Pls Write Warnings on Tuts

[Hayley]

Originally Posted by Ashtonjewels

If someone were to ASK my thoughts on copying (this applies to both blatant copying and heavy style influence),

I haven't followed this thread for a few days and only skimmed over the last few pages but would like to participate in Pam's hypothetic tutorial exercise.

I quoted Lydia's post because, to me changing simply the glass colors is still considered "copying." So in your tutorial example, Pam, if you decided that your tutorial was for information only, are you saying that as long as someone changes the glass colors used, or just not put the flowers on the dragon, then it's ok to sell the dragon beads looking almost exactly like the one you show in your tutorial?

To me, design encompasses also the entire posture of the dragon, the placement of the head, legs, wings, tail . . .

I am with Lydia that copying applies to both blatant copying (as in exact duplicate) as well as heavy style influence.

[Ashtonjewels]

Sarah, I do respect you opinion very much and I understand where you are coming from. I'm not saying that it's wrong to give the advice that you gave in your book. I'm just saying that in order for me to publish my designs and move on, I have to COMPLETELY let go while encouraging people to find the joy (as defined by them), in creating the beads. Plus, I don't like to give advice these days. I'm not always very good at it. lol

Perhaps I am selfish by not wanting to fight the battle. Maybe I'm adding to the change in what is becoming the new lampwork climate. I don't know about all of that, but what I do know is that as things change, I am at peace with myself and my work. In my opinion, the only way to stop the lampwork climate change is to limit it's growth. The only way to limit it's growth is to stop publishing tutorials and sharing information. Maybe we all need to find a big island and kick it Murano style. If you move off the island, we "Keel you!" Okay, that was a dumb joke. On a serious note, I see and sympathise with all sides of the issues being discussed in this thread. That is one of the main reasons I haven't posted much. I get all emotional and I don't want to end up stepping on anyone else's heart strings, much less my own. The latter is easy to do because if I keep talking I know I'll end up contradicting myself. Hell, I might have already. lol

[DianaDesigns]

Originally Posted by Ashtonjewels

In my opinion, the only way to stop the lampwork climate change is to limit it's growth. The only way to limit it's growth is to stop publishing tutorials and sharing information.

Great insight Lydia! Once again giving people something very important to think about.

On a serious note, I see and sympathise with all sides of the issues being discussed in this thread. That is one of the main reasons I haven't posted much. I get all emotional and I don't want to end up stepping on anyone else's heart strings, much less my own. The latter is easy to do because if I keep talking I know I'll end up contradicting myself. Hell, I might have already. lol

Boy do I hear you on this one. It's so hard to remain neutral and give opinions and ideas that are not of a personal or emotional nature.

I think Lydia has brought something up that is a great concern to many people, both those new to this medium and those that have been around for a long time.

We need to grow and bring new things. How do we do that, if everyone is afraid or reluctant to share, both openly and by offering information for purchase?

[Asil4]

The discussion about what folks see as design, technique and the like is very interesting. I think it also illustrates just how different people's view are on this. There isn't something set in stone about it and we certainly aren't going to come to any consensus on it here, nor do I believe we ought to.

Pam, you said that a person can't "own" or copyright a style of bead. Yet, in certain situations, I believe that is exactly what is being suggested.

I'll use the bead in the other thread as an example. A spool of glass with glass rings around it. That bead is said to "belong" to a specific artist and she is attributed with its origination. I guess it's hard for me to think that with the hundreds of years of lampworking and bead making, no one ever made a bead like that before. They certainly made other items just like that in history so, it's not a stretch to imagine that the beadmakers of old also made one like that.

To me, it's a "style" of bead and, in this case, that "style" is said to belong to someone. But, in other cases, a "style" can't belong to someone. Others might consider it a "technique." and again, techniques can't belong to someone. Can you see the confusion?

It also seems that things are defined by a small group of people and whether you have a voice any of that rests solely on how long you have been lampworking; regardless of whether you have any background in the arts prior to that.

Lisa

[Sherry]

Originally Posted by Ashtonjewels

Sarah, I do respect you opinion very much and I understand where you are coming from. I'm not saying that it's wrong to give the advice that you gave in your book. I'm just saying that in order for me to publish my designs and move on, I have to COMPLETELY let go while encouraging people to find the joy (as defined by them), in creating the beads. Plus, I don't like to give advice these days. I'm not always very good at it. lol

Thanks, Lydia, for so clearly articulating how I feel. I'll add this; in my opinion, with my one tutorial, it was, and remains, no one else's concern that I've given my "blessing" to the persons who have purchased it, to have fun with it....make and sell the beads, etc. My intellectual property, my decision.

I wouldn't dream of criticizing the words or decisions (or thoughts, or feelings, for that matter!) of other tutorial writers, and I really hope that I'm not being criticized , (no matter how obliquely), for having made a decision that was uniquely mine to make.

[pam]

Beadmaven, you are a sweetheart!

