Tribute Or Copy - Where To Draw The Line?

Kickin' Chicken said:

Or should there even be a line?

In the For Sale forum a seller was just BBQ'd for listing a Ginacue lookalike made by Vittiatore. He was flamed so hard that he ended up pulling his listing.

Currently, there is a great looking Gilbert cue made to look like a Southwest. No problems thus far for this seller.

A while back a very well respected seller here on AZ offered a number of "TAD tribute" cues that no one seemed to be offended by. Two of the veneer colors in the classic TAD-like ringwork were flip-flopped, as I was told, "out of respect" for TAD. I liked these so much I bought one. They are clearly marked as being made by Carmeli's Shop.

There are plenty more examples but here are three good ones for the sake of discussion.

What defines whether a particular cue is an acceptable (honorable) tribute vs. an unacceptable (dishonorable) copy?

Looking forward to your thoughts on this.

Best,
Brian kc

Click to expand...

Fine with me as long as it is described accurately, as this one was. PocketsCalgary started from the very beginning that this was a Gina design made by Viatorre. If someone doesn't want to buy it, fine, but all the knocking has gotten way out of hand, IMHO>

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=261633

like i said before

IMHO in regard to knockoffs, tributes, etc. it's really a non issue. those who want and can afford a specific makers cue, will buy that cue. if there are copies of the same looking cue available for cheaper, it wouldn't change things one bit. when you're looking at Szamboti's, Hercek's, Gina's etc. your buying into the Brand - it's legacy, craftsmanship, etc. like buying a Ferrari.

i don't think Ferrari cares either that there's kit cars available out there. because they know that under the skin, it's a PONTIAC FIERO.

it's really unfortunate that all the flaming resulted in the OP pulling the thread. i hope the Moderators have a pretty good explanation as to how they let things like this happen.

No personal offence to the individual who IMO started the whole thing, but it was in poor decorum. upholding the ethics for the preservation of this marketplace is in EVERYONES interest, even to those sellers, or cuemakers that don't post on this site.

any newbie would have been red repped and banned to oblivion already.

It's disturbing that some people are allowed to violate the rules and flame sales. I don't know who they are. It's funny, because I think they think that I and others should know who they are. Are they dealers or collectors or something? Isn't it interesting that after flaming a sale sufficiently to damage perceived value of a product the same person will offer to buy? Who are these people? It seems that they are in fact known....maybe I am just ignorant. They seem to carry some authority or importance....but I am unimpressed. They do seem very impressed with themselves though.

I have seen more than a couple of cases of this.

Frankly, if you don't like somebody's "tribute", don't buy it. If it is being passed off as genuine or an original, that may be fraud, then it's a legal matter.

If somebody wants to call it a copy it makes no difference at all to me.

I am not offended by these copies or tributes or whatever one would call them at all as long as it isn't a matter of fraud. If a cue maker is unhappy about somebody copying his work it would be reasonable for him to pursue that matter.

Sadly, this sort of behavior is rampant across the board. Admittedly, the forum mods have an impossible job in reigning in poor behavior.

It's real easy to sit behind a keyboard and bash anyone or anything. Arguing just to argue, slamming people to get a rise out of them, general stirring of the $hit.... Seems like people don't have enough good going on in their lives, so they feel the need to bring others down.

Kickin' Chicken said:

Or should there even be a line?

In the For Sale forum a seller was just BBQ'd for listing a Ginacue lookalike made by Vittiatore. He was flamed so hard that he ended up pulling his listing.

Currently, there is a great looking Gilbert cue made to look like a Southwest. No problems thus far for this seller.

A while back a very well respected seller here on AZ offered a number of "TAD tribute" cues that no one seemed to be offended by. Two of the veneer colors in the classic TAD-like ringwork were flip-flopped, as I was told, "out of respect" for TAD. I liked these so much I bought one. They are clearly marked as being made by Carmeli's Shop.

There are plenty more examples but here are three good ones for the sake of discussion.

What defines whether a particular cue is an acceptable (honorable) tribute vs. an unacceptable (dishonorable) copy?

Looking forward to your thoughts on this.

Best,
Brian kc

Click to expand...

Walking through the booths at the DCC that displayed high end cues, one thing that is noticeable to most folks is that certain cue makers have a distinctive style, usually represented in the form of specific designs that, even without seeing the logo, are readily identifiable as the work of a specific cue maker. IOW, guys that have worked hard to develop designs that not only represent their personal vision, but are also distinctive, beautiful, and appealing to cue fans.

My personal opinion is that use of the word "tribute," as used to sell cues, is a thin cover up for what is in fact a pure rip off of another man's hard work. And the word seems to be most frequently applied when the intellectual theft is the most egregious and the seller or maker knows all too well that they are selling pilfered goods. The cue in question is a good example.

