"Tribute" cues? Seriously?

Monstermash........

You realize and acknowledged.that pool cue designs have been copied, duplicated, emulated, ripped off........since the first cues were made.........Has everyone heard of Burton Spain?

Cue designs can't be copyrighted........Even the best name cue-makers have copied their peers......some great names too.......Tascarella, Searing, Hercek, Mottey, etc. .....the list is endless........and to think this is stealing another person's hard work is naive.......sculptors, painters, jewelry & watch makers, car manufacturers, clothes designers.....this is how the real world functions.

So what would anyone propose? Never copy any cue design that's already been used? Might as well stop making pool cues if that's what anyone had in mind and I'm not saying they did.......but to get upset over cue-makers duplicating one another's designs is like getting upset that someone else is wearing a suit just like the one you just bought......it's the real world.......get over it but griping just makes you sound silly, petty and angry.

And some of these tribute cues are glorious looking.....take the GTB cue from Tascarella........or the Bushka Designs that Jerry R. has been releasing.......there's been lots of top notch cue-makers that have done this tribute cue thing and it's far better than referring to these Tribute cues that were made as "copies"......."Hey, look at my new Szamboti copy..." just doesn't sound as good as "look at my Szamboti Tribute cue"......and face it, that's what the cue world really is about......popularizing pool cues. When someone is spending thousands to have a Tribute cue made, the cue-maker and the new cue-owner can call that damn cue any friggin' name they want.......and the quality of some of these Tribute cues are over the top.

And allow me to upset you, and other Azers that feel like you do, a little more.......I have just such a cue arriving this afternoon and it's a TRIBUTE CUE........a copy of Mosconi's 2nd favorite pool cue......and the cue-maker and I tweaked the design to render the design more handsome.......prettier....fancier........but it's still basically the original Mosconi cue design but a lot nicer. And I will put the quality of my cue's construction and finish up against any cue by any cue-maker..... I am damn proud and pleased to own it and call it a TRIBUTE CUE because that's what it is........a copy of a cue owned and played by the greatest pool player to ever live.......Mr. Willie Mosconi.

Matt B.


p.s. I won't play any better with this new Tribute Cue but owning it sure makes me feel that way.

 
Last edited:
Worse I think is a one of a kind cue you have built from your own design and the cue maker likes it so much he makes more. I had that happen. My cue is pictured in the Billiard encyclopedia except it is not the one that was built for me.

There is a mention of me ordering the cue but the cue in the book is not mine. I would think if a cue maker makes you a one of a kind cue it should be exactly that.
 
Mr. Bond.....you're the first person I recall standing behind that legal protection.......but I must still ask why hasn't any cue-maker ever done that? What cue design has been copyrighted? I am not aware of any and I know there's been controversy attached to this notion and so I have to ask where's the legal case history? I would imagine that over he past 70-80 years, this would have come up and legally addressed by now. Maybe it has and I'm just unaware like so many others must also be.

Thanks,

Matt B.
 
Str8PoolPlayer said:
Most every modern Auto Maker has stolen designs from Ferrari.
In the past two decades, several have copied from Mercedes-Benz.

Virtually EVERY Tire coming out of Asia is a total rip-off of a U.S.
or European effort. It is what it is and you can call it anything
you like. I prefer to use the term Copy when I order a Custom Cue
which closely resembles one originally designed by another maker.
Click to expand...

There were only 39 Ferrari 250 GTO's produced...like the one in your avatar. I understand that only 44 remain today. :rolleyes:

Okay, back to cues...am I the only one here who appreciates the traditional design of 4 even and sharp points?
 
Bavafongoul said:
Monstermash........

You realize and acknowledged.that pool cue designs have been copied, duplicated, emulated, ripped off........since the first cues were made.........Has everyone heard of Burton Spain?

Cue designs can't be copyrighted........Even the best name cue-makers have copied their peers......some great names too.......Tascarella, Searing, Hercek, Mottey, etc. .....the list is endless........and to think this is stealing another person's hard work is naive.......sculptors, painters, jewelry & watch makers, car manufacturers, clothes designers.....this is how the real world functions.

So what would anyone propose? Never copy any cue design that's already been used? Might as well stop making pool cues if that's what anyone had in mind and I'm not saying they did.......but to get upset over cue-makers duplicating one another's designs is like getting upset that someone else is wearing a suit just like the one you just bought......it's the real world.......get over it but griping just makes you sound silly, petty and angry.

And some of these tribute cues are glorious looking.....take the GTB cue from Tascarella........or the Bushka Designs that Jerry R. has been releasing.......there's been lots of top notch cue-makers that have done this tribute cue thing and it's far better than referring to these Tribute cues that were made as "copies"......."Hey, look at my new Szamboti copy..." just doesn't sound as good as "look at my Szamboti Tribute cue"......and face it, that's what the cue world really is about......popularizing pool cues. When someone is spending thousands to have a Tribute cue made, the cue-maker and the new cue-owner can call that damn cue any friggin' name they want.......and the quality of some of these Tribute cues are over the top.

And allow me to upset you, and other Azers that feel like you do, a little more.......I have just such a cue arriving this afternoon and it's a TRIBUTE CUE........a copy of Mosconi's 2nd favorite pool cue......and the cue-maker and I tweaked the design to render the design more handsome.......prettier....fancier........but it's still basically the original Mosconi cue design but a lot nicer. And I will put the quality of my cue's construction and finish up against any cue by any cue-maker..... I am damn proud and pleased to own it and call it a TRIBUTE CUE because that's what it is........a copy of a cue owned and played by the greatest pool player to ever live.......Mr. Willie Mosconi.

Matt B.


p.s. I won't play any better with this new Tribute Cue but owning it sure makes me feel that way.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between making something that is similar and something that is an exact copy of an original design. When taking about classic style cues (4,6, or 8 points and traditional inlays) there isn't much that's going to be new but when a maker designs something that is completely original with custom inlays, ringwork, etc and it's copied almost down to the exact detail save for adding the original makers logo/name/signature, that's what I'm referring to.

And as far as your cue that is arriving today, you mentioned that it has been "tweaked" which makes all the difference in the world.
 
Bavafongoul said:
Mr. Bond.....you're the first person I recall standing behind that legal protection.......but I must still ask why hasn't any cue-maker ever done that? What cue design has been copyrighted? I am not aware of any and I know there's been controversy attached to this notion and so I have to ask where's the legal case history? I would imagine that over he past 70-80 years, this would have come up and legally addressed by now. Maybe it has and I'm just unaware like so many others must also be.

Thanks,

Matt B.
Click to expand...

It does seem that design artwork for a pool cue can be copyrighted, first handful of entries here:

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pw...Kc5lZ8WRqUmu&SEQ=20150401145224&CNT=25&HIST=1

That is artwork though, and I'm not sure if it would follow that all designs could be copyrighted. Drawings and such yes, but a specific style and arrangement of geometric inlays or a particular construction style leading to a specific look I think would fail to be considered the same as original artwork in the form of drawings or graphical representations.

I'm pretty sure you can't copyright a construction technique...such as a six-point design. It's possible there would have been a time when it could have been patented, but I believe that time has long since passed now that such methods are in wide use already.

I always find the topic of what can and cannot be covered under copyright and/or patents interesting...no idea why.
 
macguy said:
Richard Black won an award for a cue that he let slip he had stolen the design from another cue maker.
Click to expand...

It was Bert Schrager. Richard Black took the exact design of two cues from Bert's catalog putting the buttsleeve of one cue and the forearm of the other to make "his" award winning cue. The thing that really sent Bert over the edge was that Richard placed a full page ad in the Billiard News thanking everyone that voted "HIS" design as 'Cue of the Year' or 'Best of Show'. If Richard would have mentioned that the design was inspired by Bert Schrager, that would have diffused everything, but he said "HIS" design. Uhg.

Bert was not at the cue expo that year and always felt that if he was, Richard would never have pulled out the cue let alone enter it in the contest. Bert never forgot about this till the day he passed...he is probably talking to anyone that will listen in the ever after.

I haven't thought about this for a few years but now that you brought it up and Bert cannot speak for himself, I couldn't help myself. I was very good friends w/Bert and heard about it from day one for many years.

Dave
 
Last edited:
I like traditional looking cues, I don't mind a tribute but the cue should still be crafted well. Since the OP brought up JD, I have looked and saw some on the for sale forum, are they decent cues, they look ok but I do remember seeing at least a few that had a wobble in the butt sections which would cause me concern for quality issues. I guess in a way they remind me of KIA cars they look flashy but eventually the reasons for low cost is the sacrifice in materials.
 
pwd72s said:
There were only 39 Ferrari 250 GTO's produced...like the one in your avatar. I understand that only 44 remain today. :rolleyes:

Okay, back to cues...am I the only one here who appreciates the traditional design of 4 even and sharp points?
Click to expand...

You makey velly funny jokey ... me laughey longtime.
 
pwd72s......I traded a 8 point Mottey Szamboti design......it was not a tribute cue but Paul Mottey actually stated this design was based upon Gus Szamboti's favorite personal playing cue and he made the design to honor Gus.....is that a tribute cue?

