Pls Write Warnings on Tuts

[Frogsongstudio]

Originally Posted by artic^wolf

I think it is hard to define because, unless you're using a"painting copier" it won't be an exact copy. This is what experts depend on when finding fakes.

Well, now we're talking about forgery which is completely different than copying and selling as your own work.

If I paint a copy of a Kincade, same placement, same colors, same everything, even though my brush strokes aren't exact, it's still a copy and I could be sued if I tried to pass it off as my own.

If I paint a picture using the same technique as Kincade, but the composition of the painting itself is my own, then it's not a copy.

[mad hatter]

I think there is the difference between the crafter and the artist. The crafter wants to learn something to prefect one or two things and do them well. They may make some money initially until there are many crafters doing the same work and the price goes way down, the market saturates, and they go on and learn something else. It may not even be remotely related to the original process. They are beholden to someone willing to teach them a skill. The artist wants to learn and press the process further learn something else and then use both processes to advance the work into something completely different. Their work is often more of a progression rather than the complete start and stop of a crafter. They often go to other sources, books, looking at others works, archaic pieces and triing to develop there own style. There is really nothing wrong with either one It is sort of like an apprentice system. Some crafters find they have a knack, a talent and they go on to fleurish. Some drop out. Some artists go on to become masters. Art is a fluid living thing that needs to grow. The way for that to happen is for artist to pass on knowledge ( after a suitible time they have to use their knowledge and make some needed bucks) they will go on to grow themselves. When you think about it it forces you to push yourself further. I mean who want to hang in the stangnant end of the knowledge pool anyway.

[Asil4]

Originally Posted by Frogsongstudio

If I were to paint exact replicas of Kincade paintings and sold them as my own, I guarantee I'd be sued faster than I could count my money.

Not if Thomas Kincade sold you a tutorial on how to paint an exact replica.

Lisa

[Jennifer Geldard]

AAAAAARRRRGHHHHH.
That's all I have to say about that.(Says Forest)

[Starrr]

Originally Posted by Asil4

Not if Thomas Kincade sold you a tutorial on how to paint an exact replica.

Lisa

This is a very legitimate point.

[Frogsongstudio]

Originally Posted by Asil4

Not if Thomas Kincade sold you a tutorial on how to paint an exact replica.

Lisa

But if he did, would it be okay to say it was all your own? And, would people know you copied?


We could go round and round.

I'm going to go scream with Jennifer.

[Frogsongstudio]

Originally Posted by Starrr

This is a very legitimate point.

Not really.

[Asil4]

Originally Posted by Frogsongstudio

But if he did, would it be okay to say it was all your own? And, would people know you copied?

If he showed you how to make an exact replica and then you did, it would be all your own. He wasn't there painting, was he? It was you painting.

If it was an exact replica, that tells me that your skills were very good whether he helped guide you to learn them or you did it on your own. Those skills are yours.

People wouldn't "know" that I copied because, in that case, I didn't. I painted something that an artist gave me permission to paint by selling me the tutorial from which I learned.

[Asil4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starrr
This is a very legitimate point.

Not really.

Deb, who gets to decide which points in this discussion are legitimate and which ones aren't?

Lisa

[Torch&Marver]

Originally Posted by Asil4

Not if Thomas Kincade sold you a tutorial on how to paint an exact replica.

Lisa

Well, I thought I was done...

This is NOT what you pay for when you buy a tutorial. You pay for instruction on the TECHNIQUE. Whether or not a tutorial author "minds" if you go out and replicate that bead and sell it has nothing to do with this perceived "inherent right" to ownership of a design.

Okay, now I'm really done. I hope.

[Frogsongstudio]

Okie dokie then.

[Frogsongstudio]

Originally Posted by Asil4

Deb, who gets to decide which points in this discussion are legitimate and which ones aren't?

Lisa

Starrr Says it is.

I say it's not.

Who gets to decide what I agree with and what I don't agree with?

[Frogsongstudio]

Originally Posted by Asil4

If he showed you how to make an exact replica and then you did, it would be all your own. He wasn't there painting, was he? It was you painting.

If it was an exact replica, that tells me that your skills were very good whether he helped guide you to learn them or you did it on your own. Those skills are yours.

People wouldn't "know" that I copied because, in that case, I didn't. I painted something that an artist gave me permission to paint by selling me the tutorial from which I learned.

Okay shoot me, but I can't leave this one alone, though I tried.

If you buy a tutorial from Kincade and he gives you permission to copy it, and you copy it, stroke for stroke, color for color, composition for composition, it is STILL a copy.

