Ouch! Does smart business=evil artist?

The forum for discussion on business aspects of working with glass.

Moderator: Brad Walker

Bert Weiss
Posts: 2339
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:06 am
Location: Chatham NH
Contact:

Post by Bert Weiss »

Susan Taylor Glasgow wrote:Hi Phil, Don't laugh, but I filed for my own patent. So far I've paid $375+time. What it's gotten me so far is a nice 5 page article in Glass Craftsman mag, lots of publicity and interest, and a lively dialog. My "tag" line at shows is a big sign that reads "Award Winning, Patent Pending, Sewn Glass". You can imagine the interest it receives. I mentioned to Jackie and Kitty earlier that maybe my pending patent has already served it's purpose. I did request that it NOT be published, so it's not too late to make it a trade secret instead.....
Susan

For an expenditure of $375, I'd have to apologize about calling it a waste of time and money. Spin is a good thing as is buzz. The discussion has been interesting.
Bert

Bert Weiss Art Glass*
http://www.customartglass.com
Furniture Lighting Sculpture Tableware
Architectural Commissions
Ann Demko
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 11:54 pm
Location: Owensboro, KY

Oh My!!!!

Post by Ann Demko »

Having been an addict for about two years now, I am still relatively new to this field. I find myself thinking of new ideas and then I worry as to whether the color combination, shape, subject matter was something I may have seen somewhere else. I ask myself "should I proceed? Should I research and make sure somebody else hasn't done this particular shape and pattern before only in different colors? I want to cast a piece someday of a geometric form...but I have seen several very close to the form I want to use and they could be of the same glass (don't know for sure becasue I've never seen them up close and personal). I would use my favorite fininsh, but since there are only a certain number of finishes available, I could possibly use one that has been used before on this particular shape. Does that constitute stealing? As you can see, my creative side has been somewhat blindsided by this fear that I am encroching on someone elses property. What is a new girl on the block to do? Ann Demko
Tony Smith
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 5:59 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Contact:

Re: Oh My!!!!

Post by Tony Smith »

Ann Demko wrote:I find myself thinking of new ideas and then I worry as to whether the color combination, shape, subject matter was something I may have seen somewhere else. I ask myself "should I proceed? Should I research and make sure somebody else hasn't done this particular shape and pattern before only in different colors?
Ann,

My take on this is that unless it is someone's "signature" style that you are going to copy exactly, they you shouldn't be concerned as other aspects of your piece will differentiate your piece from someone elses. There are pieces I would love to try, but have been hesitant because they are identified with "famous" individuals such as Marty Kremer, Steve Klein or Avery Anderson. The key, I think, is to let your work be influenced by the work of artists whom you admire, but don't try to "imitate" their work. There was a thread awhile ago where some people felt that imitation was a good way to learn the techniques of the masters, but it is also a trap to fall into. Once you've been identified as a copycat artist, it's hard to shake that reputation.

Tony
The tightrope between being strange and being creative is too narrow to walk without occasionally landing on both sides..." Scott Berkun
Paul Housberg
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:08 pm
Location: Rhode Island
Contact:

Re: Oh My!!!!

Post by Paul Housberg »

Ann Demko wrote:Having been an addict for about two years now, I am still relatively new to this field. I find myself thinking of new ideas and then I worry as to whether the color combination, shape, subject matter was something I may have seen somewhere else. I ask myself "should I proceed? Should I research and make sure somebody else hasn't done this particular shape and pattern before only in different colors? .... As you can see, my creative side has been somewhat blindsided by this fear that I am encroching on someone elses property. What is a new girl on the block to do? Ann Demko
Steal, copy, clone, appropriate, heist, plagiarize, pirate and pinch! And don't lose sleep over it for God's sake!

