New cue Al Baytista 8 pointer

[classiccues]

Believe what you will Joe, but this is not a black & white subject. You seem to jump out criticize others beliefs on the subject. You have plenty of cues on your site that are by newer makers using traditional designs. You have commissioned cues that were copies of deceased cuemakers. There is no way there will ever cease to be traditional designs made by modern cuemakers... until you come to grips with that concept, there cannot be any further discussion on the subject.

No... it is not that simple... it is very complicated. Again, no one can make this a black & white subject... it's impossible.

So based on your comments, you are all in for CDT. Since you have commissioned cues with designs from other makers, whether alive or dead, that means you believe CDT is just fine. All in or all out right? A no hypocrite policy...

It's all very simple Jamie. I have no issues at all with CDT and I have said so many times.

We do comission other cuemakers to use design elements from other cuemakers, dead or alive. Let's face it, the old school designs are still extremely popular. If you and I didn't order them, someone would. I don't believe I have ever ordered a direct knockoff, not by choice, but there are very few cues I think are worthy of a direct knock off.

I will always say there is NO grey area. You either copy, have copied, or will copy or you haven't and won't.

BTW the only ones who cannot make this black or white have other issues that they are weighing.

JV

 

[qbilder]

You mean like this cue?

http://www.new2youqs.com/cues/blackcreek.html

Jamie,
All I can say is cue design theft is an either all in, or all out subject. I have heard many times by some fat a$$ that there is a grey area, there isn't. I have heard that older design elements are fair game by people like yourself that want to protect a newer active cuemaker such as Eric. I find this stance extremely hypocritical.
I do not see a grey area. Someone else see's a grey area because all of his "friends" have done it. Those guys get the grey area pass. I don't have grey area's to extend to my friends, but then again I don't have a problem with this issue at all. I would have, if the cue was being made to be sold as an original. This has rarely been the case.

Let me ask these simple questions?

How long before something gets called a "common design element"?

Who makes that determination?

If you cannot answer these questions with complete confidence, you cannot make any claim on CDT. It's that simple.

I can see why Eric is uppity and I don't blame him since that is his belief, on this cue. However, cue history has shown this practice is extremely common. Did he not build a Harvey Martin tribute cue recently? Sorry Eric, no pass. Regardless of WHY you did it, and IIRC there are going to be 10 of them? C'mon, you aren't the guy to be complaining right now. Would Harvey Martin be complaining? Oh wait, he is dead so that makes it ok?

I have a no hypocrite allowed policy, and that has no grey areas. However you may feel on the subject is very personal. If you don't like copies, never buy another Hoppe Ring cue, ever. No grey area. If it doesn't bother you buy what you want.

HOWEVER, it's all in, or all out, there is no grey area. Only people who are hypocritical need a "grey" area. Just look at what they say and you'll know where their hearts really lie on this issue.

JV

This is where you & I disagree, obviously. I explained my thoughts on tribute cues, and have before I ever built one. You fail to see the difference between a tribute to a dead or inactive builder who is no longer utilizing a design, and the theft of a design from a builder who is still actively using it. There's nothing hypocritical about that. Paint your picture with as broad a brush as you want, and justify the wrong as much as you like. But it is a very black & white issue. The two issues are not anything alike. Once I die or quit building cues, I will have absolutely no problem with somebody using the designs I created & used. In fact, i'd be delighted at the thought somebody liked them enough to carry them on after i'm gone. But taking them while i'm very much actively using them is theft & unethical. That's clear & easy to understand for anybody, even if you are trying to justify design theft because you practice it. You justify it because it's something you do, not necessarily because you actually believe it's right.

