm-- each one completely individual and
profound, yet a common form made by peasant potters.
But inventiveness and innovation are thrilling, as long as
innovation is not the end in and of itself-- To me nothing is more
boring than novelty for the sake of looking different-- this is a
gimmick, not innovation in the service of furthering one’s creative
efforts.
There are fun systems I’ve developed that have opened up the nature
of metal-working, allowing works that could not have been made by
traditional means, but these innovations are purely in the service
of the design (patents pending of course, futile as that may seem).
I do remember a piece photographed in “The new jewelry, trends and
Traditions” book from the 1980’s, back when people were
experimenting with all sorts of alternative jewelry materials,
eggshells, nylon, etc-- there was a piece, by (I think) Caroline
Broadhead, a braided tubular veil done in translucent nylon
filaments-- perhaps not the most practically wearable ‘commercial’
piece of course, but I think entirely innovative-- far beyond simply
employing synthetic ‘newer’ materials, etc. I though it was a very
beautiful, poetic piece with it’s semi-obscuring spiraling net of
woven translucent soft colors-- I’ve never seen a braided pattern
like that before nor since, let alone such an effectively romantic
and beautiful piece that utterly transformed the innovative use of
material into a powerful and coherent design.
Once again, one should look to the era of Artwear-- artists like
Carol Motty, for example, completely redefined form and materials–
she was dripping designs of colored silicone onto colored silk,
using that as a medium to create beautiful and diaphanous wearable
scarves-- a look much imitated, but no more reproducible than an
expressionistic painting. or Tone Vigeland, hammering out stainless
steel nails and linking them into amazing structures with silver and
gold like softly shimmering metal feathers. There was at that time a
resurgence in emphasis on originality, not simply to be gimmicky
with some nerdy new way to lay out stones in the computer-- but
truly investigating material and form, finding a unique and personal
path of expression, bringing entirely new methods into being in
order to achieve something truly unique, personal and amazing.
Robert Morris intentionally encouraged us to lead not follow, to set
new standards by exploring one’s personal gifts and vision, and many
of the Artwear Artists did so with fascinating results.
Unfortunately the world since became entirely commercial and
consumeristic, and the backlash of neoclassical forms obliterated
the trend by flooding consumer channels with massive advertising,
artificially dissolving the avant-garde into an utterly hype-created
phenomenon last seen only in the fabricated era of ‘designer dress
jeans’ unleashed on the gullible public in the disco 70’s. While
minimalism of the early 1990’s produced much interesting work in the
fast-moving apparel industry, jewelry innovation appeared utterly
hijacked by mass merchants bent on turning back the clock to
recognizable forms of commercial jewelry traditions.
Thus in this dry time for design, it appears that the idea of
‘innovation’ has only to do with some novel stone-setting approach,
or the latest diffusion-treated color for topaz or other–and in
that lexicon of strictly commercial, traditional parameters, it is
indeed difficult to be truly innovative, or to express something
entirely new under the sun-- but it can be done-- Steve Kretchmer
was one of the few who relentlessly quested after innovation in both
form and fabrication while remaining entirely within the idiom of
traditional fine jewelry. Steve’s designs and methods were
passionate and fascinating and exciting and unique. We will miss him.
J.
I am concerned regarding some of the issues presented in this
thread. Although I agree in large part with the argument that there
is “nothing new under the sun,” the Copyright and Patent Laws of the
United States suggest otherwise with regard to design. Design Patents
have been allowed since the early 1800s. Sometimes these can involve
a complicated process and the fees can be high. Copyright protection
is easy to obtain, the applications are easy to complete and the fees
charged by the Copyright Office are very low.
If you do not want to make an effort to protect your design, that is
fine.
However, anyone seriously interested in protecting their designs
should have some knowledge of intellectual property law. I think
every jewelry designer should have some knowledge of the court’s
treatment of the designs in Barry Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories By
Pearl, Inc., 632 F.2d 989, (2d Cir. 1980). The three judge appellate
panel returned a split decision in favor of Kieselstein-Cord and
discussed the basis for both sides of the ruling. The opinions for
each side are pretty easy to understand and are located on the
internet at -
www2.bc.edu/~yen/CopyrightWebPage/Kieselstein.doc
If this link does not come through, I will be glad to provide it
directly to anyone who wants it, or you can find it with Google.
The protection that Kieselstein-Cord obtained would cost any jewelry
designer about $90 for each design, plus a little of your time.
