Cue Design Theft?

[larrynj1]

jimblow, i understand my contribution to this thread ,and the other threads you managed to take over on this same subject, have been too subtle for you to understand. my posts have been intended to ridicule the importance you have placed on this subject, and the importance it seems to have taken in your life over the last two weeks or more.
do you get it now? i know you cannot possibly agree with this, but that's your perogitive. i suggest you go back and read your own bullshit for the last 100 posts and maybe you will understand.

let it go, dude.

 

[larrynj1]

almost forgot --

LAY !!

 

[bandido]

my posts have been intended to ridicule the importance you have placed on this subject, and the importance it seems to have taken in your life over the last two weeks or more.

I'm sorry that you feel that way about the subject "Design Theft", it does go much deeper than that. Think global instead of just local, now think of what your opinion of cue art, an artform that was popularized by the American Cuecraftsman, does to harm it. IMO, those are the kind of sentiments that sends out signals that it's ok to steal intellectual property, undercut the price and eventually destroy the originator.
Edwin<wishing the "names" won't be too shy to chime in.

That sounds like a wonderfull idea.

If you're reading this, you're not making cues

Joe

I guess what you fail to realize is that part of creating cues is the accumulation of knowledge and of keeping a finger on the industry's pulse in order to help the cuemaker adjust his design and production approach to the sign of the times.

I think you were kidding. If I'm assuming right, you may have experienced times when while talking to a cuemaker in his shop he suddenly exclaims something that eventually materializes in a cue.

 

[JimBo]

i didn't truly realize how pathetic he was until he admitted that he ordered the cue to look like a southwest cue. now i know why because this guys cues probably don't sell with his own designs so this other guy orders em to look like something that sells lots so that he can make a buck on it. meanwhile this other cue maker doesn't get it that he is now a whore and he is makin cues to look like someone elses work which admits that he don't think much of his own designs. a standup cue maker would tell someone who orders a cue to look just like a south west to go pee in the wind. but then again a standup dealer wouldn't even ask someone to do it.

Well maybe now you can understand why Joe is on the side he is, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how my point of view is beneficial to me in any way.

Jim

 

[JimBo]

jimblow, i understand my contribution to this thread ,and the other threads you managed to take over on this same subject, have been too subtle for you to understand. my posts have been intended to ridicule the importance you have placed on this subject, and the importance it seems to have taken in your life over the last two weeks or more.
do you get it now? i know you cannot possibly agree with this, but that's your perogitive. i suggest you go back and read your own bullshit for the last 100 posts and maybe you will understand.

let it go, dude.

You're not subtle, you're stupid, what you seem to miss is that I know exactly what you are trying to do, I invented it long before you thought of it. Fact is I posted 21 times in this thread almost every one of them had some information or addressed a question brought up to me. You on the other hand have posted 8 times, one of the 8 had relevant information in it, the trouble was your info was bullshit. You mentioned that butterfly splices in between V points has been around a long time. While that's true it means nothing because the cues we are talking about don't have butterfly splices anywhere in them, they do have a butterfly inlay and it was copied right down to the exact colors. You can bitch and moan all you'd like the truth is this topic is important and it has many people interested and reading it, more then any other threads in the cue section right now. If people didn't care they wouldn't read or post and it would die, further proof is the fact that even you can't stop reading (and posting) to it. Maybe you need to let it go. It doesn't consume me and I don't profit from my point of view unlike someone else who has posted several times on the same thread yet I notice you haven't directed any of your "ridicule" at him, Oh never mind we've already talked about that relationship.

This is something that won't change, but I can bet you that more then a few people will put a little more thought into the subject of cue design theft from it and if I change one person's mind then I guess I did my small part to stop something that should have never been done in the first place.

Edwin Reyes chimed in and said he wished some of the bigger names would also post, I on the other hand wish they don't. I know where these people stand on the issue and I also know that posting here can do no good for them, arguing with morons like you is bad for business and it's very clear that you aren't willing to open your mind and learn anything. I have nothing to gain or lose and by bringing this into the public eye I can only hurt the people who are the thieves and not the true artists. The funny thing is you claim to have posted all these times to stop my posts and all you've done was create another one and expose yourself as a clueless boob. LOL 8 posts and not one had a decent thought in it, good work, I wonder if you made more friends with any of them???

Jim <---Not in NJ

 

[drivermaker]

You're not subtle, you're stupid, what you seem to miss is that I know exactly what you are trying to do, I invented it long before you thought of it. The funny thing is you claim to have posted all these times to stop my posts and all you've done was create another one and expose yourself as a clueless boob. LOL 8 posts and not one had a decent thought in it, good work, I wonder if you made more friends with any of them???
Jim <---Not in NJ

Whatever you and Joe have to beat each other up on in this thread isn't the first time, nor will it be the last. It does make for interesting thoughts both ways and creates a lot of hits.