I would also like to say that I believe the AZ community as whole should do more to police the Wanted/For Sale forum and let it be known that "tributes" are not acceptable in this community.

Lou Figueroa

It's cases like these is why some forums I go to don't even allow any responses to the wanted/sale thread. If there is any interest in the sale then PM is key. I personally don't want this place turning into that kind of forum but better enforcements should be made. Perhaps adding another Moderator specifically for that section.

I do agree the copies and tributes are bs as a whole

lfigueroa said:

Walking through the booths at the DCC that displayed high end cues, one thing that is noticeable to most folks is that certain cue makers have a distinctive style, usually represented in the form of specific designs that, even without seeing the logo, are readily identifiable as the work of a specific cue maker. IOW, guys that have worked hard to develop designs that not only represent their personal vision, but are also distinctive, beautiful, and appealing to cue fans.

My personal opinion is that use of the word "tribute," as used to sell cues, is a thin cover up for what is in fact a pure rip off of another man's hard work. And the word seems to be most frequently applied when the intellectual theft is the most egregious and the seller or maker knows all too well that they are selling pilfered goods. The cue in question is a good example.

I would also like to say that I believe the AZ community as whole should do more to police the Wanted/For Sale forum and let it be known that "tributes" are not acceptable in this community.

Lou Figueroa

Click to expand...

Lou,

I have to agree that the copies and tributes are often slightly concealed ripoffs of other people's designs by the makers. True tributes should have something different as an impossible(highly impractical) to remove part of the design. Also, the "tribute" shouldn't be to a current builder. I don't know what time span would be reasonable but it seems that a cue not being available for 20-30 years might be fitting for a tribute as long as there was no easy way to turn the tribute into a counterfeit.

Unfortunately as long as the current tributes and copies are acceptable to be built and sold to begin with I see no reason why they should be offensive in the secondary market when clearly advertised as what they are. Of course there have been reports for quite some years of counterfeit cues being sold. I wonder how many of these cues started life as "tributes"????

Hu

lfigueroa said:

Walking through the booths at the DCC that displayed high end cues, one thing that is noticeable to most folks is that certain cue makers have a distinctive style, usually represented in the form of specific designs that, even without seeing the logo, are readily identifiable as the work of a specific cue maker. IOW, guys that have worked hard to develop designs that not only represent their personal vision, but are also distinctive, beautiful, and appealing to cue fans.

My personal opinion is that use of the word "tribute," as used to sell cues, is a thin cover up for what is in fact a pure rip off of another man's hard work. And the word seems to be most frequently applied when the intellectual theft is the most egregious and the seller or maker knows all too well that they are selling pilfered goods. The cue in question is a good example.

I would also like to say that I believe the AZ community as whole should do more to police the Wanted/For Sale forum and let it be known that "tributes" are not acceptable in this community.

Lou Figueroa

Click to expand...

All well and good except that tributes and copies ARE accepted in this community IF the cue maker is well liked and has backers/dealers who hype his work.

And some things seem to get free passes for whatever reason.

Dead nuts copies of Whitten cases and Instroke cases don't raise an eyebrow.

Ron Thomas makes cases in the style of Centennial and no one says a word. I do it with the GTF cases and get burned at the stake by certain people.

I make a case to pay tribute to Jay Flowers/Nora Van Horn that looks alsmot nothing like the original J.EF Q Cases and get vilified and branded a knockoff artist.

Someone else builds a case that looks like a Justis/JEF Q Case and everyone claps and says great case. So there are a lot of double standards being applied here.

Now I am sure that a lot of it has to do with me being an asshole in public but still.........no need to act like the "community" here doesn't accept knockoffs. They certainly do unless the cue or case maker is not in favor.

I'm not sure there's a single cue maker out there that hasn't borrowed some stylistic element. Until you get into high end inlays, everything is points, butterflies, veneers, diamonds, dots, propellers, windows, rings, etc. All of which have been done for near a century or better with minor adjustments.

That being said, I'm entirely against a piece by piece copy of another's work.

This clearly goes beyond the realm of inspiration and I believe it violates the original creator's rights.

As others have already stated....

There is absolutley nothing wrong with tribute cues as long as it is clearly stated as a tribute cue of another cue makers original style concept etc. I know in some cases that tributes are made due to the popularity of the original and hence they would make money off of a cheaper look a like while others are purely made as a genuine "tribute" edition cue and arent made in such an abundance as to capitalize on the popularity of the particular style that's being emulated, in either case again there is NOTHING wrong as long as we the buyers are informed 100% of the cues originality whether it be an original or a tribute.

I think this whole argument is ridiculous. It's like getting mad at Burger King because McDonalds put pickles on their burgers first. As long as the actual cue makers name or mark is on the cue and it is not being advertised or misrepresented as another cue makers product I don't see the problem. Unless a specific design or technology is copyrighted the argument is mute. You have the choice to buy a "copy" or "tribute" cue or the original, it's up to you. If there is a Black Boar cue I really like the design of, but obviously can't afford, I don't see the problem with taking that design to an affordable cue maker to get done. If they put BB on the butt of the cue, then yeah there's a problem.

I am going to say this and probably get flamed, but so be it. It is my OPINION only. The ones that get flamed are generally "knock offs" made in either China or the Phillipines. An established cuemaker in the US doing the same thing would likely get a pass.

I personally don't agree with stealing a more complex design of a one of a kind cue, but it really isn't my decision to make for a cuemaker or another buyer.

Just my 2 cents.

In the original thread there was a lot of disingenuous information by the OP. First, bad form comparing the cue to the original and saying get the same cue for 1/3 the price. That tactic alone is pure b.s., and should have had the thread pulled immediately.

If you're going to list a cue that is questionable, do NOT do that. It's bad enough the design is borrowed now you have to knock the design originators price.

The other small mitigating factor is origination of the product. It's time the Asian community starts getting a little blowback from this practice. When the feathers cue issue surfaced, he (Ernie) got on the phone with Paul and they discussed this. Being a US company if Ernie wanted to protect his copyright, he can do so, with a lot more ease, than pulling in a Phillipino company. This is why the Pacific rim has NO RESPECT for copyrighted materials, If they can copy it, they will do it. See the Bautista / Crisp threads...

I personally do not have an issue with cdt, but being offshore should not give you immunity in the discussion.

JV

Just to make sure the discussion is factually correct there is NO copyright on utilitarian items. A pool cue falls under the purview of a tool and there is no copyright protection granted to the decoration of a tool.

The same thing applies to the fashion industry. No copyright.

Which is why you see fashion bags with logos all over them. Because trademarks are protected so if they work the trademark into the design then they have some protection from direct knockoffs.

So please don't say that so and so is violating so and so's copyright. That does not apply for pool cues.

NOW IF the cue makers would make a painting or rendering of a FLAT piece of art with the design that they later put on a cue then it may be protected under copyright. Just as I cannot legally make a line of cues with Mickey Mouse on them and offer them for sale without licensing the image/likeness from Disney.

So before we go and say that LEGALLY so and so is being infringed upon let's all understand the law on this.

Morally? Yeah a dead nuts copy is a rip off. I have had all my Instroke designs ripped off by more companies than all the other case makers with the exception of perhaps Porper.

Tribute: A gift, payment, declaration, or other acknowledgment of gratitude, respect, or admiration.

Copy: An imitation or reproduction of an original; a duplicate.

So, was the person that made the cue acknowledging gratitude, respect and admiration for the original or reproducing/imitating something based on his customers ask.

thefonz said:

i don't think Ferrari cares either that there's kit cars available out there. because they know that under the skin, it's a PONTIAC FIERO.

Click to expand...

Ferrari actively procecutes Kit manufactures who enable these clones to be produced (worldwide). In a recent case in Italy, the car was confiscated and crushed.

From Copyright.gov

A “useful article” is an object that has an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. Examples are clothing; automobile bodies; furniture; machinery, including household appliances; dinnerware; and lighting fixtures. An article that is part of a useful article, such as an ornamental wheel cover on a vehicle, can itself be a useful article.

Copyright does not protect the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of such works of craftsmanship. Copyright may, however, protect any pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of an object. Thus a useful article can have both copyrightable and uncopyrightable features. For example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware can be protected by copyright, but the design of the chair or the flatware itself cannot, even though it may be aesthetically pleasing.

Some designs of useful articles may qualify for protection under federal patent law. For details, contact the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. tel: (800) 786-9199 or (571) 272-1000. web: www.uspto.gov.

Copyright in a work that portrays a useful article extends only to the artistic expression of the author of the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. It does not extend to the design of the article that is portrayed. For example, a drawing or photograph of an automobile or a dress design can be copyrighted, but that does not give the artist or photographer the exclusive right to make automobiles or dresses of the same design.

JV

MitchAlsup said:

Ferrari actively procecutes Kit manufactures who enable these clones to be produced (worldwide). In a recent case in Italy, the car was confiscated and crushed.

Click to expand...

I should have mentioned that designs on utilitarian items can be protected by design patents and by trade dress. Both of which are easy to obtain but hard to enforce.

Also in Europe the laws governing copyright are different with copyright being granted to some utilitarian items.

And it's not a surprise that an Italian court would crush anyone making Ferrari knockoffs in Italy. But those same kits flourish around the world where Ferrari isn't a national symbol of pride.