Plagarism by Jacoby cues

FranCrimi said:
I don't blame you for being unhappy about this. So, basically what he told you was that he charged you to give him new ideas for cue designs that he could use for sale to the public, and he would have charged you more for it to be exclusive.

No, that's just wrong. Your design belongs to you. First, he needs your permission to use it for public sale, and second it's totally justified for you to receive a fee from him for reuse of your design, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Fran, as I tried to explained in my last post, it's not that uncommon for a maker to reuse a customers design that THEY built a cue for, especially for low to mid priced custom cues. A maker will normally not charge a program or template fee as long as the design is not a 1 of 1. Time is $. Makers without CNC technology have to order special templates just for one design and those can cost hundreds EACH. Makers with CNC technology have to "fit" the design to the cue to the customers liking and then program the code used in the construction of the cue. Cost can be more reasonable if the customer chooses between a set of designs already in stock from that maker and in most cases that's the way most will go. If the customer say's they want it to be 1 of 1 THEN the customer may be charged design AND programming or template fees which can be very substantial depending on the design. The OP didn't specify that his design could not be used and if he did the maker would have adjusted the price accordingly for his custom time. Now there is a chance if the maker wants the business he may agree to a 1 of 1 and not upcharge but that is something has has to be asked at the time of order...

IMO. It was the fault of the OP NOT the maker in this case
 
I can't fault the OP. The maker, business of multiple years, gets a sketch from a customer, HE should explain what is involved with the design and the $ 50.00 fee. HE is the experienced person in this transaction. The consumer could infer that the $ 50 dollars IS the customization fee of his design. The OP sounds like he is not familiar with the process, at all.

This should have been explained to him by the maker. So the maker charges him $ 50.00 for his artwork and makes three identical cues at xxx amount profit on top of it. Sounds about what's wrong with this industry.

JV (----Jacoby should send him a j/b at a minimum.....
 
I would take it as a compliment. Enjoy your cue. In your heart & mind you designed it. That is worth a lot.
 
classiccues said:
I can't fault the OP. The maker, business of multiple years, gets a sketch from a customer, HE should explain what is involved with the design and the $ 50.00 fee. HE is the experienced person in this transaction. The consumer could infer that the $ 50 dollars IS the customization fee of his design. The OP sounds like he is not familiar with the process, at all.

This should have been explained to him by the maker. So the maker charges him $ 50.00 for his artwork and makes three identical cues at xxx amount profit on top of it. Sounds about what's wrong with this industry.

JV (----Jacoby should send him a j/b at a minimum.....
Click to expand...

Your right Joe maybe they should have. On the flip side if they only charged $50 for the "design fee", the design must not have been anything even close to elaborate. That's the reason why I asked the OP to post a pic of his drawing with the final design in the cue as well which he has refused to due... We won't know the REAL deal till he does... It could have been similar to something that has already been done by many makers. Inquiring minds want to know..:smile:
 
I think both take the partial blame. Jacoby is the expert in this area so they should have explained what that $50 bought but the OP should have also explained he was doing this drawing so he could have something no one else has. He should have made it known this was to be a 1 of a kind cue and of course the price would have quickly jumped over that $50.

I really wish we could see a picture of the cue.
 
u12armresl said:
What a sad state of affairs the pool world is in when all the threads are "don't buy from "" " APA banger questions, or something like this where someone gets pissed over $50 paid to Jacoby for a "one of a kind stick design"

All this is followed by "forum experts" who start to tell you what chances you have in court.
Click to expand...

True, but it is entertaining.
 
skins said:
Fran, as I tried to explained in my last post, it's not that uncommon for a maker to reuse a customers design that THEY built a cue for, especially for low to mid priced custom cues. A maker will normally not charge a program or template fee as long as the design is not a 1 of 1. Time is $. Makers without CNC technology have to order special templates just for one design and those can cost hundreds EACH. Makers with CNC technology have to "fit" the design to the cue to the customers liking and then program the code used in the construction of the cue. Cost can be more reasonable if the customer chooses between a set of designs already in stock from that maker and in most cases that's the way most will go. If the customer say's they want it to be 1 of 1 THEN the customer may be charged design AND programming or template fees which can be very substantial depending on the design. The OP didn't specify that his design could not be used and if he did the maker would have adjusted the price accordingly for his custom time. Now there is a chance if the maker wants the business he may agree to a 1 of 1 and not upcharge but that is something has has to be asked at the time of order...

IMO. It was the fault of the OP NOT the maker in this case
Click to expand...

I don't think your argument would hold up in court. It's perfectly understandable to pay extra for custom work. However, the design is the sole property of the purchaser who designed it specifically for his cue. It's perfectly reasonable for the purchaser to expect that his design will be exclusive to his cue. That's what a judge would be looking at when deciding reasonableness.

Just because it may be customary for the cue maker to use the design again, it doesn't make it legal.
 
Last edited:
FranCrimi said:
I don't think your argument would hold up in court. It's perfectly understandable to pay extra for custom work. However, the design is the sole property of the purchaser who designed it specifically for his cue. It's perfectly reasonable for the purchaser to expect that his design will be exclusive to his cue. That's what a judge would be looking at when deciding reasonableness.

Just because it may be customary for the cue maker to use the design again, it doesn't make it legal.
Click to expand...

Who knows. It really doesn't matter. It looks as though there could have been fault on both sides. If the OP had a choice to do it all over again I'll bet you $ to doughnuts if offered the original price he paid (keeping the situation the same) OR the price he would have paid to keep it 1 of 1, he would keep the status quo...