But you hit the nail on the head in the first sentence along with the rest that I left up there. It's his modus operandi whether it's here or on the main forum, usually with me. He contributes NOTHING! He's usually a punctuation mark on the end of somebody else's post or a name calling little maggot that's looking for attention and recognition (I can call names too, learned from Larrynj) Don't even bother responding, that's what he wants. What you gotta learn is nobody gives a shit what he says one way or another. It's like he's a non-entity...doesn't even exist. Onward with the debate........

 

[Murray Tucker]

If you're reading this, you're not making cues

BTW that ebony on ebony is the stone cold nuts...

Joe

Nope. This is shaft week. Got to get Steve's shafts finished up before I get a public floging.

BTW yes it is.

 

[Worminator]

Well since I started this whole mess I guess I will finally chime in. IMO this is a common sense issue in regards to the "gray areas". I believe the Balabuska and Szamboti inspired cues are part of the industry since those makers started the true custom cue era. I am not in favor of direct copies of any of their cues. Obviously, the standard 4 point, 4 veneer cues can be copies because there is really nothing unique about them. They are the standard cue. Beyond those two makers, we start getting into makers like Ernie Gutierrez, Bill Schick, and Bill Stroud to name a few, that really took cue making to another design level. They have their own style and designs that set them apart from the other makers. It was at THAT point certain cuemakers who were having trouble coming up with their own “new” designs started using some of the aforementioned maker’s designs on their own cues. The two Phillippis I posted at the beginning of this thread are IMO, blatant rip offs of Gina designs that Ernie popularized in his cues.

I remember a cue John Wright had for sale (it was either a Joss West or a Bender) that had these unbelievable ivory inlays. I was talking to John about the cue before he had sent pictures to me and he was telling me what a unique design it was. He was really excited about the inlay work and was proud to be the one to be able to sell it to a collector. I then received his pictures and I immediately saw what he was talking about. I had never seen any inlay that was close to this design. About a year or so later I'm walking through the Super Billiard Expo and I see a Phillippi with the exact inlay design. I couldn't believe it. I lost all respect for Phillippi's cues at that point. I have seen some very unique Phillippis so I now they have the talent to design cues without stealing someone else’s idea. I think this is what we are talking about here.

That's my $.02 worth...

 

[Sir Eatsalot]

A lot of people here are making concentrated efforts to one-up the other and make their point and it's getting pretty tedious. It's good that you have your views and opinions and forums like these are set up with the expressing of opinions in mind, however, art will be made, art will be copied, imitated or be paid tribute to and nothing that is said here will change that, it's been that way throughout history. Something else that will not change is that some people will be okay with it, others will not.

Hopefully, you guys can find satisfaction in the many good points that have been made and move on to something else, you've done all you can do for the cause, imo.

_____________________________________

Stop The Pissing Contest

 

[committeemember]

worminator said "I believe the Balabuska and Szamboti inspired cues are part of the industry since those makers started the true custom cue era."

you need to go back to your books son if you think these guys started the true custom cue era.

 

[larrynj1]

jimblow, i believe i posted two times asking you to let it go. they were very relevent. btw, go count your posts on the other two threads you hijacked and/or started on this same subject. it is all very tedious as already mentioned above.

 

[classiccues]

oh, so you ordered it that way? that's even worse dude what a pathetic move. what a pathetic cue maker whose willing to custom make a cue that is of someone elses known look. so you left out one element big freaking deal. ask anyone who knows anything about cues whose cue that looks like and theyll all say southwest, its simple as that. i bet that southwest has a long line and your guy has none. do you order them to look like southwest because they will sell or does that cue maker use southwests designs all the time? either way it is pathetic and you shouldnt be making any moral judgements on anyone cause you know what you are if you aint part of the solution!

Me (--hates self serving wannabe experts

Until you show me the cue I made this "exact" copy from, you and I have nothing to say.

Joe

 

[classiccues]

Joe we can go back and forth all week, until you really understand the debate it can't be a debate. I'm sorry that you aren't smart enough to keep up. I'll try to go slow for you.
I'm talking about CUE DESIGN THEFT
you're talking about INSPIRED CUES
Big difference
I posted 2 pics Originals and COPIES
You post 1 cue and then ask us to take your word and you call it proof.
The fact is Joe you have access to the Original, the copy (your opinion) has already been posted, how about you step up to the plate and post the pic of the original. Surely that will make your point and burry me, that is all you need to do, very simple. You will win and I will shut up about this when and only when you post that picture and I flip flop on my stance, if you post a picture of a cue that is the same as the Tucker cue and I say it's ok because Murray is a Tiger in the industry then I'll look like a fool and you win. We all wait to see this happen. You want so bad to make me look dumb Joe here is your chance and it's O so easy, I just gave you a batting practice fast ball, hit her out of the park buddy.