Just because you have permission to copy it, doesn't mean it's NOT a copy.

And whether you want to believe it or not, people WOULD know it was a copy of a Kincade. Tutorial or not.

Now, if you copied the tutorial and learned his techniques and THEN came up with your OWN composition and painted it in the Kincade style, then it is NOT a copy.

[artic^wolf]

Originally Posted by MoltenMuse

Well, I thought I was done...

This is NOT what you pay for when you buy a tutorial. You pay for instruction on the TECHNIQUE. Whether or not a tutorial author "minds" if you go out and replicate that bead and sell it has nothing to do with this perceived "inherent right" to ownership of a design.

Okay, now I'm really done. I hope.

Originally Posted by Frogsongstudio

Okay shoot me, but I can't leave this one alone, though I tried.

If you buy a tutorial from Kincade and he gives you permission to copy it, and you copy it, stroke for stroke, color for color, composition for composition, it is STILL a copy.

Just because you have permission to copy it, doesn't mean it's NOT a copy.

And whether you want to believe it or not, people WOULD know it was a copy of a Kincade. Tutorial or not.

Now, if you copied the tutorial and learned his techniques and THEN came up with your OWN composition and painted it in the Kincade style, then it is NOT a copy.

You have paid for whatever the tutorial contains. You have permission to make the item(s) taught in the tutorial, from the author. Some may be design, some may be technique...seems to me, most are a combination of both. Utilizing particular techniques to achieve a particular design.

What you do with the, made by you item, is what the discussion has turned to, in my opinion.

Legally the author would have a very hard time trying to control what you do with the item.

[Asil4]

Originally Posted by MoltenMuse

This is NOT what you pay for when you buy a tutorial. You pay for instruction on the TECHNIQUE. Whether or not a tutorial author "minds" if you go out and replicate that bead and sell it has nothing to do with this perceived "inherent right" to ownership of a design.

Why isn't it? If that is what the seller is advertising.... Make this bead, why is it so unusual that anyone would expect to be learning to make that bead?

Perhaps tutorial authors need to be more clear. If Thomas Kincade advertised a tutorial that stated its objective was to "learn to paint this painting," and it had a picture of the painting, I guess I would find it rather reasonable to assume that I'm paying to learn to paint that painting.

Many of the tutorials are being sold to make replicas of specific beads. That is what they are advertised as and the pictures are of and the body of the text is all about that. The knowledge being passed on is about making that one bead whether anyone ever uses the techniques involved to make anything else after that. If artists are not prepared for what that means to them, they shouldn't be advertising for and selling the knowledge.

What if there are "techniques" in the tutorial that the student already knows? Do they get a partial refund on the teaching they paid for?

What if some of the techniques that are taught in the tutorial- for money- are some that have already been covered in another tutorial? Does the author then reimburse all the other tutorial authors for the use of those techniques with which to combine to teach their own?

What if I combine 8 techniques that I learned in 8 separate tutorials that I purchased- to make one bead. Have I copied 8 people in making that bead?

Lisa

[Torch&Marver]

Originally Posted by Asil4

What if I combine 8 techniques that I learned in 8 separate tutorials that I purchased- to make one bead. Have I copied 8 people in making that bead?

Lisa

No. If you use 8 separate tutorials and create one, unique bead, then you've finally done all that any beadmaker or tutorial writer could hope (regardless of what they may say or not say in a disclaimer) - you've developed your own use for the techniques and have transformed the combination of them into something that is reflective of your own style.

THAT's the whole point I've been arguing. For pages now.

I'm intentionally not responding to the rest because I get seriously irked about seeing the mention of "I paid for it" when most tutorials cost but a fraction of what a class would and therefore, should have a more limited applicability, imho. But that's clearly a limited humble opinion... and I'm okay with that.

I have found the discussion enlightening.

[LampworkbyLori]

OMG!!! This stuff just makes me want to SCREEEEEAM.

Anybody else miss the good old days when tuts were posted voluntarily for free? I mean, I've learned a lot from the tuts I've bought, but I'd rather have never bought them than see these kinds of issues bring ill will between my fellow lampworkers.

[Frogsongstudio]

Originally Posted by Asil4

Why isn't it? If that is what the seller is advertising.... Make this bead, why is it so unusual that anyone would expect to be learning to make that bead?

Perhaps tutorial authors need to be more clear. If Thomas Kincade advertised a tutorial that stated its objective was to "learn to paint this painting," and it had a picture of the painting, I guess I would find it rather reasonable to assume that I'm paying to learn to paint that painting.

