Pls Write Warnings on Tuts

[Frogsongstudio]

I have to admit that before this thread, I never read any of the disclaimers. I just went straight for the good stuff......LOL

[Asil4]

Originally Posted by Kalera

If you are a hobbyist craftsperson, exact copying isn't going to harm you in any way because you're not trying to build a business reputation, and you're not trying to make art... just have fun.

Who is to say that those who don't wish to engage in business with the skills that they are learning or refining, are not still trying to make art? Does it only become "art" when it goes to market? Some folks have many reasons why they don't engage in the business aspect and it doesn't make what they are creating any less "art" than what is created by those who do.

I was also under the impression that one of the reasons that it's harmful is that if one copies the original, then they are hindering their own skill development by not branching out further than that. Your statement would suggest that particular harm doesn't exist if you aren't going to sell anything. Kinda confusing.

If you're a business craftsperson, copying might harm you somewhat because bead customers... even people who have never heard of LE or seen the tutorials... may see your work and think "Well, it's nice but it's the same stuff I've seen elsewhere" and move on looking for more unique beads for their jewelry designs.

You are using the word "you" here as the tutorial purchaser. They are the ones you suggest "might" be harmed in this scenario. For the most part, most bead customers who have never heard of LE or seen the tutorials, might also be those who have no idea who the originator of the "work" is. They might also look at the originator's work and say "Well, it's nice but it's the same stuff I've seen elsewhere" and move on. They really don't know enough about it all to know who the teacher and the student were.

It's being assumed that it's the students' reputations that have the possibility of being harmed by replicating what they have been taught in the tutorial they paid money for and then selling it. The reality is that most consumers of lampworked beads have very little knowledge of the art or the artists and they wouldn't have a clue who started that bead or that look. They won't see what anyone here sees and they don't know all the names.

What I see is a natural struggle that is at the core of this issue and it's far from being resolved. Artists have a way to make more money by sharing their techiniques to make certain types of beads or sharing a technique they have fine tuned over years, etc. As soon as they do that, someone else is going to be making those beads-period. It's as though some artists haven't done the soul searching needed to truly let go of that bead or that technique; including realizing any logical or natural consequences that may come with the reality of someone else making the same beads.

So, instead of really letting it go, some try to keep one foot on the shore and the other on the boat that is sailing away. To suggest that the tutorial purchaser- the student- is the person whose reputation "might" be harmed is only true in the realm that the issue is known. The general public has no idea who started making that bead and if a reputation could be harmed "out there," by producing beads one was taught to make, then it's just as likely that the original beadmaker's reputation "might" be at stake in that equation.

That leaves the lampworking world for the possibility of the risk to exist for the student's reputation to be harmed by producing beads that they paid to learn how to make. Isn't this the realm where the issue is known? If those tutorial authors are truly okay with their work being replicated, why then would anyone's reputation be at risk in this realm and any talk of it? Shouldn't it then be a given that it's all okay?

Yet there is still the warning to the students about it.

To me it's up to the tutorial authors to truly let it go before they enter the realm of sharing "their babies" instead of trying to keep them clutched, while at the same time making money on teaching others to duplicate them and then guilting them into not using the skills they paid for. To say "it's up to you" and then either follow that or preface it with all of the possible anti-social consequences that one might meet by making the wrong choice, including saying that they might ruin their reputation is the same thing as saying "don't do it" without having to utter the words. IMO, it shifts the responsiblity for the situation to somewhere it doesn't belong.

When I read Lydia's last post in this thread, it made a lot of sense to me. I read about what seems was a real soul search for her to go through in order to start teaching others. She put a lot of thought and pondering into it before making that decision and it appears that she did so, knowing what the natural path might be for her. She had to truly let it go.

If you have gotten to this point, this is my observation, for what it's worth. I also didn't see this dynamic from a lot of the tutorial authors who have posted here.

Oh, unless the tut author is at the same show, and someone asks you why your beads are the same... that could get embarrassing.

Now, they are going to be embarrassed. Who wants to sign up for that? That's a good way to deter it, though.

My point is that, at a show- why is it a given that it would be the student who is asked "why are your beads the same?" It's just as likely that the tutorial author would be asked the same thing by a consumer lacking in knowledge of the lampworking world.

Lisa

[pam]

You know, Lisa, I disagree with almost every assumption you have made in your post. However, I think if one reads through this whole thread the reasons for my disagreements will be evident and so I don't see any reason to respond directly to each point.

I think Kalera's post was very straightforward and true.

[Frogsongstudio]

Well Lisa, I disagree with pretty much everything you said.

[sarah_hornik]

Originally Posted by pam

You know, Lisa, I disagree with almost every assumption you have made in your post. However, I think if one reads through this whole thread the reasons for my disagreements will be evident and so I don't see any reason to respond directly to each point.

I think Kalera's post was very straightforward and true.

Ditto.

[Asil4]

Pam-I guess I don't see what I'm assuming. I've quoted what one has actually said and what others have said. I didn't assume that they said it.

I also don't believe there is malicious intent involved in any way.

I am not talking about most of the authors who have posted here. Most of them seem pretty comfortable with their decision to teach their own techniques and understand that there are some natural consequences that go with it that they are okay with.

Is it true that the "student" or the "tutorial purchaser" is the person who will be asked why their beads look like others? Is it possible that the tutorial author could be asked the very same question?

Is the only way for making beads to be considered "making art" is when the beadmaker is actually selling them?

I guess I'm at a loss for what it "true" here.

[Asil4]

Let me ask you this...

Do you believe that the general buying public for beads knows much about them? Some do but, many more don't.