The difference here is I see right from wrong very clearly & base my feelings on it. You try to taint that line by calling it hypocritical when it's nothing of the sort. I'm not like you. I don't do what you do. I don't believe how you believe. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

 

[Charlie Edwards]

I was waiting for this to be said,,and no that is not what happened here. I am the original owner from new .The cue was already designed and in it's ready to be finished state. It was offered to me as a replacement cue to one that was traded to me and had issues from either being left in the cold or elements .The original owner traded it to me with problems and I contacted AL. Al Bautista made good and stood behind his work and offered for me to send the cue back and he replace the cue. This is what I got. If I knew all this was going to come about I would have just kept the cue and put it away . I was starting to sell some cues I didnt use and decided to list this one for what I had into the original cue I traded for this one. Thats why I only asked what I did for it. I wasnt out to make a profit , I wasnt out to show it off as a Surgartree. I made this clear before the sale ever took place and to the group of people and Pm's I had on this cue. I ven said why I was only asking what I did for the cue, just to get out what I had into the cue I had traded off. I sat back and watched this all erupt and waited for someone to bring the original owner into this and say I had this cue made this way and that is not what happened at all. I just wanted to be clear with all of this. And after this started I contacted the new owner and asked him if he wanted his money back ,,which he declined ,,, <<< ED

My comments were referenced from post # 72. The poster sounded like he knew what he was talking about... maybe he did or maybe he didn't, I don't know. Perhaps another buyer gave Mr. Baytista the design. He should explain the history of that cue, then we all would know how he obtained the design unless it was, indeed, a copy he knowingly built. If that was the case he should admit it.

 

[classiccues]

This is where you & I disagree, obviously. I explained my thoughts on tribute cues, and have before I ever built one. You fail to see the difference between a tribute to a dead or inactive builder who is no longer utilizing a design, and the theft of a design from a builder who is still actively using it. There's nothing hypocritical about that. Paint your picture with as broad a brush as you want, and justify the wrong as much as you like. But it is a very black & white issue. The two issues are not anything alike. Once I die or quit building cues, I will have absolutely no problem with somebody using the designs I created & used. In fact, i'd be delighted at the thought somebody liked them enough to carry them on after i'm gone. But taking them while i'm very much actively using them is theft & unethical. That's clear & easy to understand for anybody, even if you are trying to justify design theft because you practice it. You justify it because it's something you do, not necessarily because you actually believe it's right.

The difference here is I see right from wrong very clearly & base my feelings on it. You try to taint that line by calling it hypocritical when it's nothing of the sort. I'm not like you. I don't do what you do. I don't believe how you believe. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

You're right Eric we will disagree. Dead or alive, artistic rights should not be relenquished (common sense). If you believe that using a dead cuemakers design is OK because he is dead, but yours are off limits because you're not, I believe there is hypocrisy in that statement. You for some reason don't want to see it, but that's on you.
My belief on why it's not an issue stems from the fact that it's been done to death by almost everyone, now yourself included. Now that being said, right and wrong is clearly in the eye of the beholder. I can find some sort of CDT in almost every cuemakers cues at some point in their careers. There are a lot of guys using CNC now that ripped the 6 point hi and low configuration from SW when they needed to pay for their cnc set ups. Now that they are computer aided artistic, CDT is wrong. Makes me laugh.
You're right we do not believe similarly in the application of CDT.

JV

 

[qbilder]

You're right Eric we will disagree. Dead or alive, artistic rights should not be relenquished (common sense). If you believe that using a dead cuemakers design is OK because he is dead, but yours are off limits because you're not, I believe there is hypocrisy in that statement. You for some reason don't want to see it, but that's on you.
My belief on why it's not an issue stems from the fact that it's been done to death by almost everyone, now yourself included. Now that being said, right and wrong is clearly in the eye of the beholder. I can find some sort of CDT in almost every cuemakers cues at some point in their careers. There are a lot of guys using CNC now that ripped the 6 point hi and low configuration from SW when they needed to pay for their cnc set ups. Now that they are computer aided artistic, CDT is wrong. Makes me laugh.
You're right we do not believe similarly in the application of CDT.

JV

Agree to disagree then. I'm clear about where I stand. If that makes me a hypocrite in your eyes then so be it. Matters nil to me what you think. You are as entitled to your opinion as anybody else. You encompass everything into one massive night or day. I clearly define the differences.

Point being, Ron Haley, Dennis Searing, John Showman, etc. all have their own versions of classic designs. None feel they "copy" anything but instead feel as if they have their own overall design. And rightly so because you can easily tell one of their cues immediately without ever seeing a signature. Since they feel they have their own unique look that isn't copying somebody else, does it make them hypocrites, too? Or is that different? By your definition, every cue maker on earth is a hypocrite. Wouldn't you agree? Oh, you already did above. One must be careful how broad a brush they paint with. They may paint over their own lines.

 

[classiccues]

Agree to disagree then. I'm clear about where I stand. If that makes me a hypocrite in your eyes then so be it. Matters nil to me what you think. You are as entitled to your opinion as anybody else. You encompass everything into one massive night or day. I clearly define the differences.

Point being, Ron Haley, Dennis Searing, John Showman, etc. all have their own versions of classic designs. None feel they "copy" anything but instead feel as if they have their own overall design. And rightly so because you can easily tell one of their cues immediately without ever seeing a signature. Since they feel they have their own unique look that isn't copying somebody else, does it make them hypocrites, too? Or is that different? By your definition, every cue maker on earth is a hypocrite. Wouldn't you agree? Oh, you already did above. One must be careful how broad a brush they paint with. They may paint over their own lines.

Keywords are "their own versions", so there is no copy issue. However if they did "copy" something directly they would only be hypocrites if they decided to speak out against the practice.

In fact I would call Al's cue his version of your cue. Its so off, no one would EVER think it's one of yours. I think of this cue as I do when someone bastardizes a propellor inlay. It's wrong, not because it's a copy, but because its a bad one.

While we are on the subject, the Blackcreek I linked to Jamies site. IYHO does Barry retain the rights to the Szamboti lineage? I mean Gus is deceased, but the family is still in the business. So is this tribute really a copy?

JV

 

[JB Cases]

A forgery is a counterfeit item being passed off as the real thing. IOW a fake Mona Lisa, a fake Rolex, etc....

A copy is counterfeit item that is a little different than the real thing but has the same look and feel and is trading on the distinctive design. ex. an Iphone copy.

For all those who say "get a patent" you should know that the only protection for utilitarian goods is a design patent which is generally worth less than the paper it's printed on. Even if you have such a patent defending it for a pool cue design is more costly than any damages you might be awarded (but never get).

There is effectively no protection for any designs in the billiard industry. That's how it goes and one just has to depend on the honor code being upheld.

The fact of it is that it's a grey area and always will be. Like I said in one of my rants if I am a farmer and my neighbor plants beans and does well with them then who is he to tell me I can't plant beans. And by the same token if I come up with a better way to fertilize then who am I to tell him he can't copy that? It's only through copying that the world advances. Nothing we do is built entirely without the efforts of those who came before us.

We make incremental advances in design and engineering and occasionally a great jump forward. Then those that follow us build on what we built.

I think it's sad to copy living makers in a small industry practically verbatim. If there is a Gus Szamboti design out there then Barry Szamboti should be the only one to make it as he inherits all of his father's designs. He is carrying on the Szamboti name.

Balabushka is dead, Harvey Martin is dead, Rambow is dead. Their designs are open to be used. It's unfair to say that a person's designs die with them, that's like saying their contributions die with them. People make replicas of old things all the time. People make tribute pieces to old brands and designs all the time.

I can make a perfect It's George knockoff. I can make a better case than It's George ever made. But I won't because Mike Roberts is still kicking and they are still making cases. Legally I could make them and there wouldn't be a damn thing that they could do about it. Ethically though I'd have to live with it. Morally if the choice was feed my family and the only way I could do that is to make It's George knockoffs then my daughter isn't going hungry. But luckily life isn't that severe and never will be.

The fact of it that this cue did not NEED to exist. The fact that it does causes pain and it's needless pain. To me the real travesty though isn't that Bautista made the cue it's that NO ONE involved was man enough to give Eric Crisp credit for the innovation until Eric stood up for himself.

If you're going to copy something significant from someone else then the right thing to do is to give credit where credit is due.

 

[Guerra Cues]

Keywords are "their own versions", so there is no copy issue. However if they did "copy" something directly they would only be hypocrites if they decided to speak out against the practice.

In fact I would call Al's cue his version of your cue. Its so off, no one would EVER think it's one of yours. I think of this cue as I do when someone bastardizes a propellor inlay. It's wrong, not because it's a copy, but because its a bad one.

While we are on the subject, the Blackcreek I linked to Jamies site. IYHO does Barry retain the rights to the Szamboti lineage? I mean Gus is deceased, but the family is still in the business. So is this tribute really a copy?

JV

Joe,
I have to disagree with you.
When I first saw Al's cue I thought it was a ST. I have owned about 10/12 ST's and I can spot any ST across the pool hall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sengkun108]

JB Cases
A forgery is a counterfeit item being passed off as the real thing. IOW a fake Mona Lisa, a fake Rolex, etc....

A copy is counterfeit item that is a little different than the real thing but has the same look and feel and is trading on the distinctive design. ex. an Iphone copy.

For all those who say "get a patent" you should know that the only protection for utilitarian goods is a design patent which is generally worth less than the paper it's printed on. Even if you have such a patent defending it for a pool cue design is more costly than any damages you might be awarded (but never get).

There is effectively no protection for any designs in the billiard industry. That's how it goes and one just has to depend on the honor code being upheld.

The fact of it is that it's a grey area and always will be. Like I said in one of my rants if I am a farmer and my neighbor plants beans and does well with them then who is he to tell me I can't plant beans. And by the same token if I come up with a better way to fertilize then who am I to tell him he can't copy that? It's only through copying that the world advances. Nothing we do is built entirely without the efforts of those who came before us.

We make incremental advances in design and engineering and occasionally a great jump forward. Then those that follow us build on what we built.

I think it's sad to copy living makers in a small industry practically verbatim. If there is a Gus Szamboti design out there then Barry Szamboti should be the only one to make it as he inherits all of his father's designs. He is carrying on the Szamboti name.

Balabushka is dead, Harvey Martin is dead, Rambow is dead. Their designs are open to be used. It's unfair to say that a person's designs die with them, that's like saying their contributions die with them. People make replicas of old things all the time. People make tribute pieces to old brands and designs all the time.

I can make a perfect It's George knockoff. I can make a better case than It's George ever made. But I won't because Mike Roberts is still kicking and they are still making cases. Legally I could make them and there wouldn't be a damn thing that they could do about it. Ethically though I'd have to live with it. Morally if the choice was feed my family and the only way I could do that is to make It's George knockoffs then my daughter isn't going hungry. But luckily life isn't that severe and never will be.

The fact of it that this cue did not NEED to exist. The fact that it does causes pain and it's needless pain. To me the real travesty though isn't that Bautista made the cue it's that NO ONE involved was man enough to give Eric Crisp credit for the innovation until Eric stood up for himself.

If you're going to copy something significant from someone else then the right thing to do is to give credit where credit is due.

SO TRUE...and a very good post..

maybe alot of people here want to jump in this thread should read this post carefully...

 

[qbilder]

Keywords are "their own versions", so there is no copy issue. However if they did "copy" something directly they would only be hypocrites if they decided to speak out against the practice.

In fact I would call Al's cue his version of your cue. Its so off, no one would EVER think it's one of yours. I think of this cue as I do when someone bastardizes a propellor inlay. It's wrong, not because it's a copy, but because its a bad one.

While we are on the subject, the Blackcreek I linked to Jamies site. IYHO does Barry retain the rights to the Szamboti lineage? I mean Gus is deceased, but the family is still in the business. So is this tribute really a copy?

JV

trib·ute
expression of gratitude or praise: something said or given to show gratitude, praise, or admiration

Definition of KNOCKOFF: a copy that sells for less than the original; broadly: a copy or imitation of someone or something popular .

What else do I need to say? It's pretty clear. And it's not my opinion but actual Webster's dictionary definitions. If you still can't see the difference, then it's pointless even talking about it. Apples & oranges.

 

[classiccues]

Joe,
I have to disagree with you.
When I first saw Al's cue I thought it was a ST. I have owned about 10/12 ST's and I can spot any ST across the pool hall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can disagree, but I've seen enough of Erics cues that I would never mistake that for a ST. Rings, shapes, of the scallops, the angles of the points, only the layout is similar.

JV

 

[classiccues]

A forgery is a counterfeit item being passed off as the real thing. IOW a fake Mona Lisa, a fake Rolex, etc....

A copy is counterfeit item that is a little different than the real thing but has the same look and feel and is trading on the distinctive design. ex. an Iphone copy.

For all those who say "get a patent" you should know that the only protection for utilitarian goods is a design patent which is generally worth less than the paper it's printed on. Even if you have such a patent defending it for a pool cue design is more costly than any damages you might be awarded (but never get).

There is effectively no protection for any designs in the billiard industry. That's how it goes and one just has to depend on the honor code being upheld.

The fact of it is that it's a grey area and always will be. Like I said in one of my rants if I am a farmer and my neighbor plants beans and does well with them then who is he to tell me I can't plant beans. And by the same token if I come up with a better way to fertilize then who am I to tell him he can't copy that? It's only through copying that the world advances. Nothing we do is built entirely without the efforts of those who came before us.

We make incremental advances in design and engineering and occasionally a great jump forward. Then those that follow us build on what we built.

I think it's sad to copy living makers in a small industry practically verbatim. If there is a Gus Szamboti design out there then Barry Szamboti should be the only one to make it as he inherits all of his father's designs. He is carrying on the Szamboti name.

Balabushka is dead, Harvey Martin is dead, Rambow is dead. Their designs are open to be used. It's unfair to say that a person's designs die with them, that's like saying their contributions die with them. People make replicas of old things all the time. People make tribute pieces to old brands and designs all the time.

I can make a perfect It's George knockoff. I can make a better case than It's George ever made. But I won't because Mike Roberts is still kicking and they are still making cases. Legally I could make them and there wouldn't be a damn thing that they could do about it. Ethically though I'd have to live with it. Morally if the choice was feed my family and the only way I could do that is to make It's George knockoffs then my daughter isn't going hungry. But luckily life isn't that severe and never will be.

The fact of it that this cue did not NEED to exist. The fact that it does causes pain and it's needless pain. To me the real travesty though isn't that Bautista made the cue it's that NO ONE involved was man enough to give Eric Crisp credit for the innovation until Eric stood up for himself.

If you're going to copy something significant from someone else then the right thing to do is to give credit where credit is due.

John,
This is only reasoning someone that utilizes the practice of copying dead people would use, or someone that just makes copies.

I don't care if the man is alive, or dead, if you copy his work, than you are a copier. The fact someone needs to justify it verbally, makes me aware that they know they are a copier.

Really its not an issue, but to say its ok use it he's dead he can't say something, is grossly morbid to say the least. It also tells me that someone ain't got the balls to copy someone when they are alive, they wait till he's worm food and can't get caught, or called on it. (which btw is a totally different character flaw altogether)

JV

 

[classiccues]

trib·ute
expression of gratitude or praise: something said or given to show gratitude, praise, or admiration

Definition of KNOCKOFF: a copy that sells for less than the original; broadly: a copy or imitation of someone or something popular .

What else do I need to say? It's pretty clear. And it's not my opinion but actual Webster's dictionary definitions. If you still can't see the difference, then it's pointless even talking about it. Apples & oranges.

So the Blackcreek can't fall under knockoff, why? It meets your definition. As does the Al cue under tribute. Either is interchangable depending on where you want to stand.

So if the OP calls it a ST tribute, it's ok? That's the only thing missing.

Apples and oranges..

JV

 

[Charlie Edwards]

I've always wondered about the tribute stuff. Isn't that the same as coping, whether the originator is dead or alive? I just don't get it. It doesn't bother me... one way or the other but I would like to know the difference. I guess everybody has different definitions.

 

[qbilder]

So the Blackcreek can't fall under knockoff, why? It meets your definition. As does the Al cue under tribute. Either is interchangable depending on where you want to stand.

So if the OP calls it a ST tribute, it's ok? That's the only thing missing.

Apples and oranges..

JV

Like I said, if you can't understand the difference then there's nothing to talk about. Why should I even bother explaining things to you any further? And what exactly does a cue Travis built have to do with a guy copying one of my cues? Nothing. It's just something else for you to argue about. Why would you call me a hypocrite because I see orange & you see red? Because it's something for you to argue about. Why are you even posting if not to cause trouble? Do you have a dog in this fight? Nope. So other than to stir shit, why are you here? And once you see i'm done arguing about your perception of right & wrong, you then try bringing up subjects completely unrelated to this thread. Why? Except to cause trouble. Who's got the character flaw now?

You're a troll. You're here to stir shit. You have absolutely no reason of interest in this thread & nobody mentioned your name. Your only reason for being here is trouble. You're a troll. Enough said. I don't know who looks like the biggest idiot. You for actually injecting yourself into a matter that doesn't concern you just to cause trouble, or me for giving you the time of day.

 

[qbilder]

I've always wondered about the tribute stuff. Isn't that the same as coping, whether the originator is dead or alive? I just don't get it. It doesn't bother me... one way or the other but I would like to know the difference. I guess everybody has different definitions.

And apparently each person's definition is the only right definition. If you believe differently then you're a hypocrite :rotflmao: Been called a lot of things for a lot of reasons. But hypocrite is a funny one. I pretty much live exactly what I say & don't hide a thing, or pretend to be something i'm not. Yup. I'm a hypocrite.

 

[classiccues]

Like I said, if you can't understand the difference then there's nothing to talk about. Why should I even bother explaining things to you any further? And what exactly does a cue Travis built have to do with a guy copying one of my cues? Nothing. It's just something else for you to argue about. Why would you call me a hypocrite because I see orange & you see red? Because it's something for you to argue about. Why are you even posting if not to cause trouble? Do you have a dog in this fight? Nope. So other than to stir shit, why are you here? And once you see i'm done arguing about your perception of right & wrong, you then try bringing up subjects completely unrelated to this thread. Why? Except to cause trouble. Who's got the character flaw now?

You're a troll. You're here to stir shit. You have absolutely no reason of interest in this thread & nobody mentioned your name. Your only reason for being here is trouble. You're a troll. Enough said. I don't know who looks like the biggest idiot. You for actually injecting yourself into a matter that doesn't concern you just to cause trouble, or me for giving you the time of day.

I said by complaining about someone copying your cue and you copying someone's cue, it's hypocritical. You don't have to explain yourself further, and quite frankly you've done an ok job doing so. I get your side of it. It's ok to copy a dead cuemakers, (can't defend his design) but not a live one. I get it. I bring up tribute cues because you bought in the definition and how one is ok, but the other isn't. When in reality they are both the same. If you don't understand that I can't help you.

BTW the duration of copyright by law is normally 70 years past death, if you really wanted to get into it, and REALLY felt this was a legitimate concern, this would be your guideline. But by seeing what you believe and others have posted, I guess once the final shovel of dirt hits, hey free for all on cue designs... Which is why I think it's over blown, and ridiculous.

There are plenty here that do not have a "dog" in this fight, but they are here anyways. I am not here to stir anything, just trying to get a read on the person / people and where they stand. Believe me we all learned something.

The reality is, just as in past conversations about this practice, certain people get passes by people who call it out as wrong. (usually friendships ($$$) are protected)

Troll lol..

JV

 

[FAST_N_LOOSE]

Joe,
I have to disagree with you.
When I first saw Al's cue I thought it was a ST. I have owned about 10/12 ST's and I can spot any ST across the pool hall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NO WAY THAT CUE COULD WOULD BE MISTAKEN AS A ONE OF ERICS BY ANYONE THAT KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR. HIS WORK IS WAY BETTER/TIGHTER. I WAS SENT THE PICTURE BY SOMEONE BEFORE EVER SEEING THIS THREAD, AND KNEW BY JUST GLANCING AT IT, THAT IT WAS A COPY.

I SEE BOTH SIDES TO THIS ARGUMENT, SO I'M NOT GETTING INTO ANOTHER CDT DISCUSSION, BUT THE WORK IN THAT CUE WOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH ERICS. THEY LOOK SIMILAR, AND I'M SURE IT'S A COPY, BUT IT'S NOT A GOOD ENOUGH COPY TO BE PASSED OF AS A SUGAR TREE.

IF I WAS A CUE MAKER, I'D BE PISSED IF SOMEONE COPIED MY DESIGNS, BUT I WOULD ALSO EXPECT IT. EVERY DESIGN THAT BECOMES POPULAR, GETS COPIED AT SOME POINT. EITHER BECAUSE ANOTHER CUE BUILDER COPIES IT, OR BECAUSE A CUE BUYER ORDERS A COPY.

ERIC, I'M SORRY THAT SOMEONE BUILT A BAD COPY OF ONE OF YOUR CUES, BUT ISN'T IT A FORM OF FLATTERY?

Marcus

 

[qbilder]

NO WAY THAT CUE COULD WOULD BE MISTAKEN AS A ONE OF ERICS BY ANYONE THAT KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR. HIS WORK IS WAY BETTER/TIGHTER. I WAS SENT THE PICTURE BY SOMEONE BEFORE EVER SEEING THIS THREAD, AND KNEW BY JUST GLANCING AT IT, THAT IT WAS A COPY.

I SEE BOTH SIDES TO THIS ARGUMENT, SO I'M NOT GETTING INTO ANOTHER CDT DISCUSSION, BUT THE WORK IN THAT CUE WOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH ERICS. THEY LOOK SIMILAR, AND I'M SURE IT'S A COPY, BUT IT'S NOT A GOOD ENOUGH COPY TO BE PASSED OF AS A SUGAR TREE.

IF I WAS A CUE MAKER, I'D BE PISSED IF SOMEONE COPIED MY DESIGNS, BUT I WOULD ALSO EXPECT IT. EVERY DESIGN THAT BECOMES POPULAR, GETS COPIED AT SOME POINT. EITHER BECAUSE ANOTHER CUE BUILDER COPIES IT, OR BECAUSE A CUE BUYER ORDERS A COPY.

ERIC, I'M SORRY THAT SOMEONE BUILT A BAD COPY OF ONE OF YOUR CUES, BUT ISN'T IT A FORM OF FLATTERY?

Marcus

Thanks Marcus. I wasn't going to comment on the quality. That's not what my concern was. As for flattery, I don't feel flattered as much as taken advantage of. Oh well. Nothing I can do but ***** & moan, which is what I have done. I made my feelings known.

 

[scsuxci]

I said by complaining about someone copying your cue and you copying someone's cue, it's hypocritical. You don't have to explain yourself further, and quite frankly you've done an ok job doing so. I get your side of it. It's ok to copy a dead cuemakers, (can't defend his design) but not a live one. I get it. I bring up tribute cues because you bought in the definition and how one is ok, but the other isn't. When in reality they are both the same. If you don't understand that I can't help you.

BTW the duration of copyright by law is normally 70 years past death, if you really wanted to get into it, and REALLY felt this was a legitimate concern, this would be your guideline. But by seeing what you believe and others have posted, I guess once the final shovel of dirt hits, hey free for all on cue designs... Which is why I think it's over blown, and ridiculous.

There are plenty here that do not have a "dog" in this fight, but they are here anyways. I am not here to stir anything, just trying to get a read on the person / people and where they stand. Believe me we all learned something.

The reality is, just as in past conversations about this practice, certain people get passes by people who call it out as wrong. (usually friendships ($$$) are protected)

Troll lol..

JV

Every post you have wrote is 100% right.It just seems like people are twisting words to make it fit there own argument.Actually I believe its even worse to copy from the dead guy due to the fact that your speculating that that cuemaker would be okay with this and if the cue is done poorly its indirectly an insult to that cuemaker.I think if at the end of the day that if somebody has the money they'll buy any of the top cuemakers cues,if not they will look for a similar looking cue that will fit there budget.There must be a demand for these cues from buyers or these cuemakers would be out of business.I do think if you copy from anybody dead or alive is still a copy.I see nothing wrong with this in the least.As long as there is demand there must be suppliers.Takecare