Plagiarism
Kirk
This is from an article in the American Woodturner and it really got me to
thinking. With all of the shapes that have already been turned how many
are left? Will I ever be able to turn something that has not already been
done? Before reading this article I had made the assumption that
everything that I turned was original and mine. Now that my eyes are open
it is obvious that I am guilty of intellectual theft. Somewhere,
sometime, someone has certainly turned a piece identical to anything that
I would randomly generate.
Time to change my name and head to the hills. What is the difference
between a felony and a misdemeanor?
Rambling, worked all night and brain not working any more.
Kirk
Jim Pugh
unless you are copying work from a well known turner and then selling it
without giving him/her some sort of credit. Most of us will never have to
worry about it.
"Kirk" <mi...@mine.net> wrote in message
news:Xns960C4E7D3E...@68.1.17.6...
Will
you don't need to worry...
You don't need to worry unless you are _copying_ work... If you come up
with the idea independently -- that is good enough.
If something is an _exact copy_ of a "work of art" that is another matter...
At least that is the gist of Intellectual Property (IP) law.
Pull out the tools and hit the lathe. :-)
David Wade
the Greeks and Romans had been stealing his designs for thousands of
years. Ain't no big deal. It isn't plagiarism. It's "Paying Homage To".
David
Darrell Feltmate
hollow forms and vases, spindles of various sorts. All the shapes possible
are beads, coves and straights. All other curves and cuts are just
variations on the theme. Surfaces get decorated by various means but they
all reduce to color by paint or burning or whatever with some carving on
some pieces, maybe a twist or a hole here and there. Plus we turners tend to
be a sharing lot. "How do you do that?" tends to be anwered with a half hour
answer, not a couple of minute brush off. Sure we copy but not without a lot
of practice or skill. Just because one person carves feathers on a piece
does not mean that no one else is allowed to do so for the rest of this
world's existence. However, signing Jaques Vessery to it by anyone other
than Jacques Vessery is a definite no-no. Give credit where credit is due
but do not hesitate to turn or decorate a form just because someone else has
done so.
--
God bless and safe turning
Darrell Feltmate
Truro, NS Canada
www.aroundthewoods.com
Kip
Kip
the effect that mankind has been making vases for several thousand
years and that it is unlikely that one would be able to come up with a
completely new design. The point, IMHO, is to avoid essentially carbon
copying pieces
Kip Powers
Rogers AR
George
"Kip" <kip...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109706601....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Bowls_ or similar. I started thumbing through it, and there was the
spitting image of one of my weird cherry 4-legged bowls. Only difference
was the finial, really. Fortunately, the piece was made about the same time
as mine, or so it would seem.
Daughter was with me, and when I told her to look, she recognized it
immediately. "It's just as ugly as the one _you_ made."
Then while I was protesting, she slipped her books on my stack. Forty bucks
became sixty....
Owen Lowe
"Darrell Feltmate" <darrell...@tru.eastlink.ca> wrote:
> Just because one person carves feathers on a piece
> does not mean that no one else is allowed to do so for the rest of this
> world's existence. However, signing Jaques Vessery to it by anyone other
> than Jacques Vessery is a definite no-no. Give credit where credit is due
> but do not hesitate to turn or decorate a form just because someone else has
> done so.
I read the article and have paused several times since to consider the
matter. Do you think Jaques Vessery would be able to copyright his
feathered vessel design? Not the shape but the surface treatment itself?
Similarly would Lyle Jamieson's torso figures be copyrightable? How
about Art Liestman's puzzle motif? They certainly appear unique and
easily attributable to their respective creators.
I think there is much more to be considered when emulating another's
work beyond condemning an attempt to sign their name and pass it off as
original. Creators like Vessery, Jamieson, Liestman, Burchard, Pho, etc.
have distinct styles of either shape, color, carving or some
combination. To mimic their work in any way other than as a learning
exercise for one's own development and limited display should, in my
view, be discouraged and may be unethical.
Consider also the scenerio in which the originator of a style is bested
by his apprentice. Rude Olsonik came up with the candlestick design that
is instantly recognizeable by many familiar with wood turning. (Refer to
the pic on p.57, Am WT, Spring '05, but pretend the Olsonik is on the
left and the copy is on the right.) If he had been mediocre at best in
his tool technique or sense of proportion though a student picked up the
design and then went on to perfect it, should the plagarist get the
deserved recognition of fine craftsmanship/artisanship or should it
remain with the creator of the basic design?
Think back to the work of folks like Vessery or Jamieson. To arrive at a
largely unique design or treatment takes a lot of creative thought and
effort. I'm sure they have both spent much time mulling possibilities
after the initial inspiration as well as developing methods and
techniques to execute their ideas. There are likely quite a few reject
pieces of work that weren't up to representing the idea as successfully
as the artist would have liked. That takes time and materials. They have
dreamed an idea and gone through many steps to bring it to reality. The
person who then takes that work and copies the design and technique
without having to work through the process is not only short changing
his own development but has the potential to harm the artist's creative
outlook.
Should a creative spark occur when viewing a Vessery feathered vessel,
then by all means accept and be appreciative of the inspiration Vessery
provided to you. Then go on to produce work that attempts to bring your
inspired idea to light. On the other hand, producing feathered vessels
because Jaques Vessery showed you his idea and how he creates them
hinders your potential.
--
"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long
Will
Very thoughtful. I disagree on a lot of points but respect your thoughts.
see below...
Owen Lowe wrote:
> In article <dz1Vd.23440$TB.20815@edtnps84>,
> "Darrell Feltmate" <darrell...@tru.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Just because one person carves feathers on a piece
>>does not mean that no one else is allowed to do so for the rest of this
>>world's existence. However, signing Jaques Vessery to it by anyone other
>>than Jacques Vessery is a definite no-no. Give credit where credit is due
>>but do not hesitate to turn or decorate a form just because someone else has
>>done so.
>
>
> I read the article and have paused several times since to consider the
> matter. Do you think Jaques Vessery would be able to copyright his
> feathered vessel design?
Under the new Intellectual Property laws (IP laws) you do not need to
register a copyright. The creation of a new physical work - painting,
story or other item like a carving or work of artistic impression (or
even a computer program) "gives" you the copyright, and the "moral
rights". They are independent of each other. (The moral rights prevent
someone from changing your work without written consent - and must be
granted independently..)
For example if a customer paints your goblet -- then yes you can take
them to court and force them to "change it back". Unless you
specifically signed over moral rights.... Course changing it back would
probably destroy it -- so nobody wins... :-)
If you want legal case law, look up the incident of Eatons dressing up
the statue in Eatons Square in Christmas time. The sculptor did not like
it and took Eatons to court. The sculptor won as I recall and the scarf
came off and the statue was bare for ever more... (Moral rights)
Likely, we will only face these issues if our work becomes a "famous
design style" and thereby spawn imitators -- Or we are cranky mean SOBs
who don't like paint on our goblets -- or whatever..
However, the copyright law does not prevent someone from "painting in a
certain style" or "sculpting in a certain style" -- unless I totally
misunderstand the act and the case law that has come to my attention due
to writing and interpreting of numerous IP contracts.
In other words -- do what you like short of copying and don't fret.
If someone can provide reasons the above isn't true it would be nice to
see them -- but I am not going to worry about the issues raised any more
-- including imitating techniques.
> Not the shape but the surface treatment itself?
That might be patentable and become an issue that way - otherwise
anything with similar treatment would _likely_ be judged to "be in the
style of" and be considered safe.
> Similarly would Lyle Jamieson's torso figures be copyrightable? How
> about Art Liestman's puzzle motif? They certainly appear unique and
> easily attributable to their respective creators.
> I think there is much more to be considered when emulating another's
> work beyond condemning an attempt to sign their name and pass it off as
> original. Creators like Vessery, Jamieson, Liestman, Burchard, Pho, etc.
> have distinct styles of either shape, color, carving or some
> combination. To mimic their work in any way other than as a learning
> exercise for one's own development and limited display should, in my
> view, be discouraged and may be unethical.
Unless it is an "exact" copy there should never be a problem. I think
any dispute would have to show that someone "intended to deceive".
Frankly if someone ever imitates my work I will probably kiss them - as
long as I see their name and a date on the work. Others may feel
differently and maybe we will see some legal battles in the future. Hope
not. Understand why you would feel this way if you create works that
might be imitated.
> Consider also the scenerio in which the originator of a style is bested
> by his apprentice. Rude Olsonik came up with the candlestick design that
> is instantly recognizeable by many familiar with wood turning. (Refer to
> the pic on p.57, Am WT, Spring '05, but pretend the Olsonik is on the
> left and the copy is on the right.) If he had been mediocre at best in
> his tool technique or sense of proportion though a student picked up the
> design and then went on to perfect it, should the plagarist get the
> deserved recognition of fine craftsmanship/artisanship or should it
> remain with the creator of the basic design?
"In the style of" should not be an issue... I raise my (turned) cup
(finished with non-toxic coatings) to the apprentice.
> Think back to the work of folks like Vessery or Jamieson. To arrive at a
> largely unique design or treatment takes a lot of creative thought and
> effort. I'm sure they have both spent much time mulling possibilities
> after the initial inspiration as well as developing methods and
> techniques to execute their ideas. There are likely quite a few reject
> pieces of work that weren't up to representing the idea as successfully
> as the artist would have liked. That takes time and materials. They have
> dreamed an idea and gone through many steps to bring it to reality. The
> person who then takes that work and copies the design and technique
> without having to work through the process is not only short changing
> his own development but has the potential to harm the artist's creative
> outlook.
>
> Should a creative spark occur when viewing a Vessery feathered vessel,
> then by all means accept and be appreciative of the inspiration Vessery
> provided to you. Then go on to produce work that attempts to bring your
> inspired idea to light. On the other hand, producing feathered vessels
> because Jaques Vessery showed you his idea and how he creates them
> hinders your potential.
That would be a judgment call. IMO -- each to his own. In the style of
-- no problem. Exact copy with intent to deceive -- problem.
Other than the above two issues we can probably do what we want. If you
are happy to restrict your work then do so -- others may safely (IMO)
feel different.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery -- right? :-)
Turn on! (Tune in, and don't drop your tools - T. Leary was a turner
wasn't he?)
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Owen Lowe
Will <not...@SPAMsimpering.ca> wrote:
> Very thoughtful. I disagree on a lot of points but respect your thoughts.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
SNIP
> > I read the article and have paused several times since to consider the
> > matter. Do you think Jaques Vessery would be able to copyright his
> > feathered vessel design?