I think that's reasonable to assume. I haven't seen a tutorial writer yet say not to make the beads in the tutorial.

Many of the tutorials are being sold to make replicas of specific beads. That is what they are advertised as and the pictures are of and the body of the text is all about that. The knowledge being passed on is about making that one bead whether anyone ever uses the techniques involved to make anything else after that. If artists are not prepared for what that means to them, they shouldn't be advertising for and selling the knowledge.

As far as I can tell, all of the tutorial writers have been prepared for that.

What if there are "techniques" in the tutorial that the student already knows? Do they get a partial refund on the teaching they paid for?

What if some of the techniques that are taught in the tutorial- for money- are some that have already been covered in another tutorial? Does the author then reimburse all the other tutorial authors for the use of those techniques with which to combine to teach their own?

Now, that's just silly.

What if I combine 8 techniques that I learned in 8 separate tutorials that I purchased- to make one bead. Have I copied 8 people in making that bead?

After reading this entire thread, you still need to ask that?

[Frogsongstudio]

Originally Posted by LampworkLori

OMG!!! This stuff just makes me want to SCREEEEEAM.

Anybody else miss the good old days when tuts were posted voluntarily for free? I mean, I've learned a lot from the tuts I've bought, but I'd rather have never bought them than see these kinds of issues bring ill will between my fellow lampworkers.

I have no ill will towards anyone.

[Asil4]

Originally Posted by Frogsongstudio

I haven't seen a tutorial writer yet say not to make the beads in the tutorial.

What I've seen is "go ahead and make it, just don't sell it. If you sell it, you could ruin your reputation and be labeled a copier."

So- you can make the bead but, you can't sell it. Or- you can-BUT. To me, that seems like the tutorial author/artist trying to trying to protect the market they hold for certain beads while at the same time profiting on those same beads again by teaching other how to make them.

Now, that's just silly.

It was meant to be.


The thing is, there doesn't seem to be a precedence setting legal case with which to make a ruling and, until there is, it's going to be a collection of opinions, none of which are inherently wrong, yet, they hold no authority over anyone.

Lisa

[Vena]

This has become a very interesting thread. I've been so interested in it that I have asked many people who aren't involved with glass their take on it. The people I asked were all prominant business people. Many of them owning their own companies. I ask this question, "If I sold you a tutorial on how to make one of my beads would you feel you had the right to make it and sell it?" Ninety-five percent of them said "yes"! I told them about the discussion going on among the lampworkers and they couldn't believe it. Most of them said it sounds like the writers of the tutorials "are trying to have their cake and eat it too." One of the people I surveyed gave a good example. He said it's like drawing up blueprints to a house and selling those blueprints. When you buy the blueprint you are allowed to build your house "exactly" like the blueprint. You can't sell the blueprint but you can build a house that is an exact copy of it and sell the house if you choose. I had another person that used clothing patterns for example. She said "I buy patterns to make my dresses with. Sometimes I make the dress exactly like the one on the cover. If I choose to sell that dress it is my right to do so."

There are thousands upon thousands of "how to" books. These books are nothing but tutorials on how to make something. People buy these books every day and sell what they were taught to make. How many lampworkers have a problem with that? I think this whole discussion is based on the fact we are talking about lampwork. I doubt seriously it would be as heated if we were talking about someone elses livelyhood. The economy is making everyone consider new ways to make money and market themselves. Selling tutorials is one of those strategies and there is nothing wrong with trying to make an extra buck. I believe it is wrong to expect someone to buy a tutorial and then want to restrict their use of it. You don't sell information that you don't want used. Especially if you believe it is proprietary to you. I have personally purchased many tutorials. Some I purchased out of curiosity. Some I purchased because I intend to make the bead to learn the technique. Did I purchase any with the thought that I was going to copy the bead exactly and sell it, NO! Do I have ill feelings towards someone that did purchase the tutorial to copy the bead and sell it, NO! There will be some that purchase for the learning aspect and some that purchase the tutorial for the intent of making the exact bead and selling it. What is the problem with this? It happens everyday in many different mediums. The only way to alleviate what some believe is a problem is to not sell the information in the first place. Hold onto your technique and keep it a secret. Eventually, with enough trial and error the technique you have kept a secret will be disovered by someone else. It has happened dozens of times already on LE. But for goodness sake don't sell someone a tutorial and then try and tell them what they can and can't make with it. If someone is going to copy your bead after buying your tutorial and sell it to make a dollar, let it be. You let go of your information to make a dollar so what do you expect?
If you are insecure about your work and believe someone will hijack your bead sales then DON'T sell your secrets. If you are secure enough to put your secrets up for sale then be secure enough not to dictate their usage. It's really that simple. If you are worried that the use of your tutorial is going to hinder your business while increasing someone elses then I suggest you sell that puppy for alot of money and don't look back......LOL!!

