Morning Ryan
Your not wrong. Thank you
Last day on shafts for me, then I can go back to being a hermit for a while.
Inlaying another makers cue upon customers request.
- Thread starter Michael Webb
- Start date
Morning Ryan
Your not wrong. Thank you
Last day on shafts for me, then I can go back to being a hermit for a while.
To add your signature is what preserves the actual history of the cue. So and so built it and so and so added inlays. History preserved. I had Danny Tibbits inlay some silver into a Schon that I had back in the 80's just before I started building cues. It is my cue and I wanted some silver crosses in it and he put it in for me. I feel I set a good example by signing the inlay work. I left the original logo on also. I think you may have had some scrimshaw work done to your cues some time ago. Was it signed by the scrimshawist?
I do not feel the original maker owns a cue he has already sold and what the customer does with it is up to him.
And yes the custom chopper thought is exactly what this thread is about. More customizing of something that is already considered custom or production by someone other than the original maker. Do you not think OCC or the rest of the chopper makers consider themselves artists?
Or go to custom knives or guns and add ivory handles to them. The list can go on and on, but the tone of your first post was very negative and instantly on the attack, and for the life of me I cannot understand why you would want to come out and start such a negative thread.
Cuemakers can try to sit in their artistic towers and think they are so special that it is a crime or insult to say that someone else might actually be able to make their cue look better than it does, but the truth is that often it can and it is the customers right to do with it as they please.
And as president of the ICA I feel a duty to speak out when someone wants to start bashing practices that are common place in the cue building world.
A customer came on here and gave you a good reason why is some cases it is okay to have someone else do the work. Time frame and expense. But my only objection is if you try to make it look like the work was done by the original maker.
Last edited:
The problem is in the wording, as soon as you use the word art you're tresspassing the artist original work..reversible applies to most additions or changes done to a cue .
In the written world we have copyrights, inventors have patents, and painting, sculptures, etc. carry signatures or definite marks by the creator of the original work. Change anything and you destroy the authenticity of the work and its value. Of course, you can be an accomplice and enhace the value by adding to the original work an Ivory joint....this is called forgery in the art world.
Ok, back to the realities of the cue world where art and respect depend on price. Functional art needs upkeep and repairs therefore it becomes an individual decision as to where the boundaries are.
Now we have the last component, the owner of the work, who wants what he wants and doesn't particularly care about original art or is looking to enhance and get a better return on his investment. We cannot maintain a historical trail by going around willing to make any
changes in the original work.
The least we can do is call the original maker and hear his views before acting on the owners wishes. We can also take the other road which says it is not art but only a pretty and fuctional tool, like a nice coffe cup...so drink up and be merry.
I've spent my two cents
Mario
.
The problem is in the wording, as soon as you use the word art you're tresspassing the artist original work..reversible applies to most additions or changes done to a cue .
In the written world we have copyrights, inventors have patents, and painting, sculptures, etc. carry signatures or definite marks by the creator of the original work. Change anything and you destroy the authenticity of the work and its value. Of course, you can be an accomplice and enhace the value by adding to the original work an Ivory joint....this is called forgery in the art world.
Ok, back to the realities of the cue world where art and respect depend on price. Functional art needs upkeep and repairs therefore it becomes an individual decision as to where the boundaries are.
Now we have the last component, the owner of the work, who wants what he wants and doesn't particularly care about original art or is looking to enhance and get a better return on his investment. We cannot maintain a historical trail by going around willing to make any
changes in the original work.
The least we can do is call the original maker and hear his views before acting on the owners wishes. We can also take the other road which says it is not art but only a pretty and fuctional tool, like a nice coffe cup...so drink up and be merry.
I've spent my two cents
Mario
.
Thank you Mario.
Good view.
A little off topic but........
I recently had a woman ask me to build a cue with a certain nascar drivers theme. While I would have loved the sale, I declined because of trademark and legal liabilities. She was mad and could'nt understand why. It was going to be a christmas gift. I told her I could duplicate the colors, but no logos, or names of drivers etc... Still not satisfied, she hung up on me, after telling me she would never reccomend me to anyone.
So...Are other Cuemakers Cues their intellectual property? Photographers are winning legal battles that their photos were modified (photoshop) and sold to advertisers, or used in marketing.
Nice can of worms here, with personal ethics being exposed.
I personally side on modifying my work only, and only maintenance items on others, including production cues.
I recently had a woman ask me to build a cue with a certain nascar drivers theme. While I would have loved the sale, I declined because of trademark and legal liabilities. She was mad and could'nt understand why. It was going to be a christmas gift. I told her I could duplicate the colors, but no logos, or names of drivers etc... Still not satisfied, she hung up on me, after telling me she would never reccomend me to anyone.
So...Are other Cuemakers Cues their intellectual property? Photographers are winning legal battles that their photos were modified (photoshop) and sold to advertisers, or used in marketing.