Think back to *the person who can't be named" and the havoc she wreaked on this community. She was selling beads of sooooo many different styles and levels of expertise. She sold a large number of them to people who had no idea that she didn't make all of them herself. Do you think that those customers would be able to look at 2 beads and be able to tell you that one was made by the student and one was made by the author of the tutorial?

They couldn't, because they don't have the knowledge with which to make that discernment. Yet, the warning about "people will ask why your beads look like others" is directed at the students and it's their reputation that is supposedly at risk, when the reality is that, in that consumer realm, the end buyer most often won't know who started that trend or technique or bead. So, IMO, IF there is some reputation loss risk beyond the lampwork world, it's an equal risk, it's not just the student's. And that would be part of the natural consequences of teaching others your secrets.

If we are talking about within the lampwork world, if it's all supposed to be okay and we all know that, then why is there a reason to warn anyone about the possiblity of a loss of reputation if they use the skills they paid to learn, in the same way they learned them?

Lisa

[Asil4]

Originally Posted by sarah_hornik

Ditto.

I'll have to say that I'm really not surprised, Sarah. You don't seem to have much use for "these people" or their sincere thoughts on the subject.

[sarah_hornik]

Originally Posted by Asil4

I'll have to say that I'm really not surprised, Sarah. You don't seem to have much use for "these people" or their sincere thoughts on the subject.

That is unfair.
If I didn't care about anyone's sincere thoughts on this subject, I wouldn't have bothered spending so much time responding to so many questions and desperately trying to explain myself in this thread.

[jensy]

Well I agree with what Asil has said.

The lampworking community knows its well known artists because it is a somewhat small community. However I dont think alot of the bead buying people know who these well known artists are. I do believe some do and therefore want to buy those specific beads made by that artist. Otherwise I dont think they really care beyond whether or not they like the beads and feel the craftmanship is good and also price is a factor.

[ShellyD]

I certainly do agree with Lisa's post.

[pam]

Lisa,

Here are some of the things I was thinking when I read your post. Not everyone will agree with me, just as everyone doesn't agree with you, and that's okay.

Originally Posted by Asil4

Who is to say that those who don't wish to engage in business with the skills that they are learning or refining, are not still trying to make art? Does it only become "art" when it goes to market? Some folks have many reasons why they don't engage in the business aspect and it doesn't make what they are creating any less "art" than what is created by those who do. Lisa, I think when this was mentioned by Kalera (If you are a hobbyist craftsperson, exact copying isn't going to harm you in any way because you're not trying to build a business reputation, and you're not trying to make art... just have fun.) it was as a result of other posts made in this thread that said - and this is a generalization - hobbyists just want to buy patterns and make copies of the beads in the tutorials. Kalera is not saying in any way that hobbyists/craftspersons cannot make art, just that their reputation cannot be hurt by copying.

I was also under the impression that one of the reasons that it's harmful is that if one copies the original, then they are hindering their own skill development by not branching out further than that. Your statement would suggest that particular harm doesn't exist if you aren't going to sell anything. Kinda confusing. Again, I don't think it's confusing if you consider that the "harm" referred to is reputation. Earlier in this thread I said that people would be losing out if they only used the tuts for copying, and got soundly trashed for that one!



You are using the word "you" here as the tutorial purchaser. They are the ones you suggest "might" be harmed in this scenario. For the most part, most bead customers who have never heard of LE or seen the tutorials, might also be those who have no idea who the originator of the "work" is. They might also look at the originator's work and say "Well, it's nice but it's the same stuff I've seen elsewhere" and move on. They really don't know enough about it all to know who the teacher and the student were. Honestly, I have never seen an instance when this has happened, but I suppose it's possible.

It's being assumed that it's the students' reputations that have the possibility of being harmed by replicating what they have been taught in the tutorial they paid money for and then selling it. The reality is that most consumers of lampworked beads have very little knowledge of the art or the artists and they wouldn't have a clue who started that bead or that look. They won't see what anyone here sees and they don't know all the names. I honestly think most bead purchases come from knowledgeable people who have done their research and know what they are spending their money on. Do you really think all the copying threads over the years have been started by artists who have been scanning the net looking for copies of their beads? I think most of the time it has been bead buyers who have alerted the artists as to copies being made

What I see is a natural struggle that is at the core of this issue and it's far from being resolved. Artists have a way to make more money by sharing their techiniques to make certain types of beads or sharing a technique they have fine tuned over years, etc. As soon as they do that, someone else is going to be making those beads-period. It's as though some artists haven't done the soul searching needed to truly let go of that bead or that technique; including realizing any logical or natural consequences that may come with the reality of someone else making the same beads.I'm not sure a lot of artists who decided to share their processes via a tutorial considered that anyone would be copying the exact beads they used to demonstrate the techniques and wanting to sell them. Just as in a class, I have never seen students leave the class and copy the exact beads that the instructor uses to teach the techniques and sell them. Copy for learning is what is supposed to happen. Students, as far as I am aware, take the techniques and create their own versions of whatever is being taught. As an example, I have taught classes for over 15 years and as far as I know no one makes and sells the exact beads that I taught in my classes. Students have used the techniques and taken them on a different pathway.

So, instead of really letting it go, some try to keep one foot on the shore and the other on the boat that is sailing away. To suggest that the tutorial purchaser- the student- is the person whose reputation "might" be harmed is only true in the realm that the issue is known. The general public has no idea who started making that bead and if a reputation could be harmed "out there," by producing beads one was taught to make, then it's just as likely that the original beadmaker's reputation "might" be at stake in that equation. Again, to my knowledge tutorials are meant to teach techniques and do this by using a certain bead as an example of how to use the techniques.

That leaves the lampworking world for the possibility of the risk to exist for the student's reputation to be harmed by producing beads that they paid to learn how to make. Isn't this the realm where the issue is known? If those tutorial authors are truly okay with their work being replicated, why then would anyone's reputation be at risk in this realm and any talk of it? Shouldn't it then be a given that it's all okay? To my way of thinking the purchasers of tutorials should be buying them to learn the techniques, not how to produce a specific bead. You copy to learn and then move on. The risk to one's reputation is the same whether the author of a tutorial has given permission to reproduce the bead for sell or not. Copying for sell is frowned upon in any art field that I have ever been a part of.

Yet there is still the warning to the students about it.

To me it's up to the tutorial authors to truly let it go before they enter the realm of sharing "their babies" instead of trying to keep them clutched, while at the same time making money on teaching others to duplicate them and then guilting them into not using the skills they paid for. To say "it's up to you" and then either follow that or preface it with all of the possible anti-social consequences that one might meet by making the wrong choice, including saying that they might ruin their reputation is the same thing as saying "don't do it" without having to utter the words. IMO, it shifts the responsiblity for the situation to somewhere it doesn't belong. Unfortunately the person that put in the consequences is just being extremely truthful. The responsibility falls exactly where it belongs. If an artist/hobbyist/craftsperson decides to make their living copying beads that have been demonstrated in tutorials, then that is up to them and there are consequences to any such decision, whether you want to admit it or not. The person will be looked upon in a different way than had they taken the information contained in the tutorial and used their own creativity to morph the techniques into something all their own.

When I read Lydia's last post in this thread, it made a lot of sense to me. I read about what seems was a real soul search for her to go through in order to start teaching others. She put a lot of thought and pondering into it before making that decision and it appears that she did so, knowing what the natural path might be for her. She had to truly let it go. I think Lydia is truly a wonderful artist. Just as instructors have done throughout the last 20 years, she has made the hard decision to share the techniques that she has developed for the further education of the lampworking community.

If you have gotten to this point, this is my observation, for what it's worth. I also didn't see this dynamic from a lot of the tutorial authors who have posted here.



Now, they are going to be embarrassed. Who wants to sign up for that? That's a good way to deter it, though.

My point is that, at a show- why is it a given that it would be the student who is asked "why are your beads the same?" It's just as likely that the tutorial author would be asked the same thing by a consumer lacking in knowledge of the lampworking world. And the answer would be: Student - l learned the techniques from this wonderful artist who shared her knowledge and then chose to make 100 copies of her demonstration bead and sell them so I can get back the $15 I paid for the knowledge I gained from the tutorial.

Lisa

[yellowbird]

Thanks Lisa GREAT POST

[ShellyD]

Hi everyone,

I've been a member of this board for a few years and I'm not sure if you can quote from within a quote - so I copied it:

"To my way of thinking the purchasers of tutorials should be buying them to learn the techniques, not how to produce a specific bead. " Pam

But are all the tutorials out there on the market at the moment about technique or are some of them How to's for signature beads, which to my thinking might include technique and design. But if I were buying this tutorial I would not be buying it for the technique as I may know how to do that but I'm more interested in the design.

Here's another thought which could help. The author could state when they're marketing their tutorial whether it is a technique or a design or technique and design.

In another thread regarding Technique vs. Design I said something like this when the discussion of apples came up.

Subject : Apple
Technique : How to make that apple - be it solid or hollow, ornament or pendant or even a bead.
Design : How you make your apple stick out from everyone elses.

That is how I view technique vs. design. Who knows, I could be totally wrong but for now that is my moral compass.

I have also seen it mentioned that it is also okay to copy a technique but designs are a NO-NO!! I've also seen technique being muddy'd with design and vice versa.

I'm starting to think that these sorts of threads have kept me away from my glass for far too long. I had the GA Fuschia arrive recently and sinfully have not tried it yet. Guess it's time to stop being opinionated and time to start melting glass.

Back to living, I'm off to watch a sunset and chill.

Hugs

[enemyofthestate]

Originally Posted by Frogsongstudio

Sarah, does the frit happens forum allow signature lines like LE showing that you have a tutorial for sale?

Yes we do

We very much welcome overseas members to the forum as their, well, your participation brings so much new life into the threads, especially our show and tell threads.

We are a community hungry for tutorials, as in the UK, there are far fewer classes and courses available.

And could I just add a note about the mention of copying threads over on FH ..... personally I relish an active debate on such matters... but I am just one lowly admin, and have to go with the majority decision when such topics arise, as they have gotten pretty personal in the past and most brits don't seem to have the stomach for it.

Anyway... I just wanted to say that any of you guys would be more than welcome to come along and join.... we do have cheap advertising rates, but just contributing on a pretty regular basis will get your tutorials, etc noticed via the signature in your posts

Thanks,
Les FH Admin...

www.frit-happens.co.uk

xx

[Asil4]

Hi Pam.

Thank you for responding. I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate more on your thoughts. I really do believe that this issue is long from resolved and if it's ever going to be resolved it's going to take some real dialogue.

Lisa, I think when this was mentioned by Kalera (If you are a hobbyist craftsperson, exact copying isn't going to harm you in any way because you're not trying to build a business reputation, and you're not trying to make art... just have fun.) it was as a result of other posts made in this thread that said - and this is a generalization - hobbyists just want to buy patterns and make copies of the beads in the tutorials. Kalera is not saying in any way that hobbyists/craftspersons cannot make art, just that their reputation cannot be hurt by copying.

I have been following this thread since its inception. I say that, so you don't get the idea that I came in after the fact without having any idea what has already been discussed. What Kalera said about making art versus being a hobbyist, etc. still has the same "sting" to it.

I believe that part of the struggle here is the defining of "copying" as it pertains to this issue. If I pay to learn a technique developed by someone else, once I start using that technique, am I really "copying" that person or am I refining skills I paid them to teach me? I didn't force them to teach me, they chose of their own accord to do so. I'm refining techniques or the ability to make specific beads that the originator put out, for sale, on the open market. Don't those skills now belong to me, whether they are in rudimentary or fine tuned condition? Isn't what I chose to do with those skills from that point on, up to me?

If an artist doesn't want to see beads, of a style that they originated, out in the market, sold by someone besides them, they should never teach anyone else how to make them. And, IMO, they certainly shouldn't make money on the transfer of that knowledge and subsequently try to control what happens with it.

If the artist isn't truly prepared for others to use those skills in any way the buyer/student wishes, it seems the artist hasn't thought through all of the consequences to them of mainstreaming that knowledge to the masses. Because, in reality, their own work in that respect becomes part of the masses. That is, what I believe, for some, is what is being lost in the discussion here. It seems the discussion, for some, has been surrounding what the "consequences" are to the buyer/student, if they choose to use those skills in a way that the artist/author isn't really ready for.

If you went to a lawyer and said you wanted to sue someone for "copying" and selling your beads, she may have a listen. If you go on to tell her the person making and selling those beads was actually taught how to make them, by you, in exchange for money, that lawyer would send you on your way.

The thing is, that is a no brainer. We aren't talking about the black and white of it. We are discussing the gray areas and it seems that most are really trying to come to some understanding of those gray areas. It may be uncomfortable for some artists to take a look at this because it means adding facets to the issue that they may may not wish to deal with as being part of the process. It's much easier to shift the responsibility to others (in this case buyers/students) than to deal with the parts that are uncomfortable.

I honestly think most bead purchases come from knowledgeable people who have done their research and know what they are spending their money on. Do you really think all the copying threads over the years have been started by artists who have been scanning the net looking for copies of their beads? I think most of the time it has been bead buyers who have alerted the artists as to copies being made

If an artist has a signature bead, it may be well known in the lampworking world and some consumers who pay attention to that realm. For the rest of the consumer base, they have very little knowledge of the process involved or the artists and their styles or signature beads. I'm not sure how many threads have been started here over the years regarding copying but, I'm quite certain that the numbers pale in comparison to the number of beads sold throughout those same years, as a whole.

If that consumer public is who would be the "judge" of reputation as it pertains to students and replications of beads, they, for the most part, wouldn't even be capable of doing it. How are the majority of customers going to know that it's the student's bead that are the "copies?"

If that weren't true, the glassmaker from Italy would never have been able to pull off what she has. Consumers were buying beads from her that were actually made by many others. The beads she was selling were easily identifiable to the folks here however, it's quite obvious that her customers had no clue.

I doubt the lampworking world, as any other, would expect the majority of their buying public to be that educated about their craft. As with other art mediums, it would be nice if they were, because art would then be much more appreciated and respected.

So, an artist sells a tutorial on how to make a particular bead. And lets say several buyers/students make those beads and sell them at a show. Lets say that the original artist is also at that show. The majority of the consumers at that show are not going to have enough information about the lampworking world to know who is the originator of that bead and who are the students. The result is, for the majority of the buying public, the original artist's bead ends up being part of the mainstream. That is part of the process of selling the knowledge and, for some here, it appears it is a part they want to ignore or try to eliminate.

The original artist chose to mainstream that bead. The results of that are part of the natural consequences of that choice. And, those natural consequences are the artist's, not the buyers/students.

I'm not sure a lot of artists who decided to share their processes via a tutorial considered that anyone would be copying the exact beads they used to demonstrate the techniques and wanting to sell them.

Why not? Why would anyone even start teaching others how to make an exact bead that they have toiled over and loved for a long time, without considering every aspect of what that might mean for them? It would seem that some haven't thought it all the way through and that is why there is strife about it now but, I don't believe it's the buyer/student's responsiblity to deal with the author's lack of consideration of all of what they were getting into.

There is an Buddhist saying:

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." I guess in this case the students have appeared and we need to know that the teacher is ready.

Copy for learning is what is supposed to happen.

Who is deciding what is "supposed to" happen in that realm? And, if it's the artists, then wouldn't they want to be very clear about the expectations of all of that? Instead, what some are saying is "it's your choice-BUT."

To my way of thinking the purchasers of tutorials should be buying them to learn the techniques, not how to produce a specific bead. You copy to learn and then move on. The risk to one's reputation is the same whether the author of a tutorial has given permission to reproduce the bead for sell or not. Copying for sell is frowned upon in any art field that I have ever been a part of.

What about all of the tutorials that actually teach how to produce a specific bead? If an artist is teaching how to produce a specific sun bead, should the student then not produce sun beads? Or, should they only produce enough sun beads to give everyone in their family a gift? The point is, some tutorials cover a technique and many are very specific.

Unfortunately the person that put in the consequences is just being extremely truthful. The responsibility falls exactly where it belongs. If an artist/hobbyist/craftsperson decides to make their living copying beads that have been demonstrated in tutorials, then that is up to them and there are consequences to any such decision, whether you want to admit it or not. The person will be looked upon in a different way than had they taken the information contained in the tutorial and used their own creativity to morph the techniques into something all their own.

I guess I see a distinction between "demonstrating" the making of a bead and actually teaching someone how make that bead and charging them for the knowledge. I'm wondering who will be "looking" at those folks differently when the majority of consumers have no clue whether the bead is considered a "copy" or not? I consider myself to be a somewhat knowledgable consumer in this realm and have purchased many beads over the years and I would not know many of the artists and their signature beads or who started what. If someone didn't enlighten me that a certain bead was a "copy," I wouldn't be in a position to look at them any differently.

Just as instructors have done throughout the last 20 years, she has made the hard decision to share the techniques that she has developed for the further education of the lampworking community.

If you look at her last post here, you will see that part of that hard decision was to think very thoroughly about the consequences of that to her. She realized before she went into it that it may change things for her and she only went forward knowing that she would be okay with whatever that meant.

I'm sorry this got so long. I, for one, would like to see some sort of understanding surrounding all of this. I guess we can only discuss it for a while and then talk about it some more when it comes up again later on.

Lisa

[Holly]

Originally Posted by sarah_hornik

I feel just as uncomfortable with the idea of restricting the tutorial and telling other people what to do with those beads, because I do not feel like that should be my decision.

Does that make sense?

Yes, absolutely.

Holly (who will not be writing any tuts )

[Lara]

Originally Posted by Holly

Holly (who will not be writing any tuts )

Bummer Holly. I love your beads and would love insight on how you make them.

[pam]

Lisa, once again, it just is easier to respond as I read, so I hope you don't mind.

Originally Posted by Asil4

Hi Pam.

Thank you for responding. I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate more on your thoughts. I really do believe that this issue is long from resolved and if it's ever going to be resolved it's going to take some real dialogue. Actually, Lisa, I think it is over, for now at least (so we disagree again - lol)



I have been following this thread since its inception. I say that, so you don't get the idea that I came in after the fact without having any idea what has already been discussed. What Kalera said about making art versus being a hobbyist, etc. still has the same "sting" to it. I really am sorry you feel a "sting" to Kalera's comment. Everyone has their sensitive areas, and I guess I am just not reading it the way you are.

I believe that part of the struggle here is the defining of "copying" as it pertains to this issue. If I pay to learn a technique developed by someone else, once I start using that technique, am I really "copying" that person or am I refining skills I paid them to teach me? I didn't force them to teach me, they chose of their own accord to do so. Yes, if you pay to learn a technique, $5 or $500, you should start using the technique. That's why you attended the class or bought the tutorial, to learn the technique. I'm refining techniques or the ability to make specific beads that the originator put out, for sale, on the open market. And here is where I lose you. You paid to learn a technique. That technique could be used on many, many different beads. You were not paying, in my opinion, to learn to make a specific bead.Don't those skills now belong to me, whether they are in rudimentary or fine tuned condition? Isn't what I chose to do with those skills from that point on, up to me? Once you have learned any skill/technique, whether you paid for a class or bought a book or tutorial or just discovered it yourself, that skill/technique belongs to you. What you do with that skill/technique is up to you.

If an artist doesn't want to see beads, of a style that they originated, out in the market, sold by someone besides them, they should never teach anyone else how to make them. And, IMO, they certainly shouldn't make money on the transfer of that knowledge and subsequently try to control what happens with it. Wait, now we have gone from learning a technique or techniques to learning a bead style. To me an aquarium bead, for instance, is a style of bead. A cased flower bead is a style of bead. Yes, I think that anyone who teaches the techniques used to make an aquarium bead is expecting people who learn from her to go out and make aquarium beads.

If the artist isn't truly prepared for others to use those skills in any way the buyer/student wishes, it seems the artist hasn't thought through all of the consequences to them of mainstreaming that knowledge to the masses. I don't think any of the tutorial writers that have posted on this or any other thread I have read have voiced any opinion that the skills/techniques shouldn't be used by the buyers. I certainly would be the last person in the world to say those techniques shouldn't be used. That's the reason, to me, for buying the tutorial or taking the class, to learn to use those techniques.Because, in reality, their own work in that respect becomes part of the masses. That is, what I believe, for some, is what is being lost in the discussion here. It seems the discussion, for some, has been surrounding what the "consequences" are to the buyer/student, if they choose to use those skills in a way that the artist/author isn't really ready for. I'm not sure where you have gotten that from at all. I have seen no one say that.

If you went to a lawyer and said you wanted to sue someone for "copying" and selling your beads, she may have a listen. If you go on to tell her the person making and selling those beads was actually taught how to make them, by you, in exchange for money, that lawyer would send you on your way. Again, I think you are confusing the skills/techniques needed to make the bead with the bead itself. Those are two different things to me. Let's look at a tutorial/class that teaches you to make aquarium beads. The artist teaches you how to make the components to be used in the bead. She teaches you, by demonstrating on a bead (can't actually think of another way to do it) how to put the components into place to make a realistic aquarium look on a bead, her interpretation of an aquarium bead. You copy that bead, putting every duplicated component exactly where the writer/artist put them in her demonstration. If you are lucky you have an exact replica of the bead that was demonstarted by the instructor. That's how you learn. Let's say the student then went home and made 1000 beads exactly like the bead taught in the class and put them up for sale. If you then went to an attorney, you would still have a case for copyright infringement, even though you taught her the techniques to make aquarium beads. Techniques and design are two different things.

The thing is, that is a no brainer. We aren't talking about the black and white of it. We are discussing the gray areas and it seems that most are really trying to come to some understanding of those gray areas. It may be uncomfortable for some artists to take a look at this because it means adding facets to the issue that they may may not wish to deal with as being part of the process. It's much easier to shift the responsibility to others (in this case buyers/students) than to deal with the parts that are uncomfortable. I actually think some of the buyers/students want to shift the responsibility to others because they are uncomfortable. For years we in the beadmaking community have deplored copying. It's not a nice thing to do to fellow beadmakers. Now some tutorial buyers want to be given permission to copy, and certainly there are tutorial authors who have given them that permission. Does that make it right? Copying is still copying regardless of permission being given.



If an artist has a signature bead, it may be well known in the lampworking world and some consumers who pay attention to that realm. For the rest of the consumer base, they have very little knowledge of the process involved or the artists and their styles or signature beads. I'm not sure how many threads have been started here over the years regarding copying but, I'm quite certain that the numbers pale in comparison to the number of beads sold throughout those same years, as a whole.

If that consumer public is who would be the "judge" of reputation as it pertains to students and replications of beads, they, for the most part, wouldn't even be capable of doing it. How are the majority of customers going to know that it's the student's bead that are the "copies?"

If that weren't true, the glassmaker from Italy would never have been able to pull off what she has. Consumers were buying beads from her that were actually made by many others. The beads she was selling were easily identifiable to the folks here however, it's quite obvious that her customers had no clue. The glassmaker to whom you refer was caught, so she didn't "pull it off."

I doubt the lampworking world, as any other, would expect the majority of their buying public to be that educated about their craft. As with other art mediums, it would be nice if they were, because art would then be much more appreciated and respected.

So, an artist sells a tutorial on how to make a particular bead. And lets say several buyers/students make those beads and sell them at a show. Lets say that the original artist is also at that show. The majority of the consumers at that show are not going to have enough information about the lampworking world to know who is the originator of that bead and who are the students. The result is, for the majority of the buying public, the original artist's bead ends up being part of the mainstream. That is part of the process of selling the knowledge and, for some here, it appears it is a part they want to ignore or try to eliminate. Since you and I are apparently talking about different things, I can't even answer this one. Artists teach techniques that may be used to enhance your art.

The original artist chose to mainstream that bead. The results of that are part of the natural consequences of that choice. And, those natural consequences are the artist's, not the buyers/students.



Why not? Why would anyone even start teaching others how to make an exact bead that they have toiled over and loved for a long time, without considering every aspect of what that might mean for them? It would seem that some haven't thought it all the way through and that is why there is strife about it now but, I don't believe it's the buyer/student's responsiblity to deal with the author's lack of consideration of all of what they were getting into. Same comment as above, artists teach techniques that you may use to enhance your own beads.

There is an Buddhist saying:

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." I guess in this case the students have appeared and we need to know that the teacher is ready.



Who is deciding what is "supposed to" happen in that realm? And, if it's the artists, then wouldn't they want to be very clear about the expectations of all of that? Instead, what some are saying is "it's your choice-BUT."



What about all of the tutorials that actually teach how to produce a specific bead? If an artist is teaching how to produce a specific sun bead, should the student then not produce sun beads? Or, should they only produce enough sun beads to give everyone in their family a gift? The point is, some tutorials cover a technique and many are very specific. I happen to know someone from a long time ago that made beautiful sun beads and she showed me how she made them when we were attending a class together on a different subject. I never made a sun bead, but I did make great use of the techniques she used in making her sun beads. And I will say that I have no idea what is in the mind of all tutorial writers. I have never seen a bead made without using techniques and I have never seen a technique that once learned could not be used in a thousand different ways.



I guess I see a distinction between "demonstrating" the making of a bead and actually teaching someone how make that bead and charging them for the knowledge. I'm wondering who will be "looking" at those folks differently when the majority of consumers have no clue whether the bead is considered a "copy" or not? I consider myself to be a somewhat knowledgable consumer in this realm and have purchased many beads over the years and I would not know many of the artists and their signature beads or who started what. If someone didn't enlighten me that a certain bead was a "copy," I wouldn't be in a position to look at them any differently.



If you look at her last post here, you will see that part of that hard decision was to think very thoroughly about the consequences of that to her. She realized before she went into it that it may change things for her and she only went forward knowing that she would be okay with whatever that meant. You know, Lisa, I don't think any artist in the world has ever decided to teach without going through a certain self-examination. Do I want to let go of my techniques? Do I want to see others using my techniques? And for those who decide to go ahead and share, I have never seen one that regreted it. I gain so much pleasure and knowledge from seeing my students use the techniques I teach them and later on see what they have done with those techniques. It's just amazing the different directions that can be taken using a technique that I had never even thought of. Do I care if my students go out and make realistic fish? Of course not. I love it! Will they be copies of mine? I seriously doubt it. They will put their own creative spin on their fish.

I'm sorry this got so long. I, for one, would like to see some sort of understanding surrounding all of this. I guess we can only discuss it for a while and then talk about it some more when it comes up again later on.

Lisa

[jensy]

"I actually think some of the buyers/students want to shift the responsibility to others because they are uncomfortable. For years we in the beadmaking community have deplored copying. It's not a nice thing to do to fellow beadmakers. Now some tutorial buyers want to be given permission to copy, and certainly there are tutorial authors who have given them that permission. Does that make it right? Copying is still copying regardless of permission being given."

I believe there is a big difference now Pam from what you said from above. The difference before you were not buying a tutorial on it. Now you are exchanging money for the knowledge of that bead. Before it was considered stealing now the person has paid money to that artist to gain their technique and/or patterns of the bead.


Jen

[glasscove]

Here's all you need to know. If they teach it or make a tutorial or anything in between they can kiss my ass. If I want to copy it I will. Remember none of this beadmaking is rocket science. It's not hard to figure out. I am so sick and tired of the egos in the beadmaking world thinking they own it. So to all the egos that think they own dots, cats, stripes, round beads, square beads, long beads, floral beads, long beads, short beads, cartoony beads and everything in between - get a grip!! You own nothing. Did I say that loud enough? YOU OWN NOTHING.

[sislonski]

Originally Posted by glasscove

Here's all you need to know. If they teach it or make a tutorial or anything in between they can kiss my ass. If I want to copy it I will. Remember none of this beadmaking is rocket science. It's not hard to figure out. I am so sick and tired of the egos in the beadmaking world thinking they own it. So to all the egos that think they own dots, cats, stripes, round beads, square beads, long beads, floral beads, long beads, short beads, cartoony beads and everything in between - get a grip!! You own nothing. Did I say that loud enough? YOU OWN NOTHING.

Nancy, I'm just curious. You say that "None of this beadmaking is rocket science, It's not hard to figure out" and also you state" If I want to copy it I will".

If this is the case, then why have you even taken classes or consider taking classes? Since you seem to find it all pretty easy to figure out?

Also I don't understand why someone who finds this art so easy would even consider the idea of copying, why would you need to? Since it's all so easy!

Just curious.

[Torch&Marver]

Originally Posted by glasscove

Here's all you need to know. If they teach it or make a tutorial or anything in between they can kiss my ass. If I want to copy it I will. Remember none of this beadmaking is rocket science. It's not hard to figure out. I am so sick and tired of the egos in the beadmaking world thinking they own it. So to all the egos that think they own dots, cats, stripes, round beads, square beads, long beads, floral beads, long beads, short beads, cartoony beads and everything in between - get a grip!! You own nothing. Did I say that loud enough? YOU OWN NOTHING.

What you speak of here - dots, cats, stripes, round beads, square beads, long beads, floral beads, etc. all fall under the realm of technique, not design. Standard techniques which have fallen into pulic realm by the sheer fact they've been around for so long, it's true, don't belong to anyone in specific. Design, on the other hand, that is -- how it's pulled together by an artist, certainly is owned. It's considered intellectual property and there are copyright laws which cover that.

You may wish to verse yourself on copyright law. By the sounds of it, you may become quite intimate with the ins and outs of it someday.

The attitude of your post sickens me. Did I say THAT loud enough?

[Frogsongstudio]

Nevermind

[Asil4]

Pam- I don't mind you responding that way at all.

And here is where I lose you. You paid to learn a technique. That technique could be used on many, many different beads. You were not paying, in my opinion, to learn to make a specific bead.

Just to be clear, it seems that there is some confusion in my posting about whether I know the difference between technique and design and which of them I was referring to. I do know and I was referring to both. I was talking about learning techniques and learning to make specific beads. In some cases, the tutorials are to learn a specific bead. Since there are "techniques" involved in learning to make specific beads, there may also be technique knowledge passed on with those types of tutorials as well as the ones that are clearly about a specific technique that is meant, up front, to be used on many different beads.

It's also possible that some of the techniques needed to learn to make the "specific beads" may be some that students already know. That is why a lot of tutorials will list levels of expertise needed as a base going in. If it's an advanced tutorial, more of the techniques used will need to already be in that person's knowledge base than a beginner or intermediate level tutorial.

I have to disagree that people aren't paying to learn to make a specific bead. In many cases, that is exactly what they are paying for, or, at least that is what is advertised. To give you some examples, I went to the Tutorials index. The following is just a sample listing and these tutorials are in no way any part of any current controversy. Some of these tutorials are free and some carry fees.

* Beer Stein Bead
* Christmas Trees
* Frogs
*Goddesses- this one brings up the question in my mind. I have seen many people making goddesses. Should I now assume that they all copied the person who put out the listed tutorial because I don't know otherwise and they all know how? I wouldn't want to make such an assumption and I would hope no one else would. But, it seems that is exactly what ends up happening in order to get to the place where others are looked down upon for what is "deemed" copying.

There are hearts and then hearts with loops and hearts with wings. There are pumpkins and flip flops and elephants and hummingbirds. All of them are to meant to teach others how to make a specific bead, including the techniques with which to do so.

I don't think any of the tutorial writers that have posted on this or any other thread I have read have voiced any opinion that the skills/techniques shouldn't be used by the buyers. I certainly would be the last person in the world to say those techniques shouldn't be used. That's the reason, to me, for buying the tutorial or taking the class, to learn to use those techniques.

Now it seems we are getting into the semantics of what "using" the learned techniques is. If I bought a tutorial that teaches me how to to make a beer stein bead and the techniques included with which to do so, I'm not supposed to "use" those techniques to actually make and sell the beer stein beads, lest it be considered copying.

Let's say the student then went home and made 1000 beads exactly like the bead taught in the class and put them up for sale. If you then went to an attorney, you would still have a case for copyright infringement, even though you taught her the techniques to make aquarium beads. Techniques and design are two different things.

In order to have a case, they would first have to prove that they own the copyright for the aquarium beads. If anyone had been encasing things prior to their aquarium beads, that would be difficult. After that, if you sold a tutorial entitled "aquarium beads" and taught folks how to make them, you'd be hard pressed to be able to restrict the use of that knowledge, especially without specific written restrictions and notification of them prior to purchase. That came from a patent attorney.

For years we in the beadmaking community have deplored copying. It's not a nice thing to do to fellow beadmakers. Now some tutorial buyers want to be given permission to copy, and certainly there are tutorial authors who have given them that permission. Does that make it right? Copying is still copying regardless of permission being given.

See, that is where the confusion lies. For many, they don't see it as copying if they have paid someone to learn how to make that bead and the techniques that went with it. It seems that some would like to make it so by declaration.

If copying is such a deplorable thing, then why is there more than one of any kind of bead style/type? Why does more than one person make hearts? Why does more than one person make goddesses? Frogs? How is it that some folks learn certain techniques that are the same as others without being taught by them? Is it perhaps that they, too, might have been experimenting with certain colors or glass types and discovered the same thing along the way? Is that copying? I wouldn't consider it so.

What if someone buys a tutorial to learn how to make a specific bead and the techniques that go with it. They make those beads and, if possible based on the techniques, they use them for other creations but, they still like that original bead they learned, so, they continue to make it. They've fulfilled the expectations of moving past the original learning to creating other things. Are you saying that they can't continue to like and also sell that original bead or else they will be considered a copier?

The glassmaker to whom you refer was caught, so she didn't "pull it off."

Before she was caught, she had sold a large number of other people's beads to the public. That wouldn't have been possible if the general buying public were as informed as you had indicated you feel most of them are. She would have been caught long before she was.

I'll add that we probably will disagree that this is over. I think this part of the discussion, for many, is the part that is over. It's hard not to end up going around in circular arguments and discussing semantics. I wouldn't take the silence as indication that any general consensus was reached; except perhaps for now to agree to disagree. Thanks for discussing it with me, Pam.

Lisa

[pam]

Originally Posted by jensy

I believe there is a big difference now Pam from what you said from above. The difference before you were not buying a tutorial on it. Now you are exchanging money for the knowledge of that bead. Before it was considered stealing now the person has paid money to that artist to gain their technique and/or patterns of the bead.


Jen

You know, Jen, I think this is where there seems to be a large separation between what you believe and what I believe. I don't believe that a tutorial is being made to sell the instructions to "a bead." I think the tutorial is being made to sell the knowledge of how to perform techniques which the author demonstrates in an exemplar bead. You're exchanging money for knowledge of techniques. The bead is incidental to the teaching of the techniques used to make that bead. Obviously you are going to believe what you want to believe and I am going to believe what I want to believe.

Either way, I think that Sarah was correct in her paragraph that has been much discussed; people will do what they ethically feel is the correct thing to do. The tutorial authors, those that have posted, have told people that they don't mind seeing their exemplar beads being sold. So then, you are still wanting to be given express permission in a tutorial that says "go forth and multiply" which I hope isn't going to happen as it will, I think, destroy the art of glass beadmaking.

However, even if it does and every author puts in a blurb that says "make thousands of these beads and sell them to your heart's content," then what do you think you are actually getting? So, 900 beadmakers all buy the tutorial and make 100 beads each, 90,000 beads all looking the same. You go to a show and every booth has a hundred of them for sell. Okay, she's selling them for $15 each. Well, I'll cut the price and sell them for $5 each. I'll cut your price and sell them for $1 each. Hey, that booth over there from China has a whole strand of the exact same bead for $3. Oh, I don't want that bead anymore, you see it everywhere.

Personally, as a non-writer of tutorials, but as an active participant in the bead community for many years, taking into consideration what could hypothetically happen, I would rather see tutorial writers put in a "warning" that says something to the effect of: "This tutorial is being sold for the purpose of teaching the techniques used to make", for instance, "sculptural beads. Use of the exemplar bead for commercial purposes is explicitly prohibited." This would protect our art form and our community and keep the focus on producing art glass beads, from which we all will benefit.

But again, this is only my opinion.

ETA - Lisa, we were evidently typing at the same time, so I will respond to your last at another time - off to gather children from the airport!

[Ever After]

I Love you Pam.

[pam]

Lisa, I just have to take a minute to say this. I think there are several layers to glass beads. One is technique, one is subject matter, one is style and one is design. Example of techniques: hollow, blown, baleen, copper mesh, etc., etc., etc. No one owns techniques. Subject matter: frogs, whales, dogs, cats, flowers, etc., etc. No one owns subject matters. Style: long, short, round, flat, square, Warring States, organic, etc., etc. No one owns styles. Design: a person's specific placement of elements, specific elements added, specific etc., etc. Those are owned by the person who created them. Those are copyright protected.

I'll come back to the other parts of your post later! Have a great day, and I am enjoying discussing this issue with you also.

[ShellyD]

Lisa, thank you for your brilliant posts.

[Moth]

I don't think by giving people permission to do what they want with my tutorial that I'm ruining the glass world.

Free or for purchase I have always given free rein with any tutorial I've shared. There are not masses of frogs just like mine out there, there aren't 100's of jellyfish beads out there. I have yet to see a single bird made from my tutorial. Canes...how would I know? They are just canes.

People are going to do what they want to do whether I like it or approve of it or not. The difference with me giving permission is that I don't have to have these arguments anymore. I don't have to police what everybody is doing. I don't have to feel mad when someone makes a bead from my tutorial and sells it.

I let it go, and yes, Lydia wrote to me before she released hers and asked her how I could do that. I told her how I did it, she made her own way to it. She put a lot of thought and soul searching into whether or not she was ready for it because she knew she couldn't stop it...just like I know I can't stop it.

As far as sharing pretty much everything I know and having someone tell tutorial writers in general to kiss her ass. That makes me feel great, really. Even if it isn't directed at ME personally, it is directed at people I know and admire whose choices might just be slightly different than mine. And we aren't supposed to feel like it is an us vs. them mentality? Kiss my ass? Really? You meant to say that, on purpose???

Geez.
~~Mary