Is it Emulation or worse?

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by Simon Fay

If I may, I think the underlying issue causing confusion is simply a lack of knowledge. The further one delves into the world of art (furniture, painting, sculpture) the more one learns what distinguishes artists from one another. One begins to recognize subtle but unique departures within a given style or form. There are a number of artists who have focused on "big boned" specimens -- Rubens, Beryl Cook, and Botero. But you can pick out a Botero painting or sculpture quite easily - at least, I can because I am somewhat familiar with his work and that of other artists.

As has been mentioned in this thread, pretty much "everything" has been done in some form whether it be with guitars, painting, sculpture, architecture, woodworking, etc. Nevertheless, Fernando Botero's style is still very unique. How can that be if other's have done similar things. How about music. There are some songs that seem like they are direct copies but most music does sound unique even if the style is the same.

Some of the arguments made in this thread are along the lines of "Well, this music is in the same major key -- so no songs written in this key are unique". The point here is "too close for comfort". In order to determine what is too close, one must be thoroughly aware of what has been done before and must also be able to critically analyze art. If you don't have those things, then you will be confused. I love modern architecture but am not a student of modern and contemporary architecture. I would not be able to distinguish unique styles within that field nor tell you if someone copied the work of another.

*** This is why I said it isn't the responsibility of the customer. The man or woman who sits down and arrives at a design KNOWS whether they copied someone else's design. Me personally -- I start with "blank slates". I'm aware of what others are doing and if what I've done seems to similar then I keep going with the design process. This is all pretty straightforward IMO.

This is really being made way too complicated -- probably because this is being debated by consumers rather than the actual artists -- I can guarantee that most artisans will be able to distinguish their work and the work of their peers. There are unique designs out there -- if you knowingly borrow something, then talk with the person whom you borrowed the idea from. If you believe that you haven't borrowed anything from a specific person -- then there is no need to seek out anyone to ask permission for. Again, this is the responsibility of the artist and not the buyer. For those of you who are not "professionals" -- don't worry about copying too much as there is no fallout from such situations -- although, a quick email or phone call is a welcomed sign of respect.

Best Regards,
Simon

Yes, of course.

Will those without the requisite knowledge/experience be able to digest what you've presented?

Doubtful.

Your last comment is in no small measure what set me of in the other thread...not just the copying, but the total ongoing disregard for the issue of respect.

[Jim.S]

I suppose another element when it comes to design is the source. If someone builds a Art Deco style guitar and becomes know for the style will it then happen that any one else who build a Art Deco style guitar be accused, openly or not of copying that makers style? Maybe but it doesn't matter much either and I don't see the need for guitar builders to thank the architects of that style back in the day.

I often sit in my shed at night and design future guitars (that may never be built), just a bit of doodling cause I can't make too much noise and it's more enjoyable than a bit of reality TV. Often I will chose a theme like Celtic, Art Deco, Art Nouveau or a long list of other. One night I chose Zen and for the rosette was looking at Enso circles on the net. While my sketches did not look quite like the rosettes of Michi, (I did not have any of the radial element he uses) it would be easy enough for someone to decide that Michi was the influence and not my source. I did wonder if the Enso circle was Michi's influence but without asking him I will never know, maybe he'll join the forum one day then I can ask.

Jim

Wonder how far back you have to go too, did Gotye acknowledge 'Ah! Vous dirai-je, Maman' or Baa Baa black sheep

[Dave Murray]

Originally Posted by Burton LeGeyt

...

In that sense, I think you can (or should?) have control over a very specific way of building a certain feature, like a Ryan bevel with flutes, or Ken Parker's neck and neck joint. I don't think it is realistic though to assume you have dominion over a broad idea of a feature. That seems to dismiss the very likely possibility it has already been done before in the long history of instrument building.

There is obviously a lot of grey area and that is what makes it interesting to discuss.

I checked on the flutes because a customer was asking about them. Kevin's patent is in place on that design for the next 17 years. So that means Jeffrey Elliott can start taking orders for instruments with fluted bevels in about 2 years. The rest of us will have to wait awhile longer.

[Oxwood_Handmade]

Originally Posted by gstar

This of course presuming that the designs of which you speak were ever truly original, novel, or unique. As stated earlier in this thread, I question whether this is ever really the case. At best a person might come up with a variation of an existing idea or design rather than actually come up with something truly new given the span of human history. I'm not sure that a deep sense of ownership in these variations of existing ideas, designs, and themes is justified. Whether you know it or not, the likelihood is high that what you think is novel is actually not.

True in a way. With the design I'm referring to, I took inspiration from a certain element of a vintage instrument (not a guitar). It became my own through a lot of design work and rough drafts. I think what I'm referring to has more to do with proximity and timing and the closeness of replication...a little too convenient in some cases.

Brad

[KevinLPederson]

I think K Ryan did the right thing with protecting his flutes. Can't a guy, who comes up with "a little something unique", set himself apart?

For example, I have to admit, I wanted to copy this, but I said "no" I'm not going to. Then I found out he had a patent, so it was "his", legally, and I couldn't. I decided to put my dual sound ports on the side and cover them with grill cloth, and cut the four hole bezels. I don't have a patent on it, but this is an example of ulterior thinking. "Can't copy his, so I'll have to do something different".

Here is a picture example.



Another example, on this guitar, are the bridge saddles. Everybody has done/is doing the slot saddle, and I've done it too. But dialing in the intonation points was becoming "unefficient" to me and I thought about how I might make a saddle that is adjustable - for three years. They weigh no more than Somoygi's 1/4" wide saddle. They are machined of bone and they are indivisible from the bridge base. They work great!! I was awarded a US patent on these. It cost me thousands of dollars to patent this. Will it pay off? I've already sold enough to pay for itself. Will it profit? Time will tell. These are two examples of trying to take a different path than others. Will the player accept these saddles? I think they will, they are part of the recipe of my Modified SJ guitar. I have more examples within that guitar model that are "unique" but not patentable ideas. Dual side walls, laminated in headblock. Other things. Just examples; trying to do my own thing as much as humanly possible.

Kevin.

[LouieAtienza]

I think now, since my trussrods, tuning machines, and trussrod covers use screws, I should credit Archimedes for that innovation?

[Neil K Walk]

What about rosette or headstock designs? Is it plagiarism if you draw inspiration but not exact duplication from another?

[Larry Pattis]

While I appreciate the dialogue here, this thread is also a bit sad for me.

It shows that the Custom Shop, as with the other AGF sub-forums, people do not read other's posts to see how their commentary/questions have already been addressed clearly and cogently.

I also don't much care for the snarky sarcasm that pervades the rest of the forum.

Believe it or not, I had actually hoped for better here.

Now I realize that 8 pages (as per my settings) of posts ends up being a bit of a read, but we have some darned fine people commenting here, and it's worth one's while to actually read through this stuff...

[LouieAtienza]

I recall an acoustc with bone saddles that adjust similarly to a Tune-O-Matic on a Les Paul, but can`t remember the builder. It was actually a very elegant solution, though I`m sure it required precise machining.

Another point not brought up is that there are aspiring builders that have used Somogy`s, Bogdanovich`s, Cumpiano`s, Gore`s, Benedetto`s books as reference in learning to build. It`s obvious to me that if one learns this way, thet will start out with similar instruments.

Unwritten code aside, if one freely gives out unprotected knowledge, should they expect credit when somone not in the "clique" of builders decides to use it? Also most anyone can claim they "discovered" an idea independantly. Who can really refute that claim? One thing unique to guitarbuilding is that there is a struggle for individuality among the independant builders, yet the market is such that anything radical is not accepted. Electric bass guitarists seem to be more receptive to new technologies and radical shapes, for example.

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by Larry Pattis

While I appreciate the dialogue here, this thread is also a bit sad for me.

It shows that the Custom Shop, as with the other AGF sub-forums, people do not read other's posts to see how their commentary/questions have already been addressed clearly and cogently.

I also don't much care for the snarky sarcasm that pervades the rest of the forum.

Believe it or not, I had actually hoped for better here.

Now I realize that 8 pages (as per my settings) of posts ends up being a bit of a read, but we have some darned fine people commenting here, and it's worth one's while to actually read through this stuff...

You don`t find it irrespectful to basically publically accuse a luthier here of plagarism? I was snarky to make a point that just somehow seems lost here. Guitar builders don`t live in a bubble. If they don`t want to protect their work the way some have, they will be left open to copying.

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

You don`t find it irrespectful to basically publically accuse a luthier here of plagarism?

<<snip>>

Not if it's true, as supported by direct information.

You can make this as contentious or sarcastic as you would like.

This thread is filled with inaccuracies, mis-readings, rhetorical (pointless, IMO) questions/suppositions, straw-man arguments, and worse...

...and also some very good perspectives, if one takes the time to read and fully-digest what has been written by the builders themselves.

[Oxwood_Handmade]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

I recall an acoustc with bone saddles that adjust similarly to a Tune-O-Matic on a Les Paul, but can`t remember the builder. It was actually a very elegant solution, though I`m sure it required precise machining.

Another point not brought up is that there are aspiring builders that have used Somogy`s, Bogdanovich`s, Cumpiano`s, Gore`s, Benedetto`s books as reference in learning to build. It`s obvious to me that if one learns this way, thet will start out with similar instruments.

Unwritten code aside, if one freely gives out unprotected knowledge, should they expect credit when somone not in the "clique" of builders decides to use it? Also most anyone can claim they "discovered" an idea independantly. Who can really refute that claim? One thing unique to guitarbuilding is that there is a struggle for individuality among the independant builders, yet the market is such that anything radical is not accepted. Electric bass guitarists seem to be more receptive to new technologies and radical shapes, for example.

I had the same thought for a second... but the argument here is not of construction techniques but of aesthetic design. Somogyi did not write a book on inlaying segmented rosettes. He wrote a book on guitar construction and theory and encourages the builder/reader to develop their own aesthetic signature in their designs. Just as an example, nowhere does he say "this is how a bridge should look", he says (in a nutshell)- this is the function of the bridge and for best results it should do "this". Not to mention the whole first 30 or 40 pages are dedicated to giving examples of and crediting individuals on their creative designs. If you've read the book you know that the intent was not to encourage a slew of builders to do their best to make Somogyi copies.

But, I do see what you're saying about the more "traditional" audience when it comes to acoustic guitars. That is why it's more troublesome. A person works very hard to design something that is widely appreciated and then is hijacked without permission or credit.

Brad

[cigarfan]

We've gone way beyond Rule #1 (be nice) and therefore this thread is closed.