Komowkwa
sorry I have not been following this thread but I thought I would
throw my 2 cents into it.
I too do all custom work and I used to get offended when my work was
copied, and then one day I realized when I started out 22 years ago
I used to copy others to build my skills on the bench. I only
“tried” to copy the designers that I thought were great and had
really creative ideas.
but now I study the work of the past and present designers as
inspiration to create unique designs of my own, and find it
flattering when someone does copy my work. this tells me that I must
be doing something right to inspire someone to take the time to
study my piece and try to copy it.
I know this is not exactly why people are worried about coping but
it is the positive side of it.
remember easy designs are easy to copy, hard designs are easy to
look at.
Matthew
www.mhgjewelry.com
Everyone seems to be missing one point - to press a case of theft of
intellectual property, you are best off enlisting the services of an
intellectual property lawyer. The cost ? Thousands ! The return ?
Maybe only a few bucks. If you can’t specify the actual damages to
you caused by the theft of your intellectual property, you get the
hefty sum of one dollar for every item sold that uses your concept -
that is, if you can prove it is your concept. If only a few rip-offs
have been sold, you get only a few bucks. You’re out several thousand
dollars - at least.
If you’re a big jewelry house pursuing sellers of foreign-made
knockoffs, it’s probably worth it. If you’re a small independent
jeweler, you’ll go broke paying the legal fees.
Brian Corll
Brian Corll, Inc.
1002 East Simpson Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
One last thing, there is a style that seems to come out of the college jewelry programs, and that is a narrative style. Quite a few of what I see of art jewelers use this style, and content may be different, but the style makes the pieces have similarity. My opinion is that some of Noel Yovovich's work falls into this category.
I believe that after 30 years of studying jewelry I can post others artists work that would be similar enough to theoretically bump ya out of the denial that your work is so unique.
Since you invoked my name, I will just mention that I did not come
out of a college jewelry program, I went to the University of
Chicago (BA '72). I am pretty much self-taught. And I really truly
would like to know what work you see as being similar. I tell my
customers, “As far as I am aware, I am the only person doing work
like this” so if I am wrong, I will stop saying it.
Noel
It is the opinion of my friend who teaches, that in America people
take classes in techniques, and in Europe design is taught.
Richard has a good point here. I went back to college and got an AA
in art 5 years ago because my technique was good but I wanted to
improve my art skills. The two classes that changed my work the most
were 2D and 3D design (part of the requirements). I try to apply
what I learned, especially in 2D, to my work. I have taken many
workshops, which is often what many people do to learn jewelry, but
here you mostly learn technique and there isn’t really time to teach
design. My college jewelry classes emphasized design after teaching
basic technique.
Donna in VA
When making jewelry for a niche market, it can be very obvious when
someone directly steals another’s design. I have been working
largely within a niche market, and I’m pretty familiar with the work
of other jewelers also serving this niche (Hi Lyn and Teri!) The
large manufacturing companies barely touch on hobby or professional
niches except to make a few charms, but the other, and I think
pretty original jewelry, would be obvious to someone within this
‘small town’. I have spoken with a lawyer about this (not
specifically about jewely, but about other accessory-like things
made for this niche) and she made up a very nice cease-and-desist
letter. I hope I never have to use it.
Laurel Cavanaugh
www.medievaljeweler.com
If someone copies your design and produces it under their own name, I think one should be honoured and revel in the fact that your design is successful and has caused others to imitate it and grow from it. I look forward to the day I see one of my orginal designs copied, that is the day I will know my design is a success.
This is the original reply, the one that started all the fuss. I
feel the statement above represents behavior that is vastly different
than where the thread deviated to. Looking at ancient gold and being
inspired by the beauty of, say, granulation, going on to study the
process, and eventually incorporating the technique into one’s work
is very different from what the original poster proposed above.
I understand that there is nothing new under the Sun. However, I
feel it is important to remember and it is essential to reiterate
time and again to the new people just coming into the field the
following: yes, you can be original in your own right. yes, it’s ok
to be inspired by the work of others yes, you can succeed and find
your own voice and your own style no, you don’t have to give up no,
you don’t have to copy the work of others to make it by.
I’m happy with my choice of this field every day. I wake in the
morning and the first thought I have is “what can i do today?” I look
forward to my days, to my work. I love to learn and will continue to
do so. Every year is better than the last for me. I find the whole
process fulfilling. This is the message that I would like to pass
along.
I was a business owner once. I had 3 partners. There was dishonesty
involved. Without going into too much detail, something was taken
from me. I went to court. I won. I got back what was taken and I got
to keep my self respect as well.