[BeadMaven]

Great post Vena!

I asked my DH this evening about this too, to see what he would say. I knew he would be objective on the matter since I hadn't mentioned this thread. He said the same thing you did. If you sell it, the buyer has to right to use the tut however they choose.

Earlier, as I was thinking about this trying to compare it to something I could easier relate too I also had thought about sewing patterns since I sew as well and you are right, its the same in many mediums.

I do think this discussion is needed and reading the different points of view has been very thought provoking for me.

[ShellyD]

Brilliant post Vena!!

Anyway all, it's the 24th here...loads to do and finish up. This is one grateful mom that it is only one more sleep

Wishing everyone a super day tomorrow whatever you do.

Happy Holidays!!

[theglasszone]

Vena, you're awesome!

De

[glasscove]

Originally Posted by pam

"There are only so many ways to make a realistic flower."

Hmmmm, flower as a bead running parallel to the mandrel. Flower as a bead running perpendicular to the mandrel. Flower formed and attached to a small bead. Flower formed and attached to a large bead. Two flowers formed and attached opposite each other on a bead. Three flowers formed and attached around the circumference of a bead. Flower formed and placed on a flat bead, cylindrical bead, square bead. Flower formed using the bead as a base, whether flat, round, square, cylindrical, barrel shape, freeform, etc., etc. Each leaf and petal created separately and added to a bead in different designs. Cased flowers. Cased flowers with flowers on the surface. Surface decoration as if the flower grows from the bottom of the bead. Raised design flowers clustered around a bead. Etc., etc., etc., etc. Flowers can be roses, pansies, daisies, petunias, dahlias, geraniums, daffodils, tiger-lily, tulip, and on and on and on and on. We could sit two thousand people at a torch and tell them to do a flower bead that would be unlike anyone elses and they'd come up with two thousand different beads.

And I'll guarantee that someone who came up with what they think is their 'very own design' someone, somewhere would say 'you copied me'. Here's some other comments I have heard that could also be applied to the floral bead example (but could be applied to dots, stripes,fish etc etc); 1) That bead looks like so and so's - you must have copied, 2) That bead looks like so and so's but you used daisies instead of roses - you must have copied.
Good grief - I have heard it all! And that folks- along with paid tutorials stating you can't make this same bead and sell it - are some of the reasons the glass world laughs at the pettiness of beadmakers.



I guess I should have gotten into law. I could sue all the oil painters for example that are copying famous artist paintings - or what about all them that are painting pictures off of calender photos. Ya I'd get all those darn copiers - and sue them all - that is until I went broke after the first 2 weeks - Or after the first judge laughed me out of the courtroom!!

[glasscove]

Originally Posted by Vena

This has become a very interesting thread. I've been so interested in it that I have asked many people who aren't involved with glass their take on it. The people I asked were all prominant business people. Many of them owning their own companies. I ask this question, "If I sold you a tutorial on how to make one of my beads would you feel you had the right to make it and sell it?" Ninety-five percent of them said "yes"! I told them about the discussion going on among the lampworkers and they couldn't believe it. Most of them said it sounds like the writers of the tutorials "are trying to have their cake and eat it too." One of the people I surveyed gave a good example. He said it's like drawing up blueprints to a house and selling those blueprints. When you buy the blueprint you are allowed to build your house "exactly" like the blueprint. You can't sell the blueprint but you can build a house that is an exact copy of it and sell the house if you choose. I had another person that used clothing patterns for example. She said "I buy patterns to make my dresses with. Sometimes I make the dress exactly like the one on the cover. If I choose to sell that dress it is my right to do so."

There are thousands upon thousands of "how to" books. These books are nothing but tutorials on how to make something. People buy these books every day and sell what they were taught to make. How many lampworkers have a problem with that? I think this whole discussion is based on the fact we are talking about lampwork. I doubt seriously it would be as heated if we were talking about someone elses livelyhood. The economy is making everyone consider new ways to make money and market themselves. Selling tutorials is one of those strategies and there is nothing wrong with trying to make an extra buck. I believe it is wrong to expect someone to buy a tutorial and then want to restrict their use of it. You don't sell information that you don't want used. Especially if you believe it is proprietary to you. I have personally purchased many tutorials. Some I purchased out of curiosity. Some I purchased because I intend to make the bead to learn the technique. Did I purchase any with the thought that I was going to copy the bead exactly and sell it, NO! Do I have ill feelings towards someone that did purchase the tutorial to copy the bead and sell it, NO! There will be some that purchase for the learning aspect and some that purchase the tutorial for the intent of making the exact bead and selling it. What is the problem with this? It happens everyday in many different mediums. The only way to alleviate what some believe is a problem is to not sell the information in the first place. Hold onto your technique and keep it a secret. Eventually, with enough trial and error the technique you have kept a secret will be disovered by someone else. It has happened dozens of times already on LE. But for goodness sake don't sell someone a tutorial and then try and tell them what they can and can't make with it. If someone is going to copy your bead after buying your tutorial and sell it to make a dollar, let it be. You let go of your information to make a dollar so what do you expect?
If you are insecure about your work and believe someone will hijack your bead sales then DON'T sell your secrets. If you are secure enough to put your secrets up for sale then be secure enough not to dictate their usage. It's really that simple. If you are worried that the use of your tutorial is going to hinder your business while increasing someone elses then I suggest you sell that puppy for alot of money and don't look back......LOL!!

Awww the voice of logic. Funny how other crafts see it but the Beadmakers seem to have a problem with it!!

[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!!

[Frogsongstudio]

Oh and let's not forget........

There's no such thing as patents and copyrights. Businessmen know this, apparently. They're all experts in the field of art and copyright you know. But that's beside the point.

Everything ever made is made from already known components. So how can there be patents and copyright? Every word written has been written before, so how can there be copyrights? You think just because you change the words around to say something else it's yours? I think not. Forget about writing a book and publishing it as your own. No sirreeee bob! Those words have all been used before! Sorry Charlie!

And everything you say has been said before, and everything I say has been said before and just because we arrange the words differently doesn't mean anything because they're all the same. So essentially, we agree on everything because all the words are one and the same. They're just arranged differently. Isn't that nice? We all agree on everything. We all have the same opinion no matter how we arrange the words. Shaweeet!

Now, I'm going to go build a replica of one of Frank Loyd Wrights famous houses and call it my own design. What? Those plans are copyrighted? Tuff! Houses have been being built for years.... Years, I tell ya! Where does he get off copyrighting his plans? As the matter of fact, where does he get off selling those plans? You can't sell techniques that have been around for years. Geeeze, doesn't he know that?

From now on, when you want blueprints, make sure you tell the designers that you shouldn't have to pay for them because blueprints and house designs have been around for years and years. Therefore, all blueprints and designs are the same. Therefore again, they shouldn't expect people to actually pay for them. Or for the use of them.

By the way, I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that if you buy blueprints to build 100 homes, you have to pay a fee for each home built. It's called... what??? .... COPYRIGHT!

[Frogsongstudio]

Originally Posted by glasscove

And I'll guarantee that someone who came up with what they think is their 'very own design' someone, somewhere would say 'you copied me'. Here's some other comments I have heard that could also be applied to the floral bead example (but could be applied to dots, stripes,fish etc etc); 1) That bead looks like so and so's - you must have copied, 2) That bead looks like so and so's but you used daisies instead of roses - you must have copied.

Yes, you might hear someone say that. That doesn't mean the tutorial writers said it, but we'll get blamed for it I'm sure.

Good grief - I have heard it all! And that folks- along with paid tutorials stating you can't make this same bead and sell it - are some of the reasons the glass world laughs at the pettiness of beadmakers.

Show me! Show me one tutorial writer who said you can't make this bead and sell it. Just one!


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.

I guess I should have gotten into law. I could sue all the oil painters for example that are copying famous artist paintings -

Maybe you should have gotten into law, because then you'd know that yes, yes you could sue all those painters who are copying famous artists and calling the work their own or passing it off as an original.

or what about all them that are painting pictures off of calender photos. Ya I'd get all those darn copiers - and sue them all

Again, yes, you could do exactly that. Those calender photos are all COPYRIGHTED material. EVERY artist knows you have to get written express permission from the photographer, to paint a painting of their photograph. Hello!![/quote]

that is until I went broke after the first 2 weeks - Or after the first judge laughed me out of the courtroom!!

If you went broke and got laughed out of the courtroom it would be because you DON'T seem to understand the law.

[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.