• April 2025 Turning Challenge: Turn an Egg! (click here for details)
  • Congratulations to Kelly Shaw winner of the March 2025 Turning Challenge (click here for details)
  • Congratulations to Guillaume Fontaine for "Nebules" being selected as Turning of the Week for April 6, 2025 (click here for details)
  • Welcome new registering member. Your username must be your real First and Last name (for example: John Doe). "Screen names" and "handles" are not allowed and your registration will be deleted if you don't use your real name. Also, do not use all caps nor all lower case.

Plagiarized Bowl?

R

Ron Warman

Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
72
Likes
0
Location
Topeka, Kansas
My wifes usual comment when looking at one of my turning books is hideous. I was pleased when she found a bowl she really liked. The description says it is of Russian origin made in the late 1800's. I don't know how large that bowl is, mine is 17" X 10". I am sure there are other differences but I wonder is it plagirizing to copy this? I don't plan to sell it or make another to sell. At least untill I am a better artist.

Ron
 

Attachments

  • Russian bowl 2.jpg
    Russian bowl 2.jpg
    52.1 KB · Views: 586
Plagarism is taking someones idea and passing it off as your own usually to make a profit and since that isn't what your doing it is fine... it is more if you want to sell them that you have to think about it. If your just gonna keep it you're fine. At a demonstration Trent Bosch encouraged us to try making some of his vessels of illusion and playing around with his technics... of course it is understood that we aren't gonna try to sell them or pass them off as our own. One more thing: if that is simply a common style of bowl and there are hundreds of others like it versus it being a unique piece of art you can copy it and probably sell it. Since you are keeping it, either way you are fine. Maybe someone who actually sells their work can come by and comment on it! Nice bowl, by the way!!

Jonathon
 
Hi Ron,

Looks nice!

Since you duplicated someone's' work, my opinion is, that is plagerism, if you don't give credit to tge source. What you have copied is the painting. The bowl shape is fairly common and not orriginal for either of you. One way to get an original piece from a common form is surface decoration. People who paint eggs, bricks, or bowls get unique art throught the painting not the base object.

When you make the next one and modify the designs it will become "inspired by".

Once you think up totally new designs arrange in differnt spatial patterns and expressed with different colors it becomes your work.

By copying you/we learn the process and craft. As you make more copies you will deviate more and more from the original. At some point the inspiration for the painting and the form will come from some experience of your own and the work will be yours alone.

David Ellsworth has had sevral nice article in the AAW Journal on this subject.

happy Turning,
Al
 
Last edited:
copy the bowl as well as you can ... if you show or sell it, state your work was inspired by ceramic artists of the past ...

the concern of plagiarism has really lost its focus, to the point of being ridiculous ... turners, standing in front of the lathe, shouldn't have to worry if their work is similar to something from the past, present or future!

i think the issue boils down to common courtesy ... if you were inspired by someone else's creativity, acknowledge that ... as you would like to be acknowledged if it was your work.

have fun .. it's a great piece to be inspired by ...
 
It is often said that some artists have been copying our turnings for thousands of years :eek: If you look in some books showing art and craft through the ages you will see a lot of stuff that has designs and shapes similar to those used in art and craft today.

There are two sessions on plagiarism and the roots of creativity that are scheduled for the symposium. I'm looking forward to those sessions.
 
If it was made in the 1800's, the artist is long dead, and any copyright that may have existed at the time has passed.

It is considered Folk Art. It is acceptable to replicate old Folk Art as long as you do not represent it as old Folk Art.

A note that it was inspired by old Russian Folk Art would only improve your position.

JimQ
 
Why copy?

Johnathon,

If you have the skills to copy this you are probably capable of doing something more original. From a legal standpoint you don't have much to worry about, but you are denying yourself a opportunity to grow. Copying will never give you the sense of pride and accomplishment that you get from something that is yours.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with copying this bowl. In fact it will help you learn understand the design my forcing you to look at it in greater detail. After you've done about ten copied bowls my guess is you will want to try something new.