Just be selective who you copy. Only copy the best. This is how you learn. This is how you develop your own unique vision. You can't help but be original if you stay with it

If I may paraphase the painter and occasional glass artist, John Torreano, and his dogsh*t theory of art-making: Students and beginning artists often worry about inadvertently copying another artist's style. But, it's like trying to avoid the dogsh*t on the sidewalk (well, it used to be before laws requiring owners to clean up after their dogs). You're gonna step in it anyway! Somewhere, someone is doing work that bears some resemblance to yours (or visa-versa).

Don't be intimidated by patents or copyrights. It's only when your infringement of the patent or copyright begins to represent financial damage to the patent holder or when your work becomes confused with the original work in some pervasive manner that maybe you've got to worry.

So, relax. Don't let all these posts about patents and copyrights choke your creative impulses. I would not suggest that patents and copyrights have no place in the world of artmaking, but—and I'm gonna catch hell for this—some, perhaps, much of what appears on this board in that regard is a little misguided.
Image
Paul Housberg
Glass Project, Inc.
Art Glass Feature Walls
http://www.glassproject.com
http://www.facebook.com/housberg
Brock
Posts: 1519
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:32 pm
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Post by Brock »

. . . So, relax. Don't let all these posts about patents and copyrights choke your creative impulses. I would not suggest that patents and copyrights have no place in the world of artmaking, but—and I'm gonna catch hell for this—some, perhaps, much of what appears on this board in that regard is a little misguided. Paul


I think this would have been a much different, and probably shorter, thread if it was clear at the beginning that the patent in question was for the method of making the holes that the thread would go into, and not the process of sewing glass pieces together. It's been interesting though. Brock
My memory is so good, I can't remember the last time I forgot something . . .
Paul Housberg
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:08 pm
Location: Rhode Island
Contact:

Post by Paul Housberg »

I think this would have been a much different, and probably shorter, thread if it was clear at the beginning that the patent in question was for the method of making the holes that the thread would go into, and not the process of sewing glass pieces together. It's been interesting though. Brock[/quote]


Right. It may be that the method of making the holes has some application to industry or manufacturing that has nothing to do with making art and, as such, represents potential revenue for Susan. If such is the case, it may be a method worth patenting.

However, if the goal of patenting the method is to prevent someone from copying Susan's style (as if that were possible), or prevent someone from sewing two pieces of glass together whether with thread or ribbon or wire, etc., or with a few holes or many holes, or whether the holes were created one at a time or in some more efficient manner, etc., etc., I don't think such a patent would be successful.

And this explains my comment referring to the many posts regarding patents and copyrights as being a bit misguided. It appears to me—and that's "appears" in quotes, italics and underlined—that some artists believe that by patenting a method or copyrighting a piece, they can protect the "look" of their work; they can prevent another artist from creating a work that is similar to or references the original.

Further, it appears that some artists believe that a patent gives their work some legitimacy. In the case of Susan's work—and it's only that it's her thread that I'm using her work to illustrate my point—it hardly needs to be legitimized. Frankly, I think it distracts from the work, but who am I to say?

Can Susan's patent prevent another artist from stitching glass together? I doubt it. Can the patent prevent another artist from making a work that looks similar to or references Susan's work? I doubt that as well.

It may be that a style or "look" might fall under a trademark, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
Image
Paul Housberg
Glass Project, Inc.
Art Glass Feature Walls
http://www.glassproject.com
http://www.facebook.com/housberg
Barbara Muth
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC Metropolitan Area
Contact:

Post by Barbara Muth »

Paul Housberg wrote: ?

Can Susan's patent prevent another artist from stitching glass together? I doubt it. Can the patent prevent another artist from making a work that looks similar to or references Susan's work? I doubt that as well.

It may be that a style or "look" might fall under a trademark, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
Paul, I think Susan said that the purpose of the patent was to own the process of putting the holes in the glass that she then uses for the sewing. I don't think she is patenting a style or look.
Barbara
Check out the glass manufacturer's recommended firing schedules...
LATEST GLASS
PDXBarbara
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 4:09 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Oh My!!!!