Don’t get down on yourself and don’t give up. There are a wealth of
opportunities out there for you. My old partner said “Kim doesn’t
understand, everybody does it. It’s ok if everybody does it” She was
so wrong about everything except the fact that I didn’t understand.
Thank goodness the magistrate didn’t understand either.
Every time I go with a trendy design, I fail. I sell nothing. Every
time I listen to myself and let go of preconceptions, I do well. Be
yourself and do what’s right. That’s my motto and I’m sticking to it.
Good luck
Kim Starbard
Rather than begin a new thread on this, let’s just say that using
CAD I have found a way to create an array (geometric pattern) of
stones set culet to culet with very little metal visible to the eye.
Kind of a self-supporting grid of gems, with the metal architecture
very subtle. I have not seen anything like this, and I have
researched the market and current patents for over 30 years.
Recently a ‘kissing diamonds’ look emerged, which is not even close
to my invention. Patent approval is expected…
Regards,
PK
The protection that Kieselstein-Cord obtained would cost any jewelry designer about $90 for each design, plus a little of your time.
The lawyers to pursue any such protection would cost any jewelry
designer about $250 an hour minimum, (probably somewhat more…),
and the rest of their natural born days to follow it through the
court system. Kieselstein-Cord is an unfortunate example, as would be
David Yurman, John Hardy etc…Most all of us here are smaller fish,
and only mass production of our work is worth the time and effort
necessary…Say…Target decides to make my ring that I have a
copywrite on? Ok…easy to find a lawyer to work on contingency,
but only if my and documentation is solid. Some dissolute
small timer knocks off 20 or thirty of the same…not worth the
time, effort and expenditure as the D.S.T. has no, or little money.
Ergo…I will get no money, I will waste my time, my lawyer will
charge me by the hour, and I will most likely only succeed in
annoying myself. Fortunately, Target rarely knocks off anyone.
So… Yes…easy to obtain a copywrite. Very cumbersome and cost
ineffective to attempt enforcement. Those big timers mentioned have
lawyers on retainer. The rest of us do not.
Lisa,(Brush clearance work all day today. Brush cleared to 200’ from
my house, trash gone, trees trimmed. I hate fire season, but
everything looks great), Topanga, CA USA
Rather than begin a new thread on this, let's just say that using CAD I have found a way to create an array (geometric pattern) of stones set culet to culet with very little metal visible to the eye.
Culet to culet is the point on the bottom of one stone near the
point on the bottom of another stone, and I can not picture what the
effect of having stones arrayed like this would be. The things I
have seen like this are an arc or a circle with the edge decorated
with gems, or a ball set with gems.
Did you mean girdle to girdle like pave?
Richard Hart
PK,
Just out of curiosity, have you actually produced this design or
just done it on CAD?
Daniel R. Spirer, G.G.
Daniel R. Spirer Jewelers, LLC
1780 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02140
Hi Laurie & Lyn lol niche yuppers I am a niche jeweler and proud of
it lol Hope you got home safe from the “war” me I am starting to get
energy it only took two days to start thinking about my next pieces
and next show heheheh not bad thought I would be burned out but no…
I bought some really cool tools cheap… 3 wwI british isles military
hat badge stamps heheh very cool.
And yes I had earrings and a necklace and a bracelet stolen at that
event and should I see any out for sale at ren faires or irish fests
I will be pressing charges my earrings are a unique style for sure.
It will do no one any good to steal from me I can come up with many
many new ways to be unique hehehe
It was great to put a name to a face and feel free to start up a
chat in our little niche cause creativity and exchange are the best
tools we have!
teri
Silver & Cameo Heritage Jewelry
www.corneliusspick.com
Lisa,
Another item that I haven’t seen mentioned is that it is best (nay,
necessary) to get a registered copyright by completing the
appropriate forms and then sending photos of your creation to the
Copyright Office. I don’t know what the fee is now, used to be twenty
bucks, but without registration you’ll have a difficult time proving
that “you got there first” with the creation. I agree wholeheartedly
that tough talk about rip-offs is useless - unless you have the
money, guts, and time to pursue a case through our horrid judicial
system, you’re out of luck. If the company that rips off your design
is overseas (especially China) forget it entirely. Small-scale
rip-offs are likewise not worth pursuing.
Brian Corll
Brian Corll, Inc.
1002 East Simpson Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
In this string on originality there is one over-riding issue that has
not been injected into the equation. What is the cost/benefit ratio
in policing and litigating copyright issues ? Accordingly, how is it
even remotely possible to police potential infractions ? Certainly,
if we want to protect our immediate territory, there is some validity
in challenging usurpers simply because there is a practical overview
of the potential copiers. But, when it comes to surveying the entire
state in which you live…or the entire country…or the entire
world, or the entire internet; come on, give me a break ! Are we
talking even remotely about something that is practical ? No way !
Okay…so we consider the scenario wherein the “perp” is very
visible because of his size and media prevalence. Are you, the small
time operator or crafts person,going to be able to convince a
competent lawyer to go up against a corporation on a contingency
basis…or, if not, are you sufficiently well endowed financially to
pay a lawyer outright to defend your claim? Then, even if you prevail
in the legal arena and you get a judgement against the “perp”, are
you in a good position to collect ?
Moreover, after not being able to collect, are you going to be able
to lay out a bunch more dollars to try to collect from someone who
has a better lawyer ? Let’s get real ! If you are really talented,
get rich with your creations; otherwise stop spinning your wheels. If
you are selling something that is truly original then you shouldn’t
care about replicating your “unique” design…otherwise, all you are
doing is selling something that is a copy of your “original”,
therefore, it is not an original !
Historically, I don’t know of any widely recognized artists who
bothered to pursue copyright infringement. They simply went on
creating and to hell with the nit pickers! The disgruntled ( read
Salieri vs.Mozart ) schemed and assailed and wailed about their
superior talents. Mozart, Bach and the other great composers didn’t
waste time on copyright infringement…they pursued their passions
and genius. They had no time for trivial pursuits.Thank god those
geniuses did not wallow in the mud !
Ron Mills, Mills Gem Co. Los
Osos, Ca.
Rather than begin a new thread on this, let's just say that using CAD I have found a way to create an array (geometric pattern) of stones set culet to culet with very little metal visible to the eye. Kind of a self-supporting grid of gems, with the metal architecture very subtle. I have not seen anything like this, and I have researched the market and current patents for over 30 years. Recently a 'kissing diamonds' look emerged, which is not even close to my invention. Patent approval is expected....
This sounds pretty close to a couple of rings and earrings I saw in
a ‘designer jewellery’ shop window in Lucerne, Switzerland last
year…
Ian
Ron,
Off the cuff, I can’t think of any prominent artists who pursued
others for copyright infringement, but I’m sure there have been some.
(Hmmm…interesting one to research.) One prominent case in the
other direction was that Andy Warhol was sued for stealing a flower
photo out of a catalog and making a silk-screen out of it (well, his
"assistants" made the silkscreen. Warhol was too busy hanging out at
Max’s Kansas City). The suit was successful, and somewhat
precedent-setting. Anyone can take any idea and use it to create
another original work of art. There is no infringement there, it is
"fair use". But if you take someone’s original idea and make 10,000
copies, you’ve got a problem. But as I said and you said also,
pursuing that litigation is nearly impossible for the average
person, or unaffordable.
Brian Corll
Brian Corll, Inc.
1002 East Simpson Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Tel.: (717) 691-0286
Teri,
See now this is some of what I’m talking about. You say: “I will be
pressing charges my earrings are a unique style for sure”. In what
way are your earrings a unique style? I went and looked on your
website and you had one pair of earrings. They were pierced silver
and were supposed to represent an animal figure (in some vaguely
abstract way). I’m sorry but there just isn’t anything that unique
about them. I produced earrings similar in style to that 30 years
ago. (I have seen a ton of American Indian stuff with a distinctly
similar feel too.) Did they have exactly the same lines as yours? No,
but they were close enough that declaring yours to be “unique” is
futile at best. Did I keep doing things like that? No because they
simply weren’t that interesting to me. Is there a market for them?
Sure. I’m sure you do well with them. But are they unique?
Absolutely not. Should you pursue your muse and see where it leads
to? Absolutely. But let’s just not kid ourselves about what is new
and what isn’t. You also showed a lot of fused work on your web site.
Granted, every time someone fuses a piece, it comes out differently
and no two are ever alike (I know because I use fused metals in some
of my work). But does that make it unique or original? No, it just
makes it a slight variation on fused metal work. As I’ve said before,
just because you haven’t seen it elsewhere before doesn’t mean it
hasn’t been done.
Daniel R. Spirer, G.G.
Daniel R. Spirer Jewelers, LLC
1780 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02140