>
> Under the new Intellectual Property laws (IP laws) you do not need to
> register a copyright. The creation of a new physical work - painting,
> story or other item like a carving or work of artistic impression (or
> even a computer program) "gives" you the copyright, and the "moral
> rights". They are independent of each other. (The moral rights prevent
> someone from changing your work without written consent - and must be
> granted independently..)
Right. One is not required to submit the form in order to enforce
copyright on their work though registering with the Copyright office
does have benefits. Copyright is also an individual's responsibility to
enforce - in other words, the police aren't going to arrest an
infringer. I guess my question would more properly be phrased as, "Do
you think Jaques Vessery would be able to enforce the copyright on his
feathered vessel design?"
<Snip of good stuff>
> > I think there is much more to be considered when emulating another's
> > work beyond condemning an attempt to sign their name and pass it off as
> > original. Creators like Vessery, Jamieson, Liestman, Burchard, Pho, etc.
> > have distinct styles of either shape, color, carving or some
> > combination. To mimic their work in any way other than as a learning
> > exercise for one's own development and limited display should, in my
> > view, be discouraged and may be unethical.
>
> Unless it is an "exact" copy there should never be a problem. I think
> any dispute would have to show that someone "intended to deceive".
I'm not sure if this fits your comments, but are you familiar with a
photography and sculpture case a decade or so ago? A photographer took a
picture of a man and woman holding a line of puppies in their arms. A
sculptor then made a version of the photo in 3-D with slight variations.
The photog won the infringement arguement. Granted this is different
than "in the style" but here the entire medium was changed with
variations and still the court found an infringement.
Some folks try to cite a degree of variation from the original as being
OK. "Just change 10% and there's no infringement." That has been shot
down by the courts in no uncertain terms. There is no degree in which
you can change something and be confident there is no violation -
except, of course, 100%.
> Frankly if someone ever imitates my work I will probably kiss them - as
> long as I see their name and a date on the work. Others may feel
> differently and maybe we will see some legal battles in the future. Hope
> not. Understand why you would feel this way if you create works that
> might be imitated.
Do you think you'd feel the same if you were actively selling your work?
(Not knowing if you do or not.) What of the effort and expense you went
through to arrive at this work that seems to spawn imitations? Keep in
mind that much of my strong views on this relate directly within the
sales arena. In an accompanying side piece, Ellsworth wrote that this is
when the "rules begin to change." If one is not selling their work then
I believe they are merely stunting their development if they continue
making "copies" past a limited few to learn technique. Whether the
intent is to deceive or not, selling work in the style of another's
recognized work is unethical. It has the distinct possibility of harming
the creator of the design through diluting sales potential.
On a related note to this entire discussion, consider the current work
of Eli Avisara - the segmented candlesticks. They sure look like Olsonik
to me... but then Avisara took them a few steps further. The creative
process at work.
Darrell Feltmate
there is some good stuff here guys, I appreciate this debate. There has to
be raised the question, however , of what is being plagiarized, if anything?
I was at a syposium where David Ellsworth was demonstrating. He had a
display of his hollow forms on a table at the Instant Gallery. One of them
was a small form in ash priced at $900.00 US. On a near by table was a small
hollow form in ash, obviously inspired by David's work. It was valued at
$100.00 US. While someone else could have told the differences between the
pieces, the only discernable one to me was the signature on the bottom.
David has worked long and hard for it and deserves the accolades in my
opinion. When it comes to art the original artist is the one who gets the
accolades, the rest of us may immitate but until we find our own "voice" we
are only in the style.
Kirk
I have independently originated a style. All of my turnings are round, or at least
have some semblance of round... At least there is a round plane somewhere in each
of my turnings, or there was when I began mutilating that piece of beautiful wood.
Can I claim this style as my own?
I am not a well educated or cultured person; I don't have the skills to articulate
a convincing argument about owning inspiration. I am someone who enjoys and spends
a lot of time turning. Someone else suggesting that I should not display a piece
in a library because it could devalue the work of an established artist… well it
just pisses me off. Especially whenI have never made an attempt to copy one of
these artists' shapes. When I put the gouge to wood it rarely ends up with the
shape that I envisioned when the bark was on the log; however, the final shape is
often something that I am quite proud of and others value. If it happens to
resemble a piece that one of these artists has produced, then tough.
Once again I am back into this topic after being up all night working at my real
job. (the one that pays for my turning) Gonna go to sleep for a while, wake up,
make shavings with a clear conscience, and piss on anyone who is arrogant enough to
suggest that they can own a shape.
Kirk
Will
Again - very thoughtful... Only a couple of issues and yes you do have
me thinking more....
See below...
Owen Lowe wrote:
> In article <GyeVd.28764$Vf6.9...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Will <not...@SPAMsimpering.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Very thoughtful. I disagree on a lot of points but respect your thoughts.
>
>
> Thanks for taking the time to reply.
>
> SNIP
>
>>>I read the article and have paused several times since to consider the
>>>matter. Do you think Jaques Vessery would be able to copyright his
>>>feathered vessel design?
>>
>>Under the new Intellectual Property laws (IP laws) you do not need to
>>register a copyright. The creation of a new physical work - painting,
>>story or other item like a carving or work of artistic impression (or
>>even a computer program) "gives" you the copyright, and the "moral
>>rights". They are independent of each other. (The moral rights prevent
>>someone from changing your work without written consent - and must be
>>granted independently..)
>
>
> Right. One is not required to submit the form in order to enforce
> copyright on their work though registering with the Copyright office
> does have benefits.
Correct - in Canada it's $35 last time I checked. Not much though
regardless. It provides a time marker. This may work for you or against
you...
Copyright is also an individual's responsibility to
> enforce - in other words, the police aren't going to arrest an
> infringer.
FYI -- not always true -- at least under the Canadian/Commonwealth
system. Criminal copyright theft can be enforced by the Crown Attorneys.
Almost always though I think it would be brought to their attention. It
would involve theft of copyrighted material (either physical theft or
unauthorized duplication) and would have to be of a value to attract
interest. So considerable leeway there...
This (criminal copyright violation) is why we have (and had) the
lawsuits against Napster and others BTW. In Canada at least it is the
Crown that is pursuing (or not) some of the violators. That is why you
can get the police involved in the searches for computers with
downloaded materials.
> I guess my question would more properly be phrased as, "Do
> you think Jaques Vessery would be able to enforce the copyright on his
> feathered vessel design?"
>
No thinking involved... If he believes there is a violation of copyright
he can sue or attempt to interest law enforcement agencies. His choice.
If you (or any other turner) are considered "an expert" by the courts
then you could testify for or against as you pleased.
> <Snip of good stuff>
>
>
>>>I think there is much more to be considered when emulating another's
>>>work beyond condemning an attempt to sign their name and pass it off as
>>>original. Creators like Vessery, Jamieson, Liestman, Burchard, Pho, etc.
>>>have distinct styles of either shape, color, carving or some
>>>combination. To mimic their work in any way other than as a learning
>>>exercise for one's own development and limited display should, in my
>>>view, be discouraged and may be unethical.
>>
>>Unless it is an "exact" copy there should never be a problem. I think
>>any dispute would have to show that someone "intended to deceive".
>
>
> I'm not sure if this fits your comments, but are you familiar with a
> photography and sculpture case a decade or so ago?
Was not aware of this. Can't say I am surprised. American case?
> A photographer took a
> picture of a man and woman holding a line of puppies in their arms. A
> sculptor then made a version of the photo in 3-D with slight variations.
> The photog won the infringement arguement. Granted this is different
> than "in the style" but here the entire medium was changed with
> variations and still the court found an infringement.
>
Seems like it could be a stretch to me. Not sure it would stand up in an
appellate court. If it does, I will review my photo work as it has
appeared in a number of publications. Maybe I have a retirement plan and
did not realize it. :-)
Here I think the test would be... Was the original work duplicated
(exact expressions, atmosphere, nuances) -- simply in another media.
Like for example -- was a book scanned, ran through OCR and then
republished on the internet. ...Or was the movie filmed at the movie
house than released on the internet as an MPEG. Both I can accept as
violations.
However, if there was strong similarity to the points above then yes --
I understand the decision.
> Some folks try to cite a degree of variation from the original as being
> OK. "Just change 10% and there's no infringement." That has been shot
> down by the courts in no uncertain terms. There is no degree in which
> you can change something and be confident there is no violation -
> except, of course, 100%.
>
Beg to differ on that. Hopefully the courts will agree with me. If not,
perhaps we will both become cell mates in the not-too-distant-future.
Too much of my wood work has been done in previous variations.
>
>>Frankly if someone ever imitates my work I will probably kiss them - as
>>long as I see their name and a date on the work. Others may feel
>>differently and maybe we will see some legal battles in the future. Hope
>>not. Understand why you would feel this way if you create works that
>>might be imitated.
>
>
> Do you think you'd feel the same if you were actively selling your work?
> (Not knowing if you do or not.)
I do.
> What of the effort and expense you went
> through to arrive at this work that seems to spawn imitations?
My choice.
> Keep in
> mind that much of my strong views on this relate directly within the
> sales arena. In an accompanying side piece, Ellsworth wrote that this is
> when the "rules begin to change." If one is not selling their work then
> I believe they are merely stunting their development if they continue
> making "copies" past a limited few to learn technique. Whether the
> intent is to deceive or not, selling work in the style of another's
> recognized work is unethical. It has the distinct possibility of harming
> the creator of the design through diluting sales potential.
>
Then a lot of the recognized painting masters are thieves and should
have their work stripped from museums. ...At least this is the logical
conclusion. So this is the significant point where we disagree. Or
perhaps we just have to come up with a percentage of variation that must
be there to satisfy us, the courts and the art auction houses...
> On a related note to this entire discussion, consider the current work
> of Eli Avisara - the segmented candlesticks. They sure look like Olsonik
> to me... but then Avisara took them a few steps further. The creative
> process at work.
>
As I just started turning again, I am unfamiliar with most turning work.
(And am now grateful for that -- see below. :-)) However, the principles
remain constant throughout the world of artistic creation. Lower courts
will probably give us many variations of interpretation as the artistic
world learns to use the new copyright protection treaties. We will need
decisions at the appellate court level before everyone is really
confident of the decisions that have been reached.
However, I did just think of another related issue....
In the world of IP and Patents.... Many companies no longer search for
similar work (to that which they wish to undertake) before embarking on
their own creative research... Why? Because if similar work has been
done and you were aware of work that in the opinion of "the court"
should have been recognized as "prior art" then the holder of the
original IP is entitled to "treble damages".
So maybe I will quit reading books and just "carry on turning". The at
least if I (commercially) duplicate someones work I will only have to
pay "normal" damages.
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Will
Read this with a gentle tone of voice and take no offense -- none is
intended.
Be careful of what you say. :-) Some of us are bound to think it is your
"Boss" talking. :-) LOL
But we might yet seek moral guidance from you as legal guidance often
tends to fall short in this matter, and moral arguments can and should
come to the fore. Indeed the legal arguments for this type of law are
usually based on "sound" moral judgment.
Darrell Feltmate wrote:
> Owen and Will
> there is some good stuff here guys, I appreciate this debate. There has to
> be raised the question, however , of what is being plagiarized, if anything?
> I was at a syposium where David Ellsworth was demonstrating. He had a
> display of his hollow forms on a table at the Instant Gallery. One of them
> was a small form in ash priced at $900.00 US. On a near by table was a small
> hollow form in ash, obviously inspired by David's work. It was valued at
> $100.00 US.
The difference is price is simply that of having a "famous artist"
handle or create the work. IMO. We, as humans, want to feel that is some
way we have a piece of a "creative genius". We want to "belong" to an
exclusive group. A lot of marketing works that way - what is called the
"touchstone" principle and of course "esclusivity". FWIW.
e.g -- "this work was inspired by Ellsworth" or "the artist himself made
the sketch from which I created in his style this... (whatever)"
> While someone else could have told the differences between the
> pieces, the only discernable one to me was the signature on the bottom.
> David has worked long and hard for it and deserves the accolades in my
> opinion.
And clearly he has them (accolades) if his work commands a nine times
premium over similar work that is casually indistinguishable.
>When it comes to art the original artist is the one who gets the
> accolades, the rest of us may immitate but until we find our own "voice" we
> are only in the style.
Einstein? He certainly did not get the money. The people who produced
nuclear power plants certainly had a few pieces of silver change hands.
Here Darrell you might argue that Einstein was simply a popularizer for
your Bosses work and as such was not entitled to significant rewards as
his efforts were "only in the style". But I am going to leave those
arguments alone for now... :-)
As I said previously, moral arguments hold sway here. Laws simply tend
to reflect the moral arguments and judgments -- however accurately.
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Will
Kirk wrote:
> I have independently originated a style. All of my turnings are round, or at least
> have some semblance of round... At least there is a round plane somewhere in each
> of my turnings, or there was when I began mutilating that piece of beautiful wood.
> Can I claim this style as my own?
No. Over 30 years ago I did something in this shape. Be warned. However,
on reflection, since you spoke so elegantly and eloquently, I grant you
special dispensation to make round pieces. All others take note and be
warned though... LOL
>
> I am not a well educated or cultured person; I don't have the skills to articulate
> a convincing argument about owning inspiration. I am someone who enjoys and spends
> a lot of time turning. Someone else suggesting that I should not display a piece
> in a library because it could devalue the work of an established artist… well it
> just pisses me off.
My point too - I was just trying not to offend. Not that you did. I will
probably laugh all day while thinking of your post.
> Especially when I have never made an attempt to copy one of
> these artists' shapes. When I put the gouge to wood it rarely ends up with the
> shape that I envisioned when the bark was on the log;
Mine neither - but for different reasons than yours I will bet...
Dig-ins, gouges spirals that sorta...
> however, the final shape is
> often something that I am quite proud of and others value. If it happens to
> resemble a piece that one of these artists has produced, then tough.
I agree. My point too I think. Yours is more to the point however.
> Once again I am back into this topic after being up all night working at my real
> job. (the one that pays for my turning) Gonna go to sleep for a while, wake up,
> make shavings with a clear conscience, and piss on anyone who is arrogant enough to
> suggest that they can own a shape.
Sleep well and turn with a clear conscience. I know that I will.
Would love to see some of your work. When you do display it -- let us
all know.
> Kirk
>
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
George
"Will" <not...@SPAMsimpering.ca> wrote in message
news:IqkVd.31230$Vf6.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> The difference is price is simply that of having a "famous artist"
> handle or create the work. IMO. We, as humans, want to feel that is some
> way we have a piece of a "creative genius". We want to "belong" to an
> exclusive group. A lot of marketing works that way - what is called the
> "touchstone" principle and of course "esclusivity". FWIW.
>
> e.g -- "this work was inspired by Ellsworth" or "the artist himself made
> the sketch from which I created in his style this... (whatever)"
>
Unfortunately, as in the story I related, most of us have no idea if any
"famous name" ever did something like what we do. Therefore we, like Kirk,
can only say that what we do is what we do.
Then there's the oft-referenced "you sell too cheaply," a phrase sometimes
used here and elsewhere to grant some sort of tacit copyright to the
established name by implying that you owe h/er/im a royalty or living.
Arch
shoulders of others before them and so on and on. It seems to me that
'unaware plagiarism' is a contradiction of terms. Not knowing what you
know is an oxymoron easily denied with: 'after the style of' "I
always give full credit" "I claim no originality'", 'the sincerest
form of flattery', "I never sell my turnings", "who cares anyway", We
each have our favorite 'feel good' phrases, but we all really do know if
we are copy cats and true plagiarists. It just matters more to some than
it does to others and usually the least of all to those who are
plageriazed.
A part of earning a widely recognized style is owing to excellent
repetitive work being accepted by those who can promote the stylist's
work and escalate its value. Some work is recognized immediately on
viewing a picture of it, but the same picture had to be seen many times
before.
This doesn't detract from fine original work, just helps to explain the
rules of the game.
Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter
Will
Arch wrote:
> It's said that we stand on the shoulders of giants, but they stood on
> shoulders of others before them and so on and on. It seems to me that
> 'unaware plagiarism' is a contradiction of terms. Not knowing what you
> know is an oxymoron easily denied with: 'after the style of' "I
> always give full credit" "I claim no originality'", 'the sincerest
> form of flattery', "I never sell my turnings", "who cares anyway", We
> each have our favorite 'feel good' phrases, but we all really do know if
> we are copy cats and true plagiarists. It just matters more to some than
> it does to others and usually the least of all to those who are
> plageriazed.
And computer scientists stand on each others toes. :-)
My attempt at humour for the day.
>
> A part of earning a widely recognized style is owing to excellent
> repetitive work being accepted by those who can promote the stylist's
> work and escalate its value.
EXACTLY!!!!!
Well said.
> Some work is recognized immediately on
> viewing a picture of it, but the same picture had to be seen many times
> before.
> This doesn't detract from fine original work, just helps to explain the
> rules of the game.
>
>
> Turn to Safety, Arch
> Fortiter
>
>
>
> http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings
>
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Henry St.Pierre
news:GyeVd.28764$Vf6.9...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>
> Under the new Intellectual Property laws (IP laws) you do not need to
> register a copyright. The creation of a new physical work - painting,
> story or other item like a carving or work of artistic impression (or
> even a computer program) "gives" you the copyright, and the "moral
> rights". They are independent of each other. (The moral rights prevent
> someone from changing your work without written consent - and must be
> granted independently..)
>
> For example if a customer paints your goblet -- then yes you can take
> them to court and force them to "change it back". Unless you
> specifically signed over moral rights.... Course changing it back
> would probably destroy it -- so nobody wins... :-)
>
> If you want legal case law, look up the incident of Eatons dressing up
> the statue in Eatons Square in Christmas time. The sculptor did not
> like it and took Eatons to court. The sculptor won as I recall and the
> scarf came off and the statue was bare for ever more... (Moral rights)
>
>
If I had bought the statue and the goblet,decided it was crap; took a large
hammer to them and made smaller pieces of art - could the sculptor and
goblet artist take me to court for doing to my physical property what I
choose?
Like Arch (Lord High Muser) only musing.
Hank (lord low muser)
Will
Pretty much. :-)
Unless you bought the moral rights. :-)
> Like Arch (Lord High Muser) only musing.
> Hank (lord low muser)
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Owen Lowe
Will <not...@SPAMsimpering.ca> wrote:
> Unless you bought the moral rights. :-)
Will, I've not heard the term "moral rights" before reading your replies
in this discussion. Is this a Canadian term? I don't believe it's
something in the US copyright terms.
Owen Lowe
"Henry St.Pierre" <gri...@elvis.com> wrote:
> If I had bought the statue and the goblet,decided it was crap; took a large
> hammer to them and made smaller pieces of art - could the sculptor and
> goblet artist take me to court for doing to my physical property what I
> choose?
If you tried to profit from the resulting item, then yes - at least in
the US. Taking a portion or reconfiguration of someone's work does not
constitute a new work giving you the rights to it.
There are exceptions for critical comment, satire and such, but you'll
likely end up in court explaining why your new work should be exempt
under these exceptions - in other words, it's not an automatic exception.
Owen Lowe
Anonymous <chu...@notarealserver.com> wrote:
> But it
> isn't likely that I would even try to copy an Ellsworth and pass it off at
> my local craft show as genuine. Firstly, I doubt if anyone in attendance
> there would attach any cache to his name. Secondly, all the shows I would
> expect to exhibit at require that the artist be present. Even if genuine,
> I would not be allowed to sell 'an Ellsworth'.
>
> The only way I could sign anyone else's name to the bottom of a really
> nice piece of work is to give that person, male or female, credit for work
> -I- did. If I am capable of copying him/her faithfully, I am capable of
> doing better work than (s)he because I have already mastered his/her level
> of craft and now need only step into my own sense of artistic vision.
I don't see this discussion as focusing on attempts to make knockoffs of
known artists' works but rather intentionally copying a successful
design as a whole - shape, color, surface treatment, etc.
Refer again to Jacques Vesery,
<http://www.delmano.com/2003/Wood_Art/Mike_Lee_-_Jacques_Vesery___Ha/Jacq
ues_Vesery_/Jacques_Vesery/jacques_vesery_8.html>.
If one was to, by and large, copy this design with the intent to sell
it, I would have a problem with the ethics of the person. Keep in mind
this type of work has a very distinct look that is recognizeable as done
by Vesery. Not so with a majority of the bowl, box, or platter work out
there - even that done by the "pros". A bowl is a bowl is a bowl.
However, when the maker begins adding his own sense of design and
creativity to the surface of the shape then it starts to become his
known style - and that's the departure point for me in the ethics of
attempting to emulate another's work for profit.
Owen Lowe
Will <not...@SPAMsimpering.ca> wrote:
> > there is some good stuff here guys, I appreciate this debate. There has to
> > be raised the question, however , of what is being plagiarized, if anything?
> > I was at a syposium where David Ellsworth was demonstrating. He had a
> > display of his hollow forms on a table at the Instant Gallery. One of them
> > was a small form in ash priced at $900.00 US. On a near by table was a small
> > hollow form in ash, obviously inspired by David's work. It was valued at
> > $100.00 US.
>
> The difference is price is simply that of having a "famous artist"
> handle or create the work. IMO. We, as humans, want to feel that is some
> way we have a piece of a "creative genius". We want to "belong" to an
> exclusive group. A lot of marketing works that way - what is called the
> "touchstone" principle and of course "esclusivity". FWIW.
>
> e.g -- "this work was inspired by Ellsworth" or "the artist himself made
> the sketch from which I created in his style this... (whatever)"
>
> > While someone else could have told the differences between the
> > pieces, the only discernable one to me was the signature on the bottom.
> > David has worked long and hard for it and deserves the accolades in my
> > opinion.
>
> And clearly he has them (accolades) if his work commands a nine times
> premium over similar work that is casually indistinguishable.
Hello Will.
First of all you don't know that Ellsworth sold the piece for $900 when
the other piece nearby was marked at only $100. It's human nature to
make comparisons and if a turner (Darrell) couldn't tell a difference
except for price then the inexpensive piece may have thwarted the sale
of Ellsworth's piece.
Secondly, let's examine that $100. There's absolutely no way a turner
can make a decent return on his time to sell for that amount - not to
speak of purchasing tools, supplies or the education process. He is
severly undercutting any realistically priced pieces and hurting others
attempting to be paid a just amount for their efforts. (Not knowing if
$900 is reasonable or not, I just know that $100 is totally
unreasonable.) Perhaps this very situation is the reason David Ellsworth
wrote the article.
Lastly, there are undoubtedly collectors or speculators out there who
would look for an established turner's pieces. If serious enough in
their quests they'd likely expect to pay a fair bit of money and they
wouldn't be swayed by an adjacent copycat. These types of buyers are
relatively few and far between. However there are people who are
unfamiliar with wood turning but discover they are attracted to the
craft and would like to acquire a piece or two for their mantle. They
are obviously attracted to the design which Ellsworth pioneered and
presents in his piece but are torn by another turner who has copied
Ellsworth but is charging substantially less. This turner has harmed
Ellsworth's earning potential and may benefit from Ellsworth's
creativity and learning process. He is hurting not only Ellsworth but
others who may desire to enter into turning for a living.
Well, enough ranting for one night. This isn't going to be laid to rest
any time soon.
Owen Lowe
"Darrell Feltmate" <darrell...@tru.eastlink.ca> wrote:
> there is some good stuff here guys, I appreciate this debate. There has to
> be raised the question, however , of what is being plagiarized, if anything?
> I was at a syposium where David Ellsworth was demonstrating. He had a
> display of his hollow forms on a table at the Instant Gallery. One of them
> was a small form in ash priced at $900.00 US. On a near by table was a small
> hollow form in ash, obviously inspired by David's work. It was valued at
> $100.00 US. While someone else could have told the differences between the
> pieces, the only discernable one to me was the signature on the bottom.
> David has worked long and hard for it and deserves the accolades in my
> opinion. When it comes to art the original artist is the one who gets the
> accolades, the rest of us may immitate but until we find our own "voice" we
> are only in the style.
Maybe I missed your point Darrell, but did you support your question -
What, if anything, is being plagarized? I thought you were going to
discredit the plagarism debate but it seems to me your observation is
pretty clear that Ellsworth's "look" was plagarized and it left you with
strong feelings in support of Ellsworth.
George
"Will" <not...@SPAMsimpering.ca> wrote in message
Even if he had the disclaimer attached, like the do in DVDs?
"This statue has been modified from the original. It has been smashed to
fit in the trash."
Denis Marier
others.
In Canada we rely on common law (except in Quebec where they use a civil
code) and most of the decisions are made on jurisprudence (the number of
court cases that took place in the past and how they were settled).
So far, at this time, I do not know of any jurisprudence relating to
woodturning. If any one find valid court cases I would appreciate hearing
about them.
The trick is to get someone to registered and issued a valid and legal
patent for your work.
A patent may be declared valid and legal in one country and not in the
other. The intent, the application and enforcement of a patent is quite a
challenge in today's world.
"Owen Lowe" <onln...@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:onlnlowe-32806E...@corp.supernews.com...
Darrell Feltmate
I am not sure if anything is being plagiarized here, i.e. with two hollow
forms, one by Ellsworth and one by John Doe. On the other hand I think not.
I have seen many hollow forms in glass and pottery both corporeal and in
historic photo settings. It would be a reasonable premise that turners in
general would try to emulate the form in wood. That being so I do not think
that a generic hollow form would be a form of plagiarizing. There are
certain surface enhancements that a copying of would appear to me to be
plagiarizing as I think I mentioned with the work of Jacques Vesserey. Bin
Pho and Art Liestman also come to mind. That said, it raises the question of
to what degree is carving, air brushing, or tesselating a turned surface an
infringement on the work of others who have done so when we have a history
of pyrography, painting, piercing and carving on wood surfaces? It would
seem to be plagiarizing when the finished product is perceived to be a
blatant copy of an another turner's work, otherwise not.
One point that needs to be considered is the phrasing "in the style of..." I
turn bowls, hollow forms and vases, not to mention many other things, in the
style of many turners. Some things are simply in the public domain because
of frequent or historic use of form and style. That said, some things are
distinctive to the work of an established turner. If credit is given where
credit is due, is it palgiarism? By the way, that credit may be financial.
My wife quilts. If a quilt using a published design is entered into a
contest and wins a monetary prize, it is deemed to have won by merit of the
skill of the quilter and the skill of the designer and the priae money is
expected to be devided between the two, even if the designer is unaware of
the use of the design in this instance. Something for thought.
Will
Treaties_ - otherwise Microsoft could not sue people in other countries
for ripping off "MS Windows" for eg.
Get a copy of the international treaties relating to copyright, and
check an applicable American Law book if you really do need to know.
The next paragraph is actually relevant...
In the British Commonwealth system, case law can also be used from the
lower courts. In the American system the appellate courts set the
standard. So... particularly in the commonwealth and European countries
a body of case law has accumulated supporting "moral rights". These laws
have become part of the treaties.
Programmers have successfully sued companies and insisted that code be
returned to what is was prior to "Quality Assurance" improving it... LOL
If you hire creative types without both parties agreeing that the deal
includes, copyright, patent rights, moral rights etc... You may not
actually _fully_ own the material for which you have paid. This includes
people who create pictures, (photographers, painters, sculptors) and
people who create written works (stories, technical manuals, contracts,
computer programs, procedure manuals).
I have written and negotiated a number of these contracts and have
tested them in court - unfortunately (for the other party).
Understanding these rights can save a lot of time as you know what the
boundaries are -- and how to prevent misunderstandings.
Someone asked - "Could they break it with a hammer ..."... ???
Not and re-display it as art!
...Since it would in effect be a misrepresentation of the artists work.
(Unless they specifically via forethought had purchased the work with
"moral rights".)
Can they smash it just before throwing it out or burning it or grinding
it to bits -- YES! And they can do that because they own the work. they
do not own the rights to "change the work".
That is to say, without "moral rights" they cannot change the work
without the artists written (contractual) agreement.
Hope that helps...
If any of these are issues for you or anyone else reading this -- see a
lawyer. As they will (should) advise you -- any court looks at _all the
circumstances_ -- at least as they are able. However, I strongly
recommend that you learn everything you can before you go and set
realistic expectations. Lawyers competent in IP law are expensive. Make
sure you know what you want and can put it in writing. ...Or expect a
_large_ invoice.
USA is a signatory to these International Treaties - not that they
always pay attention to treaties they have signed.
Owen Lowe wrote:
> In article <iCRVd.41412$kz6.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Will <not...@SPAMsimpering.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Unless you bought the moral rights. :-)
>
>
> Will, I've not heard the term "moral rights" before reading your replies
> in this discussion. Is this a Canadian term? I don't believe it's
> something in the US copyright terms.
>
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Will
Sorry...
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Will
George wrote:
>
> Even if he had the disclaimer attached, like the do in DVDs?
>
> "This statue has been modified from the original. It has been smashed to
> fit in the trash."
LOL - THAT IS FINE!
You simply cannot -re-display it as work representative of the artist.
I covered that earlier.
Must go.
>
>
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Derek Andrews
> That being so I do not think
> that a generic hollow form would be a form of plagiarizing. There are
> certain surface enhancements that a copying of would appear to me to be
> plagiarizing
That raises the question of time, and definitions. I wonder who turned
the first hollow vessel from wood, and when? Great idea, and the
originator deserves a lot of credit. Likewise with style and decorative
enhancements. There is a very fine line between copying, and working in
the 'style of'. Who was the first person to decorate a turning with
carving? Or carving in this style, or another style which derives from
the first?
> It would
> seem to be plagiarizing when the finished product is perceived to be a
> blatant copy of an another turner's work, otherwise not.
Perception is a very subjective thing though! Some might perceive that
an object is a copy, others may perceive very slight changes in style
that add immensely to (or detract from) the copied work.
> If credit is given where
> credit is due, is it palgiarism?
And what if the plagiarism is subconcious? I probably incorporate all
sorts of elements into my work due to past influences, but I doubt that
I could tell you where they came from.
> If a quilt using a published design is entered into a
> contest and wins a monetary prize, it is deemed to have won by merit of the
> skill of the quilter and the skill of the designer and the priae money is
> expected to be devided between the two, even if the designer is unaware of
> the use of the design in this instance. Something for thought.
That's interesting. I'm curious as to whether quilters actually give
credit when they use a published design. It certainly puts the maker in
a category of pure craft, rather than one of designer craft or artist,
and hopefully would be judged in a different category.
Of course, once one publishes a plan, unless it is sold with limited
rights (ie it may be used only once, or may only be used for personal
use) then it moves into public domain.
Then of course there is plagiarism of technique. Do we give credit to
the person(s) who developed the techniques for making turned natural
edge green bowls, or wooden boxes, or bottle stoppers.
--
Derek Andrews, woodturner
http://www.seafoamwoodturning.com
http://chipshop.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/toolrest/
Roger
See <http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/design/definition.html>
Roger
M.J.
> In article <IqkVd.31230$Vf6.9...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
.
>
> Hello Will.
>
> First of all you don't know that Ellsworth sold the piece for $900 when
> the other piece nearby was marked at only $100. It's human nature to
> make comparisons and if a turner (Darrell) couldn't tell a difference
> except for price then the inexpensive piece may have thwarted the sale
> of Ellsworth's piece.
>
> Secondly, let's examine that $100. There's absolutely no way a turner
> can make a decent return on his time to sell for that amount - not to
> speak of purchasing tools, supplies or the education process. He is
> severly undercutting any realistically priced pieces and hurting others
> attempting to be paid a just amount for their efforts. (Not knowing if
> $900 is reasonable or not, I just know that $100 is totally
> unreasonable.) Perhaps this very situation is the reason David Ellsworth
> wrote the article.
Interesting point Owen. In the past I received an email from a complete
stranger accusing me of charging too little for some of my turnings and
thereby taking food from the mouths of his children. Obviously he wanted me
to raise my prices to his level so that he could compete "fairly" in the
same market. Interesting that he wants to set the price of my turnings.
Interesting.....maybe a little arrogance here? I don't give a damn what
other turners charge for their turnings. I set what I consider to be a fair
price for my turnings and if that undercuts other turners....... Well...
welcome to a free market world.
You mention above that $900.00 may not be reasonable but you KNOW that
$100 is not. You fail however, to set for the turning world, an EXACT price
that the turning should be in ALL areas of the globe.
If the tone comes across as too harsh I apologize in advance ....These are
just my personal opinions and you are most certainly entitled to yours.
--
Regards,
M.J. (Mike) Orr
Denis Marier
One of the prerequisite for employment was that "If during the course of
your employment you created, designed, invent, facilitate, reduce
production cost or improve machinery's the drawings and procedures made by
you shall remind the property of the employers. The common weaver was that
the employer had the right to get your idea patented and only pay you $1.00
for your invention. Failing to sign this weaver a designer was not hired.
If your idea is not patented or duly recognized by a legal body and accepted
by the law of the land your have a mammoth task to prove in a court of law
that you are the first one that created, invented or wrote the operational
philosophy and so on. One interesting song is "I did it my way" who was the
real creator of that song? FWIW
"Will" <not...@SPAMsimpering.ca> wrote in message
news:HwZVd.53495$Vf6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Michael Lehmann
makes a lot of money from the fame it brings. What then if I get my hair cut
in a similar vein and try to get famous myself?
How can a form be property of anything other than the form? We find all
forms in nature.
Seems to me that if you copy someones work and try and sell it as their work
you are a dog and that would be fraud.
This leads to the question, (my mind often makes these jumps) where does
creativity come from?. Is it the sum of our experiences? Your idea may very
well be new, but it is a composite of all you have seen. Does this then mean
that everyone who creates plagiarises?
Of course not.
Mick
Will
Yes I took a 10 second look. been out all day so quite tired... Went to
DT Toronto - The Royal Ontario Museum. We went to see geological
displays but caught a display of European designed furniture as well.
Incredible...
To business..
The design patents might be relevant if you wanted to lock up a
particular pattern -- or even take over "round beads" and stake them as
your own. (The latter might be tough though... )
Maybe as the design on a bowl -- a specific pattern. Not sure how we
could lay claim to a particular sequence of beads and coves and finials
etc, or a particular geometric form for a bowl. That is what I was
thinking of...
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Will
Your information is not complete... It is essentially sound - but just
widen out the issues a bit... see below.
Owen Lowe wrote:
> In article <Xns960EEB100B467ha...@216.196.97.142>,
> "Henry St.Pierre" <gri...@elvis.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If I had bought the statue and the goblet,decided it was crap; took a large
>>hammer to them and made smaller pieces of art - could the sculptor and
>>goblet artist take me to court for doing to my physical property what I
>>choose?
>
>
> If you tried to profit from the resulting item, then yes - at least in
> the US.
Profit is a not necessarily an issue. It might be but is not necessary
to make a case. There are at least two issues that could trigger a suit
here... "Reconfiguring a work to make money _might_ be one...
>Taking a portion or reconfiguration of someone's work does not
> constitute a new work giving you the rights to it.
>
Correct IMO - we concur on this. Indeed it would be a clear violation of
the "moral rights" of the artist.
You could throw it in the garbage at this point. No problem there.
If you display the broken piece - "as the artists work" then you
_definitely_ have a problem.
> There are exceptions for critical comment, satire and such, but you'll
> likely end up in court explaining why your new work should be exempt
> under these exceptions - in other words, it's not an automatic exception.
>
Exactly, we concur, if you are making an attempt to disparage the other
persons work by creating something extremely close, but distorted copy
in a manner as to disparage, you have probably given them enough to file
suit. Since you are talking about "reconstructing" their creation.
A satirical drawing or copy should not (but might) draw fire. It depends
on the temperament of the offended artist and what they are willing to
pay a lawyer. A court would likely be willing to _hear_ the case, but it
would then be up to the artist to prove that the satirical work somehow
violated their copyright or moral rights. Not always an easy thing to do...
If you recall "The Wind Done gone"... A take-off of "Gone with the wind
"(GWTW). A lower court fond the satire to be a violation. An appellate
court found the satire allowable -- as I recall.
BUT!!!!! The new work was a new story. Not a simple rehash of the
original, or the old book with words crossed out and new words inserted etc.
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Owen Lowe
"Michael Lehmann" <*mickan...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> Seems to me that if you copy someones work and try and sell it as their work
> you are a dog and that would be fraud.
What of the person who copies someone's work and displays it for sale as
their own creative expression? That is much more likely, in my opinion,
among the woodturning masses. Does anyone out there tell, or have you
overheard other turners telling, buyers that the piece they are looking
at is "in the style of" or an attempt at producing work originated by
Johnabob Ellsonik, professional turner? Is it a matter of the turner not
being forthcoming with information because the buyer does not know the
right question to ask?
If there is no desire to mislead buyers who are not familiar with the
evolution of woodturning, why are such statements of creative origin so
silent? Are these turners not proud of their abilities to mimic the
style and designs of others?
As forgeries are fraudulent, purposefully omitting pertinent information
is fraud as well - though I believe it is a moral and ethical failing,
for this discussion, rather than legal.
Owen Lowe
"Denis Marier" <mari...@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I remember when working in engineering design for international companies.
> One of the prerequisite for employment was that "If during the course of
> your employment you created, designed, invent, facilitate, reduce
> production cost or improve machinery's the drawings and procedures made by
> you shall remind the property of the employers. The common weaver was that
> the employer had the right to get your idea patented and only pay you $1.00
> for your invention. Failing to sign this weaver a designer was not hired.
This is common and not unreasonable in most cases. The company is
generally providing the employee: a salary and benefits; continued
educational opportunities; a facility, funds and similarly educated
coworkers to study, research and develop ideas; the secondary or
tertiary resources and labor force required to bring the product to
reality; the legal team to hash out the risks and legalities of the
developed product; etc. If you are inventing on their dime and tools,
why would the individual employee own the product produced? What's the
point of hiring educated and innovative employees if the company is not
the recipient of their labor?
There are also instances in which the employee proved that the invention
was developed totally outside the realm of the employer, using no
company resources and thus retained sole ownership of the product.
Likewise a number of companies and products exist today in which the
employees bought the rights to the product or method they came up with
in order to strike out on their own.
> If your idea is not patented or duly recognized by a legal body and accepted
> by the law of the land your have a mammoth task to prove in a court of law
> that you are the first one that created, invented or wrote the operational
> philosophy and so on.
That is true as far as I know of the subject. Protecting your rights can
be expensive and time consuming. Just consider, though, the story of the
inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper system...
>One interesting song is "I did it my way" who was the
> real creator of that song?
I've no idea - though I can certainly hear Sinatra's warble in my head.
Owen Lowe
"M.J." <newst...@xemaps.com> wrote:
> In the past I received an email from a complete
> stranger accusing me of charging too little for some of my turnings and
> thereby taking food from the mouths of his children. Obviously he wanted me
> to raise my prices to his level so that he could compete "fairly" in the
> same market. Interesting that he wants to set the price of my turnings.
> Interesting.....maybe a little arrogance here? I don't give a damn what
> other turners charge for their turnings. I set what I consider to be a fair
> price for my turnings and if that undercuts other turners....... Well...
> welcome to a free market world.
My question back to you is whether your prices fit into the ballpark of
other turners in your region producing items requiring similar skills
and time and for sale at similar venues? If you are low on the range,
then you might very well be undercutting others. If on the other hand
you are in the neighborhood then I'd respond that this annonymous
emailer has either unrealistic expectations or else he's not proficient
enough with his skills.
Since we've taken a tangent into pricing fairly, I wonder how many
turners have really examined their prices in realistic terms. If the
turner was forced to live off what he made selling his work, could he?
I'd bet a majority could not due to underpricing and, in my opinion,
that cheapens the value of woodturning in the buyer's mind thus making
the professional turner's struggle to live off his work extremely
difficult. Most turners don't recognize this because they are living off
income from other sources and haven't been forced to examine, in
realistic terms, the amount they are charging in relation to their
living requirements. A side arguement may also be that they, personally,
don't value the craft and/or have little respect for their own skills.
> You mention above that $900.00 may not be reasonable but you KNOW that
> $100 is not. You fail however, to set for the turning world, an EXACT price
> that the turning should be in ALL areas of the globe.
Of course there is no exact price - but there is an acceptible range of
price depending on variables. Two of which are time and skills required.
I've hollowed a few pieces with smallish openings and have a rough idea
of the time and skills required. $100 translates to barely above minimum
wage - if that, if the completed piece is finely finished but that
doesn't even take into account materials, supplies, tools and equipment.
Are the time and skills on the level of Ellsworth (and his imitators)
only worth minimum wage? There are those who claim they are only selling
to augment their tool budget, they're also claiming, though silently,
that their skill and time is worthless.
I have just gone through a week of attempting to come up with a price on
work that will be submitted to a juried show. My final method was to
figure out how many similar pieces I could make in a 50 week year and
divide that into what I felt I wanted for a reasonable (average-ish)
income for my area. That gave me a base value to which I added materials
and supply costs. I considered the venue and a small bit of markup and
established a ballpark figure. Then I asked several other turners - one
who sells turnings regularly though works full time in other pursuits,
one who hasn't looked to sell his work but is in the corporate world and
is comfortable with sales and pricing product, and one who is attempting
to become a full-time turner - to view the work and give their
gut-feeling price range for the venue. Surprisingly, or not, they all
cited a range +/- 10% of what I had ballparked. I'm now pretty
comfortable with the price and I'm confident that if I could sell a
year's worth of production I could make a living off the work. I
challenge all turners reading this to apply your prices and income
requirements to the exercise.
Owen Lowe
Will <not...@SPAMsimpering.ca> wrote:
> If you recall "The Wind Done gone"... A take-off of "Gone with the wind
> "(GWTW). A lower court fond the satire to be a violation. An appellate
> court found the satire allowable -- as I recall.
>
> BUT!!!!! The new work was a new story. Not a simple rehash of the
> original, or the old book with words crossed out and new words inserted etc.
I generally stick up for the primary creator in infringement issues but
The Wind Done Gone was a decision I didn't really understand. I didn't
see how the derivitive work harmed the original.
Owen Lowe
Roger <rwie...@yahoo.com.geentroep> wrote:
> Design patents might well be relevant.
> See <http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/design/definition.html>
Very interesting - thank you for the link. A design patent certainly
appears to apply to some of the turning work out there (not to pick on
Vesery any more than necessary) but Jacques Vesery's feather motif for
starters.
A thought. Perhaps this plagarism topic has merely been an annoyance to
professional turners because they know that to protect their designs is
a test of vigilance and likely not worthwhile given the relatively short
life of design "freshness" and thus diminishing financial returns over a
few years. Therefore to maximize income off the design they turn to the
demonstration circuit to which previous infringement lawsuits would be a
PR nightmare. Make a body of work with the design for the collectors,
museums and clientele and move on to the next idea, leaving the design
to the imitators.
Owen Lowe
Will <not...@SPAMsimpering.ca> wrote:
> > Will, I've not heard the term "moral rights" before reading your replies
> > in this discussion. Is this a Canadian term? I don't believe it's
> > something in the US copyright terms.
> No. It is not "Just Canada". These are issues resolve in _International
> Treaties_ - otherwise Microsoft could not sue people in other countries
> for ripping off "MS Windows" for eg.
>
> Get a copy of the international treaties relating to copyright, and
> check an applicable American Law book if you really do need to know.
I looked up the term, "moral rights," and found little in the US Govt.
patent and copyright office information. One of only a few "hits" is:
"Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure"
"The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights"
<http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/doc/ipnii/ipnii.txt>
It appears it's readily used internationally but is relatively unused
within the United States' domestic terminology.
> USA is a signatory to these International Treaties - not that they
> always pay attention to treaties they have signed.
No! Really? Them thar's fightin' words.
;)
Michael Lehmann
Ellsonik, professional turner
If they dont mention that this is an imitation (when they know it is) then
they are ethically bankrupt.
But of the person who grew up on a diet of (I haven't been doing this long
enough to know the old famous turner's names, so please insert them) who has
turnings that have been created from all his experience in life. He owes a
little to each.
A new style is only developed out of boredom with the old. (Particularly
aesthetic things as they aren't usually born out of necessity) you do this
or that a bit different (or musically, add a trombone to a string quintet)
My main question is on the origin of creativity. If we start from a base
that was built around a Raffan book then could one say that anything we
create, we owe to Raffan?
Unfortunately there will always be dogs who will try to make money on
someone else's back.
I often think, thats nice, I'll try something like that. What i end up with
is never the same (not only out of lack of skill, but mainly and the fact
that I dont want to copy.)
I finished this beautifuil Black wattle bowl today.
What about saueracker shells?
George
> In article <d0a6o...@enews4.newsguy.com>,
SNIP of Prevailing Wage Apologetic
> --
> "Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
> as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long
And we'll have socialism when we start telling people what they may or may
not receive for their own work.
Owen Lowe
wrote:
> > "Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
> > as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long
>
> And we'll have socialism when we start telling people what they may or may
> not receive for their own work.
Just call me, Vlad.
I certainly hope I'm not coming across as dictating to people what they
can or can not charge. My point is that few have actually run through
the calculations or unabashedly value their abilities and so really
don't know how unfair they are being to themselves - as well as the
turning market as a whole.
Will
Owen Lowe wrote:
> In article <4229a1ea$1...@newspeer2.tds.net>, "George" <george@least>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
>>>as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long
>>
>>And we'll have socialism when we start telling people what they may or may
>>not receive for their own work.
or fascism
>
>
> Just call me, Vlad.
>
> I certainly hope I'm not coming across as dictating to people what they
> can or can not charge. My point is that few have actually run through
> the calculations or unabashedly value their abilities and so really
> don't know how unfair they are being to themselves - as well as the
> turning market as a whole.
Da comrade!
Your points are good. Most people don't make those calculations.
From the calculations you (you -- in general) can draw a some
conclusions... After comparing your work to other people...
You work too slow... (They work too slow)
They charge too little (You charge too much)
You are not good enough (They are simply exceptional)
Your work is "fine (Their work is coarse...)
I sit between him and her in quality (They sit between me and the other guy)
etc.
From that research/comparison set you can set prices in general...
A lesson from marketing...
A new low price is a new high price. (For everyone.)
FWIW
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Lobby Dosser
> Are the time and skills on the level of Ellsworth (and his imitators)
> only worth minimum wage?
Like anything else, they are worth what the market is willing to pay.
Joe Fleming
of all, an "artist" that lives on their turning revenue must be able to
do so. They have to attempt to determine what hourly wage they "need"
to make to get by.
The other half is what the market will bear. I don't care how good
your wooden bowls are or how long you take to make them, the market
will only pay you so much for them.
The question that every turner making a living at it needs to
deternine, therefore, is: "Does the market value of the stuff I do
support my needed minimum wage?". Of course, you need to factor in
your own learning curve to this.
Here is an example. I made "Dick Sing-like" ornaments with a finial
and top from a different wood, adding my own finial and ball design.
The market where I sell would not support more than about $20 to $25
for these ornaments. Since I can't make them fast enough, I quit doing
them. I changed my ornament design and do something that I can make a
reasonable profit with.
Joe Fleming - San Diego
M.J.
"Owen Lowe" <onln...@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:onlnlowe-76B868...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <d0a6o...@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "M.J." <newst...@xemaps.com> wrote:
>
>> In the past I received an email from a complete
>> stranger accusing me of charging too little for some of my turnings and
>> thereby taking food from the mouths of his children. Obviously he wanted
>> me
>> to raise my prices to his level so that he could compete "fairly" in the
>> same market. Interesting that he wants to set the price of my turnings.
>> Interesting.....maybe a little arrogance here? I don't give a damn what
>> other turners charge for their turnings. I set what I consider to be a
>> fair
>> price for my turnings and if that undercuts other turners....... Well...
>> welcome to a free market world.
>
> My question back to you is whether your prices fit into the ballpark of
> other turners in your region producing items requiring similar skills
> and time and for sale at similar venues? If you are low on the range,
> then you might very well be undercutting others. If on the other hand
> you are in the neighborhood then I'd respond that this annonymous
> emailer has either unrealistic expectations or else he's not proficient
> enough with his skills.
But Owen I don't just sell "in my region". I sell through my website AND
locally. It is notoriously hard to sell woodturnings locally so I have to
price items accordingly. Should I price items on my web site for the local
or international market? You see my quandry?
Snip
>
>> You mention above that $900.00 may not be reasonable but you KNOW
>> that
>> $100 is not. You fail however, to set for the turning world, an EXACT
>> price
>> that the turning should be in ALL areas of the globe.
>
> Of course there is no exact price - but there is an acceptible range of
> price depending on variables. Two of which are time and skills required.
> I've hollowed a few pieces with smallish openings and have a rough idea
> of the time and skills required. $100 translates to barely above minimum
> wage - if that, if the completed piece is finely finished but that
> doesn't even take into account materials, supplies, tools and equipment.
.
But again Owen, you mention an "acceptable range". Doesn't mean a damn
thing except to you in your area. My market is NOT the same as yours. I
remember quite some time ago reading where Steven Russell had sold a perfume
applicator for, as I recall, around $300.00. Hell I'd be lucky to get that
for my truck in my local market.....:-)
> Are the time and skills on the level of Ellsworth (and his imitators)
> only worth minimum wage? There are those who claim they are only selling
> to augment their tool budget, they're also claiming, though silently,
> that their skill and time is worthless
Not even going to try and convice you that minimum wage is fair.....but are
you trying to tell me that a simple hollow vessel that takes an hour or two
to complete is worth several thousand dollars? How much does that same
hollow vessel bring in Australia....the UK......Nigeria.......??
M.J.
"Owen Lowe" <onln...@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:onlnlowe-55828D...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <4229a1ea$1...@newspeer2.tds.net>, "George" <george@least>
> wrote:
>
>> > "Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
>> > as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long
>>
>> And we'll have socialism when we start telling people what they may or
>> may
>> not receive for their own work.
>
> Just call me, Vlad.
>
> I certainly hope I'm not coming across as dictating to people what they
> can or can not charge. My point is that few have actually run through
> the calculations or unabashedly value their abilities and so really
> don't know how unfair they are being to themselves - as well as the
> turning market as a whole.
The absolute LAST thing I consider, if at all, when pricing my turnings is
the "turning market as a whole". I have enough trouble with pricing without
worrying if I am meeting some "standard pricing" to support the "industry".
After all I really just want enough return to pay for my
sandpaper..........:-)
Owen Lowe
"M.J." <newst...@xemaps.com> wrote:
> Not even going to try and convice you that minimum wage is fair.....but are
> you trying to tell me that a simple hollow vessel that takes an hour or two
> to complete is worth several thousand dollars? How much does that same
> hollow vessel bring in Australia....the UK......Nigeria.......??
I'm assuming we're still referring to the $100 vs. $900 Ellsworth-style
of hollow vessel. If you can turn such a vessel to completion in an hour
or two and have it comparable to his to such a degree that an
experienced woodturner (Darrell) wasn't able to tell a difference other
than the signature then, criminey, I am not worthy of being in your
presence. ;)
I don't know about comparable vessels internationally, but I have seen
the prices for Tobias Kaye's sounding bowls and Hans Weissflogs lattice
boxes and they are certainly expensive from my bank account's point of
view.
(Just had to type of this quick comment as I mull the responses to my
posts.)
George
> In article <4229a1ea$1...@newspeer2.tds.net>, "George" <george@least>
>
> I certainly hope I'm not coming across as dictating to people what they
> can or can not charge. My point is that few have actually run through
> the calculations or unabashedly value their abilities and so really
> don't know how unfair they are being to themselves - as well as the
> turning market as a whole.
Yep, that's what socialism comes disguised as - 100% fairness.
The Kingfish never said that, of course.
Owen Lowe
Lobby Dosser <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Like anything else, they are worth what the market is willing to pay.
How much effect do folks who sell at very inexpensive prices (meaning
prices which may not accurately reflect the time, materials, skill, etc.
required to produce the product) have on keeping the market depressed?
(Rhetorical question unless someone wants to tackle it.)
Owen Lowe
"Joe Fleming" <jf12...@ncr.com> wrote:
> The question that every turner making a living at it needs to
> deternine, therefore, is: "Does the market value of the stuff I do
> support my needed minimum wage?". Of course, you need to factor in
> your own learning curve to this.
>
> Here is an example. I made "Dick Sing-like" ornaments with a finial
> and top from a different wood, adding my own finial and ball design.
> The market where I sell would not support more than about $20 to $25
> for these ornaments. Since I can't make them fast enough, I quit doing
> them. I changed my ornament design and do something that I can make a
> reasonable profit with.
Exactly. Regarding the first paragraph above, my comment is that it
should apply to any turner, whether desiring to make a living at it or
merely augmenting his income by selling turnings.
Thank you Joe for relating your personal experience with the ornaments.
Recognizing that you were spending more time on them than you were
getting paid for is exactly my point - and one which I don't believe
other turners responding to this discussion accept.
Owen Lowe
> But Owen I don't just sell "in my region". I sell through my website AND
> locally. It is notoriously hard to sell woodturnings locally so I have to
> price items accordingly. Should I price items on my web site for the local
> or international market? You see my quandry?
Using the term "regional" was probably too limited to geographic
definition. I see your point, but would clarify that your selling
"region" is whatever sphere you choose to present your work -
geographic, by clientele, by venue, etc.
As to your problem of selling locally, it sounds as though you are
putting too much time or materials into the products and can't recoup
the costs because the buyers can't afford the finished items, for
whatever reason. Your response to this is to sell for less than you
need? Or do you cut back on time or materials to lessen your costs to
produce the items? (You can cut back on time by finishing to a lesser
degree or having fewer details of design.) I hope you are not trapped by
the mindset that to sell for any price is better than selling nothing.
I was going to add to that last sentence above, "You won't be in
business long with that sales strategy." It occurred to me that therein
might lie the crux of the pricing debate. Many turners who sell to
augment their income do not do so with a business mindset. They don't
see that they are indeed in business (no matter how small) and should
approach it in a business-like manner. They would rather sell something
for any price than sell nothing at all.
snip
> > Of course there is no exact price - but there is an acceptible range of
> > price depending on variables. Two of which are time and skills required.
> > I've hollowed a few pieces with smallish openings and have a rough idea
> > of the time and skills required. $100 translates to barely above minimum
> > wage - if that, if the completed piece is finely finished but that
> > doesn't even take into account materials, supplies, tools and equipment.
> .
>
> But again Owen, you mention an "acceptable range". Doesn't mean a damn
> thing except to you in your area. My market is NOT the same as yours. I
> remember quite some time ago reading where Steven Russell had sold a perfume
> applicator for, as I recall, around $300.00. Hell I'd be lucky to get that
> for my truck in my local market.....:-)
You are correct that the range in my sphere may be different than that
in yours. However... The $900 Ellsworth and $100 imitator were not
offered in different spheres. Nor was the Russell perfume applicator
offered in yours.
The pricing exercise for the juried show that I mentioned in a previous
post caused me a lot of uneasyness. The venue is in a high income area,
the show will feature invited turners from around the world, and I have
no experience participating in anything of this level - this arena is
certainly outside my own social and economic circles. I wanted to price
my work to ensure I wasn't leaving money on the table while at the same
time being realistic to what the audience might find financially
acceptable. At the price my fellow turners and I seemed to gravitate
towards, I can spend a little extra time to ensure the work is as
perfect as my skills allow. Another venue that might not support the
same price would not get the same attention to detail. (But that opens
an entirely different can'o'worms - do you make substantially similar
work to varying degrees of fineness to sell to non-similar markets?) In
other words, highly skilled and detailed work demands a decent return.
If one is making work to the same level as another turner and displayed
in the same market then the works should be priced similarly.
The arguments in this thread seem to eminate from those who say they
feel no obligation to the good of the selling community. What happens
when you find that you are being undercut by similarly skilled and
detailed work? How are you going to respond when the pieces you were
selling for $20, $40 or $100 are now being left on the table because Joe
over yonder is selling imitations of your work for 10% of what you
charge. Hell, he doesn't care what he gets for it - he says he's just as
happy giving it to passersby, afterall, it's only a hobby to him.
Derek Andrews
> How much effect do folks who sell at very inexpensive prices (meaning
> prices which may not accurately reflect the time, materials, skill, etc.
> required to produce the product) have on keeping the market depressed?
> (Rhetorical question unless someone wants to tackle it.)
I don't think they have any impact whatsover. In my experience their
skill level, design ability and/or volume of production tend to be low,
and they generally only sell locally. As long as they declare their
income, I don't mind competition of that nature.
--
Derek Andrews, woodturner
http://www.seafoamwoodturning.com
http://chipshop.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/toolrest/
Will
As I said previously...
A new low price is a new high price. (Given equal apparent value.)
However, that assumes "perfect knowledge". In most markets people are
not aware of all the choices -- unless you make them aware.
So one rule is -- do not "sell against" lower priced items. Indeed do
not sell against _anything or anyone_ -- unless you are both the best
and the cheapest -- together.
Another rule: You can move "down-market" easily. But once you become
known for low price and/or low quality is difficult to move up-market.
Another rule: If you are selling art items -- "one-off" the fewer you
sell the better off you are. That means that to earn a living you need
high prices and relatively few sales transactions - the fewer the
better... Selling takes time and effort.
Another issue. Calculate your cost of sales. I have heard time and
materials over and over again here and in similar forums. But few people
understand "marketing costs" and "selling costs" -- or if they do, they
deem them inconsequential.
In an "art" businesss. Cost of sales and marketing are your most
significant costs. Material is _usually_ and inconsequential cost.
Marketing
---------
Advertising
Internet access/Web page
Photography Costs
Ad design costs
Marketing Campaign costs
Show costs
Travel to show costs
Sales
-----
Office expense
Delivery costs
Shipping costs
Telephone costs
Overhead.
Marketing is the art pf having what you can get rid of. Sales is the art
of getting rid of what you have.
Marketing is strategic -- your education, your choice of subject and
presentation, your choice of sales methodology, your means and methods
of advertising.
Sales is tactical and is about getting rid of the piece in hand to the
person in front of you. You don't make "marketing calls" -- you make
sales calls.
On advertising - every ad should _sell_ - forget "Image Advertising".
Always try to sell something you have if you pay for an ad.
Was that enough?
Owen Lowe wrote:
> In article <D5oWd.25640$QQ3.912@trnddc02>,
> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Like anything else, they are worth what the market is willing to pay.
>
>
> How much effect do folks who sell at very inexpensive prices (meaning
> prices which may not accurately reflect the time, materials, skill, etc.
> required to produce the product) have on keeping the market depressed?
> (Rhetorical question unless someone wants to tackle it.)
>
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
George
> In article <D5oWd.25640$QQ3.912@trnddc02>,
> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Like anything else, they are worth what the market is willing to pay.
>
> How much effect do folks who sell at very inexpensive prices (meaning
> prices which may not accurately reflect the time, materials, skill, etc.
> required to produce the product) have on keeping the market depressed?
> (Rhetorical question unless someone wants to tackle it.)
>
Why do you keep insisting others play only by your rules?
You're displaying a lot of contempt for freedom of choice by both the
creator and purchaser of the piece here. Nobody can sell for a price which
they consider ample compensation, nor can anyone buy a piece by anyone but
those deemed elite, or at outrageously inflated prices? What's left for the
hoi polloi?
Touch of reality. We're selling round pieces of wood which we mostly create
to give ourselves pleasure and diversion, to people who are still allowed to
spend their disposable income on our stuff, or maybe the potter or painter
down the way, too. It would be nice if the buyers felt as if they owed us a
living, as we're supposed to feel toward the big names, but people can be
darn particular about backing their own taste with their money even when you
keep telling them what's good or who's deserving. I wouldn't have it any
other way. They are, after all buying turnings, which, when you think of
it, is what creates a market. An unsold turning is a total loss.
I've done three tuitions on turnings. Now, granted, they're at state
universities, but it was nice to have the opportunity to sell my firewood to
appreciative customers, rather than sit and carp about the taste of people
who were not buying my stuff, like others I've met. If you can't sell your
turnings for what you think they're worth, take up basketry, needlepoint, or
anything else which will earn what you think is fair. Let the folks who
enjoy turning sell their intermediate pieces for what they feel is fair to
finance the next, and get it out in front of the public (and off their
shelf), where it becomes, even to an elitist, at least a poor example to
which the work of the established (how _did_ they get established, anyway?)
may be compared. More power to 'em, and may they grow in their craft and
capability by getting some return for a turning that some elite "jurist"
might throw in the stove.
Will
George wrote:
> "Owen Lowe" <onln...@easystreet.com> wrote in message
> news:onlnlowe-6111E1...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>In article <D5oWd.25640$QQ3.912@trnddc02>,
>> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Like anything else, they are worth what the market is willing to pay.
>>
>>How much effect do folks who sell at very inexpensive prices (meaning
>>prices which may not accurately reflect the time, materials, skill, etc.
>>required to produce the product) have on keeping the market depressed?
>>(Rhetorical question unless someone wants to tackle it.)
>>
>
>
> Why do you keep insisting others play only by your rules?
Don't see that he is.
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Doug Miller
>I hope you are not trapped by
>the mindset that to sell for any price is better than selling nothing.
Depending on one's individual circumstances, that may be the case (or close to
it). For someone with lots of time and very little money, selling for any
price above the break-even point may indeed be preferable to not selling.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Lobby Dosser
> In article <D5oWd.25640$QQ3.912@trnddc02>,
> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Like anything else, they are worth what the market is willing to pay.
>
> How much effect do folks who sell at very inexpensive prices (meaning
> prices which may not accurately reflect the time, materials, skill,
> etc. required to produce the product) have on keeping the market
> depressed? (Rhetorical question unless someone wants to tackle it.)
>
I suspect not very much at all. Take the $900 vs $100 hollow form. They
are totally different markets. How many $900 items do you see at the
average craft fair? How many $100 items at the average juried show or
upscale gallery? Folks who sell at prices which do not reflect the time
and materials - particularly the time - are not likely to be doing it
for a living and probably not selling very much at all.
Notice that I left skill out of the equation.. I think that a skilled
and talented turner will know that they are and price accordingly.
Another question that comes to mind is how did Ellsworth price his work
when he started? I'd guess that none of the 'names' started selling as
full time turners.
Lobby Dosser
I think everyone 'accepts' the premise. I don't think some of us believe
that a turner who does not price effectively has much effect on the
market. If that turner is full time, they will not last. If they are
part time, they will not be making much product.
>
Lobby Dosser
snips
>
> I was going to add to that last sentence above, "You won't be in
> business long with that sales strategy." It occurred to me that
> therein might lie the crux of the pricing debate. Many turners who
> sell to augment their income do not do so with a business mindset.
> They don't see that they are indeed in business (no matter how small)
> and should approach it in a business-like manner. They would rather
> sell something for any price than sell nothing at all.
They might be selling because 'product' is crowding them out of the
workshop; all the relatives and friends dread opening the Christmas
present; or they want to boost their ego. Folks doing turning for a
living will rapidly determine correct pricing of their work or fail.
Snip
> The arguments in this thread seem to eminate from those who say they
> feel no obligation to the good of the selling community.
Do the 'names' feel an obligation beyond sustaining their own income
levels?
> What happens
> when you find that you are being undercut by similarly skilled and
> detailed work?
You do something else. Or you sell somewhere else.
> How are you going to respond when the pieces you were
> selling for $20, $40 or $100 are now being left on the table because
> Joe over yonder is selling imitations of your work for 10% of what you
> charge.
Has this happened to you?
> Hell, he doesn't care what he gets for it - he says he's just
> as happy giving it to passersby, afterall, it's only a hobby to him.
How much can he turn out that is comparable in design and execution if it
is a hobby?
Now for those of us who are retired, it may be a different story. We can
turn all day long. But how many of Arch's 'trees' or my 'bowl with hole
in bottom' do you think it would take to destroy the market as we know
it?
>
Kevin Miller
> In article <D5oWd.25640$QQ3.912@trnddc02>,
> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Like anything else, they are worth what the market is willing to pay.
>
> How much effect do folks who sell at very inexpensive prices (meaning
> prices which may not accurately reflect the time, materials, skill, etc.
> required to produce the product) have on keeping the market depressed?
> (Rhetorical question unless someone wants to tackle it.)
I suspect that people sell more or less at exactly the appropriate price
for their time, materials, and skill. Beginning or casual turners are
likely turning found wood or firewood, probably have a lot of time on
their hands (or are hiding from a wife w/a honeydo list!) and have
average skill at best.
Prices for their pieces probably should be fairly low, given that their
materials are often close to free, they have plenty of time which is
thus, by definition, less valuable than that of a full time professional
turner, and their skill level precludes them from making something that
will really compete in the same arena as a more skilled turner.
I've always felt that woodturners are a bit of an anachronism to some
extent. We want to earn our living doing something that is more at home
in the 18th or 19th century. Mass production has effectively stripped
away the ability of the common woodturner to realistically make a living
at turning. Some will manage to, but they won't ever be rich. Even the
'names' do things on the side like teach, make books/videos, sell lathes
or signature tools, etc. The average household just isn't going to pay
us what we need to charge to make a living.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we all have competition of
some sort so the task ahead of us is to define our market and sell to
it. One can go down to Walmart or similar and buy wood salad bowls from
Asia for $10 - $20 or so. They're all quite uniform in size, nicely
finished, although usually bland wood. I can't compete w/that. One of
my salad bowls will retail for maybe $75 to $150 bucks but I sell at a
gift shop, not a Walmart.
Are they worth that? I dunno. I sure wouldn't pay that much for a darn
bowl. But folks do so I guess they are worth that. Worth is really
just what you can get for something after all. Thing is, they're not
buying a bowl from me. They're buying a unique hand crafted memory of
their cruise to Alaska.
To some extent thinking that lowball woodturners should raise their
prices is like asking if the makers of a Chevy shouldn't double their
prices to keep the makers of a Lexus going. Bit of an exaggeration
perhaps, but it draws the point. If I'm selling at a flea market, I
expect to sell at flea market prices, competing against other flea
market turners. If I'm selling at a gift shop, or moving up a notch at
an art gallery, I expect to compete at gift shop/art gallery prices. It
doesn't matter what the flea market guy is doing - my customers aren't
looking at his pieces.
By the time someone has the skill to compete w/me, he's going to have an
idea of his skill level and what his work is worth. Until then, he
really isn't competition. Just like I'm not any competition to John
Jordan or David Ellsworth. I'm just not that good.
I say let the market decide. If someone is undercutting another to the
point that the latter can't earn what they think they need to, then they
need to redirect their marketing efforts in a new direction. If there
is no market for their turnings, then the market has decided. It's a
strange mindset that seems to permeate our culture that markets should
be 'protected'. Maybe Congress outta pass a law that nobody can sell a
salad bowl for less than $X.oo. Wohoo - we're in the big leagues now! <g>
First thing they taught us in Economics 101 was that in the early part
of the last century the railroads thought they were in the railroad
business. They weren't. They were (are) in the transportation
business. As a result, they've seen a smaller and smaller slice of the pie.
I'm not in the woodturning business. I'm in the tourist business
(primarily). I have about 4 to 5 months in which to sell the bulk of my
work, and virtually no chance of repeat customers. But that's OK,
because that's the market I *chose* to pursue. (Of course, by day I'm a
computer doinker, so if I choose to go fishing instead of turning my
family doesn't starve.)
What market have you chosen to pursue?*
Just my .02...
...Kevin
*Rhetorical question, not directed at Owen in particular.
--
Kevin Miller
http://www.alaska.net/~atftb
Juneau, Alaska
Henry St.Pierre
>
> "Kip" <kip...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1109706601....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> I read the same article. Also recall a quote from Mark Lindquist to
>> the effect that mankind has been making vases for several thousand
>> years and that it is unlikely that one would be able to come up with
>> a completely new design. The point, IMHO, is to avoid essentially
>> carbon copying pieces
>>
> Browsing at my used book store yesterday and ran across a book called
> _500 Bowls_ or similar. I started thumbing through it, and there was
> the spitting image of one of my weird cherry 4-legged bowls. Only
> difference was the finial, really. Fortunately, the piece was made
> about the same time as mine, or so it would seem.
>
> Daughter was with me, and when I told her to look, she recognized it
> immediately. "It's just as ugly as the one _you_ made."
>
> Then while I was protesting, she slipped her books on my stack. Forty
> bucks became sixty....
>
>
>
Smart Kid.
Hank
George
"Kevin Miller" <mille...@acsalaska.net> wrote in message
news:422b...@news.acsalaska.net...
>
> I've always felt that woodturners are a bit of an anachronism to some
> extent. We want to earn our living doing something that is more at home
> in the 18th or 19th century. Mass production has effectively stripped
> away the ability of the common woodturner to realistically make a living
> at turning. Some will manage to, but they won't ever be rich. Even the
> 'names' do things on the side like teach, make books/videos, sell lathes
> or signature tools, etc. The average household just isn't going to pay
> us what we need to charge to make a living.
>
Consider the chair bodgers working in the woods for what, even in their day,
was a meager wage. Yet their work was the only kind which could pay the
bills - production, not creation. The turning as "art," where what's sold
is sizzle, not steak, is a relatively new phenomenon, and its success, like
all other non-necessities, is due more to the pocketbook of the purchaser
than the ability of the artist. Wood pleases the eye, but must also remain
in competition for that eye and dollar with a long-established art -
pottery, and another which fascinates me personally - glass.
@hotmail.com Martin Rost
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:422a31d5$1...@newspeer2.tds.net...
against. Many turners subsidize their turning sales with their day job
income.
Martin
Arch
plagiarism to questions of unfair business practices, unless of course,
it's not considered plagiary or unfair if the copy is priced high
enough.
Is it wrong for a turner to work a day job in order to keep the prices
of his/her turnings affordable?
Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter
Will
George wrote:
> "Martin Rost" <rostmartin @ hot mail . com> wrote in message
> news:393itbF...@individual.net...
>
>
>
>>Doesn't socialism also support subsidies. That is what I see Owen arguing
>>against. Many turners subsidize their turning sales with their day job
>>income.
>>Martin
>>
>
>
> Fixed prices are not "subsidies?" Of course we will all assume, with Owen's
> optimism, that they will be fixed higher, not lower.
Are duties fixed by the state "subsidies" then? Countervailing duties,
import taxes etc?
> In the evil empire days, all Soviet products including those produced by
> "craft cooperatives" were priced at the factory. Membership in such co-ops
> was, of course, often determined by politics, rather than proficiency.
>
>
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Kevin Miller
> Is it _necessary_ for a turner to work a day job in order to keep the
In most cases it's _necessary_ for a turner to eat. The guys that are
doing the "undercutting" aren't accomplished artists for the most part,
and are selling more treen that museum pieces...
...Kevin
Owen Lowe
spam...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >I hope you are not trapped by
> >the mindset that to sell for any price is better than selling nothing.
>
> Depending on one's individual circumstances, that may be the case (or close
> to
> it). For someone with lots of time and very little money, selling for any
> price above the break-even point may indeed be preferable to not selling.
My whole argument in this pricing debate is that I suspect there are
quite a few turners out there who have no idea where their break-even
point is.
Owen Lowe
Lobby Dosser <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > The arguments in this thread seem to eminate from those who say they
> > feel no obligation to the good of the selling community.
>
> Do the 'names' feel an obligation beyond sustaining their own income
> levels?
I have no idea since none have participated in this thread. But, I would
say that they have drawn attention to turning as art'n'craft which can't
hurt any turner. They also appear to be selling work at prices which
support each other, and, encourage others new-to-selling to price their
work to reflect the time and skills the person has developed.
snip
> > How are you going to respond when the pieces you were
> > selling for $20, $40 or $100 are now being left on the table because
> > Joe over yonder is selling imitations of your work for 10% of what you
> > charge.
>
> Has this happened to you?
Does it matter? It certainly appears to have happened with the $900
Ellsworth vs. $100 no-name hollow turning.
> > Hell, he doesn't care what he gets for it - he says he's just
> > as happy giving it to passersby, afterall, it's only a hobby to him.
>
> How much can he turn out that is comparable in design and execution if it
> is a hobby?
Well, he inherited a fortune as well as retired from a CEO position with
a Platinum retirement package - he really doesn't care if he ever earns
another dime but he has to find something to do with his time since his
wife prefers the company of the pool boy.
Owen Lowe
Lobby Dosser <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I think everyone 'accepts' the premise. I don't think some of us believe
> that a turner who does not price effectively has much effect on the
> market. If that turner is full time, they will not last. If they are
> part time, they will not be making much product.
I don't know - seems I know of quite a few turners who hit the Saturday
shows, summer farmers markets. But I have no firm numbers to cite.
Owen Lowe
Derek Andrews <look-on-m...@seafoamwoodturning.com> wrote:
> As long as they declare their
> income, I don't mind competition of that nature.
What do you mean by declaring their income? Taxes?
Owen Lowe
Kevin Miller <mille...@acsalaska.net> wrote:
> To some extent thinking that lowball woodturners should raise their
> prices is like asking if the makers of a Chevy shouldn't double their
> prices to keep the makers of a Lexus going. Bit of an exaggeration
> perhaps, but it draws the point. If I'm selling at a flea market, I
> expect to sell at flea market prices, competing against other flea
> market turners. If I'm selling at a gift shop, or moving up a notch at
> an art gallery, I expect to compete at gift shop/art gallery prices. It
> doesn't matter what the flea market guy is doing - my customers aren't
> looking at his pieces.
But Chevy isn't making and selling a clone of a Lexus. That's the whole
starting point for this discussion. