Pls Write Warnings on Tuts

[navarre]

For all those squawking about copyright this - copyright that. May I politely suggest you take a step back -take a deep breath - and just take a few minutes to actually read how three dimensional articles - (with or without practical uses) are covered by copyright law.

You might be surprised - based on the words flowing so freely in this thread - what exclusions and clauses apply - especially for items created in series.

Frogsong - Perhaps your mixing copyright and trademark law - theres a lot of interplay between them - but they are distinct.

Have a nice Christmas everyone

[Frogsongstudio]

Patent, copyright, trademark. Yes, I do believe I know the difference. Does it really make a difference which one we're talking about? It all boils down to the same thing. They are there in order to protect works from infringement. And I'm asking... by the way of some of the thinking in this thread, how can there be infringement on anything? And if that's the case, copyright, patents and even trademarks are useless.

And just FYI, I'm not talking about tutorials right now, or beads. I'm talking, in general, about all published works etc.

[LampworkbyLori]

Originally Posted by Frogsongstudio

I have no ill will towards anyone.

My sincere apologies! I should have made it clear that I was not referring to any particular individual in my earlier post.

[ShellyD]

Originally Posted by AKDesigns

I've stayed out of this discussion but I keep hearing that no one owns a technique so let me raise a few questions. If someone figures out the Michael Barley Baleen technique all on their own, would it be ethical for them to then write up a tutorial on it and sell it? How about someone else's totally unique signature bead? Same thing, would it be ethical for them to write up and sell a tutorial on someone else's signature bead? I realize that this is kind of off topic but I'd like to know what people think about it.

I am assuming this question is now being posed due to your response in this thread that I have pasted a link too.

http://www.lampworketc.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=114140

[sarah_hornik]

I know I probably shouldn't, but just one small comment here.

It's KinKade, and why would anyone WANT to copy him, let alone PAY to learn how to do it? Ugh.

Okay, seriously, to each his own. Let's say this guy did write a step-by-step tutorial on how to paint one of his paintings. He's obviously a good technician, and I'm sure he'd have a lot of good tips and techniques to share, that could be used in any number of ways. But let's say you (=anyone) bought that tutorial, followed the steps precisely and got very similar results. Let's say you bought 20 more tutorials by different painters on how to paint specific paintings and successfully completed them all. Let's say, for sake of the argument, that the tutorials are not restricted in any way, so you can sell the paintings if you want.

You probably would sell the paintings sooner or later and make some money, and it doesn't look like that Kinkade guy has much to worry about in that aspect.

According to Wikipedia - "It is estimated that 1 in 20 homes in the U.S. feature some form of Thomas Kinkade’s art, according to Media Arts, the publicly-traded company that licenses and sells his products." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kincaid)

If you did put those paintings up for sale, do you think many people would consider you to be a serious artist? An original artist? An interesting artist? A good artist? Do you think you'd have any chance in hell of exhibiting your work in a respectable art gallery? If you just enjoy painting, don't mind making a little extra money on the side and have no intention of building a reputation as an artist, then obviously, none of that should matter to you. If you do intend to build a reputation, then... seriously.

Now I'll shut up and go back to being productive.

[pam]

I've been reading again, and I just want to tell one little story: When I was a kid I loved to draw, wanted to be an artist. Mom and dad always bought me drawing books, crayons, paints, etc. for Christmas. One Christmas I recall a book that was given to me on how to draw Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck and Minnie Mouse and Pluto. I learned a great deal from those books and could pretty much draw all the Disney cartoon characters and put them in scenes, etc. Does anyone think I could have made paintings or drawings of those famous characters and sold them in a gallery or booth at a craft fair and not have been sued (eventually) by Disney? Disney even threatened suit against Loren Stump for reproducing those same characters in glass beads, so he stopped!

At night when I can't sleep because I am so excited about all my kids being here and my step-son and his 10 yo twins, I've been considering both sides of this discussion. Should I put out a tutorial? If so, should I put out a pattern or a techniques tutorial and I think I have decided on both, should I actually decide to do it!!