Hi Diana, I agree that those traits have to go both ways. I think there is a great deal of respect given by more experienced beadmakers (I won't call them older, but you know what I mean) to new beadmakers, shown by the sharing of essential information from the experienced to the new. I honestly don't think it was wrong to bring up the information in the thread which was started about the tutorial. What is done in public needs to be responded to in public. We could all have hoped that the initial information given about the origin of the bead would have been enough and then this wouldn't have happened, but it wasn't and it did. I'm sorry, I know you don't agree with that, but that is my opinion.
With regard to your last remark in post 860, I don't think using a different glass or color would differentiate enough, but I think the alternative goddess bead discussed would have been entirely different and would have been perceived as moving the technique forward and being original.

Hayley, you wonderful person, why do you constantly try to confuse me by bringing up things that I try very hard not to consider!! Okay, my honest thoughts on this - which I guess is what you are wanting - if I were to put out a tutorial on that particular dragon (which honestly would be totally useless as I cannot even copy my own work) I would consider that the people buying the tutorial were going to attempt to make that particular dragon. At this point, I am not sure that I would even offer a tutorial on a particular dragon that I didn't want copied ad nauseum. However, I would hope and expect (wearing my rose-colored glasses) that people would take the techniques and use them to make their own dragons. The posture, placement of the appendages, change, at least somewhat, with each dragon I make, so I would consider that as design for that particular dragon, but that would not be what I would be trying to convey in a tutorial. In a tutorial I would be conveying the techniques I use to create my dragons, plural, each of which is different, and if someone bought a tutorial in which I showed them how to make my dragons, then I would hope that my tutorial would be good enough that they would be able to make and sell dragons. I would also hope that perhaps they might take the techniques used and my style and morph them into swans or lizards or aligators or different dragons or something I have never thought of or attempted. That would be the reason for putting the techniques I use out there, to put those techniques into others' hands to see where they would take them.

Originally Posted by DianaDesigns

I think Lydia has brought something up that is a great concern to many people, both those new to this medium and those that have been around for a long time.

We need to grow and bring new things. How do we do that, if everyone is afraid or reluctant to share, both openly and by offering information for purchase?

I totally agree, Diana. More experienced beadmakers may become afraid to share their knowledge because of the lack of respect and courtesy, etc., shown. The new beadmakers will lack the support and encouragement that has been experienced over the last decade. And the more experienced beadmakers will not be able to participate in the extraordinary gift that new beadmakers bring to this art form with their new way of looking at things. And what is the result? Glass beadmaking will once again sink to only a handful of people pursuing it and the many, many things left undiscovered within this art form.

[DianaDesigns]

Originally Posted by Asil4

It also seems that things are defined by a small group of people and whether you have a voice any of that rests solely on how long you have been lampworking; regardless of whether you have any background in the arts prior to that.

Lisa

I hear you there. I have often felt that when someone responded to me, the tone was one of, well what do you know, you have not been doing this long.

I have always felt the need to defend myself in that. I have felt the need to explain that I am not that new to this, I have done other types of glass work, although limited. I have even felt the need to list my university degrees that I hold in Art History and the like and to explain just how much research I have done regarding flameworking. Let those people know that I have been making Art for years and years, both in wood, oil, ink, water color and now trying my hand at glass.

I don't think it would matter. Those that feel they are right and only their opinion matters will still feel I know nothing or not as much as them.

It's a no win situation with certain types, so I let it go and let them continue to think they know better.

[DianaDesigns]

Originally Posted by pam

Hi Diana, I agree that those traits have to go both ways. I think there is a great deal of respect given by more experienced beadmakers (I won't call them older, but you know what I mean) to new beadmakers, shown by the sharing of essential information from the experienced to the new. I honestly don't think it was wrong to bring up the information in the thread which was started about the tutorial. What is done in public needs to be responded to in public. We could all have hoped that the initial information given about the origin of the bead would have been enough and then this wouldn't have happened, but it wasn't and it did. I'm sorry, I know you don't agree with that, but that is my opinion.
With regard to your last remark in post 860, I don't think using a different glass or color would differentiate enough, but I think the alternative goddess bead discussed would have been entirely different and would have been perceived as moving the technique forward and being original.

Agree to disagree with the first point about where to bring it up the topic but , I agree with the respect part and the rest fo the statement.

Not sure what alternative goddess you speak of?

My point was on that particular bead with the rings. I am not sure it could have been changed in order for it to be different, but I do see the point of listing it, before thinking it all the way through and maybe asking first.

I can see both sides of the agruement over there. So I am torn on that. It's not just personal, its much more than that to me.

[pam]

Originally Posted by Asil4

The discussion about what folks see as design, technique and the like is very interesting. I think it also illustrates just how different people's view are on this. There isn't something set in stone about it and we certainly aren't going to come to any consensus on it here, nor do I believe we ought to.

Pam, you said that a person can't "own" or copyright a style of bead. Yet, in certain situations, I believe that is exactly what is being suggested.

I'll use the bead in the other thread as an example. A spool of glass with glass rings around it. That bead is said to "belong" to a specific artist and she is attributed with its origination. I guess it's hard for me to think that with the hundreds of years of lampworking and bead making, no one ever made a bead like that before. They certainly made other items just like that in history so, it's not a stretch to imagine that the beadmakers of old also made one like that.

To me, it's a "style" of bead and, in this case, that "style" is said to belong to someone. But, in other cases, a "style" can't belong to someone. Others might consider it a "technique." and again, techniques can't belong to someone. Can you see the confusion?