Nice can of worms here, with personal ethics being exposed.
I personally side on modifying my work only, and only maintenance items on others, including production cues.
The original post was about inlays. Inlays are not reversible. I feel defining cues as art as opposed to custom autos/bikes is closer to draw a comparison.
I think that adding inlays IS trespassing. That being said, I have changed more collars, buttcaps, pin/insert combos than I can count due to playability and/or color preference. This is why I think I'm a hypocrite. I think one is ok but not the other. I guess it falls to where each individual draws the line.
Thank you Steve
You didn't lose anything with the woman who hung up. I respect that you stuck to your guns.
Photographers that put a logo on their photos and or portraits have this Country pretty much by the shorts, even getting one copied is a nightmare and legal issue you can't win.
Thanks Mike! I always do the right thing! Sometimes its not as fast as some would like but it does get done! I know you are the same way also! One thing I will say. In this line of work we live and die off of our word! Amazing how some people just dont get that. I know that you there is still a lot of us that does! Arrrrrrgh cutting shafts today also!!!
On and on and on and on
On and on and on and on and on and on!!!
http://i1026.photobucket.com/albums/y322/jd12370/beating-a-dead-horse.gif
On and on and on and on and on and on!!!
http://i1026.photobucket.com/albums/y322/jd12370/beating-a-dead-horse.gif
Crazy Thread!!
Once the cue is sold who cares! Cue are the property of the owner and they have the right to do as they wish.
A cue maker putting his name on someone else's cue is stupid and moronic.
Rick G
Once the cue is sold who cares! Cue are the property of the owner and they have the right to do as they wish.
A cue maker putting his name on someone else's cue is stupid and moronic.
Rick G
This is where we disagree. To me, my cues are like exgirlfriends. I want them gone but still have an emotional attachment and do not want to see them in the hands of another maker just to "modify" them. If you want it done, send it back to me.
Last edited:
Taking it as that Ryan, then I wish someone else had inlaid my ex wife instead of me.
We can't change everyone's thinking, but if they at least think about it, It's a start.
The problem is in the wording, as soon as you use the word art you're tresspassing the artist original work..reversible applies to most additions or changes done to a cue .
In the written world we have copyrights, inventors have patents, and painting, sculptures, etc. carry signatures or definite marks by the creator of the original work. Change anything and you destroy the authenticity of the work and its value. Of course, you can be an accomplice and enhace the value by adding to the original work an Ivory joint....this is called forgery in the art world.
Ok, back to the realities of the cue world where art and respect depend on price. Functional art needs upkeep and repairs therefore it becomes an individual decision as to where the boundaries are.
Now we have the last component, the owner of the work, who wants what he wants and doesn't particularly care about original art or is looking to enhance and get a better return on his investment. We cannot maintain a historical trail by going around willing to make any
changes in the original work.
The least we can do is call the original maker and hear his views before acting on the owners wishes. We can also take the other road which says it is not art but only a pretty and fuctional tool, like a nice coffe cup...so drink up and be merry.
I've spent my two cents
Mario
.
Actually the only "issue" Mike is talking about here is the morality of altering another person's work, and specifically the decorative side of the work. Although I think that Mike also would not want the construction of the cue significantly altered either when it still bears his name.
Copyright applies upon creation of a work but does not apply to a pool cue because a pool cue is considered a utilitarian item and utilitarian items are not copyrightable. The only possible protection of the "look" of a pool cue is to be granted a design patent.
Trademarking applies to the brand on the cue. It is not legal for anyone to sign another cuemaker's name nor reproduce a "live" brand in any way on a pool cue. Trademarks are in force as soon as they are created and used in commerce. They are designated as TM to indicate that the user is claiming that mark as their trademark. Circled R means that the trademark is registered which offers more protection.
So it's perfectly LEGAL for any cuemaker to alter any other cue maker's work in any way they see fit to do outside of duplicating trademarks.
Is it ethical? That's the question under debate here isn't it.
Most collectors will maintain that no form of work on the original piece will enhance the value. The highest value piece is the one in mint, unused condition and the value goes down from there.
Of course the customer has the right to alter anything he owns in any way he chooses to. What Mike seeks to limit is the amount of cue makers willing to accept the work.
I don't see it as black and white but I certainly lean much more towards Mike's view.
Mike I don't know how I missed this thread but I have some how for a couple of days now.
Mike I agree completely with your thoughts on this subject, I know I would not consider doing something like this for any reason, and it would piss me off also if I saw a cue that I built some one had added to or changed from it's original design.
I feel like those who are doing this are also the same type of people who would build reproductions of the old masters cues and allow them to be sold as Originals and not reproductions. You know what I mean, Balabushka built a little over 1000 cues but there are more than 2000 floating around today. This statement is a little harsh and I do realize it, I also know it doesn't apply to all who may be doing this, but in my opinion some one who would destroy the design of another's cue is equal in my mind to some one who would make a fake.
Great thread Michael