A pattern would be a step by step on how to make a bead exactly like mine (make a white bead, put one dot of the white color on the right side of the bead at the very top and two dots on the left side of the bead at the very top so that you have a reference point for right and left. Now, come to the center between those sets of dots and move your yellow glass rod down to the center of the bead and make a dot approximately 1/8th of an inch diameter. Flatten the dot with your tool and melt in. Using your red glass rod, place a dot on the very bottom of that yellow dot approximately 1/16th of an inch away. Now place two Mickey Mouse ears on the top of the yellow dot approximately 1/16th inch away and add another dot centered between the mouse ear on the right side and the bottom. Repeat on the left side, giving you 5 dots. Etc., etc., etc.)

The techniques one would be more detailed as to heating the rod to the right temperature, when pulling away after your dot to allow a pointed end to remain on your rod. The techniques tutorial would talk about heating and cooling and melting to achieve different effects and how the basic subject could be modified to fit different shaped beads and how to add different subjects on different parts of the bead, etc., etc., etc.

I think it would be appropriate to charge $50 (say the cost of one bead) for the pattern which would probably be only 5 or 10 pages long (after all it is just a pattern and doesn't need to give the whys and wherefores) but it would come with my permission to reproduce that bead and sell them. The techniques tutorial I would probably only charge $15 or $20, even though it would be much more detailed and give suggestions on how to use those techniques in many, many ways. What do you think?


And please, don't interpret the discussions here as anything having to do with the tutorial-writers' opinions regarding the tutorials they have written. They are very generous artists and probably would have never thought to do anything different if the subject hadn't been broached. I think all of us have learned a great deal from this discussion. I'm amazed at the number of wonderful intelligent people who have contributed to this thread. Our community always stuns me with its ability to discuss a subject without resorting to name-calling and bitter insults!

And just as one last thought before I abandon the forum for Christmas cooking, yes, furnace workers do laugh at us. They laugh because they don't understand the intricacies involved in making glass beads. They see a tiny piece of glass and go - wow, that must be really difficult to do lol, lol, lol, lol. What they don't understand is the amount of work that goes into creating that one little bead. They have 5000 people working at furnaces and we have 50,000 making glass beads. We can put more work and effort into making just one bead than they put in a three-foot high vase. Their ignorance is what makes them laugh at us. I know, as I was a glass-blower for many years and still have many friends that are practicing this art form. I have taught classes at the University of Miami showing torchwork to glassblowers, trying to educate them to our art form, and it worked. One of my favorite sayings from a glassblower was "if you can't make it right, make it big. If you can't make it big, make it red."

[swamper]

Glad you posted that slant, Sarah. It all makes perfect sense.

[swamper]

Originally Posted by pam

One of my favorite sayings from a glassblower was "if you can't make it right, make it big. If you can't make it big, make it red."

I love that quote. Kinda applies to some beadmakers I have met.

[Torch&Marver]

Originally Posted by AKDesigns

I've stayed out of this discussion but I keep hearing that no one owns a technique so let me raise a few questions. If someone figures out the Michael Barley Baleen technique all on their own, would it be ethical for them to then write up a tutorial on it and sell it? How about someone else's totally unique signature bead? Same thing, would it be ethical for them to write up and sell a tutorial on someone else's signature bead? I realize that this is kind of off topic but I'd like to know what people think about it.

Hi Amy,

Just came across your post. It's not an easy question to answer because I think that, on the surface, your question invokes many possibly distinct scenarios.

If, in your first example, someone sees an artist's bead they like and they work to figure out the technique on their own and incorporate it into their own design, they've pushed their own knowledge base, have a new technique and are able to put a personal spin on it. That, in my opinion, speaks to someone who wants to push their own boundaries and extend their knowledge -- incorporate something new and interesting into their *own* work. That, imho, is something they could sell, that is, the finished bead which is now incorporating a new technique but remains distinctly his or her own work. On the other hand, that same person - finding a design they like and deliberately working to "crack the code" on said design, then profiting from writing a tutorial from their sleuthing efforts, that's entering a seriously grey area, imo.

On the other hand, there has been more than one known occasion where someone is playing with glass, discovers how to do a technique without the knowledge that it's been done before (I've actually done this - and had thought I'd come up with something new -- insert rolling all over the floor icon)... If this person is pursuing his or her own exploratory nature and comes up with something he or she truly believes to be innovative and unique and is not aware of another artist's prior design along the same lines, then that is a very different scenario from the situation above where breaking down the design is a deliberate act.