Take a risk, step out of your comfort zone. It's much more exciting.
 
Aw come on guys.

Plagerism is, by my opinion, turning into a P.C. issue and is getting way too much attention these days. We all use other's works for inspiration, copy to learn, and use designs from a variety of sources to guide our work. I'd venture to say that there is nothing out there that is fully "original" in the sense of having no clear inspiration/style in any other work.

By my understanding, that's not what plagerism is about. Plagerism is the intentional copying of another's work for sale or presentation as your own. It can range from rude, poor professionalism to outright illegal. Unfortunately, it seems we are spending alot of time these days trying to seek out a sense of inappropriateness to our work, rather than appreciating it's quality and value.

Ron, I can't see any harm or inappropriateness in your copying a bowl style from any period or artist for your personal use or as a gift. Even making pieces using more recent artists as inspiration is quite appropriate. If we could not do that, there would be almost no work out there that isn't plagerism. Heck, flat out copying can be very useful in learning and inspiring ourselves.

A direct copy of a more recent artist for sale or professional presentation seems what we would be talking about in referring to plagerism, and even then, it's likely not to meet the legal definition (though it would likely royally pi$$ some folks off, and rightfully so). Do what you enjoy. Use any inspiration you can get. Copy like mad and fill your and your friends' houses. When you want to, go places that only your imagination can take you.

Have fun and don't worry. You're doin just fine.

IMHO
Dietrich
 
Hello Jim,

I didn't mean for it to sound that way... what I meant is that if you see something you like it isn't a totally bad thing to copy it. As you turn and keep on turning "copied" forms you most likely will see something that you would do differently or just try something different all together in which case you turn out something that is unique to you (if that is possible). I really do like the idea, however, of creating something totally unique and experimenting instead of copying, but much of what we do at the lathe is seeing something that we like and copying it and modifying it according to our tastes.

Have a good day,
Jonathon
 
Dietrich,

Amen, brother, Amen.

A lot of this crying about plagerism seems to be coming from those who want to have their own exclusive club of professional truners, limiting the remaining trruners to small county fair craft shows.
 
Ron,

I'll echo e's comment, in that it seems that a great deal (and perhaps too much) is being made about "copying" objects made by others, both known or unknown. Let's be clear, however, that much of the attitudes and comments derive from the academic context. Plagiarism, as an academic "crime", has been historically easy to prove, since words and phrases in print are easy to compare, and it's a "strict-liability" case, meaning if your term paper matches up with Mssr. Sartre, you're guilty whether you meant to rip off the prior author or not.

Importing all this into the visual arts is a very different story. An author can put a phrase in quotes and drop a footnote to give a full acknowledgement of the original writer's contribution, and that recognition will last as long as the page it's printed on. Not so for artists. How, for instance, can you comply with Malcolm's comment about giving credit to your source? Do you know the source? I'm not talking about the entire body of Russian ceramics work dating from the 19th Century, but rather the name of the person who made the piece your wife saw? Next you need to establish that that person originated the design and didn't "borrow" it from a 4th Century original that was a copy of a Hitite piece that dropped off a caravan wagon 20 centuries B.C.

But let's make it a bit easier. Let's say you make a wood cowboy hat and let everyone know that you were inspired by Johannes Michelson. Are you in compliance with proposed ethical rules to avoid "Turner's Plagiarism" :eek: ? Sorry, Old Chap, but you are guilty as charged!! Why? Because in your zeal to honor Johannes, you left out acknowledging the oriiginal designer, Mr. Stetson.

Oops :(

Of course, when we go back to our academic example, we see that writers' review committees have it pretty easy because they have the ability to research every prior use of the suspect phrase or passage in books, scrolls, or 5,000 year old stone tablets, and THAT activity is what those people actually thrive on because they are academicians!!!

