Kit cars and copies of famous cars have been built for the last 50 years or more. My neighbor has a copy of a classic Cobra he drives.
http://www.shellvalley.com/index.cfm?ptype=results&category_id=152&mode=cat&cat152.htm
Last edited:
"Tribute" cues? Seriously?
- Thread starter Monstermash
- Start date
http://www.shellvalley.com/index.cfm?ptype=results&category_id=152&mode=cat&cat152.htm
Agree completely Tim. You've expanded on the point I was making, that continuing and improving on existing design is fine, as long as the current cuemaker is taking credit. Hope it didn't seem like I was believing the opposite. My examples were thought for those who think nobody should make cues resembling any other, regardless of circumstance.
H
This is true. And right now Lamborghini is actually suing some of them. And the response from one was... to fold the the bigger company with better lawyers and to destroy any and all molds that had been made to replicate the Lamborghini designs.
It seems there IS a legal precedent here that could hold water in court. The problem is... cuemakers don't have the same kind of revenue (not even CLOSE) to a company like Lamborghini. Nor can they afford the legal team to fight their good fight. Cuemakers often can't afford to patent a design, copyright it, then sue those who infringe on those designs. And that knowledge allows others to go right ahead and have someone else do the artistic work for them to be 'inspired' by.
Just because someone doesn't sue you doesn't mean you didn't do something wrong.
Last edited:
Not the best example imo because there is a lot more involved internally on a car vs the outside cosmetics of a pool cue even though I get your analogy. I think it's interesting just regular members (non cuemakers on here) get so bent out of shape on a topic like this as if it really affects them in their day to day life (not singling you out just saying in general).
If the original cuemaker is losing money on this I can see a bit of his gripe, but most likely he wouldn't be getting the money anyway since the people can't afford the $5k cue vs the $500 cue. I know, it's all about the principle here...curious on actual cuemakers viewpoint on this.
But that IS the point. I can't afford the $300k Ferrari. So I accept that and move on. We all have limitations in some way. And MOST of us have financial limitations. Sure they vary from person to person. But the bottom line is, there will be things in life you simply CAN'T afford. And when that happens, you either work like a mother-f***er to change that OR... you accept that its not in the cards.
But since you don't like the analogy, let's say you fell in love with an Alex Israel artwork. Loved it A LOT!!! And you loved art!!! But you didn't have the $500k to pay for it. Would it be ok to have a really talented unknown artist recreate it for $5k?
I might as well clarify I am actually in the camp that buys direct from the cuemakers of their own cues vs the other side of buying the "tributes" or similar ones. I haven't bought a tribute or lookalike yet. I guess my biggest question is why someone gets so bent out of shape on the topic? I can see the cuemaker getting upset but just random people on here?
If a cuemaker really was concerned or even cared at all about this I would assume they could patent their design correct?
I wouldn't say I'm bent out of shape over it. It doesn't truly affect me one way or another. But it DOES have its affect on the market, on the future of cues, etc.. Why should a TAD sell for $4 or $5k when JD can do it for $500???
The more people think like that, the more people buy from JD. And the more that happens, the more likely you are to see guys who actually WERE pushing the envelope and trying new stuff saying "Fukk it. Why bother? There's no point in this anymore." Then the we lose the innovators. The pioneers.
Then you're left with a slew of cuemakers doing exactly what Bavafongoul wants... "Make cheap Balabushka clones!" Before long, every cue looks exactly the same. And that isn't necessarily a good thing.
Please don't take this the wrong way but if you can't tell the difference in play-ability between a $200 and a cue that made by the ORIGINAL maker that costs several thousands of dollars I don't think you're quite qualified to comment on this topic.
I would suggest you take the time to visit a REAL cuemaker's shop and see all the things that really go into making a quality cue. There are usually hundreds of hours into making some of the more complicated designs.
Typically the originals that are copied use exotic materials such as ivory, real exotic hardwoods (as opposed to cheap dyed woods), MOP, etc. There's also the selection of the woods/materials being used by the original maker. Additionally, the construction methods are considerably worse than how the originals are made. Not to mention the time and energy it takes to make a cue the CORRECT way. By that I mean proper ageing of the materials and taking the time to turn the shafts a little at a time.
I have seen a bunch of these cheap copies and they are complete junk. I have worked on a few (refinishes) and let me assure anyone who thinks they are getting a bargain by purchasing one is going to be in for a huge disappointment after they've owned it for a little while and it warps and/or starts falling apart. Yeah, they look nice initially but that's as far as it goes.
Something mentioned that I was upset by these copies. While it pisses me off, I'm not upset by any one copy specifically. In other words I don't have my panties in a bunch because I have an original and some hack from Asia ripped it off. Honestly I'm pissed for the makers that came up with, and executed the original designs just to have them stolen by someone.
Cue designs can be and are patented. No more than 2500$ or so if you use an attorney. Much less if you don't. Enforcement is where the costs jump up considerably, and overseas there is almost no recourse at all. But domestically, if you violate a patent or copyright, you can be slam dunked for blatant violations fairly easily, so, personally I would take the extra time and expense of protecting my work. Sometimes just seeing a notice that the design is protected is enough to deter thieves.
I think when you take into account the multiple different views it breaks down sort of like this.
Serious cue collector/serious cue fan ~ the purest if you will. Thinks that art shouldn't be copied for any reason what so ever. It's an integrity type of thing.
~I respect this, but it's not practical, as there is only so much you can do to very a design. (typical 4 point veneered boringness, can only be reconfigured so many times...) I by no means think the knock offs hurt values of genuine, I just see it as wrong to copy a design blatantly.