Jim

I know what we are talking about. And again you are making excuses for people you don't want to slam. If the phillipi's are "cue design theft" there is absolutely NO WAY you can excuse the Schiick I pointed to on Wu's site. BTW you didn't post the original pics so stop trying to take credit for someone elses actions. I don't need to try and make you look dumb, you do well on your own. Again, I don't feel the Phillipis are an issue, just like I don't think the Shick is an issue, but I will call a spade a spade. Lets face it the Phillipi's have an overall look of the Gina's but in no way do they have the silver work involved in both original designs. So again these cues are inspired.
Not as you like to call a whole cue copy... So if you wanna talk cue design theft, be a man and call it across the board, something you cannot and won't do.

Joe

 

[classiccues]

Well since I started this whole mess I guess I will finally chime in. IMO this is a common sense issue in regards to the "gray areas". I believe the Balabuska and Szamboti inspired cues are part of the industry since those makers started the true custom cue era. I am not in favor of direct copies of any of their cues. Obviously, the standard 4 point, 4 veneer cues can be copies because there is really nothing unique about them. They are the standard cue. Beyond those two makers, we start getting into makers like Ernie Gutierrez, Bill Schick, and Bill Stroud to name a few, that really took cue making to another design level. They have their own style and designs that set them apart from the other makers. It was at THAT point certain cuemakers who were having trouble coming up with their own “new” designs started using some of the aforementioned maker’s designs on their own cues. The two Phillippis I posted at the beginning of this thread are IMO, blatant rip offs of Gina designs that Ernie popularized in his cues.

I remember a cue John Wright had for sale (it was either a Joss West or a Bender) that had these unbelievable ivory inlays. I was talking to John about the cue before he had sent pictures to me and he was telling me what a unique design it was. He was really excited about the inlay work and was proud to be the one to be able to sell it to a collector. I then received his pictures and I immediately saw what he was talking about. I had never seen any inlay that was close to this design. About a year or so later I'm walking through the Super Billiard Expo and I see a Phillippi with the exact inlay design. I couldn't believe it. I lost all respect for Phillippi's cues at that point. I have seen some very unique Phillippis so I now they have the talent to design cues without stealing someone else’s idea. I think this is what we are talking about here.

That's my $.02 worth...

So George and Gus can be copied because why? Look stealing is stealing, there is no grey area. If someone comes up with a nice inlay and you copy it, you have stolen the design. Thats it, there is no misdameanor vs felony. You either stole it or you didn't. This is the line Jimbo wants to blur and the line I won't let him have. Now I don't have a problem with copying a cue design because I know in the art world its common place for painters to repaint masterpieces for resale. (One of many examples) As far as Gus and George they have their own trademark inlays and designs.

George: Well they aren't Bushka rings for nothing, the staggered diamond - dot pattern, and many backend ring and inlay patterns that only he did. The maple railroad track pattern.

Gus: His 8 point forearm has its own style, the spear, the peacock, the split diamond, the double spear with the little football shaped inlays, the propeller, many ring designs, the ivory railroad track pattern and on and on. The lazy Z or S ring.

If you choose to use these inlays you are stealing a design. You cannot say well, its a little stealing. A thief is a thief, right? Well like I said its not a big deal to me, I am just pointing out examples, there are many, many more.

Joe

 

[classiccues]

Jimbo writes: Joe I've been talking about COPIES, not INPIRED you need to pay attention, what we've been talking about is the picture of the 2 cues Phillippi stole from Ernie, those cues ARE NOT INPIRED they are STOLEN DESIGNS. Please try to follow along with me. Also There are both cues pictured the COPY and then the ORIGINAL, right there for everyone to see, not what you did at all. At least I don't think it's what you did most the links didn't work for me.<<

I use inspired instead of copy because thats all they are. EVEN the Phillipi's.
You have YET to show a DIRECT copy of any cue.

>>What proof did you post (again the links didn't work for me) what gray area?? <<

The grey are you will try to manipulate between exact copy and "oh its almost a copy". The fact is the two Phillippi's lost Ernies rings which are as much of the design as the rest of the cue. Again, the Phillipi's are inspired.

>>You're a moron, you have no idea what you're talking about you claim I'm afraid to go after someone cause they are big names, yet nobody believes what you write.<<

No, you don't believe what I write. then you make excuses that you cannot see the link. Well you know what, everyone else saw them.