It also seems that things are defined by a small group of people and whether you have a voice any of that rests solely on how long you have been lampworking; regardless of whether you have any background in the arts prior to that.

Lisa

Hi Lisa, since you directed this to me (although I am feeling sort of like a thread hog at this point) I will answer it. My opinion is that copyright extends to a specific bead, a photo of that bead. Another bead with dots placed closer, a different color, different color dots, larger dots, is not covered by that copyright. However, I could make a thousand dragons and publish each one and they would all be copyright protected. The style dragon is not copyright protected.

Now, let's go to the bead in question. I believe people are not complaining about copyright infringement, but rather the lack of respect, the lack of ethics involved in making almost the exact same bead as someone who created it years ago and writing a tutorial about it. Sharon Peters brought up earlier in this thread that she heard someone was going to make a tutorial about the beads she demonstrates in classes. Do you think that is right? I know that if someone made a tutorial about how I make my dragons, I would be upset. Since I don't "teach" my dragons, although I have demonstrated them, someone would basically have to reverse-engineer my dragons to make the tutorial. Although Sharon has taught those exact beads in classes, I don't believe it is ethical, moral or respectful for anyone to write a tutorial on how to make her beads, and it may even be copyright infringement in her case, depending on how close this person were to actually stick to Sharon's designs.

[sarah_hornik]

Originally Posted by Sherry

I wouldn't dream of criticizing the words or decisions (or thoughts, or feelings, for that matter!) of other tutorial writers, and I really hope that I'm not being criticized , (no matter how obliquely), for having made a decision that was uniquely mine to make.

No, you are not - not by me, in any case. I really believe this is a matter of personal decision.

[Frogsongstudio]

First off, I'm going to say that I think this post is hateful and despicable. But I'm going to reply to it anyway.

Originally Posted by Vena

Frogsong,

We are not talking about copying Disney characters. Anyone in their right mind would know that is illegal. Also most everyone knows the difference between copyrighted material and a trademark. No one said they thought it was okay to copy and sell trademarked material. No one said they thought it was okay to copy and sell copyrighted material. I said if I purchased a how to book on how to make something I feel I have the right to make that item and sell it.

Well you can't have it both ways. Just for your information, as soon as something is laid down in print and published, it is copyrighted material. Even if there is no copyright mark on it. Even if the author/artist didn't purchase a copyright on it. So, believing that if you purchase a how to book on anything, that you now feel that you have the right to copy what's in it and sell it is inaccurate and negates what you said you believe in your first paragraph.

If the author stated in the book not to make and sell the item then I would decide whether or not I still wanted to purchase the book knowing I could not create and sell what I was shown.

That's a given.

But if there was nothing in the book stating otherwise I would sell what I made if I so choosed.

And you would be in violation of copyright infringement. And if the author had any desire to pursue it, he/she could very well do so.

I read where you are a self taught lampworker. Hmmm, did you read any books or watch any videos on how to make beads? Some of your beads look like many I have seen elsewhere.

Nope, not a single book and not a single video, not a single online reference as to how it's done, and not a single class. I didn't even know it was called Lampwork when I started making glass beads. How did I get started?
I was taking silversmithing glasses and one day I told my teacher that I always wondered how glass beads are made. I didn't even know how they got the holes in beads. She explained how it was done. About 5 years later I decided to give it a try. I bought myself a propane BBQ torch and some stainless steel welding rod. And I went to yardsales and purchased glass items to break and use to melt and make my first beads. Want to know where my first beads are? They are forever stuck to the stainless steel welding rod because I didn't know I had to use bead release on the mandrels.

Does that mean you copied them? Have you ever made a round single color spacer bead?

I sure have made a round single color spacer bead! My very first bead could be considered single round spacer beads. Did I learn that from someone? Nope. It comes naturally. You make beads. What shape does a ball of molten glass want to be?

Have you ever pulled a twistie? Of course you have.

I sure have made twisties. But in case you're wondering, a twisty isn't a bead or artistic work. It is a component.

You my dear just copied someone. I seriously doubt you just sat down at the torch and instinctively knew what to do. Somewhere you gathered information that gave you the ability to make a bead.

See above.

Unless you consider yourself the immaculate conception of beadmakers. How do you like being called out?

Did you call me out?....LOL

Beads are beads. They are not national secrets.

Techiques are techniques. They are not national secrets.
Particular innovative designs can be and are secrets. Once again that brings us back to the fact that some people obviously don't know the difference between technique and design. Did you know that at one time ALL lampworking techniques and designs were closely guarded secrets? Back then, NOBODY shared anything. We are lucky to have the sharing we have today.

Can you think of one bead that is famous and held under lock and key with high security in a museum??????? Have you ever heard about anyone stealing a bead from a collector or museum?

Have you been to a museum of history? There are all kinds of artifacts from prehistoric and ancient times, including handmade beads. Would someone steal them if they could. You bet they would. They are worth a fortune.

Also, there are beads by famous glass artists from way back when the secrets were closely guarded that are worth a fortune. What makes them worth a fortune? They are a particular artists design. They are RARE because that one particular artist is the only artist to ever make them, so they are worth more.