The latter scenario definitely enters a grey area -- if the artist then learns that there's someone else who has done the design first. If, on the other hand, it's a TECHNIQUE we're discussing and it's able to be interpreted more than one way by users, that's another different scenario. In other words, it's really difficult to provide a blanket response to what is about as clear as mud in my mind... and there are so many shades of grey involved that it's unclear what the right thing to do would be. I believe the latter case would certainly boil down to the "right thing to do" on behalf of the artist who felt they'd come up with something original, written about it and is now profiting from someone else's advertised signature bead. If the tutorial writing artist was unaware initially of the other artist's existence, I believe he or she will find him or herself in a dilemma upon learning this reality.

Motive and response after the knowledge becomes clear is more of a determining factor in this scenario, I should think.

Just my opinion. For whatever it's worth.

HAPPY CHRISTMAS EVE!

[Vena]

Originally Posted by Frogsongstudio

And once again we're forgetting the fact that NO tutorial writer said you can't make the beads or even sell the beads that in their tutorial.

So now you've got a hubby and a bunch of "business people" who only have your version of this thread and have no idea what's really going on, giving their take on something that DOESN'T exist.

Amazingly unbelievable!!

There is no "MY version to this thread. I ask these people a specific question that is all. They gave me their answers. I didn't try to manipulate their responses so they would fall in line with mine. I ask them one question. I didn't use your name or anyone elses for that matter. They have no clue who any of you are. They gave their honest opinion on the subject. Thats all. Why are you so angered over something so simple? What are you afraid of?

[BeadMaven]

I agree Vena.

Edited just to say:

Sometimes its more about what isn't said than what is.
Someone mentioned "territorial" earlier in this thread and I think that plays a part with this subject too.

[pam]

I think the saying goes, the answer is determined by the question. And I'm not trying to say you put a spin on the question at all, Vena. However, if someone were to ask, for example, where a tutorial was made to teach techniques and used a specific bead to illustrate the use of the techniques, then could someone lay claim to the illustrated bead, perhaps the answer would have been different. I worked with lawyers way too long to not understand the ins and outs of answering questions asked by a client or an adversary. If instead you asked the question, if someone makes a tutorial teaching you how to make a specific bead, is the purchaser allowed to make copies of the bead, the answer would be different.

[yellowbird]

I hear that there is a guy in a red suit heading this way.
merry whatever to everyone.

[Kalera]

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

That's actually not at all what I said. Not even close. I was talking about the difference in approach between a craftsperson, whether hobbyist or business, who reproduces designs from a pattern created by someone else, and an artist, whether hobbyist or business, who strives to create original designs.

I brought it up in the sense that I don't think tutorial makers want to be, or should be, in a position of giving game plan advice to all their purchasers, when they don't know what the purchaser's eventual goals are.

This is what I actually SAID:

Originally Posted by Kalera

Also, I agree with those who say that while they don't mind if someone copies the beads from their tut and sells them, they don't necessarily want to encourage people to do so, because they don't know what that person's end goals are, and don't want to inadvertently give them bad advice.

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.

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.

If you're an artist or aspiring artist, you probably won't be able to copy more than the first few pieces anyway before you start spiraling designs off of it, so the issue is moot.

But in the end, it's still you, and your unique circumstances, that decide whether you want to copy and sell exact duplicates of beads in tutorials.

That's an inclusive "you" I'm using, there. I don't write tuts for sale, and I don't plan to.

[Vena]

Realistically, the income anyone who decides to copy a bead from a tutorial and sell is minute in the grand scheme of things. By the time a bead has become infamous enough to be identified as someones design, that bead has already been in the market enough to saturate it. Notoriety doesn't come from seeing a single bead one time. It comes from seeing the bead and variations of the same bead over and over. Its much like product branding.

I can't concieve someone buying a tutorial and copying the bead to sell and making a huge profit from selling that single style of bead. If that was the case, it would be foolish for anyone to give up their bead secrets for the small amount of money the tutorials are selling for. If I believed the bead I was making a tutorial on was going to make such a huge difference in the marketplace if it was copied and sold as to hurt my business then I think I would forget about the petty cash I was going to make from selling the tutorial. I would be out mass producing those babies and making tons of money. Thats really all this comes down to. Money! It it wasn't about the money then all the tutorials would be free.

Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture. Is all this discussion over a few people selling copies of tutorial beads worth the damage it does to the community? Be happy, make beads and don't consume yourselves with paranoia about whose copying who. If someone copies one of your beads pat yourself on the back. Apparently, your bead touched someone enough to make them want to make it themselves. As they say, imitation is the purest form of flattery! If they make a few dollars from it so what!!

[BeadMaven]

There is nothing looney about you, Vena. lol

Well said.

[ShellyD]

Vena, once again. Beautifully said.

[Kalera]

I don't think anyone who makes tutorials is really caring if people sell copies of beads made from tutorials. The thread is about people wanting explicit written PERMISSION to sell beads made from the tutorials they buy, and they're mad because nobody wants to encourage that, even though they don't want to discourage it, either.

Basically, I think people need to weigh and balance options and decide what works for them, instead of expecting others to make decisions for them. Especially business decisions.

If you don't think there will be any negative repercussions from making and selling copies of the tut beads, then do it. Don't demand that other people agree with you; if they're wrong, it DOESN'T MATTER.

When I was teaching, I told my students that they should make and sell beads made from the building blocks I was teaching them. I also explained that if they wanted to have their own voice and reputation as artists, they could combine these building blocks into unique expressions of design that people would recognize as their own. I showed them how to layer and combine techniques, to come up with vastly different results.

I think it's dangerous to make up other people's minds for them. If I had told my students, "You have my express permission to make and sell these focal beads", I might be doing them a disservice, because I can't control other people's reactions. I have no way of preventing a gallery owner from rejecting their beads because they're too like my own, or an eBay shopper from criticizing them on a jewelry forum for copying, REGARDLESS of my feelings, or my explicit permission.

Jewelrymakers are not blind and naively trusting, ignorant folk. They know their materials, they do their research, and they are sharp as whips. All you have to do is read some jewelry forums to get a taste for that! The arguments people have on the Orchid list make these discussions pale in comparison. The ones I've met in person from my local group, also, are no dull blades. I've heard them critically discuss and dismiss, as suppliers, beadmakers for being too "derivative" or "generic". A great many of the beadmakers they are familiar with, I've never heard of... it's a whole different world at the buying end!

I'm not saying this to make people feel bad... I'm saying it to illustrate the point that no matter how *I*, as a teacher, may feel about someone making and selling my designs, I can't in good conscience say "Do it, go forth, make and sell them!" without reservation, because I *know* that not everyone will refrain from passing judgment, and I can't control that. Because of that, I think people need to make their own decisions, with eyes wide open to the possibilities, both positive and negative.

[andreajane]

Originally Posted by Kalera

..I showed them how to layer and combine techniques, to come up with vastly different results.

In my opinion, that's the key right there.

If a beadmaker provides a detailed blueprint for how to make a particular bead, some of the people who get the blueprint are going to make that bead and stop there. It's inevitable.

If someone wants to teach techniques and doesn't want to be copied, then I think the key is to deconstruct what is being taught to the point where someone isn't duplicating their own work when they teach. That isn't always possible...some beads are really based on technique, which is why separating design and technique isn't always easy. To use an example that's just come up, the bangle bead is a techinique, and it's also a design. In my opinion.

So, if someone who wants to teach a technique can't come up with a way to do so without duplicating their own work, in my opinion it's not a reasonable expectation that every single student/reader who receives instruction is going to be able to do that, too.

To go back to the example of those who paint -- painters don't teach their own work. Actually I don't know of any fine art other than beadmaking in which students are instructed by having them duplicate the instructors' own work.


Andrea

[Asil4]

Originally Posted by Frogsongstudio

You can laugh at the beadmakers all you want, but if you don't have the intelligence to understand this conversation for what it really says, well....whatever.

Wow. I guess there are many of us who don't "understand this conversation for what it really says" and, that is what the discussion is about. I never knew that not understanding it meant anything derogatory about my intelligence.

[yellowbird]

Originally Posted by yellowbird

how about say nothing?

still asking

[glasscove]

Originally Posted by Frogsongstudio

How many times has Ebay been sued by original designers for allowing knockoffs, ie, copies!, to be sold on their website?

How could this be possible? By your way of thinking, it can't be possible. But yet...... it has happened. Imagine that.