>>There's that word again Joe, I'm talking about COPIES, not INSPIRED. Stay on topic, Please post the picture of the original cue to show us all how this cue is a copy, if not please let this cue drop from this debate, if it's not a copy (or VERY CLOSE) get over it.<<

I will make it simple for you.. www.wuscues.com and go to schick and see the Szamboti copy. I don't cut and paste from other websites, unless its a link. Good going, to on the Wayne 6 pointers that I know you saw. There is a guy you didn't go after.

<<Then it's not a copy is it Joe?? Added rings are not changed rings. <<

It doesn't matter.. rings are rings. If you change the rings you change the design. Hence no cue design theft. Get it now. Show me an exact copy, show me cue design theft.

Joe

 

[SplicedPoints]

This whole debate is getting blown out of proportion. If a cuemaker chooses to do a cue with other cuemaker's design, there is almost no way to stop him. Its a common practice in any forms of art. The real judge at the end is the sale price/collectibility/resale price of the cuemaker's cues. A cue that's unique will be more desirable than something that looks like others, considerign they have similar playability. So if a cuemaker decides to do inspired cue designs, I don't think he's doing something that's adding value to his own work. A lot of cues, though, aren't really built with many design elements. I don't consider a cue with the basic 4 points or 6 points and virtually no inlays a blatant ripoff of any importance. Those designs are so simple that I think its only a matter of time that someone will do that design, pretending the one who started it didn't do it. I think its merely who does it first. Many cues that are built for play fall in this category and I wouldn't condemn any cuemaker for making a simple cue that's like an industry standard design. Its the complex designs copies that are more important. Again, I think the final judge will be reflected on the cuemaker's reputation and desirablity.

 

[JimBo]

This whole debate is getting blown out of proportion. If a cuemaker chooses to do a cue with other cuemaker's design, there is almost no way to stop him.

This just isn't true, why would you post this without having any knowledge on the topic. In the past year there was a case where something was done. I don't need to mention specifics, but the fact is you're wrong and to post it as truth without any clue is just wrong.

Its a common practice in any forms of art.

Another line of crap, people get sued every day in the music world for stealing things as short as just a guitar riff, the other rip offs you must be talking about are done by people who pay for the rights to make copies, posters, covers of songs calendars and the such.

The real judge at the end is the sale price/collectibility/resale price of the cuemaker's cues. A cue that's unique will be more desirable than something that looks like others, considerign they have similar playability.

Again I disagree, that's like saying anyone can do a cover of someone else's song and not pay royalties, and if it sucks the public will decide not to buy it LOL what a joke.

So if a cuemaker decides to do inspired cue designs, I don't think he's doing something that's adding value to his own work. A lot of cues, though, aren't really built with many design elements. I don't consider a cue with the basic 4 points or 6 points and virtually no inlays a blatant ripoff of any importance. Those designs are so simple that I think its only a matter of time that someone will do that design, pretending the one who started it didn't do it.

I agree with this to a point, I think some cues have a design to them (southwest being one)

I think its merely who does it first. Many cues that are built for play fall in this category and I wouldn't condemn any cuemaker for making a simple cue that's like an industry standard design. Its the complex designs copies that are more important. Again, I think the final judge will be reflected on the cuemaker's reputation and desirability.

Well what's your opinion of the 2 cues in the first post of this thread???

Jim

 

[Worminator]

you need to go back to your books son if you think these guys started the true custom cue era.

Please enlighten me...

 

[Worminator]

Lets face it the Phillipi's have an overall look of the Gina's but in no way do they have the silver work involved in both original designs.

Joe,

I don't understand why you keep going back to your point that these styles of Ginas have to have silver work involved. I have seen as many examples of these styles of Ginas without silver as I have with silver, in fact, I have owned a couple of these styles of Ginas that did not have a stitch of silver in them.

 

[monski]

Fashion Industry

What's the situation in the fashion industry for example? Before famous designer/s come out with a new line, its the most closely guarded secret. Then the designers show off what they got. Then the reviews come. Within a few months, the best designs are the basis of inspired lines? or knock offs? made by lesser known designers. Of course , cheap imitations also come into the picture using different materials --- but the basic design and colors are there.

Then years/decades pass. You get retro designs come up again as the market seems to always relive the past. But of course the mention of the designers or the ones who made such designs popular (fashion icons by this time) also have a piece of the limelight. After decades, are the designs considered inspirations or copies? Grounds for lawsuits?

Do we have a similar situation here? I'm not into fashion but I see certain parallelisms.

Just asking. All your comments please.