So, now that we've questioned whether an honest turner can ever give a complete acknowledgement of the influences that gave rise to a particular piece, lets consider HOW you and I are supposed to do so. Is posting a picture of your piece in the AAW website photo gallery with a nice little blurb about "inspired by M. Mandell" going to be sufficient ;) ? Hmm, nice try, but maybe not. Well, how about a nice little tag or sticker listing the piece and the inspiration? Hmm, maybe, but tags and stickers get lost (or trashed) about 2 minutes after the person who buys the piece gets it home, so all that's left is your name carved into the bottom. Uh oh, . . .Are you now a PLAGIARISER because your truthful acknowledgement got separated from your piece through no fault of yours? The problem thickens . . .

Wait, I have it!!!!!!!

In addition to the maker's name, the acknowledgement (in sanctioned and approved official form, of course) must be laser-engraved into the piece in such a place that, even though the maker's name becomes obliterated from the bottom, the acknowledgement will survive as long as the piece does! Now why didn't I think of that to begin with?

:D
 
Last edited:
LOL.

Yah, Kinda like that, Mark.

I seem to recall that the whole issues got more attention a while back as there were a fair number of folks doing pretty straightforward copies of well known turners' works and selling them in legitimate gallery settings. There was the whole "why should I pay X for a piece of wood when I can get Y for much cheaper from this other person?" thing.

I think that, as turning progresses more fully into a recognised and popular art, folks will become more accustomed to the prices on pieces from known turners and unique artists in a similar fashion to which folks respond to paintings and sculptures. You can get a relatively cheap knock-off painting that closely imitates known artwork but the world in general is aware that it's not "the real thing" and responds accordingly. Such work isn't considered plagerism. It's also not considered art. It's considered "cheap knock-off" and is generally ignored by anyone who desires quality and "art". We haven't gotten there with woodturning yet so it's a more contentious subject.

Till then, it's really not cool to closely imitate other's designs and pass them off as your own or sell them in any quantity. I'm not sure I'd call it plagerism but "being a jerk" would definitely work. For our own work for family, friends, etc, even for the occasional club auction, I can't see why it would be any kind of issue.

Dietrich
 
Last edited:
dkulze said:
I seem to recall that the whole issues got more attention a while back as there were a fair number of folks doing pretty straightforward copies of well known turners' works and selling them in legitimate gallery settings. There was the whole "why should I pay X for a piece of wood when I can get Y for much cheaper from this other person?" thing.
Click to expand...

I remember the initial comments, but I also remember that there were no specific examples of the practice ever occurring to any significant degree. It is therefore not beyond the pale to suspect a Red Herring or a gored cow in here somewhere. If you think about it, I anticipate that potential buyers of Ellsworth, Stocksdale, Derry, and Jordan work will not be looking for stuff in local crafts shows where all this "alleged" commercial mass ripping-off is/was going on. I think we can also assume that the vast majority of gallery owners are smart enough to avoid pushing out fakes and copies such that the sales would hurt "name" turners' opportunities. Gallery shoppers buy names as much as objects. Putting "Mandell" on the bottom of a Vesery-clone piece will not do the gallery any good.

I seem to remember somebody sometime saying something about "much ado about nothing."

Hmmmmmm ;)
 
Last edited:
I think there was an incident a little while back with galleried pieces that ended up being almost identical candlesticks to some by Olsnik. I'm thinking there were some Ron Kent ones too?

dietrich
 
dkulze said:
I think there was an incident a little while back with galleried pieces that ended up being almost identical candlesticks to some by Olsnik. I'm thinking there were some Ron Kent ones too?

dietrich
Click to expand...

Ah, The World of Provenences.

Rude's candlesticks, of which there must be thousands, would be ripe for forgery, as would Ellsworth's sugarshakers. Without a numbering and registration system to verify authenticity, production turners' work will always be rendered limited in value to the original purchase price, and I don't think there's anything any of us can do about it. There will always be counterfieters aplenty ready and waiting to make as many of an item as the market will bear. It's not a matter of ethics among basically honest hobbyists and pro turners. Counterfieters have no use for ethics rules, and will not be taking part in these discussions.

Counterfieting is not plagiarism, it's fraud. In all of the discussions on this subject I seen or taken part in, I've not seen or heard a single person aspouse their intention to make copies and put the original turner's name on them to sell. Not One.

