6 point for henchmen 3

ARROWCRUSHER said:
I really dont see how some people worry about things that are really none of their buisness. If a person wants a cue a certain way or a design it should be only the buisness of the cuemaker and the person that is buying the cue. Why is it that some people are only out to cause trouble or make issues out of something that should not concern them, :confused: ,,,ED
Click to expand...


Of course its our business, its posted on a public forum for discussion. If you don't want the discussion, then don't post the pictures of the cue and a link to Tim's cue.
 
cubswin said:
Of course its our business, its posted on a public forum for discussion. If you don't want the discussion, then don't post the pictures of the cue and a link to Tim's cue.
Click to expand...


Heres another one,, just follows around to post negative comments , If I dont like a cue or who build it I dont buy it or comment on it , cause it doesnt bother me ,,
Design theft !! And who made what design first ? I can see if a cue is an exact copy Just as sayin putting veneers or a type of inlay in a cue , so who ever came up with it first has the only right to ever use the design or veneers or inlays on a cue ? I just believe that if someone likes a certain design or type of cue and get a cuemaker to build the cue and there is no copyright of the design . I can see if someone flat out makes a exact copy of someone elses work but as far as someone useing veneers, inlays or what have you they are all parts of a traditional style cue. There's just so much criticizing that goes on that it just gets old . I guess I shouldnt have worded my post like I did but it"s starting to come up alot about copies and designs on cues. I myself like certain traditional designs or patterns on cues and I like to mix somethings up sometimes when ordering a cue that one cuemaker may use in his cues and take something else from another,, it's not hard to see the ones that have nothing better to do then just post negative comments and post about whoever may be on the F with list at any time.....<< ED
 
Last edited:
ARROWCRUSHER said:
Heres another one,,
Click to expand...

And all you do is follow along and post nut hugging comments. You do the cuemakers you like a disservice by trying to defend them. It reflects on the cuemakers as well as you, and just makes them look bad. I know you are trying to defend someone you like, but it doesn't help them.

This is a public place, cues are posted here for discussion. Not all the discussion will be positive, nor should it have to be.

Carry on...


p.s. there is no f you list
 
cubswin said:
And all you do is follow along and post nut hugging comments. You do the cuemakers you like a disservice by trying to defend them. It reflects on the cuemakers as well as you, and just makes them look bad. I know you are trying to defend someone you like, but it doesn't help them.

This is a public place, cues are posted here for discussion. Not all the discussion will be positive, nor should it have to be.

Carry on...


p.s. there is no f you list
Click to expand...

I got ur nut hugging !! How about that.. And if i like something I comment on it, and it could be any cuemaker or anyone, Im not a basher or someone that just likes to stir the pot.....
 
Does anyone have a couple of tylenol to spare lol larry i'll let you know when she's done.
 
I love how you post a CAD of "your" design and say it's going to be a different style. It's the same EXACT style, it's only very gently altered.

Sure, Tim Scruggs doesn't own spear/diamond inlays, but he DOES own the design of the cue you're copying.

You're making an exact copy of the TS cue except for the following:
1) You're changing the veneer colors (one of which is nearly the same, silver/holly)
2) You're using a few less inlays
3) You're very slightly altering the shape of the inlays in the butt
4) You're going to alter (to what degree?) the inlays in the joint collar (which are already very subtle on the TS cue)

You're copying the overall design of the cue. There's a fine line where "inspiration" becomes "thievery", and your plans for this cue step WAY over. I can't believe your titanium balls posting a thread like this. It amazes me that you think this is OK.

I'm getting tired of the idiots making jokes about copying so-and-so's points and veneers. That's a ****ing stupid rationalization that doesn't apply. Copying a DESIGN (not a single design or construction element) is wrong. This is copying a design and making extremely minor alterations. That is only OK if you own the original design. You don't.

You're stealing the work/blood/sweat/time/money that Tim Scruggs sacrificed in the name of artistic creation because you're too lazy and lacking in honor or respect to do it yourself. The same thing applies to ANY other cuemaker that does the same thing.

Lame.
 

Attachments

  • wowsodifferent.JPG
    wowsodifferent.JPG
    7 KB · Views: 273
Hierovision said:
You're making an exact copy of the TS cue except for the following:
1) You're changing the veneer colors (one of which is nearly the same, silver/holly)
2) You're using a few less inlays
3) You're very slightly altering the shape of the inlays in the butt
4) You're going to alter (to what degree?) the inlays in the joint collar (which are already very subtle on the TS cue)
your kind of a jackass arn't you hiero?

these examples does not make it a copy, the BUYER wants a cue SIMILIAR.

so leon is doing his job by answering what the BUYER wants.

for every maker out there making four point four veneer cues with two rings in the butt, and two in the forearm are all theiving i think you put it?
every maker making sneakies are thieving that design from whoever first invented the cue?

think before you speak, you been over jimmy's listening to those jackasses for too long man.

retarded.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
There's a point where the artistic aspect of a cue becomes valuable and invested. Sneakies and plain cues (4 point 4 veneer, or whatever you want to call plain) have extremely limited or non-existent "artistic" value. Artistic design is what I'm talking about, not a simple construction method (sneaky or other simple cue).

Yes, I can be a jackass, but I'm not 99% of the time. I'm just tired of seeing this done over and over again, and I'm even more tired of ignorant supporters of the practice. I admit I lost my patience when I posted that, but I like what I wrote. It's how I really feel. Dishonorable and disrespectful practices usually bother me. I'm surprised they don't bother you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CMD
And BTW, it's the cuemaker's job to alter the design to make it his/her own when a customer asks for a cue that "looks like" another cuemaker's creation. Making the design your own involves creating your own signature design or design elements, and incorporating them to make the cue obviously yours.

The customer is also at fault, but they can easily claim ignorance... the cuemaker should know better (especially considering the internet is considered an inherent right these days).
 
Hierovision said:
There's a point where the artistic aspect of a cue becomes valuable and invested. Sneakies and plain cues (4 point 4 veneer, or whatever you want to call plain) have extremely limited or non-existent "artistic" value. Artistic design is what I'm talking about, not a simple construction method (sneaky or other simple cue).

Yes, I can be a jackass, but I'm not 99% of the time. I'm just tired of seeing this done over and over again, and I'm even more tired of ignorant supporters of the practice. I admit I lost my patience when I posted that, but I like what I wrote. It's how I really feel. Dishonorable and disrespectful practices usually bother me. I'm surprised they don't bother you.
Click to expand...

lol, always good clean dis-agreeable forum fun with ya heiro.



they bother me, but we have different opinions on what these practices include. simple design? i believe this cue is in that category, those diamond inlays have been done a billion times, in a hundred different cues by dozens of different makers. so it's a COMMON inlay. if the buyer wants those inlays, leon did the right thing by giving credit, with his link, to timmy. now, if leon made this cue, out of his shop without a request on how it looks, then posts it on az, ebay, whatever, without links and trying to pass it as a one off, then yes, i agree with you. that would be theft.
 
JayBaltimore said:
your kind of a jackass arn't you hiero?

these examples does not make it a copy, the BUYER wants a cue SIMILIAR.

so leon is doing his job by answering what the BUYER wants.

for every maker out there making four point four veneer cues with two rings in the butt, and two in the forearm are all theiving i think you put it?
every maker making sneakies are thieving that design from whoever first invented the cue?

think before you speak, you been over jimmy's listening to those jackasses for too long man.

retarded.
Click to expand...


Name calling? That's all you got?



You will never understand the creative ownership part of it. It is a waste of time to debate this.
 
JayBaltimore said:
lol, always good clean dis-agreeable forum fun with ya heiro.



they bother me, but we have different opinions on what these practices include. simple design? i believe this cue is in that category, those diamond inlays have been done a billion times, in a hundred different cues by dozens of different makers. so it's a COMMON inlay. if the buyer wants those inlays, leon did the right thing by giving credit, with his link, to timmy. now, if leon made this cue, out of his shop without a request on how it looks, then posts it on az, ebay, whatever, without links and trying to pass it as a one off, then yes, i agree with you. that would be theft.
Click to expand...

See I'm not talking about an individual inlay. I'm talking about the overall DESIGN. The arrangement. The placement of ALL the design elements, not the individual design elements themselves. The effort put into the creation process is being stolen and profited from with this cue.
 
Hierovision said:
See I'm not talking about an individual inlay. I'm talking about the overall DESIGN. The arrangement. The placement of ALL the design elements, not the individual design elements themselves. The effort put into the creation process is being stolen and profited from with this cue.
Click to expand...

that's my point exactly in my previous post! simple or not, a plain jane, sneaky, 4P4V cue, etc., is an overall design how ever you may look at it. so all makers making CUSTOM one offs are technically stealing correct?
 
Take all my posts together. You keep excluding my point about artistic value. Nobody cares if you reuse a construction element. Several people use the steel 1/2 joint or ivory sleeved steel joint, whatever. Nobody cares if you use one or two design elements like a sequence of veneer colors or a specific inlay (spear, barbell, etc.).

When you create a combination of an entire series of design elements that have an inherent artistic value (e.g. a "design"), you own that design. If somebody else uses the majority of that design (even with slight modifications), they're stealing your creation, your property, and sometimes your profits.
 
Hierovision said:
Nobody cares if you reuse a construction element. Several people use the steel 1/2 joint or ivory sleeved steel joint, whatever. ........
Click to expand...

So wait, you're telling us that someone would not care if someone tried to copy their hit, but would care only if their artistic design was used?

Really???? IMHO that is very backwards.

The ss 1/2 joint, first developed by XXXXXXXX and to do what? Keep weight at joint down AND it has certain tone transfer characteristics I am sure. The sleeved ivory joint is for???? Some for cutting down on ivory, again, some for HIT. This is a technical advancement, any monkey can draw on cad. IMHO copying these would be a far greater travesty than popping a few inlays, scallops, or whatever...

JV (----once a cad monkey...
 

Attachments

  • Funny-monkeys.jpg
    Funny-monkeys.jpg
    30.8 KB · Views: 275
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top