Post by PDXBarbara »

Ann Demko wrote:Having been an addict for about two years now, I am still relatively new to this field. I find myself thinking of new ideas and then I worry as to whether the color combination, shape, subject matter was something I may have seen somewhere else. I ask myself "should I proceed? Should I research and make sure somebody else hasn't done this particular shape and pattern before only in different colors? I want to cast a piece someday of a geometric form...but I have seen several very close to the form I want to use and they could be of the same glass (don't know for sure becasue I've never seen them up close and personal). I would use my favorite fininsh, but since there are only a certain number of finishes available, I could possibly use one that has been used before on this particular shape. Does that constitute stealing? As you can see, my creative side has been somewhat blindsided by this fear that I am encroching on someone elses property. What is a new girl on the block to do? Ann Demko
Hi Ann...
Here's my two cents. Cliches don't pop up from nowhere. Here's a good & appropriate one: "There's nothing new under the sun." Or the universe for that matter.
I'll "Go out on a limb" here & say that even tho "imitation is the greatest form of flattery," I claim that imitation is the fundamental skillbuilder no matter what your goal.

My writing & rhetoric profs in college assigned projects such as "write 5-pp essay about xyz in the style of Hemmingway." It's a way to learn from inside that master's head, in a sense. Perceive an intimacy with why & how of the writer's choices. It's intense, really, when I give myself over to the process. I've never published anything you'd mistake for wannabe Hemmingway. However, the skills I learned in this hands-on, inside-the-skin way have colored everything I've written.

2nd notorious personal example. One of the most difficult, but most rewarding, assignments in film school-- copy a scene from a black & white film. This is primarily a lighting excercise, but geez. We duped a ridiculously complicated -- but cool-- scene from Citizen Kane. The newsreel scene early in the film. You know it... see a newsreel projected on a screen in a darkened room lit by, it seems, the screenlight. Cigarette smoke hangs in the air (so you actually have to illuminate smoke & take light readings somehow!)... anyway, intense & detailed study of that brief scene, and replicating it somehow (with lousy school equipment too) forced us to another level technically. But (more important to me) it was a momentary bridge into the complex brilliant brain of Orson Welles, one of my film heroes.

I guess this is a long way of saying that copying, imitating IS learning. Some people will copy and imitate...and then convince themselves it's an expression of their own creativity. It is not. Some people are shysters at heart and market the copies as their own. And they'll sell some. It's the way of the creative world & the Luck Of The Draw.

If you copy Klaus Moje's techniques exactly, you will end up with somethingthat looks like a Klaus Moje piece. But would you claim its' originality? Try to sell it as yours? People do it. I don't get why they do it, as it indicates minimal self-respect & can't get no satisfaction -- from doing it.

Yet, where would we be if Klaus weren't there all these years to lead the way? In fusing, we see Klaus Moje EVERYWHERE. It hasn't interfered with his career methinks.

I've learned a lot from Jack Dopler about his way of doing pattern bars and high-temp fusing and coldworking. ( I was making up some ways previously but it was all goofing around.) Now I just love to make hifire stuff and pattern bars. They ain't like Jack's, even tho he's incredibly open and keeps few secrets if any. Jack learned a lot about the techniques in a class with Klaus. Jack learned by copying, but will never put those pieces out there in the world. They're Klaus pieces, not Jack pieces. Yet Klaus is all over Jack's work, as well.

There's nothing new under the sun.
Yet no two snowflakes are alike.
That's how the world works.

Sorry for rambling.

PDXBarbara
Barbara Bader
Cynthia

Re: Oh My!!!!

Post by Cynthia »

PDXBarbara (Bader) wrote:... "There's nothing new under the sun." ...I'll "Go out on a limb" here & say that even tho "imitation is the greatest form of flattery," I claim that imitation is the fundamental skillbuilder no matter what your goal.
I am with you there. It is such a time honored way of learning and teaching that I wonder why it is even questioned as valid. I've said this before, yet feel like I'm beating a dead horse. Some see it in the same light, some don't. What I find difficult, which is why I make this argument too, is that some feel that this approach to learning is not valid and somehow unethical. My belief is that they feel this is plagarism, although it isn't unless you decide to represent it as your own.

...in college... assigned projects such as "write 5-pp essay...in the style of Hemmingway." It's a way to learn from inside that master's head, in a sense. Perceive an intimacy with why & how of the writer's choices. It's intense, really, when I give myself over to the process...

...2nd notorious personal example. One of the most difficult, but most rewarding, assignments in film school-- copy a scene from a black & white film...We duped a ridiculously complicated -- but cool-- scene from Citizen Kane... intense & detailed study of that brief scene, and replicating it ... forced us to another level technically....


It's nice to hear of some examples of this way of learning taken from different disciplines. Your next statement is where the scruples line gets drawn in my opinion. What you learn from these exercises is technique and process, you then can incorporate what you learned into your own body of work. If you don't take what you learned and reiterpret that into your own imagery, then you havn't learned a thing.
There's nothing new under the sun.
Yet no two snowflakes are alike.
That's how the world works.

Sorry for rambling.

PDXBarbara
Thanks for the rambling. It's refreshing to hear my similar thinking and ways of learning described by someone else.

This is a new thread, and one that's been beated like that dead horse. I believe Susan's original post was about whether she is obligated to share a method of manipulating her glass work that she developed, and if doing so makes her a good business person, but a bad artist. I'd have to say that my answer would be "I don't know" to the former and "nope" to the latter. I think that horse has been well covered too.

I like these topics that toy with ethics. History is a good teacher too. Maybe we could look to some of that as well to inform our ways of thinking and world views. As usual there's probably not a concrete answer to any of these questions. Just have to live with a lot of black and white perhaps.

Stuff to chew on.
Cynthia

Re: Oh My!!!!

Post by Cynthia »

Ooops. Somehow this got posted twice, and since I can't delete it now, I'll just change it to say; Oooops.


Technically challenged among other things.
Last edited by Cynthia on Wed Aug 13, 2003 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paul Housberg
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:08 pm
Location: Rhode Island
Contact:

Post by Paul Housberg »

Barbara Muth wrote:
Paul Housberg wrote: ?

Can Susan's patent prevent another artist from stitching glass together? I doubt it. Can the patent prevent another artist from making a work that looks similar to or references Susan's work? I doubt that as well.

It may be that a style or "look" might fall under a trademark, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
Paul, I think Susan said that the purpose of the patent was to own the process of putting the holes in the glass that she then uses for the sewing. I don't think she is patenting a style or look.
Barbara, I understand that Susan's patent is intended to protect a method not a style. The point of my post deals with (what I perceive as) misguided notions about the purpose of a patent or copyright.
Image
Paul Housberg
Glass Project, Inc.
Art Glass Feature Walls
http://www.glassproject.com
http://www.facebook.com/housberg
Paul Tarlow
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Helios Kiln Glass Studio - Austin
Contact:

Post by Paul Tarlow »

Bert Weiss wrote:
Susan Taylor Glasgow wrote:Hi Phil, Don't laugh, but I filed for my own patent. So far I've paid $375+time. What it's gotten me so far is a nice 5 page article in Glass Craftsman mag, lots of publicity and interest, and a lively dialog. My "tag" line at shows is a big sign that reads "Award Winning, Patent Pending, Sewn Glass". You can imagine the interest it receives. I mentioned to Jackie and Kitty earlier that maybe my pending patent has already served it's purpose. I did request that it NOT be published, so it's not too late to make it a trade secret instead.....
Susan

For an expenditure of $375, I'd have to apologize about calling it a waste of time and money. Spin is a good thing as is buzz. The discussion has been interesting.
This kind of use of the patent system doesn't sit well with me. If this was wide spread behavior -- lots of people applying for patents for 1) marketing and 2) scaring off "competing" artists (whatever that means) -- with no real intent to fully pursue or defend the patent -- then I could see this field becoming a legal mine field where the fear of litigation shuts down creativity. Boy would that suck the fun out of it.

