As a player and a collector of cues, I feel that in general if someone is going to take on the task of producing cues, that they should be responsible enough to define their own style with whatever combinations of woods & inlay elements that appeals to them. And if someone is not creative enough to develop their own inlay or design forms, then they ought to at least resort to finding someone that can help them in that part of their production process.
And in general I feel that most quality cuemakers do work to produce unique designs for their cue lines. And that those unique designs should be respected even if the copyright law may not come completely in play to protect those designs as they appear on a cue.
But when you look at the basic raw design elements found on a lot of cues, you are dealing with alot of elements that are not copyrightable in of themselves, such as circles & diamond shapes. And other elements such as the notched diamond has been around for so long in cue design history that it has to be considered in the public domain as an idea.
For cuemakers that are living and still in the business of making cues, and that work to produce very intricate artistic examples of the cue makers art, such as Richard Black, Bill Schick, Thomas Wayne, as examples I dont really see that they have much concern in seeing alot of copying efforts being made of their designs unless it is perhaps in slapped on decal forms of copying. In that circumstance they could maybe pursue some form of legal action. But that kind of circumstance will I believe not hurt the intrinsic value of the original cue that would be copied. Alot of forgeries and copies are produced of very famous paintings, yet the values of those original pieces of art still remain.
At the collecting end of things you are going to have casual collectors and serious collectors. The serious collector is focused about the desire of obtaining examples of an original work by an artist and they have the financial means to make that happen. The casual collector wants to have as many original examples by artists as they can obtain. But financial circumstances warrant obtaining maybe the occasional lower end example such as a print, or a reproduced copy. Only so many people can afford to buy an original Picaso, and everyone else has no choice but to settle for a print.
The same thing is happening in collecting cues when it comes to at least 2 known cuemakers. George Balabushka & Gus Szamboti. Both cuemakers have passed on and therefore all their cues have incredbily increased value that puts them out of of the buying range for most pool players. But alot of pool players like the design elements seen in those cuemakers work and they want those design features in their own cues. I myself would very much love to have an original cue of each of them in my collection. Really, who on this forum wouldn't? But financially I cannot afford to purchase an example of either one. But I can consider purchasing a cue made by some other cue maker that features design elements that represent the work of those cuemakers and that financially works within my curent budget. Thus you see cues by cuemakers that feature Bushka rings, Szamboti propellers, and design layouts that feature notched diamons and dots to create that feel of "Classic Design".
In that circumstance I dont have a problem with it when the cuemaker's own name is on the product. But when living cuemakers use other living cuemakers unique designs there I have a problem. I cant count how many times I have seen other cuemakers using one of Ernie's Ginacue designs. Hell, I have a Phillipi that is based on a Ginacue design. That I have a problem with. I strongly believe that a quality cuemaker should respect the work of other living cuemakers and not use other cuemakers own unique design elements.
For cuemakers out there that have problems with developing their own unique designs, and want some help in that area, I will say that my own
design services are available. And I have a great friend of mine, Bill Evans that is also a great cue designer. And has worked extensively witn Jacoby cues to have some really great cues produced over the years.
As to the issue of design ripoffs taking place by companies in asia, that is a problem that is I have to say is beyond the capabillity of USA based cuemakers to effectively deal with. I know that for the fact that when companies such as Microsoft, Apple, McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Disney have problems dealing with theft of intellectual property from companies in asia, then what the hell do small businesses such as cuemakers expect to achieve for the same problem?
American cuemakers can only work together through mutual respect to help protect each other's mutual interests. And for the most part I think most cuemakers do that well. But probably more can be done in that regard. And if the issue of tribute and design copying is a big enough issue with American cuemakers, then they need to formulate some principles on how to handle that issue through their own orgnization.
I personally think a great idea would be for some of the legendary top cuemakers to license a famous classic design that each is resposible for to a company such as McDermott and have an affordable cue series made available to the cue buying public. Something similar was done a few years ago. And I think something like that should be offered not only again, but done so on a regular basis.
My 2 cents are done.
And in general I feel that most quality cuemakers do work to produce unique designs for their cue lines. And that those unique designs should be respected even if the copyright law may not come completely in play to protect those designs as they appear on a cue.
But when you look at the basic raw design elements found on a lot of cues, you are dealing with alot of elements that are not copyrightable in of themselves, such as circles & diamond shapes. And other elements such as the notched diamond has been around for so long in cue design history that it has to be considered in the public domain as an idea.
For cuemakers that are living and still in the business of making cues, and that work to produce very intricate artistic examples of the cue makers art, such as Richard Black, Bill Schick, Thomas Wayne, as examples I dont really see that they have much concern in seeing alot of copying efforts being made of their designs unless it is perhaps in slapped on decal forms of copying. In that circumstance they could maybe pursue some form of legal action. But that kind of circumstance will I believe not hurt the intrinsic value of the original cue that would be copied. Alot of forgeries and copies are produced of very famous paintings, yet the values of those original pieces of art still remain.
At the collecting end of things you are going to have casual collectors and serious collectors. The serious collector is focused about the desire of obtaining examples of an original work by an artist and they have the financial means to make that happen. The casual collector wants to have as many original examples by artists as they can obtain. But financial circumstances warrant obtaining maybe the occasional lower end example such as a print, or a reproduced copy. Only so many people can afford to buy an original Picaso, and everyone else has no choice but to settle for a print.
The same thing is happening in collecting cues when it comes to at least 2 known cuemakers. George Balabushka & Gus Szamboti. Both cuemakers have passed on and therefore all their cues have incredbily increased value that puts them out of of the buying range for most pool players. But alot of pool players like the design elements seen in those cuemakers work and they want those design features in their own cues. I myself would very much love to have an original cue of each of them in my collection. Really, who on this forum wouldn't? But financially I cannot afford to purchase an example of either one. But I can consider purchasing a cue made by some other cue maker that features design elements that represent the work of those cuemakers and that financially works within my curent budget. Thus you see cues by cuemakers that feature Bushka rings, Szamboti propellers, and design layouts that feature notched diamons and dots to create that feel of "Classic Design".
In that circumstance I dont have a problem with it when the cuemaker's own name is on the product. But when living cuemakers use other living cuemakers unique designs there I have a problem. I cant count how many times I have seen other cuemakers using one of Ernie's Ginacue designs. Hell, I have a Phillipi that is based on a Ginacue design. That I have a problem with. I strongly believe that a quality cuemaker should respect the work of other living cuemakers and not use other cuemakers own unique design elements.
For cuemakers out there that have problems with developing their own unique designs, and want some help in that area, I will say that my own
design services are available. And I have a great friend of mine, Bill Evans that is also a great cue designer. And has worked extensively witn Jacoby cues to have some really great cues produced over the years.
As to the issue of design ripoffs taking place by companies in asia, that is a problem that is I have to say is beyond the capabillity of USA based cuemakers to effectively deal with. I know that for the fact that when companies such as Microsoft, Apple, McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Disney have problems dealing with theft of intellectual property from companies in asia, then what the hell do small businesses such as cuemakers expect to achieve for the same problem?
American cuemakers can only work together through mutual respect to help protect each other's mutual interests. And for the most part I think most cuemakers do that well. But probably more can be done in that regard. And if the issue of tribute and design copying is a big enough issue with American cuemakers, then they need to formulate some principles on how to handle that issue through their own orgnization.
I personally think a great idea would be for some of the legendary top cuemakers to license a famous classic design that each is resposible for to a company such as McDermott and have an affordable cue series made available to the cue buying public. Something similar was done a few years ago. And I think something like that should be offered not only again, but done so on a regular basis.
My 2 cents are done.
