Tutorial ethics conundrum
 

A little while ago, there was a free tutorial offered on this site by a member - you just had to email them to get it. Now this is fine, but once I read the tutorial, I realized that I had seen a YouTube video showing this exact technique a couple of weeks earlier. Getting to the bottom of the tutorial, the author had written that no one was allowed to sell anything made using that tutorial.

How does this make sense? I am not making that kind of item at this time, and am not good enough to sell anything yet, but if I was, this tutorial writer has essentially claimed this well-known technique as their own, and might want to come after me if I did sell those items.

Is this right? How could it possibly be ethical on the part of the author? Can I not make those items if I ever wanted to, now?

Edited to clarify - this IS a well-known technique that has been in existence for years, and I have seen general threads on this board for show and tell on the style.

I will never understand the folks that sell instructions on how to make something, but then tell people that they can't sell any items that they make with it. If I just wanted an item for myself, I would just buy the damn item (not the tut). Grrrrr.....

I completely understand not allowing resale of the tut. That makes sense.

My view is that... if the technique is on Youtube, it is public knowledge. Feel free to sell items you make.

Really, very few techniques are truly original.

That's my view... take it or leave it. Ethics can be very debatable. You have to live with yourself. Do what you believe is right.

It doesn't really make any sense to me at all.

It is utterly asinine to expect someone to pay for a tutorial and
then not be able to use the technique.

Anyone that thinks they can dictate what people do with a
technique once it is published is an idiot.

I recently saw a person's website and they claimed:

"This person is the only person allowed to make this tool"

Sorry, Chuckles, if you do not own a patent you have no right
to claim exclusive rights to anything...

Bottom line, for me:

If I pay to learn a technique I am going to use it.

I think I know who you are talking about. She is not saying that you can't sell things made with the tutorial. She is asking that you do not reproduce or distribute the tutorial itself. This is reasonable as she is the one who wrote and photographed the tutorial and she owns the copyright to her actual tutorial.

You can sell all you can make using the tutorial. You can write your own tutorial using your own photos and words. You just can't copy and distribute her tutorial.

If that is the intent, then that is good, and I withdraw my question. The wording of the paragraph, however, gave a different impression due to how vague it was.

I have no idea which tut you are talking about, but as a tutorial author myself, I would really, REALLY want to know if there was anything in my tutorial (including copyright, etc) that was confusing for a reader. I spend many hours trying to make sure what I have conveyed is clear and really appreciate feedback from readers.

I hope you'll consider writing to the author and letting her know that her copyright terms were confusing for you as a reader. I bet she would appreciate it!


Jo

English isn't her first language and it might have made the statement seem a little vague.

Ohhhhh THAT one...yeah, I think it just meant not to reprint and distribute. Not sure why, since it's free.

Since hers is FREE it would be awfully rude for someone to reprint/copy it and sell it.

One tiny caveat:

E-Mail addresses are a marketable commodity in the year 2012.

If a person is collecting and selling E-Mail addresses is their free
tutorial really "free" ?

Disclaimer, I am in no way implying anyone is doing such a thing,
it is only an example of how "free" often does have a hidden cost.

The act of teaching something makes the taught item marketable.
That's the way it works. One does not teach something in order for
the person who makes it to have to hoard it.

Imagine if all teachers were like that. In high schools, teachers would
show you how to do math, but you weren't allowed to add stuff up outside
of school.

Ridiculous.

If someone posts a tutorial, whether free or paid, you absolutely have the
right to begin making AND selling the item. You have paid for the knowledge, or
it was offered up freely, and there is no "taking it back."

Word.

lol! That would make my job VERY difficult! Not to mention making many university educations pointless...

Luckily, I think we figured this instance out.

That's why I can't do math!

My free tutorial, right here, right now: Sell what you want....But, I forbid it.

Make any sense? No...and that's the same thing as someone telling you not to use their tutorial to make something to sell.

If it's the tutorial I think you are talking about, she's definetly not stating not to sell any beads using that technique. She's asking not to distribute or sell that tutorial , as she is the one who wrote the tutorial ( for free!!)

She would never ask or dictate someone not to sell beads using that technique ( who she did not claim as beeing her technique either, it's a technique, and she's been kind enough to make a visual for people who like to have that.

If it's another tutorial you are referring at... then please consider the above not written :)

While it may not be the case with this tute, I have seen similar requests made in the past. And I have never understood this because the very second you start to create something, even if the inspiration came from someone else's artwork, you put your own personal fingerprints on it and the idea will merge with your own style.....no way to really avoid it (and as creative beings why would we want to?). So.....I am honored when I see someone use my ideas.......and really floored with the creative directions a single idea can take!

I'm gonna tag onto this thread rather than start "yet another tutorials ethics" thread. I have a question I really haven't seen addressed, so I hope this is not flogging a dead horse!

This is mostly a question for tutorial writers, but I'm interested in the general opinion, too. I know there are a number multi-torcher households, including my own, where a spouse/child/parent/etc. living under the same roof torches. Should spouses, for example, purchase separate tutorial copies? In my household, for example, we share our copies of lampworking books, fight over who gets first dibs on The Flow when it arrives, hang out with each other and back-seat drive at the torch. We learned lampworking and jewelry making specifically as something to do together.