- Paul
Tony Smith
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 5:59 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Contact:

Post by Tony Smith »

Paul Tarlow wrote: This kind of use of the patent system doesn't sit well with me. If this was wide spread behavior -- lots of people applying for patents for 1) marketing and 2) scaring off "competing" artists (whatever that means) -- with no real intent to fully pursue or defend the patent -- then I could see this field becoming a legal mine field where the fear of litigation shuts down creativity. Boy would that suck the fun out of it.

- Paul
They are, and they are.

Tony
The tightrope between being strange and being creative is too narrow to walk without occasionally landing on both sides..." Scott Berkun
Brock
Posts: 1519
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:32 pm
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Post by Brock »

Tony Smith wrote:
Paul Tarlow wrote: This kind of use of the patent system doesn't sit well with me. If this was wide spread behavior -- lots of people applying for patents for 1) marketing and 2) scaring off "competing" artists (whatever that means) -- with no real intent to fully pursue or defend the patent -- then I could see this field becoming a legal mine field where the fear of litigation shuts down creativity. Boy would that suck the fun out of it.

- Paul
They are, and they are.

Tony
They are? Who>? Brock
My memory is so good, I can't remember the last time I forgot something . . .
Phil Hoppes
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 2:20 pm
Location: Overgaard, AZ

Post by Phil Hoppes »

Brock wrote:
Tony Smith wrote:
Paul Tarlow wrote: This kind of use of the patent system doesn't sit well with me. If this was wide spread behavior -- lots of people applying for patents for 1) marketing and 2) scaring off "competing" artists (whatever that means) -- with no real intent to fully pursue or defend the patent -- then I could see this field becoming a legal mine field where the fear of litigation shuts down creativity. Boy would that suck the fun out of it.

- Paul
They are, and they are.

Tony
They are? Who>? Brock
Not in art that I'm aware of but in general one glaring name comes to mind.......Jerome Lemelson. This individual and his continuing legacy are a scourge on the patent system. I'd hate to see something like this in the art world.

Phil
Tony Smith
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 5:59 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Contact:

Post by Tony Smith »

Lemelson was exactly who came to mind... sorry, I lost the artist part of the comment. The patent system is frequently abused by people who are only interested in clogging up the technology pipeline with legal roadblocks.

Tony
The tightrope between being strange and being creative is too narrow to walk without occasionally landing on both sides..." Scott Berkun
Brock
Posts: 1519
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:32 pm
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Post by Brock »

http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/o ... onbio.html

Seems like quite the guy to me. What's wrong with holding a bunch of patents? What am I missing here? Brock
My memory is so good, I can't remember the last time I forgot something . . .
Ron Coleman
Posts: 468
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 3:20 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA

Post by Ron Coleman »

It looks just a little messy under the surface. But I think things might be tainted by just a little jealousy too.

http://www.chipworks.com/news/11eetimes_lemelson.htm
Brock
Posts: 1519
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:32 pm
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Post by Brock »

Sounds like he played the game by the rules. And won big. Brock
My memory is so good, I can't remember the last time I forgot something . . .
Phil Hoppes
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 2:20 pm
Location: Overgaard, AZ

Post by Phil Hoppes »

No, the guy is a slimebag IMHO. He's abused the system, a significant portion of his patent's are "obvious" and should have never been allowed in the first place. The issue here is that you may get a patent issued even though it is obvious or prior art existed. Once you have it, it now must be contested in court to be revoked, which "bingo" costs money. If you have deep enough pockets you just walk around the country and extort whom ever you please and many will pay up because they don't have the pockets you have. It is legalized extortion plain and simple. It has nothing to do with creativity, patents or anything else. This is a money game. He figured out how to abuse the patent system and steamrollered it into a big enough bankroll that he's now playing "Godfather" on small and large companies. The guy (of course he's now dead) and all of his lawyers all ought to be in jail ........... :evil:


Course that's just my opinion.............
Last edited by Phil Hoppes on Thu Aug 14, 2003 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply