John,
This is only reasoning someone that utilizes the practice of copying dead people would use, or someone that just makes copies.
I don't care if the man is alive, or dead, if you copy his work, than you are a copier. The fact someone needs to justify it verbally, makes me aware that they know they are a copier.
Really its not an issue, but to say its ok use it he's dead he can't say something, is grossly morbid to say the least. It also tells me that someone ain't got the balls to copy someone when they are alive, they wait till he's worm food and can't get caught, or called on it. (which btw is a totally different character flaw altogether)
JV
So you say. It's reality Joe. The reason I pointed out that I think it's ok to use the exact designs of dead people - for things that are not copyrighted, trademarked, or patented. - is because those things are public domain and free to be copied and should be copied for others to learn from and enjoy. As Thomas Jefferson said 'when you light your candle at the end of my wick we both have light'.
Unfortunately things that are utilitarian as a pool cue is are not protected by copyright and as such the ornamental designs of them are also public domain. So it falls to each person's honor as to whether they copy all or part of another maker's work. Making an exact replica or a significantly close copy of a living cuemaker's work falls under dishonorable practice in my eyes. And the reason I think it's dishonorable is because it causes FRICTION between makers that is not necessary. It causes friction in the community that is not necessary. And on a moral level it's theft to trade on the designs of others who are trying to make a living right beside you.
When a maker is dead and gone and his family is not carrying on the business then there is no moral issue, no friction. And in my eyes as long as the original designer is given credit then his name lives on.
That is honoring a person's contribution not just profiting off of it. Of course any time someone copies anyone else's design with the intent of selling it for a profit then they are making money off of that other person's creativity. That's part of life and is what it is. But not to at least give credit is particularly shitty and plagiarism.
Justis profits off of Nora Van Horn and Jay Flowers basic case design, Murnak profits off of my designs and those of Allen Gilbert as well as the unknown case makers who made cases for Brunswick, Thomas and Engles profit off of the designs by Harvey Martin and Ernie Gutierezz, I profit off off all of them while also raising the bar for the next generation to profit off my work. That is the cycle of life.
In this thread NOT ONE PERSON involved in the creation and sale and subsequent sale of this cue acknowledged Eric's design influence UNTIL Eric stood up and demanded it.
The first five posts are all people congratulating each other on a job well done, beautiful cue, wonderful design, great wood choices, blah blah blah.
When the original poster bought it because he wanted the Sugartree but can't get one so he took a cue BECAUSE it looked like one. The maker admits he made it to copy Sugartree. But none of them had the courtesy to acknowledge that until the originator of the design stood up for himself.
If you go through my website you will find that everywhere I have used any element of other people's designs I have given them credit. That's how it should be IF one is going to use that which was created by someone else. Living or dead.
That's why I don't lose sleep over order a cue with design elements from live or dead cuemakers. I can have a Lambo kit car, on the outside it might fool you, coming off the light, it ain't fooling anyone.