Even today, there are contemporary beads that sell for a lot more money than other beads. Why? See above.

As much as we beadmakers all love beads we have to be realistic about their worth and value to most people. To believe that selling a bead that you learned to create from a tutorial is trademark infringement is ludicrous. Just how many beads do you honestly think hold a trademark or a legit copyright?

I didn't say it was trademark infringement. I said it was copyright infringement and if the author did not give you permission to copy the bead than yes, that is copyright infringement. As I said above, the moment something is published for the first time, whether it be writing, photography, illustration, and yes, even a particular unique bead design, it is protected by copyright law the minute it is set to paper and published. And the copyright is legit. I recommend you read up on copyright laws.

Everyone knows Disney. News break....not everyone knows or cares who made a specific bead. Some die hard designers and collectors care but for the most part bead customers buy because they like the bead. The beadmaker is just icing on the cake.

So you believe that if the designer of an item is not well known, it is perfectly legal to copy their designs and sell them as your own? Gotcha!

Wake up there is whole big world out there full of bead customers that don't post or read LE.

And thats important to this thread why?

I suppose that is why you believe that anyone that doesn't come to LE and read the threads doesn't have a basis for an opinion or a brain to think rationally.

No, what I believe is that 50 strangers who are given misleading information in which they formed inaccurate opinions about tutorial writers has no basis for an opinion on this thread. Not once did I question their intelligence or ability to think rationally about the subject. Only that their opinions about tutorial writers are of no consequence here since they had inaccurate information with which to base them on.

You need to widen your horizons and release yourself from the cocoon you are living in. LE has some wonderful beadmakers and customers that buy from beadmakers but these people are but a small percentage of the lampwork world. I suppose if you want to base all your knowledge on what you gather from the threads on this forum thats up to you. I can tell you from experience I've sold hundreds and hundreds of beads to customers that have NO idea what LE is. But according to your theory these people would have no bearing or opinions on the beadmaking market because they don't read LE threads.

This entire paragraph is based on inaccurate conclusions made by you. The same type of inaccurate conclusions that have been posted to this thread over and over and over again, that you then posed as a factual question to 50 strangers causing them to form inaccurate opinions about tutorial writers.

Never once did I say people outside LE had no right to opinions. What I said, AGAIN, was that 50 strangers based their opinions about tutorial writers in general on inaccurate information. If you have all the facts, feel free to express an opinion. If you don't, you have no basis for forming an honest and accurate opinion.

Let me ask you this. Your tutorial states "In this tutorial you will learn step by step, how to make a twisty if you are new to making twisties".
I guess you don't believe that you have copied anyone on how to make a twistie. Oh and by the way, it looks like you are using a bead press looks like a copy of other presses to me.

Once again, a twisty is a component. It is not a design. It is not an artistic work of any kind. Surely you know the difference. And my tutorial wasn't about making twisties.
As for the bead press, why be so ridiculously petty? A bead press is a tool. It is also patented, just FYI, and as far as I know, I've never copied the press and sold it as my own tool.

I'm sorry that you felt the need to resort to this type of behavior because my opinions didn't agree with yours. I'm sorry you felt the need to go into attack mode and exhibit nasty vindictive behavior because you felt you had nothing more to contribute in a mature manner. If you are incapable of participating in a debate without resorting to this kind of hateful vindictive behavior than maybe you should refrain from participating in debates. Unless of course, you don't care about how you project yourself to others.

I've gotten some of those same color reactions from the silver glass I use. Did you copy me? I might want to ask you why you think you should be able to sell a tutorial for $18.00 on these subjects. It all looks like material I've seen before

Do you have my tutorial? If you did, you'd know that I don't use silver glass, so obviously I didn't copy you. My tutorial is about getting colors similar to the silver glasses without paying the high cost of the silver glasses, not to mention, many people can't get the silver glasses to work for them. This is what my tutorial teaches. If it looks like silver glass and material you've seen before, then I would say I've accomplished what I hoped to accomplish. Thank you.

Also part of your tutorial name is Nebula. Did you copy that name from Nebula Glass Studios? Maybe you shouldn't be throwing rocks from your glass house.

LMAO. That's just too immature and ridiculous to even comment on.

You have written a tutorial that has information in it that you recieved along the line from someone else. So aren't you the pot calling the kettle black!!

Well, no, I discovered the color reaction all by myself, thank you very much. If someone discovered it before me, I have no knowledge of it.

You can spend you whole life worrying about "what ifs". Why not let the purchaser of the tutorial decide what road they want to go down? If they choose to copy and sell its their decision. Quit trying to control every tiny detail of the tutorials and what might happen if someone actually copies a bead and sells it.

Here's what I wrote in my tutorial, in case you didn't know.

"Disclaimer: Please feel free to make beads using my technique, sell them, or give them away, but please do not sell or share this electronic file or give a copy of the printed file to anyone.'

So, obviously, I'm not worrying about anything, nor am I trying to control anything. That's another one of those misleading "facts' floating all over this thread.

I just have to ask you one more question? Would you have a problem with me buying your tutorial and mass producing your little Nebulas to sell on HSN or QVC?.......I think when you answer this question we will come to the root of this entire thread.