If I go into a gallery and buy a set of Osolnik candlesticks, they'd better be Rude's work with his name/mark on them. If they're unmarked, I'm a complete fool for paying anything above Wal-Mart prices for them. If they are marked fraudulently, I will gleefully take and sell that gallery-owner's house to satisfy the punitive damage judgment I get against him/her.

Meanwhile, if I want to make a pair of Osolnik-style candlesticks for my table because I really like the design and have a lathe, but can't afford "real" ones, I'm going to do it. I certainly won't put Rude's name on them, probably not my own either. I make them because I like the design as a candlestick, and they'll go well with our table settings. However, I don't make 500 sets as Christmas gifts either.

So sue me.

:D
 
Last edited:
I'm with ya completely, Mark.

The ones I'm talking about weren't billed as Rude's work but were billed as original work by their maker. I still wouldn't call it plagerism but would consider it really bad professionalism. I'd personally be extremely PO'd if someone did that with my work and undercut me.

Dietrich
 
Copy Cats

I've been afraid to turn since this whole issue started. Everytime I think of something entirely new, I think "what if somebody just thought of that?" This is messing up my turning.
 
Context

dkulze said:
I'm with ya completely, Mark.

The ones I'm talking about weren't billed as Rude's work but were billed as original work by their maker. I still wouldn't call it plagerism but would consider it really bad professionalism. I'd personally be extremely PO'd if someone did that with my work and undercut me.

Dietrich
Click to expand...

Jeez, so many layers on this seemingly simple issue.

Dietrich, I don't know if you're a production turner with a nifty little item (like Rude's candlesticks) that you drop off by the gross to a "wood art gallery" to whom you've given exclusive sales rights, but that's the scenario that I think you're actually describing. In that context, I'd be far more worried about my design being ripped off by the "Far East Fine Wood & Lo Mein Company, Ltd."** and then sold through Whal-Maul** at 2 for $3 in genuine Meranti Mahogony.

Outside of production turnings of a particular item, how many turners make and sell duplicates of their own work, let alone someone else's? I may be out on a limb here, but I'm betting somewhere between a couple and none. It would therefore seem to me to be a waste of time to copy one-off pieces in a commerical venture. The original turner isn't harmed because he won't be making more of them anyway, and has moved on to his next original idea. The original's buyer still has "the one true original" and may even preen at the popularity of the copies as validating her own choice and enhancing the value of the now-famous original. If it's a published piece of some note, or a well known turner's distinctive style, a knowledgeable gallery is unlikely to touch it because their customers depend upon them to show "original" stuff that is more likely to increase in value. True gallery goers don't shop there for copies, and any gallery who sells them such will be "lights out" before very long at all.

I was approached a while ago by a decorator who had seen a few of my turnings. She asked whether I was working commercially to which I replied "no." She then proceeded to "inform me" that there was substantial money to be made through private decorator groups and high-end supplyhouses looking for copy work of name crafts artists, especially woodturnings. She even mentioned the names (which I won't repeat here) of turners whose "work" (unsigned of course) could be counted on to sell well privately. I politely declined what was obviously an offer. I also s***-canned the card she left.

I include my little story here because, from both her tone and syntax, this supposed professional person knew, without any doubt, that what she was proposing was unethical and wrong. However, I can see where this kind of approach to a struggling artist (who's trying to put bread on the table without putting in overtime in front of the fry baskets) can be a very powerful pitch indeed.

M

**All names used herein are purely fictional, and any similarity to the name of any actual entities, living or dead, is completely coincidential and should not be deemed or interpreted as refering to such similarly-named entities.**
 
I don't know of many production turners either. The only one that comes to mind is Dave Lancaster who hand turns volumes of bowls, mostly cherry. The bowls are quite nice. I don't know Dave personally, but he would probably be impressed if someone could produce the same volume at the same quality. I think he produces somewhere around 1,000 bowls a year. (Darned impressive to me!)