If you are a tutorial author, do you feel it is ok for a purchaser to share a tut with a spouse? If no, is it ok let a spouse watch while you are creting a bead from a tutorial?

In my case, it is not really an issue YET (although I don't have a clue why my hubby doesn't want to make, for example, Lydia's delicious watercolor florals) - but it could be. My husband is my extra eyes and most honest critic; if I'm not getting something right, he'll watch and troubleshoot. He's also my most valued production assistant. He prefers making twisties and canes and components to making beads, and I could see envision a situation where I would want him to read a tutorial and build a specific set of canes, murrini, etc. for me to use in a particular bead. Again, so far not a problem - I can just say "Hey make me a bunch of diffferent colorful canes in these colors" and take the results and make Anne R's Wild Brights with them all day without him seeing the actual tutorial - but if I need something more specific...

If you have a household member who torches, do you share tutorials? Do you share techniques one of you has learned in a class the other did not take? What do you feel is appropriate?

Hi Stella, This is just my opinion, so I'm not speaking for anyone else, but I would never expect members of the same household to have separate subscriptions to my magazine. Husband and wife should be able to share one subscription, and I feel the same about any tutorials I publish.

Think of it like a book. Only one person at a time can use a book and then you give it to the other person to read. So having one copy of the magazine or tutorial for the two of you is understandable.

Again, only my opinion, but I think it is probably shared by others.

that is a tough question to answer, but, think of it this way. if you buy Stephen Kings new book, and your hubby wants to read it next...do you tell him to buy another copy?

that's my take on it. so long as it's not being copied or reproduced, or shown publicly in any way (the tut itself) it's fair game.

crap diane beat me to it lol.

another Diane ditto here. I think you have over thought this and made it complicated. If you have purchased an e-tutorial, you are allowed to reprint it again for your own use.

-D

"Imagine if all teachers were like that. In high schools, teachers would
show you how to do math, but you weren't allowed to add stuff up outside
of school."

Love this analogy:-)

well that would be fine by me, i hate math!

I was sued one time for making the same item as another artist. We all know him but I refrain from saying his name. When it got to court, the Judge looked at it and decided that since we were both artist, we were both allowed to make apples (the object was not an apple, I just used that) . Since my apple was not the same as his apple, nor was I trying to say it was his apple, then he had no case against me.
So I say make all the apples you want and sell all you can, just dont say they are his apples.
Mike

ps...mine was over a dragon
pss... when he sees this he will likely get really upset, but still making apples...hehe

My feelings about this are so complicated, but I think I am at peace with them.

If I buy a tutorial for someone's signature bead, and I learn all of the techniques and start churning out copies of that signature bead, I am legally allowed to do that. I can also make the beads slightly differently... Changing only minor aspects of the design like the colours or the type of creature depicted, and even if I am still essentially copying that artists style that is still within my legal rights since I paid to learn how to do it and the secrets have been shared.

I think that an artist would make just enough of someone else's beads to learn the techniques involved and then would be refocused on their own work and style armed with that new knowledge. A craftsperson could happily make those exact beads with only minor variations until either they were tired of them or they stopped selling.

One of the things about this, making it hard, is that everyone draws the line for whether or not something is a copy in a different place. For me, if I look at a bead and I can tell exactly which signature bead of someone else's was being emulated, then it's a copy. Lydia Muell floral windows on a bicone are still her floral windows on a differently shaped bead. A tab bead with a sculptural housefly on it done in Kerri Fuhr's style will be a copy to me even though to the best of my knowledge Kerri doesn't do flies. A bead that is the spitting image of a Melanie Moertel bead except with a different colour palette and a whale instead of a penguin will still be a Melanie bead to me, no matter who created it.

There's nothing legally wrong with making these copies, and I appreciate the skill and effort it takes to do it well. I just don't think that anyone who habitually does it and has not yet developed their own personal style should confuse what they are doing with being an artist.

Melanie, I am with you. When I get a tutorial I make just enough of the beads to figure out my own take on the technique. Sure, I'll put the beads out for sale -- but if, to me, they have not yet become MY beads, I always note that to buyers: "This one is a learning piece from a tutorial by so and so," or "I learned this in a demonstration by the talented and generous so and so."

I feel the same way about other related art forms. If I use a tutorial bead in a jewellery design, I point it out; if I make something based on a book or tutorial, I credit the artist. (Right now I have my own brand of spinner rings, but I made a lot of Kim St. JEan's riveted rings, and I have told the purchasers of every one of them about Kim!).

As an academic, I consider honesty about work based on tutorials versus my own designs to be the intellectual and moral equivalent of citing my work properly. I can quote someone directly, in which case I have to put the author's words into quotation marks AND cite it, or I can paraphrase / reference a specific fact or idea, in which case I cite it. Making THE tutorial bead (well enough to consider selling it) is the equivalent of quoting and citing. Making a bead strongly influenced by the tutorial style but with my own quirks is a paraphrase, which means I STILL have to cite it!!! Making my own design is writing from my own data. :)

There's a serious case to be made for copying as a learning technique. I recently went on a dot safari, and spent some time making my own "Bollywood" beads, aka Amy's lovely work. THOSE went to Beads of Courage, as I intended from the start. As Melanie said, there's nothing legally wrong with making copies ... but there is a difference between a skilled copyist and an artist, just as there is a difference between a scribe and a writer.