The I just don't really care crowd ~ They get the arguement, they just don't care. What's the big deal anyway? So one cue maker misses out on a $2-5k deal. big whoop.
~ I also understand their point of view, and if I didn't work so closely with Keith, I would probably share this view. Once you actually see what goes into building a cue, you get a new appreciation for what the people do. When you see someone pour there soul into their work only to have someone rip off thier idea, it doesn't sit well with you.
The tribute builders ~ there are several in this camp. There are people like Jerry R. paying homage to the old 360 brunswick, and then there are guys like JD, or the guy that claims his name is the same as Edwin Reyes, seemingly making dough on someone elses hard work, and good name.
~I respect one, but not the other. Someday, I hope to tribute Keith's work with my own hands. I would NEVER blatantly copy his work though. I would try something, but with my own twist.
Serious cue collector/serious cue fan ~ the purest if you will. Thinks that art shouldn't be copied for any reason what so ever. It's an integrity type of thing.
~I respect this, but it's not practical, as there is only so much you can do to very a design. (typical 4 point veneered boringness, can only be reconfigured so many times...) I by no means think the knock offs hurt values of genuine, I just see it as wrong to copy a design blatantly.
The I just don't really care crowd ~ They get the arguement, they just don't care. What's the big deal anyway? So one cue maker misses out on a $2-5k deal. big whoop.
~ I also understand their point of view, and if I didn't work so closely with Keith, I would probably share this view. Once you actually see what goes into building a cue, you get a new appreciation for what the people do. When you see someone pour there soul into their work only to have someone rip off thier idea, it doesn't sit well with you.
The tribute builders ~ there are several in this camp. There are people like Jerry R. paying homage to the old 360 brunswick, and then there are guys like JD, or the guy that claims his name is the same as Edwin Reyes, seemingly making dough on someone elses hard work, and good name.
~I respect one, but not the other. Someday, I hope to tribute Keith's work with my own hands. I would NEVER blatantly copy his work though. I would try something, but with my own twist.
It does seem write to me. If you want something, work hard and get it. It bugs the crap out me that someone would comprimise their dream, based soley on monitary value. I do not make a lot of money, but if I want something I find a way to make it happen. That's just my way of doing things i guess.
When I first met Tom Coker, mid-90's, I wasn't really familiar with Southwest
Cues as I was Collecting mainly Paradise and Palmer Cues at the time with a
sprinkling of Rambow and Harvey Martin for good measure.
Tom wanted to "educate" me on Custom Cues and proceeded to tell me how
he had gone to Jerry Franklin's Shop, picked his brain, bought one of Jerry's
6 pt. Cues, and returned to his own shop where he proceeded to slice it
lengthwise on the bandsaw to reveal how it was constructed. He further said
that his own cues are constructed exacty the same way and there was no
need to spend three times as much for a Southwest. I've never seen the sliced
Southwest, but Tom claims "It's here somewhere". If you've been to his Shop,
you know why he can't find it.
Point is : Makers like TC have been "faking" SW since day one but, although
there are thousands of look-a-like SW's out there, the Real Ones continue to
fetch ever-increasing prices. There's no substitute for The Real Deal.
Ok... show me a Gina SW copy, or a Black Boar SW copy, or a Szamboti SW copy, or a Showman SW copy, or a Haley SW copy...
Quick question to all of you cue experts out there.
If I want a traditional 4 pointed, Hoppe ring style cue, who am I allowed to have make that one? I've seen just about every maker construct one of those. So, what would I do not to be a part of this "copied" world?
If I want a traditional 4 pointed, Hoppe ring style cue, who am I allowed to have make that one? I've seen just about every maker construct one of those. So, what would I do not to be a part of this "copied" world?
You're not serious, are you? Why would they need to copy SW? Sorry, but it would be more accurate to say that most cue makers, at one time or another copied Brunswick/Rambow, including southwest, and still do to this day.
You are completely missing the point here.
This thread isn't about standard designs. It's about custom designs that have been/are being ripped off.
Obviously, a 4 point design with veneers and a Hoppe ring is something that's done by almost every cuemaker on earth. As are a lot of standard 6 point designs. When people start bringing up Southwest, I just laugh because they are basically just a production line cues now. There hasn't been a new unique design that has come out of that shop in how many years?
I've read some of the posts and called a buddy who's a corporate lawyer. I ran the copyright issue by him and learned copyright protection in our country extends back to the time of our nation's founding fathers and has been a long established legal principle & copyright protection back in 1790 was only 14 years. However, the ability to circumvent copyright laws by modifying something....changing the design in some way.....creates enormous loopholes. For example, someone might want to try copyrighting a specific cue design but they can't claim any and all variations thereupon would amount to copyright infringements......so changing the veneer colors is a loophole,,,,,,or the rings,,,,,,of the number and style of inlays......or the materials used.
According to my buddy, it's pretty easy to dodge the copyright law because it was never intended to be an all inclusive type of protection. And counterfeit never enters into the conversation until someone misleads and deceives a prospective buyer into thinking the article for sale is something that it genuinely is not, i.e., fake. So I guess tweaking the cue design is the way to go to appease everyone if you are going to have a Tribute, Copy, or Reproduction pool cue made and that's what I do with my cues anyway.
Matt B.
According to my buddy, it's pretty easy to dodge the copyright law because it was never intended to be an all inclusive type of protection. And counterfeit never enters into the conversation until someone misleads and deceives a prospective buyer into thinking the article for sale is something that it genuinely is not, i.e., fake. So I guess tweaking the cue design is the way to go to appease everyone if you are going to have a Tribute, Copy, or Reproduction pool cue made and that's what I do with my cues anyway.
Matt B.