For the above and all your other recent posts:
I assume with all your 'legal knowledge/fear' about being sued for knockoffs - are you saying Ebay has been sued for knock offs like Prada purses - or handmade glass beads? Yup show me one beadmaker that has won a suit against anyone. Just one.

Oh yes - when you said if you buy a set of blue prints to build a house - you can't use them to build a hundred houses. Geez wake up!

This discussion reminds me of why the 'jury' system in courts is flawed. But that's another post for another thread!

[pam]

Well, Vena, I have to say that I don't think this thread is about "a few people selling copies of tutorial beads," but if that is what you have gotten out of it, then you obviously believe the community to have been damaged, while I believe discussions like this strengthen the community. You believe this is all about money, while I believe it has nothing to do with money.

Everyone have a great holiday!

[Asil4]

Originally Posted by sarah_hornik

If you did put those paintings up for sale, do you think many people would consider you to be a serious artist? An original artist? An interesting artist? A good artist? Do you think you'd have any chance in hell of exhibiting your work in a respectable art gallery? If you just enjoy painting, don't mind making a little extra money on the side and have no intention of building a reputation as an artist, then obviously, none of that should matter to you. If you do intend to build a reputation, then... seriously.

This is exactly the kind of "But" that goes along with "it's okay" with regard to whether beads can be sold after an artist, for a fee, shows others exactly how to make them. It's a not so subtle way of saying that if you decide you want to sell them the following may be the consequences:

* people won't consider you a serious artist
* People will consider you an uninteresting artist
* people will consider you a bad artist
* You will have no chance in hell of exhibiting your work in a respectable art gallery
* you have no chance of building a good reputation as an artist.

Your statement is your own opinion and you seem to want others to believe that it's fact.

You don't know how most others are going to "consider" anything about anyone else. You may know the opinions of some who agree with your own and you know your own. You also don't know the criterion most people use to determine whether someone's art is interesting or not or whether they are a "bad" artist vs. a good one. It's conjecture and opinion.
Unless you know all of the respectable art galleries out there and their criterion for choosing which artists exhibit in their venues, you cannot tell anyone they have no chance in hell of doing so.

You may be able to determine whether an artist has a good or a bad reputation in your view but, you cannot make that determination for anyone else, much less threaten the loss of it if folks decide to do something you frown upon.

I guess it would be great if you to understood that there is no rule here and you cannot establish one by declaration except as it pertains to your own work. All you can do is to attempt to intimidate others into your own way of thinking about this. If you don't want others to sell the beads you are teaching them to make, for a fee, don't teach them how.

Lisa

[pam]

Originally Posted by glasscove

For the above and all your other recent posts:
I assume with all your 'legal knowledge/fear' about being sued for knockoffs - are you saying Ebay has been sued for knock offs like Prada purses - or handmade glass beads? Yup show me one beadmaker that has won a suit against anyone. Just one.

Oh yes - when you said if you buy a set of blue prints to build a house - you can't use them to build a hundred houses. Geez wake up!

This discussion reminds me of why the 'jury' system in courts is flawed. But that's another post for another thread!

This type attitude is just ridiculous.

No, Nancy, I do not know of any glass beadmaker who has ever sued for copyright infringement. However, that doesn't mean that beadmakers have never had the right to sue. Copyright infringement suits are extremely expensive and what little you could possibly hope to recoup would be like a drop in the bucket. Does that mean copyright infringement doesn't exist in the bead world? Of course not!!!

And I worked within the legal system for many, many years and I have never seen a "flawed" jury, only people, mostly attorneys, who think they are so clever they can pull something over on the jury, get their just desserts. It has always amazed me how as long as the correct information is given to a jury then their verdict is fair.

[sarah_hornik]

Originally Posted by Asil4

If you don't want others to sell the beads you are teaching them to make, for a fee, don't teach them how.

Okay. If I have beads I don't want others to make or sell, I won't teach them how. I promise. People can stop repeating this now.

Originally Posted by sarah_hornik

Why am I being repeatedly accused of making threats?

"If you eat that burger I will kill you" is a threat.
"That burger has been sitting out for a while, so you might get sick if you eat it" is not a threat.

"If you sell those beads I will publicly shame you on LE until you regret the day you were born" is a threat.
"If you sell those beads it might damage your reputation" is not a threat. It's an assessment of a situation, which may, understandably, seem redundant to some, but I don't see how anyone could think it has no truth to it at all.

