Lampwork Etc.

Lampwork Etc. (http://www.lampworketc.com/forums/index.php)
-   Tutorials (http://www.lampworketc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Warning - Don't even think about it! (http://www.lampworketc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=299489)

sislonski 2017-05-29 11:39am

Warning - Don't even think about it!
 
Yes I'm referring to you, you know who you are.
I seen your latest bead. Go ahead make the bead and sell it, not a problem, I could care less. But a friendly warning, don't even think about creating a tutorial on it.
Don't even think about it. My tutorials state in whole or in part regarding copyright.
I've already contacted a lawyer, so if I see even the slightest hint of a tutorial copying even part of my design you'll be hearing from him.
Enough is enough.

maggiedrew 2017-06-01 2:36pm

The Supreme Court ruling yesterday changed the face of intellectual property rights.

Anyway, can't you treat a person like they are a human being - in private messages?

Sue in Maine 2017-06-01 4:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by maggiedrew (Post 4934847)
The Supreme Court ruling yesterday changed the face of intellectual property rights.

Anyway, can't you treat a person like they are a human being - in private messages?

You have 14 posts to your credit. She has over 6000.... she KNOWS what she's talking about. If this doesn't pertain to you, don't worry about it.

Sue

pittypat 2017-06-01 7:35pm

go Sue!!

sislonski 2017-06-02 12:13am

Why should a person who steals from others in their community showing no DECENCY or RESPECT for the fact that the same artists they steal from are also trying to make a living, and are also human beings I might add , be treated with decency when they show none for others?

We're all in this together! If it were once, a private message questioning what they were doing would be sent and was. Second time! Hum . . . . .third time? You're losing respect, fourth time! You're rubbing it in our faces and asking us to bring it on. You didn't even have the decency to remove the tutorial you so batently and poorly copied! You ran and hid and kept selling it. Sorry, all rights to be treated with decency and like a human being just went out the window.

No matter how much you try and justify to yourself it's okay, or feel sorry for yourself or get boosted up by your groupies that you're right everyone else is wrong, it will never take away from the truth which you know inside, that what you're doing is morally wrong. Even if you're not the first to do it, it doesn't make it right! It doesn't make it okay.

You can run hide from me or others but you can't run from youself.
When majority of lampworkers know right away who I'm referring to, does that not tell you something! When majority question and agree that the morality ( who gives a f*ck about the Supreme Court ruling) of what you are doing is wrong does that not say something to you inside as a person? If not then you have serious issues and need help.

AVTrout 2017-06-02 8:16am

Who're we talking about here? Someone send me a message.

Three Muses Glass 2017-06-02 9:01am

Shari, fix your Etsy link please. :)
and ps- good for you for standing up!

beadbroad 2017-06-02 9:11am

Quote:

Originally Posted by maggiedrew (Post 4934847)
The Supreme Court ruling yesterday changed the face of intellectual property rights.

Anyway, can't you treat a person like they are a human being - in private messages?

Did you just out yourself? Because I had no idea who she was talking about. What Shari posted WAS a private message.

sislonski 2017-06-02 1:30pm

Done, thanks!

Ravenesque 2017-06-23 11:30pm

=D>=D>=D>
I want to like this 10,000 times. If it's not who I'm thinking of, then anyone else that does this needs to see and think about it!

I too was copied over and over by someone, unfriended me on fb like I wouldn't know what she was selling and 'blocked' her fb *just* enough. Currently selling something 'new' for HER, not to me though :(
(At ridiculously low prices I may add)

All the tuts stolen from other artists, all the designs, shame on you! I wish the buyers knew what a shrew you are.

LesleyMac 2017-06-26 2:46am

I often make beads of other people's designs, I do this to learn and understand their method, I never sell them, I keep them for myself.
I remember once seeing a bead very similar to one I had designed and I had this awful gut wrenching feeling that I cannot describe. Someone had taken something that was mine, from my head and my creation and they were claiming it as their own. The feeling I had was quite shocking. I did not realise I would feel so upset.

So anyone thinking of stealing other people's designs, when it happens to you, if you ever come up with anything original, then you will understand how awful it makes you feel inside.

Truth is you will never come up with anything original if you copy other people and therefore you are wasting your time.

It is totally shameful to steal original ideas. I get why you do it, its because you have no original ideas of your own, but it is still shameful and you know it.

Sorry if this seems a bit strong, but it made me feel so awful so I sympathise totally.

Ravenesque 2017-06-27 10:51pm

So I've gotten a few pm's, seems we're all on the same page on who this is, sad there's nothing that can really be done. If that many people know from the vague posts, then there's something horribly wrong with you to do it this often and for so long :twisted:

tela 2017-06-28 6:50am

I don't need to PM ya.... I know who it is.
I hope she sees this, although I am sure she gives not a damn.
Yes, she has been doing this a long time... thats why I stopped posting my beads.

SharonP 2017-06-28 10:25am

Could you please send me a PM? I need to know who this is. Thanks!

Listenup 2017-06-28 2:26pm

Please PM me too. Just call me Clueless in SA.

echeveria 2017-06-28 4:51pm

I mean, I know AT LEAST three people that come immediately to mind.

Nitadee 2017-06-28 7:31pm

Someone please PM me? I'd like to be forewarned too!

Tillie 2017-06-28 8:20pm

I'd līke to know, too.

pswrd 2017-06-30 2:54am

I hope this is a helpful post and not seen as a newbie stepping into other people's business.

As a general approach and not just specific to lampworking tutorials let alone the specific events in this thread, it is always good to state in print in every piece what the user is and is not allowed to do with the tutorial. I am not just referring to the copyright of the written words/pictures themselves, but the designs and methods conveyed to the user. It tends to get very muddy in terms of pinning down what is special that need to be protected, but just thinking through that in itself would help set some boundaries which ought to be written down and acknowledged as a condition of sale/use. Someone not having bought or read a tutorial but has enough skills to reverse engineer a design is arguably just as questionable a practice. Distinction between advanced methods and basic methods for a novice and a skillful maker? Design versus technique versus steps? This is a huge minefield for all creative disciplines especially those involving technical skills.

Effectively, it is about a limited licence, something routinely done in say distribution of music (some restrict commercial use, or putting into youtube videos as background while others not for example).

Even free tutorials that are posted publicly can have restricted use. Just because I had not paid for it, it does not automatically give me the right to make and sell the product. I have bought a few of tutorials and all are totally silent on what is permissible use. I am hung up on plagiarism and safeguarding IP, but it gets grey very quickly and for those who are not even going to spare a moment to ponder the rights and wrongs and the in-betweens, silence could easily mean "use as you desire" which may not be the intention at all.

It is not good to rely on ethics which can be very different between individuals, cultures (not just trans-national or trans-ethnic) and upbringing. These differences are more often not driven by greed or malice. So, it is best to be very explicit about boundaries which are something an author can and should stipulate. Left unspoken, there can only be disappointments for both sides. Ultimately, reputation is at risk and only lawyers stand to gain from any dispute if pursued.

This might be a useful resource for ideas: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wik...nse%20Versions

I would not want to rely on just copyright protection either. On the positive end, it lasts beyond your lifetime and it is likely to continually lengthen, but publishing a new tutorial using different words and pictures and so on while covering the same method and design is likely not copyright protected. Otherwise, many cookbooks would have been in deep trouble. Design rights (if you have it registered) may address that. It is just a minefield and endless source of grievances for all.

Elizabeth Beads 2017-06-30 11:32am

I may be suspecting the wrong person, but is it possible that this person came up with similar techniques or styles on her own and published tutorials? Or is it a fact that she purchased the tutorials, made small changes and published new tutorials as her own?

echeveria 2017-06-30 12:39pm

If it is the person I suspect, there sure has been an awful lot of parallel discovery soon after someone else writes a tutorial.

Tillie 2017-06-30 6:10pm

would somebody puleeeeze pm me and let me know who we are talking about?

Nitadee 2017-06-30 6:49pm

Again, PLEASE pm me also?
I buy LOTS of tutorials, and would not wish to purchase one that has been copied!
Thanks!

sislonski 2017-06-30 9:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by pswrd (Post 4940061)
it is always good to state in print in every piece what the user is and is not allowed to do with the tutorial. I am not just referring to the copyright of the written words/pictures themselves, but the designs and methods conveyed to the user. It tends to get very muddy in terms of pinning down what is special that need to be protected, but just thinking through that in itself would help set some boundaries which ought to be written down and acknowledged as a condition of sale/use.

I think stating that the tutorial can be used to create beads and those beads can be sold, as well, that the tutorial should not be copied in whole or part is enough said. One should not have to go into detail to explain to others the morality of right and wrong. Are there people out there who don't give a flying:shtf:? Obviously but then they can live with the flying :shtf: that comes their way.

I know a lampwork artist who makes some beads similar to mine or mine similar to hers. We discussed it and laughed about it and not sure of who copied who? So . . . I would never make a tutorial using that design because, for the life of me I don't know if I was inspired by her beads or her by mine. Neither of us knows. So to be morally sound in my own heart, I would never create a tutorial using that design. Simply because I don't know. However I don't feel it's wrong to make similar beads and sell them. But I would try and stay away from making beads looking too similar to hers.

And then, lets take for example hypothetically Kerri Fuhrs dragon fly tutorial. I don't think she cares whether I made a bead that looked like or was similar to her dragon fly bead and sold it, especially if I bought her tutorial, that's why she created the tutorial! I don't think she would care if I used the techniques in her tutorial and created/designed say.......a turtle bead using those techniques.

But I don't need her to state in detailed description in her tutorial at any point that she would prefer that I don't use the specific techniques to create a turtle tutorial for example then turn around and sell it. I don't need her to state that she prefer I don't copy the look/design or her dragon fly (even if I use my own technique) but copy her look/design, then turn around and create a tutorial and sell it. I don't need her to specify she prefer I don't teach her techniques in a workshop to other artists. I DON'T NEED HER TO STATE THAT! and WHY? because I KNOW it's wrong. I KNOW it wouldn't be fair to her, because I have MORALS! I don't need to read a FU*KING copyright law! I don't need her to be specific!

So, lets say I am completely new to lampworking, I happen upon a technique from playing with beads. I've never seen another bead like it. Maybe there are some out there but I've never seen one because I'm completely new to lampworking. I've never even bought a tutorial or seen a video on it. I get a lot of people asking me how I did it. So I write a tutorial. If someone said to me, that bead or technique looks like so and so's bead and she's been making those beads for eon's. I would pull the tutorial immediately.

Personally I wouldn't want anyone to think I copied another artist. Regardless of whether that artist never ever wrote a tutorial on her/his technique or ever taught a class.

But if no one ever told me that I'm copying and I'm new to lampworking how would I know.

But if I've been around forever, I've bought tutorials I've seen many designs of beads or maybe even haven't bought a tutorial but have a good idea how they created that technique. I don't need anyone to tell me that I shouldn't use that technique and part of that tutorial to create a new tutorial. I just don't.

Another example: Sherry Bellemy's beads. Can't remember the name of it, but the one with the little floral implosion on the side. If I bought the tutorial, (which I have) and learned how she made the little flower implosion on the side and incorporated it into her bead design. I would not take that one "part" of her whole beads design and use that technique in my own design and then write a tutorial on it. That would be wrong. Could I make the bead with my own design with her technique and sell it? Definitely! That's the idea of her writing the tutorial! To take the techniques she's come up with and how she's created it into her bead design and use it in your OWN bead design! But DON'T write a tutorial on it because you're sharing her technique! Part of her tutorial! It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. I don't need her to be specific and go into detail and state that on her tutorial. COME ON! I'm not STUPID!

But obviously some people are, some people don't care, some people have no morals, some people are greedy!

How many friggen petal bead tutorials have you seen out there? Just because you change the color, change the shape, maybe add a flower on the outside or whatever doesn't make it not copying. You're copying part of a tutorial that someone else already wrote a tutorial on or taught in a workshop. You're copying for FU*K sake! Why do people think it's okay?

Don't get fu*king anal on me and start talking about basic techniques like making a bead round or adding a basic dot! Give me a friggen break! I could go on and on, blah blah blah!

People know what is considered copying a technique and if you don't or are not sure then bloody well ask!

You can take your creative commons and blah blah blah garbage and shove it as far as I'm concerned. There is a lot to be said for morals. Morals! anyone ever heard of that!

Does anyone own the implosion technique? Can anyone say they own putting a stripe or dot on a bead? Can anyone say they own using a bead press? Can anyone say they own the copyright to layering or encasing? Can anyone say they own the copyright technique of putting a hole in a bead, or cutting into a bead or poking a bead? NO! It's all about the process an artist takes using those basic tools and how an artist creates and incorporates them into a bead that makes it their own new/unique technique or design. How is that hard to comprehend?

sislonski 2017-06-30 9:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by echeveria (Post 4940149)
If it is the person I suspect, there sure has been an awful lot of parallel discovery soon after someone else writes a tutorial.

Exactly!

sislonski 2017-06-30 9:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by echeveria (Post 4939860)
I mean, I know AT LEAST three people that come immediately to mind.

Don't even get me started.

tela 2017-07-01 5:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sislonski (Post 4940262)
Don't even get me started.


:love:

Ravenesque 2017-07-03 11:39pm

Right again Sislonski

She knows what she's doing, that's why she says 'MY ___" whatever style it is at the time.

I'm sorry to the artists she has used to make her tutorials and beads. Maybe this will give her a push to come up with her own ideas.

Go to your local parkes and look for a dragonfly, they're cool 8)

beadgal 2017-07-04 8:25am

LOL

glass butterfly 2017-07-04 9:58am

Could someone please pm me and let me know who this person is so I don't purchase her tutorials. Thank you. Stealing someone's work is awful.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:42pm.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.