I had a relatively fancy cue made by Bob Manzino (Gus 2000) which undoubtedly cost much more than the OP's cue to build and I actually don't expect Bob not to use that design. Every aspect executed to my exact specs and drawings. Bob's welcome to use any part of it. Now if another cue maker other than Bob used it without my permission I would consider that wrong. The way Keith and I approach these situations is if a customer supplies a drawing they want executed in a cue, Keith will consult me and we will determine if a programming fee will be necessary and if so offer the customer options. The reason is because more times than not the final result of the artwork is only somewhat similar to the customers original artwork. I have to make it Josey esq. That's what I do with every cue. I want it to be recognizable as a Josey cue. ( these situations are rare. Most all designs are mine ) So in those situations is the final artwork his or mine done on inspiration? Well since he is coming to us and supplied us with the idea I still give them the credit BUT since I brought it to fruition he may be givin a choice to either pay what a normal cue from Keith would cost with similar amount of work or be up charged to reflect the extra time and tweaking work to keep it a one off. There are situations where we know we would never use it again and those situations are determined on a case by case basis....

I'm sorry the customer feels slighted. If he'd have called Keith he wouldn't have this issue....;)

Merry Christmas Fran!
 
Last edited:
FranCrimi said:
I don't think your argument would hold up in court. It's perfectly understandable to pay extra for custom work. However, the design is the sole property of the purchaser who designed it specifically for his cue. It's perfectly reasonable for the purchaser to expect that his design will be exclusive to his cue. That's what a judge would be looking at when deciding reasonableness.

Just because it may be customary for the cue maker to use the design again, it doesn't make it legal.
Click to expand...

You are simply totally wrong. See my post #19. In all likelihood, the clothes and shoes you were are knockoffs to some degree or another. The design starts somewhere. The same principal applies. Read the post. I was in these fights for 40 years, Stick to pool,

Have a nice day:smile:
 
It's a bullshit move by Jacoby.
The guy designed his own cue,, bullshit move, he should be called out on it
I am still amazed at the world of pool, everybody making moves everyday for nickels and dimes, it's amazing.

Who wants to be a pool player? There is a sale on 25 year old black sneakers for 25 cents a pair, the 75 coats of black shoe polish is free.

Bullshit move, amazing, and I know, here it comes, the guy is a stand up guy, class act, bullshit.
 
Last edited:
SmoothStroke said:
It's a bullshit move by Josey.
The guy designed his own cue,, bullshit move, he should be called out on it
I am still amazed at the world of pool, everybody making moves everyday for nickels and dimes, it's amazing.

Who wants to be a pool player? There is a sale on 25 year old black sneakers for 25 cents a pair, the 75 coats of black shoe polish is free.

Bullshit move, amazing, and I know, here it comes, the guy is a stand up guy, class act, bullshit.
Click to expand...

I thought this thread was about Jacoby, not Josey.
I've never heard a bad word uttered about Josey, and Josey cues actually play real good.
 
cuesblues said:
I thought this thread was about Jacoby, not Josey.
I've never heard a bad word uttered about Josey, and Josey cues actually play real good.
Click to expand...

Thank you for bringing that to my attention, and my apology to Josey.
I have Josey on my brain as I am looking to buy a Josey I saw yesterday. Now I must buy it. I edited the post.

Sincerely:SS
 
SmoothStroke said:
Thank you for bringing that to my attention, and my apology to Josey.
I have Josey on my brain as I am looking to buy a Josey I saw yesterday. Now I must buy it. I edited the post.

Sincerely:SS
Click to expand...

I figured that, and I appreciate the classy way you handled it.
Green Christmas rep for a class move


Peace
Ted
 
SmoothStroke said:
Thank you for bringing that to my attention, and my apology to Josey.
I have Josey on my brain as I am looking to buy a Josey I saw yesterday. Now I must buy it. I edited the post.

Sincerely:SS
Click to expand...

Appreciate that :)... More green for you :wink:
 
jimtauer said:
I just spoke with Brandon Jacoby. They said they didn't think it was something they couldn't/shouldn't reproduce, so he did make 3 (three) other cues with the same design. I told them to cease/delete that art file and not make any more, which he agreed to do. I don't think there's anything else that can or should be done at this point. Life lesson learned, I guess. He did say that if he was told it should be a one off that he would have upcharged me further and deleted the design afterwards.

The ebay cue was already sold, so unless I track down the buyer I can't have that one. Nor can I afford to just go out and buy the 3, much less one, cue at $800-$1200 per cue. He said all 3 that were built have since been sold.

I don't really feel like posting a picture of the cue on here, mainly for personal reasons - some people might think I'm weird but somehow my cue feels less special now that I know it has been reproduced and I don't really want to publish the design even further than it already has been. It's nothing that exotic or special, but it was unique to ME - and apparently a few others found it desirable enough to have on their own cues.
Click to expand...

You weren't timid about calling out Jacoby. Post a picture of the cue.
 
phil dade said:
You are simply totally wrong. See my post #19. In all likelihood, the clothes and shoes you were are knockoffs to some degree or another. The design starts somewhere. The same principal applies. Read the post. I was in these fights for 40 years, Stick to pool,

Have a nice day:smile:
Click to expand...


It's foolish for you to assume that all I know is pool. I do other things too. I spent many days in court with clients.

Don't insult me. We're just expressing opinions here. I know what I'm talking about, too. You don't have to agree, but keep it civil and it would do you justice not to act like an idiot just because you disagree.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top