The cue I traded for is a 4 point traditional design, albeit darn fancy with over 100 inlays. I only own one custom cue that's a 6 pointer that I personally designed and Bob Owen built it. In any event, 4 points, preferably ebony, veneers and inlays & ivory joint/ferrules.......that's my favorite combination. The Bushka design, and variations thereof, is my absolutely favorite cue design.

Matt B.
 
Last edited:
Bavafongoul said:
pwd72s......I traded a 8 point Mottey Szamboti design......it was not a tribute cue but Paul Mottey actually stated this design was based upon Gus Szamboti's favorite personal playing cue and he made the design to honor Gus.....is that a tribute cue?

The cue I traded for is a 4 point traditional design, albeit darn fancy with over 100 inlays. I only own one custom cue that's a 6 pointer that I personally designed and Bob Owen built it. In any event, 4 points, preferably ebony, veneers and inlays & ivory joint/ferrules.......that's my favorite combination. The Bushka design, and variations thereof, is my absolutely favorite cue design.

Matt B.
Click to expand...

I'd definitely call that a Paul Mottey custom. Obviously no deception intended.
Thanks for the kind words about traditional 4 point with veneers design. Glad I'm not alone.

On cars...I find fraudulent cars with tampered VIN's obscene...it's really the intent to deceive that I find reprehensible and criminal. That applies to cues as well. I sold my collector car because of finding a similar one with a tampered VIN...I figured once it became that coveted, I had no business owning one. That, and it had started attracting people I didn't like being around. Generally speaking, there are better moral standards in a pool hall than in the collector car world. That's what you get when the money takes over...
 
Last edited:
Monstermash said:
I'm not sure about how others feel, but to me cues are functional art. "Art" being the operative word here. What if some hack was painting exact replicas of a Monet or da Vince? Would that be ok if they called them "tributes"? I'm kinda thinking they would be arrested as forgers. So why is our kind of art any different and why shouldn't significant designs be protected under the same guidelines?
Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong about this, brother. The only way someone in this example would be "arrested as forgers" is if they were actively trying to pass the work off as being from the original artist. Nobody is getting arrested for painting their own version of a Monet or da Vinci...c'mon.
 
Last edited:
This discussion does come up now and then, and I find it amusing. The reproduction/tribute/copy haters possibly might have a bit of envy, and maybe a bit of hypocracy going on, Obviously, everything they own is original, and it doesn't resemble anything else. Really?

The Cape Cod or California Contemporary house you're in? You think it hasn't been done before? Yours is basically a tribute or copy. How about that nice leather club chair in your den? Also a copy of the original. You don't mind plopping your ass in it, do you?

Now, onto cues. Do you understand the implications of your "copy" hatred? A lot of Gus Szamboti's cues had Bushka rings, and other elements that looked like a Bushka. Have you ever criticized Gus for that? I've never seen it. Is Barry Szamboti not doing tribute cues in the design of his father's? How about the Tascarellas'? Their cues are definitely in the Bushka style, very close, and could be called Bushka tributes, or even copies for some. Have you ever criticized those? I haven't seen it.

Some of it is semantics. I think your wife would take offense if you called her painting on the wall a copy, but I don't think she'd mind reproduction. I think the same thing applies to cues, as long as the maker identifies the cue as his, rather than tries to pass it off as the original maker.

I don't have a problem with reproduction cues. Out of the twenty or so total cues that I have, two or three would be considered a tribute to a past maker. In the case of a Bushka tribute, we did a very close reproduction to Mosconi's Bushka, but we used way different materials to do so. And the cuemaker signed it as his own. Acceptable to the haters?

Not a sermon, but maybe opens up the minds of those who thought they only possessed original items. I did mention houses above. If yours happens to be made of glass, be carefull how hard you toss the stones around in it. A little analysis goes a long way against emotion.
 
The last time I was involved , an item only needed to be 10% different, to not be a copyright infringement.
 
slide13 said:
How do you know this and is there any thing you can reference? Not doubting you at all, just legitimately curious.
Click to expand...

Bavafongoul said:
Mr. Bond.....you're the first person I recall standing behind that legal protection.......but I must still ask why hasn't any cue-maker ever done that? What cue design has been copyrighted? I am not aware of any and I know there's been controversy attached to this notion and so I have to ask where's the legal case history? I would imagine that over he past 70-80 years, this would have come up and legally addressed by now. Maybe it has and I'm just unaware like so many others must also be.

Thanks,

Matt B.
Click to expand...

View attachment 380083

Cue designs can be PATENTED as well.

The problem with both is that there isn't really an official government body in charge of enforcing the copyright issue, its up to the copyright holder to protect, and if needed, prosecute any infringers of said rights. Which by the way, can be a lengthy and expensive process, which, I would presume, is the main reason why more designs are not copyrighted in the first place. Money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top