Well, according to my disclaimer above, the answer to that would obviously be NO. So feel free to mass produce my "little Nebulas" and sell to your hearts content. Of course, I'm sure you will spin that great big NO to mean something else entirely. That's what has been happening throughout this thread so have at it.

[DianaDesigns]

I must say that being able to see both sides of an issue is extremely difficult.

People well then say, stay out of it then. Yes that might help, but then I feel this strong need to voice my opinions and sometimes my feelngs, mostly when I think, either it could have been handled better, or when I feel someone is being needlessly hurt.

So for those that feel I am wishy washy, I am not. I am torn. Yes, I have had pm's calling me a flip flopper.

That's not nice people...lol

[sarah_hornik]

Originally Posted by DianaDesigns

Not sure what alternative goddess you speak of?

On the tut writer's site, there is a photo of a goddess bead made in a similar technique, with a big-hole-bead around her waist, kind of like a hula hoop.

[DianaDesigns]

Originally Posted by sarah_hornik

On the tut writer's site, there is a photo of a goddess bead made in a similar technique, with a big-hole-bead around her waist, kind of like a hula hoop.

Oh yes, I remember that. Kinda of a combination of two, crikey what do i call it now, design or style....

Gotcha....

[Frogsongstudio]

Originally Posted by Vena

Sarah,
I have no ill feelings towards Deb or anyone else on LE for that matter. My intent was not to rip her apart. My intent was to show her how easily the tables could be turned on anyone concerning copying.

I saw no tables turning.

I do believe she is the one who earlier in this thread implied I am a "liar" by asking strangers to LE their opinion on the topic of selling beads made from a purchased tutorial.

I never called you a liar, nor have I even implied that you were a liar.

What I said....again, was that you repeated false information to 50 strangers who then formed inaccurate opinions based on that false information. I have no way of knowing whether you believed the information you were passing on. It's been repeated in this thread often enough that there are several who actually believe it now.
As I said, not one of the tutorial writers in this thread have ever said not to copy or sell the beads in the tutorial. Yet, you led 50 strangers to believe that all these tutorial writers want to have their cake and eat it too.

Why do you refuse to understand that?

If you want to tell everyone I called you a liar in order to make yourself feel better about your post then have at it. I'm sure if you repeat it often enough, those who are desperate for opinions that agree with theirs will believe it and condone your behavior.

I'm sure it doesn't feel good to be accused of copying. It also is not nice to be accused of lying because you asked someone outside of LE their opinion.

There you go. You just keep repeating that.

I'm not taking this thread personally. No one should. We are adults and we are discussing a topic. I believe the subject didn't become heated until my first post about the random survey I did. Frogsong was the one who became very defensive. I didn't see you jumping in to defend me.

I had an opinion on the matter. I did not become defensive, nor attack you, or your work personally. It was an opinion you didn't like and you went on a personal rampage.

What would you have the posters in this thread defend you from? My opinion?

I really don't see any need to start drawing lines in the sand over this.
She has her opinion and take on this thread and I have mine and you certainly have yours.

Yes, I do have opinions and quite frankly I don't expect to be personally attacked and insulted because they don't agree with yours.

Your post was out of line. Whether you want to admit it or not.

[Frogsongstudio]

Originally Posted by Vena

Sarah,

I would be more than happy to offer an apology to Frogsong if I believed I had personally attacked her. I did nothing more than use her as an example to show how one sided and contradictive her statements are on the issue she is defending tooth and nail. I really don't see this as a personal attack.

None of my posts have been one sided or contradictive. Put simply, it pissed you off because my opinion didn't agree with yours.

Frogsong was the one that came out with claws on after my first post about asking those outside of LE their opinions. She continued to question my integrity in several threads.

Really? Came out with my claws bared? I had an opinion on the matter. You didn't agree with it. Again, if you can't handle a debate, maybe you should refrain from participating.

She is the one who in so many words
called me a "liar". I suppose those are not personal attacks.

There you go. You just keep repeating that. Someone will believe you.

I knew eventually someone would have to start choosing sides and escalate this to a whole different level. It always happens. As soon as someone takes the icing off an issue and gets down to the bare facts all hell breaks loose.

No. all hell breaks lose when someone launches a vicious personal attack on someone who doesn't agree with them.

If you want to be "fair" and "unbiased" about this issue I believe you should be requesting an apology to me from Frogsong. But since equality is usually not the case when these issues happen on this forum I won't expect it.

Apologize for what? Having an opinion that differs from yours?

How about this. I told 50 of my friends that you believe if you purchase a book on how to draw Disney characters, that it is now your right to copy and sell them as your own. Their initial reaction was tear jerking laughter. Once they caught their breath, they said you were seriously naive if you believe that.

See how that works?

[Asil4]

Originally Posted by pam

Now, let's go to the bead in question. I believe people are not complaining about copyright infringement, but rather the lack of respect, the lack of ethics involved in making almost the exact same bead as someone who created it years ago and writing a tutorial about it.

I understand what that issue is over there. I'm wondering though, how the "rights" to that bead were given to a particular person when it's a style or a technique and was probably made by a lampworker long before any of us were born. Is it lack of documentation of a bead such as that from way back when? You admit that it's not a difficult bead to make and that is why it seems likely to me that such a bead existed before the most recent artist "created" it. Perhaps it was the absence of any proof of the existence of that bead before the most recent artist made one that is the reason the credit for its existence now is given to Kim. It's still a style of bead and I'm confused how this style can have an owner and another style cannot.

Sharon Peters brought up earlier in this thread that she heard someone was going to make a tutorial about the beads she demonstrates in classes. Do you think that is right?

No, I don't. It sounds like the person in question was also going to actually use her own class materials with which to do so. I don't believe that is right.

I know that if someone made a tutorial about how I make my dragons, I would be upset. Since I don't "teach" my dragons, although I have demonstrated them, someone would basically have to reverse-engineer my dragons to make the tutorial.

You describe the dragons as a style of bead and you also say that no one can own a style. I've seen other people making dragons. If one of them made a tutorial, would that upset you?

I guess the whole thing is pretty complicated and the more definition that is applied, the more complicated it becomes because there are so many exceptions to those rules.

Lisa

[DianaDesigns]

One more add on the other subject. I still feel that the question of the tut, should be discussed by the two involved parties.

If the first person feels the tut needs to be revoked, then she needs to speak with the new writer.

If she doesn't speak with the new writer, then I feel her silence can mean, she either doesn't care, or has moved on and believes, she already did a Tut and by doing so understood that something like this could happen. She should in no way feel uncomfortable speaking her peace to the new writer.

I in no way feel the first writer needs to come on here and say anything, nor do I beleive that any of the communication between the two, needs to be spoken about here or anywhere for that matter.

If I were her and I was upset or angry over this. I would speak to that person and try to have a dialogue and see if there might be a happy compromise, rather than revoking. Perhaps even a collaboration of sorts.

[Frogsongstudio]

Originally Posted by Vena

Sarah,

I just read your post and I really don't understand the problem with this statement. Frogsong is soley relying on what she is reading and hearing on LE as the basis for her opinion on the subject at hand. She is the one that said to me that my so called "friends" have no right expressing opinions on a question asked them because they haven't read LE. So whats the difference? I told her to widen her horizons and she told me to limit mine. The 50 people I surveyed were not all friends of mine but she has bashed them and their opinions in every thread. But I guess thats ok. I shouldn't feel I've been personally attacked.

Here's the difference. I"m sitting here and reading both sides of the issue. I'm weighing both sides of the issue. I KNOW everything that's been said in this thread. I own most of the tutorials and know what they say! I have yet to see a single tutorial writer say that you can't copy the beads in the tutorial and sell them.

Your 50 friends, on the other hand, had only one thing to base their opinions on, and that one thing was false information. You put forth a question to 50 people which led them to believe something that hasn't happened. Therefore, they do not have enough information to form an accurate opinion. According to your friends own words. "Sounds like those tutorial writers want to have their cake and eat it too" is INACCURATE!

If you think for one second that pointing that out to you is BASHING your 50 friends, then there is something seriously wrong with your logic!

[Frogsongstudio]

Originally Posted by Vena

Sarah,

If you want to use the term "random stranger" as a basis to condone her comments towards what she considers my friends then consider this.
I wouldn't know Frogsong from a fence post if I passed her on the streets. I knew absolutely nothing about her or her work before this thread. I don't know where she lives, the color of her hair, her age, I knew absolutely nothing about her other than what she has posted in this thread until I decided to read her profile and visit her website.

Condone which comments I made to you and about your friends? You mean the ones where I disagreed with you and your 50 friends?

You're right, you don't know anything about me which is a good thing I'm thinking. What little you were able to drudge up was all you had to launch your attack against me so that's what you used. Had you known anything about me personally, I'm sure you would have launched an attack in those areas as well. Because that's what people do when they resort to that type of underhanded personal attack. They nitpick whatever they know about you, distort it, and try to rip it apart.

So here's some ammo for you. I am 45 years old, I have 3 daughters and 6 grandchildren with a 7th on the way. I have 4 dogs and 3 cats. I have one horse, one goat, several chickens, two conures, several canaries, one finch, several button quail and a California Desert Tortoise. There you go. Feel free to personally attack my family and even my pets. Believe me, I've had it happen before, and I'm sure it'll happen again. This is the type of crap some people resort to when they can't think of anything useful to say.

Stranger

One who is strange, foreign, or unknown.

One who comes from a foreign land; a foreigner.

One whose home is at a distance from the place where he is, but in the same country.

One who is unknown or unacquainted; as, the gentleman is a stranger to me; hence, one not admitted to communication, fellowship, or acquaintance.

One not belonging to the family or household; a guest; a visitor.

One not privy or party an act, contract, or title; a mere intruder or intermeddler; one who interferes without right; as, actual possession of land gives a good title against a stranger having no title; as to strangers, a mortgage is considered merely as a pledge; a mere stranger to the levy.

To estrange; to alienate.


I do believe this describes my relationship with Frogsong. She is a stranger to me. So once again I don't believe I personally attacked her.

You go ahead and keep believing that.

[sarah_hornik]

I just want to apologize if I offended any tut writers in post #851. I do not intend to criticize anyone - I can understand how it could sound that way, but it's not what I mean.

From being a part of this entire thread - it appears that tut writers have a few options on how to address or not address the "copy and sell" issue, and I don't think any one of the options, so far, is completely perfect or would make everyone happy. That's why it really is a matter of personal decision - same way as the actual "copying and selling" is - and I would never judge anyone for choosing whatever option.

[pam]

From the bottom up, Lisa: yes, I believe my dragon to be a style. I can't own it, but I don't expect people to "capture" my bead and reverse-engineer it and then publish a tutorial on it. That again is respect, ethics, etc. I would never be upset about anyone making a dragon bead tutorial. I believe there are some out there already and I think they are wonderful. Dragons are like frogs and fish, a subject for which there are many interpretations.

I have studied both contemporary beads and historical beads for over 20 years and have never seen anything even closely resembling the bead in question. That doesn't mean it hasn't existed, but that there is no record that I am aware of that shows a similar bead. I recall how astonished everyone was when the bead was first shown. Of course, once you see it it is easy to imagine how to do it. Execution is probably a lot more complicated and would take practice. The concept executed in glass is what I think of as the original designer's contribution to the glass bead world. Out of respect for what she accomplished I don't think another person should be making a tutorial on that particular bead. And again, if the concept had been added to or taken in a slightly different direction - i.e. a dog's head on one end of a barrel bead with a dog's tail on the other with bangles in between, a goddess with a hula-hoop - anything that would take it a step further, then, to me, there wouldn't have been a problem.

[Asil4]

I didn't say it was trademark infringement. I said it was copyright infringement and if the author did not give you permission to copy the bead than yes, that is copyright infringement.

Deb- it wouldn't be considered copyright infringement if the artist/tutorial author taught you how to make that bead with very specific instruction- for money. That came from a patent attorney who is very well versed in copyright laws.

You can't expect to protect your copyright (if it exists) if you give it away or sell it.

Lisa

[Vena]

Originally Posted by Sherry

Thanks, Lydia, for so clearly articulating how I feel. I'll add this; in my opinion, with my one tutorial, it was, and remains, no one else's concern that I've given my "blessing" to the persons who have purchased it, to have fun with it....make and sell the beads, etc. My intellectual property, my decision.

I wouldn't dream of criticizing the words or decisions (or thoughts, or feelings, for that matter!) of other tutorial writers, and I really hope that I'm not being criticized , (no matter how obliquely), for having made a decision that was uniquely mine to make.

Sherry,

I believe you and Lydia have truly expressed your confidence in your work and your abilities as artist. You are not afraid to share your information with no strings attached. I admire that. Instead of inhibiting the world of lampwork and trying to control anyones moral character you are letting each choose their own path. You should both be applauded. Finally voices of reason and maturity.

[pam]

Originally Posted by DianaDesigns

One more add on the other subject. I still feel that the question of the tut, should be discussed by the two involved parties.

If the first person feels the tut needs to be revoked, then she needs to speak with the new writer.

If she doesn't speak with the new writer, then I feel her silence can mean, she either doesn't care, or has moved on and believes, she already did a Tut and by doing so understood that something like this could happen. She should in no way feel uncomfortable speaking her peace to the new writer.

I in no way feel the first writer needs to come on here and say anything, nor do I beleive that any of the communication between the two, needs to be spoken about here or anywhere for that matter.

If I were her and I was upset or angry over this. I would speak to that person and try to have a dialogue and see if there might be a happy compromise, rather than revoking. Perhaps even a collaboration of sorts.

Diana, I agree with you, I believe it should have been discussed between the two parties involved prior to the publication of the tutorial. Once the publication of the tutorial took place, then I believe whatever is said between the two after the fact is irrelevant. Kim, who is one of the nicest people in the world, could say, oh, that's fine, go ahead, but that doesn't make the publishing of the tutorial prior to a discussion between the originator and the writer was a respectful and ethical thing to do, in my opinion.

[Frogsongstudio]

Originally Posted by jensy

Vena I also did not see your posts as an attack. I think it was very well done and to the point. Frogsong has made herself very prominant in this thread and was totally making different statememnts at you. I believe Frogsong has a very strong voice in this and does not need Sarah to stick up for her or suggest an apology. Sarah does not want anyone to tell her what to write in her tuts but is the one to say you should apologize. Hmmm interesting. Sarah I think it is fine if you want yourself to look like a victim in your own blog but dont start making someone the victim in here. Frogsong has been giving what she was getting.

I find it interesting that anyone would condone that behavior just because the person happens to be of the same opinion as you. Let me tell you this....if one of the tutorial writers had written a post like this to you, I would have been all over them about it even though you and I don't agree on everything. But now that I know that you think that type of behavior is okay, I wouldn't bother.

I got back what I was giving? I think not. I have opinions, I haven't personally attacked anyone or their work.

And what does the text in Sarah's tutorial have to do with her ability to call a wrong a wrong and offer an opinion on it? Absolutely nothing.

I believe Sarah should stop stirring the pot here and making more hard feeling than there ever was. Sarah you have said numerous times you were leaving this thread for good but keep coming back. You have stated your opionion was not going to change on here and on your blog too so why keep coming back. You have attacked me in this thread many times Sarah and never told you to apologize so then leave it at that.

Attacked you or disagreed with you. Some people don't seem to be able to tell the difference.

I would love if this thread was going to continue we could stick to the original topic and have a healthy debate about it. We are all adults in here and really we dont need drama in order to fix a problem.

Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of "healthy debate"?
If you think healthy debate is Vena's post to me than you're sadly mistaken.

Jen[/quote]

[Frogsongstudio]

Originally Posted by Asil4

If you dont see this as being about "sides," why would you ask for something specific from A SIDE?

I'm sorry to disappoint you, Sarah, and, at the peril of not gaining your respect, I too read Vena's posting and I do not see it as an attack on Frogsong.

Of course you don't. Because she's of the same mind as you are regarding this topic. If the post had been by a tutorial writer and launched personally against you, you'd be singing a different tune.

{quote]I see her using Frongsong's work as an example of what a lot of this discussion is about and what Frogsong's own points were. It may have been intense but, it wasn't a personal attack. [/quote]

As you wish.

I also didn't see you stepping up, trying to gain anyone's respect when Frogsong basically said that if folks didn't see this issue and understand it a certain way, they were lacking in intelligence.

Right, I said if you don't agree with everything I say you're stupid.

[Asil4]

Originally Posted by Frogsongstudio

Of course you don't. Because she's of the same mind as you are regarding this topic. If the post had been by a tutorial writer and launched personally against you, you'd be singing a different tune.

if one of the tutorial writers had written a post like this to you, I would have been all over them about it even though you and I don't agree on everything.

Deb- if you want folks to believe your second statement, I might suggest that you also give the same benefit of the doubt to others instead of making assumptions when you couldn't possibly know what someone's reasons are for saying what they do.

Lisa

[Vena]

Originally Posted by Frogsongstudio

Condone which comments I made to you and about your friends? You mean the ones where I disagreed with you and your 50 friends?

You're right, you don't know anything about me which is a good thing I'm thinking. What little you were able to drudge up was all you had to launch your attack against me so that's what you used. Had you known anything about me personally, I'm sure you would have launched an attack in those areas as well. Because that's what people do when they resort to that type of underhanded personal attack. They nitpick whatever they know about you, distort it, and try to rip it apart.

So here's some ammo for you. I am 45 years old, I have 3 daughters and 6 grandchildren with a 7th on the way. I have 4 dogs and 3 cats. I have one horse, one goat, several chickens, two conures, several canaries, one finch, several button quail and a California Desert Tortoise. There you go. Feel free to personally attack my family and even my pets. Believe me, I've had it happen before, and I'm sure it'll happen again. This is the type of crap some people resort to when they can't think of anything useful to say.



You go ahead and keep believing that.

Dearest Frogsong,

I've grown bored with your poor pitiful "ive been personally attacked" posts. This thread had finally gotten back on track and now you are once again trying to put the spotlight back on you and your opinions like you and your opinions are the only ones that matter or are valid. You can think or believe whatever you choose about me. I really don't care. I read this thread and I wanted to voice my opinion and what others outside the lampwork world thought about a subject. You became extremely defensive over that fact I would pose a question to someone outside LE and post their response. Why it should really matter to you I've yet to figure out though I have an idea. No one else had a problem with the question I ask these people but you. You have kept posting and raising the question about my intellegence and those surveyed etc., etc. I tried to discuss this with you rationally in this thread but for some reason you have been hell bent not to let it rest. I've tried my best to be civil. I think I have been. Now you're trying to put your family and personal life into the mix in hopes of getting me to comment on them so you can cry you have been "personally attacked". I actually feel pity for you at this moment. You have created in your mind that I'm out gathering information on you so I can slam you. I did nothing more than follow the links you have provided in your signature line. I used your own tutorial as an example to express how "copying" can be viewed differently by different people. Apparently, you don't like your own words and tutorial used as the basis to contradict your own opinions on copying. I'm sure you wouldn't have minded so much if I chose to use someone elses tutorial as an example. I'm sure you will have to keep posting trying to ruffle my feathers. You will keep baiting me so see if I will bite. It's ok. By your own words, you must get alot of "personal attacks", hmmm, I wonder why? I hope you don't mind that I'm choosing not to play your "its all about me" little game. I prefer to get back to the matter at hand which isn't you!

[Frogsongstudio]

Originally Posted by Asil4

There may be tutorials out there that have wording in them along this line that are confusing to the reader.

The thing is, in the ensuing discussion about it, enough artists have stepped up and argued against selling of tutorial beads that it's still a valid issue to discuss.

Just for the record, I have not argued for or against the selling of beads in a tutorial. My argument has been about what constitutes copyright infringement and what does not.

I still believe there ought to be something clear with regard to what is design and what is technique and what is style etc., and how those things come into play, because those words have been applied in this discussion in different ways.

I agree. And I think some of beadmakers, not necessarily only tutorial authors, have been trying their best to define and explain the differences in this thread. I believe some people don't want to know the differences if they believe it's going to limit what they feel they have the right to do, so what's the point?

It also seems that folks are determining what these things mean, based on their own interpretation of it and then passing that along as some sort of guideline for the entire lampworking world. Some have decided they are the authority on what these things mean and how they should apply.

Aren't both sides of the debate trying to do this? Yes.