So I'm just using him as an example, but I would hazard a guess that he isn't particularly worried about plagiarism unless someone used his brand or name on the bottom of a bowl. But I could be wrong.
 
Yah, a person like that lady is about the worst case scenario but at least it indicates turning is reaching a better level of public recognition as an art form.

What I had been referring to was actually a situation where the turner was showing their original work in a gallery that was not so familiar with woodturning. Their "Original" work turned (heh, heh) out to be pretty directly imitative of specific and pretty well known pieces of others. Nothing illegal but disrespectful of the originators and pretty uncreative (not to mention kinda skanky).

Dietrich

P.S.( I know a couple of "production" turners and have done a tiny bit myself. Kinda hard to do full time and make a living, though)

PPS (what did the proffessional production turner do when he won the lottery? Turned bowls until the money ran out.)
 
Plagirized Bowl

Thank you all for the thoughtful replies. I had no idea I would start such a long string. I confess the bowl was something my wife wanted me to make but it was also another challenge for me. The inside rim shape was new to me. I like it because it appears to make the bowl thinner. I had never used the indexing before and I used it to lay out the design on the bowl while it was on the lathe. I had never used acyrlic paint to decorate a bowl. Maybe for you easy, for me hard. Can't erase mistakes very easy. I had never made a hollow foot before but it gives me an idea for carving some of the foot away to leave little legs. I have seen this before but didn't know for sure how to do it. It also gave me another try at coring with the McNaughton. I feel I am about a quarter up on the learning curve for this tool.
All in all it was a good project for me but I wanted to show it and I didn't want for someone to say," I saw that bowl in Michael O'Donnell's book".

Ron
 
Deitrich,

Perhaps the influence of 25 years of hardball commercial litigation has tainted my view a bit, so I tend to see the "money lever" in these situations. I would act in the situation you describe, not with the turner since he knows what he's really doing, but rather by going to the gallery owner with the issue and the backup. If they are a reputable outfit, they're likely to call in their "artist" and tear him a new one, because they know that if the word gets out that they're selling copy work, their customers (who pay the rent) will go elsewhere. This boils down to a cynical "hit'em in the wallet" approach, I know, but if you take away the market, the "manufacturer" will look for other things to do.

The message for honest turners here is that once the guy has been shown up to be a mere copycat, he's closed out for good, even if he happens to come up with something on his own. The punishment for plagiarism is tantamount to a death sentence (expulsion, discreditation) because once the communal trust is lost and the scarlet "P" is tatooed on his forehead, nobody wants to take the time to see if the cheater is up to his old tricks again; he just gets ignored and rejected out of hand.

M
 
Last edited:
I would hope that's the case, Mark. I just have this niggling feeling that there are gonna be those gallery owners out there who, even with prior knowledge, are gonna have that "get it here, just as good, cheaper, and still art" approach. Unfortunately, it may be nice to have but it's not really art at that point any more than they guy on the corner selling hand painted reproductions of the mona lisa.

Still and all, it's a topic that seems to worry some professionals quite a bit and has been handed down as an anxiety issue to us lowly amatures. My whole thought is that it's a great ethical discussion to have but simply doesn't apply in any signficant way to 99% of us.

I'll likely do many pieces in my lifetime that are similar or straight out imitations of more well known turners. I'd go so far, in fact, to say that most of the folks who's demos I've attended are quick to show specific techniques that they've mastered/created and teach them, so they're clearly not worried about folks copying their style. If I can pull off a Ron Kent style bowl or a JoHanes Michaelson type stetson, I'll be danged proud. I may even go so far as to sell it at our club booth at a fair. I'll never claim to be either of those folks, though, I won't set up shop and try to undercut them, and I'll keep pursuing my own voice and style as vigorously as I'm able.

Dietrich

P.S.(keep at it Ron. looks like you have a good style going to work with)
 
Plagiarism, etc...blah, blah, blah

This came up as a discussion between my girlfriend and I recently when I started working on a vessel that is to be carved away to create spiralling arms to form the shape. Upon checking out the current and coming exhibits at Del Mano, she mentioned it is similar in theory to Bill Hunter's designs. Granted, different scale, form, wood, finish, etc. but the carving techniques will be similar. The piece is for me personally, but it still bummed me out. Then this last weekend during a visit to the Getty Museum, I can across a grecian urn (can't remember how many centuries old) that fit the same design methods. More research and I remember that Stuart Mortimer's open spiral techniques for spindles use the same design techniques as Bill's forms only on a different form...

Long story short, look hard enough and there are very few original ideas in woodturning today. Nearly everything we are ooooo'ing and awwwwing about on the various message boards has been done time and time again in various methods and mediums. Just because folks are applying certain techniques or styles to woodturnings today doesn't mean it hasn't been done by someone else before in a different medium and do we hear them crediting the artists from other mediums? I haven't yet...

My opinion for what it's worth? If you aren't down right copying to copy (size, dimension, wood species, wall thickness, finish applied, etc. would nearly all have to be the same for it to truly be a "copy") go for it and have fun. If someone doesn't want to inspire others with designs or styles they themselves more than likely absorbed from another artist or artform, then they should pack up their stuff and put in a closet where others won't see it...otherwise, they should quit whining and get back to turning.
 
Last edited:
Copying others work

Just finished reading thru this topic on copying.This is not on turning but copying.I have just started into turning,but I have been making custum one of a kind jewelry boxes for several years.If someone wants to try and copy my work,more power to them.A funny story here, at least to me it was.Last year I sold several of my boxes on ebay.Then by total accident a friend of mine called me up and told me to go to this web site and take a look at this guys work.OK, low and behold were some of my boxes :D and this fellow listed them as such.These are custum made boxes that I designed and created in my own shop. :confused: (I keep pic's of all my work.)So I sent of a pic of these boxes still setting in my workshop :cool2: then stated as to how much of a coincidence that his work looked just like mine,woodgrain and all.I then ask how he did it :rolleyes: Never got an answer,but looked back a few day's later and his website was a no longer around.I could care less if someone tries to copy my work as I only do this as a hobby,but don,t buy my work then tell folks that you made it,NOT NICE .I would have loved to have seen his face when he got my email with the pic's.
 
Last edited:
Woodsmanplus wrote:

OK, low and behold were some of my boxes and this fellow listed them as such
Click to expand...

Woodsmanplus,
I'm confused :confused: Did this guy list the boxes as his own? Or did he give you credit on his website?
 
Last edited:
Chris Wright said:
My opinion for what it's worth? If you aren't down right copying to copy (size, dimension, wood species, wall thickness, finish applied, etc. would nearly all have to be the same for it to truly be a "copy") go for it and have fun.
Click to expand...


That's it. With intent to misrepresent. Of course we than have to ask where the real value in a piece lies, and that's emphatically in the signature. Lots of pretty pictures of Provence don't sell as well as the few signed "Vincent."
 
I think I'll poke my head into this cat fight .....

MichaelMouse said:
. . . . . the real value in a piece lies, and that's emphatically in the signature. . . .
Click to expand...
That is also my opinion -- the value of a piece lies in the signature and the real crime would be to forge someone else's signature.

My opinion isn't worth anything, but I will give it anyway. It appears that some wood artists want to claim ownership of a style in a general sense and not the artistic expression of a specific piece. My understanding of copyright is that there is no legal basis for claiming ownership of a style -- only a specific original work of art. Claiming plagiarism because one person's creation "sort of" resembles something done by someone else also is just wishful thinking (or perhaps, thinkful wishing).

Most importantly, however, our opinions about plagiarism are rather irrelevalent other than perhaps in reaching a personal conclusion about what it may be. Any mutual "understanding", however unlikely that is to actually happen, would have no bearing on what the law actually says or means.

Bill
 
Last edited:
boehme said:
-e-,
I stand corrected -- what was I thinking? Of course, my opinion is all important and often sought (someone actually did ask me for my opinion once).

Bill
Click to expand...

Keep this up and you'll make Grand Pooh-Bah before you know it!

M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top