[Kalera]

Originally Posted by Vena

Realistically, the income anyone who decides to copy a bead from a tutorial and sell is minute in the grand scheme of things. By the time a bead has become infamous enough to be identified as someones design, that bead has already been in the market enough to saturate it. Notoriety doesn't come from seeing a single bead one time. It comes from seeing the bead and variations of the same bead over and over. Its much like product branding.

I can't concieve someone buying a tutorial and copying the bead to sell and making a huge profit from selling that single style of bead. If that was the case, it would be foolish for anyone to give up their bead secrets for the small amount of money the tutorials are selling for. If I believed the bead I was making a tutorial on was going to make such a huge difference in the marketplace if it was copied and sold as to hurt my business then I think I would forget about the petty cash I was going to make from selling the tutorial. I would be out mass producing those babies and making tons of money. Thats really all this comes down to. Money! It it wasn't about the money then all the tutorials would be free.

Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture. Is all this discussion over a few people selling copies of tutorial beads worth the damage it does to the community? Be happy, make beads and don't consume yourselves with paranoia about whose copying who. If someone copies one of your beads pat yourself on the back. Apparently, your bead touched someone enough to make them want to make it themselves. As they say, imitation is the purest form of flattery! If they make a few dollars from it so what!!

Hey Vena, I think you had a glitch, because this posted twice!

[Asil4]

Yeah, Sarah, I read the last part the first time you posted it. Sorry, but, the song remains the same.

"If you sell those beads it might damage your reputation" is not a threat. It's an assessment of a situation, which may, understandably, seem redundant to some, but I don't see how anyone could think it has no truth to it at all.

It may be an assessment but, it's your own and it's your opinion. You try to make it sound very damaging when, in reality, you have little clue whether any of what you suggest might happen, actually would.

If there is any truth to it, it's your own (and perhaps others) but-
it holds no authority even though it seems like you would like it to.

Saying things like:

Do you think you'd have any chance in hell of exhibiting your work in a respectable art gallery?

is, in my opinion, nothing more than intimidation. It's certainly not an "assessment," because it's one you cannot make unless you know all of the decision makers at all of the respectable art galleries and could control their exhibition choice criterion.

Lisa

[sarah_hornik]

Originally Posted by Asil4

Yeah, Sarah, I read the last part the first time you posted it. Sorry, but, the song remains the same.

...nothing more than intimidation. It's certainly not an "assessment," because it's one you cannot make unless you know all of the decision makers at all of the respectable art galleries and could control their exhibition choice criterion.

Okay. I get it. You really, really want to believe that I don't want anyone selling the beads in my tutorials and that my opinions are just threats in disguise. That is your right, I guess.

But, do you think there's any chance - just a slight shadow of a chance - that you might be wrong? Do you think there's any chance at all that if I say how I feel 50 times, it might actually be how I feel? Have I given you any reason to believe I am a dishonest person?

If I'm going to keep repeating it and you're going to keep telling me that I'm lying, then seriously - what is the point in me having this discussion with you?

[Kalera]

Originally Posted by Asil4

This is exactly the kind of "But" that goes along with "it's okay" with regard to whether beads can be sold after an artist, for a fee, shows others exactly how to make them. It's a not so subtle way of saying that if you decide you want to sell them the following may be the consequences:

* people won't consider you a serious artist
* People will consider you an uninteresting artist
* people will consider you a bad artist
* You will have no chance in hell of exhibiting your work in a respectable art gallery
* you have no chance of building a good reputation as an artist.

Your statement is your own opinion and you seem to want others to believe that it's fact.

Lisa

I think the point is, if a teacher or a tut maker has reservations about telling their students to go ahead and copy, because they are concerned there may be negative repercussions and they don't want to give bad advice, why should they?

This thread is not about tutorial makers telling their buyers not to copy and sell their beads. It's about some (not all) of them NOT including encouragement to do so. But if THEY believe it might not be good advice, why should THEY include that bit of advice in their tuts?

NONE OF THEM say not to. It's just that NOT ALL OF THEM expressly encourage it in writing.

"Make up your own mind after considering your individual situation" hardy seems like bad advice, nor does it sound discouraging.