Re: An Original Idea

[Christina Peterson]

I have used a knot for a long time, and just now read it described as "the
orgasmic knot". I'd never heard of this technique, and did not copy it. It
was just an obvious combination to use, to me. That I thought it up all by
myself doesn't make it original. It's just application of education.

If a lampworker uses a technique s/he thought up for a unique effect,
someone else who uses the technique might also be simply applying knowledge.
Seeing an effect they like and emulating it.

Can knowledge and it's application be patented or copyrighted?

To me, "copying" includes intent.

And, by the way, I've never seen anyone who could copy Jinx's eyes. They
are so much more than just the "design".

Tina



"Laurie" > wrote in message
...
> >I'm constantly getting inspiration from things I see in Bead & Button, or
on
> >another vendor's table, or in the department store, or around a friend's
> >neck.
>
> Gaining inspiration is different from setting out to recreate someone
else's
> work... technique.. Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should
be
> done. Following published instructions or using the cover of a magazine
to
> bounce off of is different from seeing what someone else is selling and
making
> it to sell. Selling copies dilutes the potential sales of the orignator.
> We've all been inspired in all forms of art from verbal expression to
beads and
> other art mediums. But, stealing someone else's technique or the elusive
> quality that makes their work unique is theft. Because a product has been
shown
> on the internet doesn't give anyone implicit permission to recreate it.
>
>
>
>
>
> The Use of Foul Language in Written Communication: The Tiny Rumblings of
the
> Ineffectual and Stunted Thinker. The Inability to Think Beyond The
Obivious and
> The Crude. ~~~Henry A. Byrne

[Christina Peterson]

Anyone else as sensitive? I'm not. I don't seem to have a strong urge
toward personal ownership. I even consider children to belong to themselves
and God, rather than to parents.

Tina


"Laurie" > wrote in message
...
> >Laurie, I have to ask, why does this particular issue/person upset you
so?
>
> It's an issue, not a person. And I guess it bothers me so much because I
make
> my living by relying on my creativity. Lampwork and the newspaper column I
> write. (I don't have to live in a pup-tent in a public park, so something
I'm
> doing must be working.) I spend hours trying to be sure that my beads are
> unique to me. I'm fascinated by the methods that other people use and try
> them. But, there's no way on earth that I'd feel right selling those
practice
> beads. So, it bothers me a lot when I see that it's being done. Jinx's
eye
> beads were an example only, because I knew that everyone would recognize
them,
> as uniquely hers. And at the moment, I'm not going to site a more specific
> example, although I could. But, there's really no point. I just wondered
if
> there was anyone else as sensitive to it as I am.
>

[Christina Peterson]

I think your example of the student copying the teacher is a good example of
why people worry about sharing. Worry about "copyright". I think what
people really fear is that someone else is going to take their idea and
surpass them with it. It would be my fear.

As for the girl in your class. There are people who can copy what someones
hands are doing very quickly. Usually these people are NOT able to
integrate that knowledge and build on it.

Tina
(who has never been able to learn by rote)


"Louis Cage" > wrote in message
.. .
> As it has been said before, a bead is a very small thing. Lampwork
> techniques are actually few in number. But just as there are only 12
notes
> in a chromatic scale and 26 letters in the English alphabet, there are
> countless variations. That having been said, based on the length of tine
> beads have been made and used, it is doubtful that many (if any) people
are
> able to come up with something truly 100% original. But you can almost
> always tell a quality piece made from the heart from a knockoff or
learning
> piece. Even if that piece was a nearly exact duplicate of another piece.
>
> In the matter of teaching/sharing techniques, I do some teaching. I have
> been criticized by some lampworkers for sharing techniques that I have
> learned or figured out. To me that is the nature of nurturing the craft.
I
> do not feel I am "giving away the store". I have been to some classes
where
> I knew the teacher was holding back and showing finished products but not
> really telling how to make them. To me that was cheating the students who
> paid good money to take the class. After taking a class, I add the
> techniques I have learned and put them in my bag of tricks and use them
for
> my purposes, which I can almost guarantee will not be the same as the
person
> who showed them to me. Now I was in a class last summer and the
instructor
> showed a signature technique of hers. We all struggled to learn it for
our
> uses, but there was one person who duplicated the technique almost
> immediately. She was able to make the beads faster and nearly as well as
> the instructor. And she was obviously making them in a production manner
> right there in the class to sell later. To me that is the difference in
> assimilating someone's technique and just downright theft of an idea.
> But as Picasso said, "We are all thieves."
> --
> There are no mistakes, only unexplored techniques
>
>
>

[Louis Cage]

"Christina Peterson" > wrote in message
news:1057450383.645251@prawn...
> I think your example of the student copying the teacher is a good example
of
> why people worry about sharing. Worry about "copyright". I think what
> people really fear is that someone else is going to take their idea and
> surpass them with it. It would be my fear.
>
> As for the girl in your class. There are people who can copy what
someones
> hands are doing very quickly. Usually these people are NOT able to
> integrate that knowledge and build on it.
>
> Tina
> (who has never been able to learn by rote)
>

Yes, the person in question is one of the more highly skilled technicians I
have ever seen, but unfortunately she isn't very good at coming up with
designs that aren't direct copies of other peoples' work and ideas.
While the rest of us were struggling to get the techniques down to put in
our bag of tricks, she was shamelessly copying. She even would video tape
the teacher right over her shoulder (to the point of interfering not only
with the rest of the class's ability to see and getting in the teacher's
way) without even asking if she could tape the class. Finally the teacher
had enough and told her to put the camcorder away. And she had so many
pieces she brought to class to try and sell, she had to have a dolly. Very
strange individual.

[SmartAlecBlonde4]

>the only thing that bothered me was that the thieves beat my dog with a
>curtain rod to keep him from bothering them. At the time, Buckie was
>fourteen, blind, rotund and moved at about one mile an hour.
>

Assholes. Poor dog.

[Deirdre S.]

I'm with you. For me, the aim is not to hoard, accumulate and poses,
but to keep the energy flowing in more and more fruitful and creative
directions.

Which means Make It, Love It, Release It, Go On To Whatever's Next.
Trouble is, the dominant culture runs in the opposite direction. Makes
it hard on people who want to be more un-attached.

Deirdre

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:01:24 GMT, "Christina Peterson"
> wrote:

>Anyone else as sensitive? I'm not. I don't seem to have a strong urge
>toward personal ownership. I even consider children to belong to themselves
>and God, rather than to parents.
>
>Tina
>
>
>"Laurie" > wrote in message
...
>> >Laurie, I have to ask, why does this particular issue/person upset you
>so?
>>
>> It's an issue, not a person. And I guess it bothers me so much because I
>make
>> my living by relying on my creativity. Lampwork and the newspaper column I
>> write. (I don't have to live in a pup-tent in a public park, so something
>I'm
>> doing must be working.) I spend hours trying to be sure that my beads are
>> unique to me. I'm fascinated by the methods that other people use and try
>> them. But, there's no way on earth that I'd feel right selling those
>practice
>> beads. So, it bothers me a lot when I see that it's being done. Jinx's
>eye
>> beads were an example only, because I knew that everyone would recognize
>them,
>> as uniquely hers. And at the moment, I'm not going to site a more specific
>> example, although I could. But, there's really no point. I just wondered
>if
>> there was anyone else as sensitive to it as I am.
>>
>

[Dr. Sooz]

I cannot tell you how upsetting that is. What fools, and vermin.

>You know
>the only thing that bothered me was that the thieves beat my dog with a
curtain rod to keep him from bothering them. At the time, Buckie was
>fourteen, blind, rotund and moved at about one mile an hour.


~~
Sooz
-------
ESBC
Dr. Sooz's Bead Links
http://airandearth.netfirms.com/soozlinkslist.html
One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly making
exciting discoveries. ~ A. A. Milne

[Laurie]

>I don't seem to have a strong urge
>>toward personal ownership.

No, no....you've misread it...I'm sensitive to the use of someone else's ideas
for profit. Ownership of the product has nothing to do with it.

>But, there's no way on earth that I'd feel right selling those
>>practice
>>> beads. So, it bothers me a lot when I see that it's being done.

What bothers me ....someone profiting from the ideas of others. That's
all...nothing else. Nothing hidden. I keep my practice beads because it isn't
right to sell them.







The Use of Foul Language in Written Communication: The Tiny Rumblings of the
Ineffectual and Stunted Thinker. The Inability to Think Beyond The Obivious and
The Crude. ~~~Henry A. Byrne

[Tink]

I think what's meant by ownership in this instance (and please correct me if
I'm off base here, poster that Laurie quoted) is that a lack of a strong
urge toward personal ownership pretty much says that you do something, you
put it out in the world and what happens to it happens. That it doesn't
matter so much about someone (anyone) profiting from it.

--
Tinkster
www.imeltstuff.com
Join my Mailing List:


"Laurie" > wrote in message
...
> >I don't seem to have a strong urge
> >>toward personal ownership.
>
> No, no....you've misread it...I'm sensitive to the use of someone else's
ideas
> for profit. Ownership of the product has nothing to do with it.
>
> >But, there's no way on earth that I'd feel right selling those
> >>practice
> >>> beads. So, it bothers me a lot when I see that it's being done.
>
> What bothers me ....someone profiting from the ideas of others. That's
> all...nothing else. Nothing hidden. I keep my practice beads because it
isn't
> right to sell them.
Thinker. The Inability to Think Beyond The Obivious and
> The Crude. ~~~Henry A. Byrne

[Tink]

That's the way I feel, too. Funny thing is that I *do* often get testy when
someone implies, infers or demands that I get militant about one of *my*
ideas or processes being appropriated. I find that kind of attitude
offensive. LOL! I guess it's just a comfort level with one's life and
artistic/creative flow.

--
Tinkster
www.imeltstuff.com
Join my Mailing List:


"Christina Peterson" > wrote in message
news:1057694623.167728@prawn...
> Right Tink. That part of the quote was mine. And the personal ownership
I
> was specifically thinking of, was ownership of an idea, as well. You make
> your beadwork or raise your children and let them loose in the world.
>
> I don't say this is the "right" way to think. Just that if my perspective
> is different from someone else's, I'm not disagreeing with someone else,
as
> much as just seeing a different thing.
>
> Tina
>

[Kalera Stratton]

In article >,
"Tink" > wrote:

> That's the way I feel, too. Funny thing is that I *do* often get testy when
> someone implies, infers or demands that I get militant about one of *my*
> ideas or processes being appropriated. I find that kind of attitude
> offensive. LOL! I guess it's just a comfort level with one's life and
> artistic/creative flow.
>
> --
> Tinkster

It seems like the core of the beadmaking community, the diehard pioneer
beadmakers, do it for the art of it; the pure love of and furtherment of
beads. I'm glad they felt that way, and have always been so willing to
share and teach what they've learned, or we would still know as little
about beadmaking as they did in 1983. Hopefully, with people sharing
their new discoveries about techniques and style, as artists have for
centuries, our students can in 20 years be as grateful to our advances
as we are toward those who made it possible for us to be where we are
now.

See it, do it, improve on it.

Or we could all just go back to poking holes in shells and seeds.
Actually, someone had to have thought of that first, and that person has
the sole artistic rights to that design.

--
-Kalera
Mom of Juliet, 5, Sam, 3, and Ophelia, born 5/31/03
Wife of the incomparable Moxley of www.spaceplex.com
See us at www.strattonhome.org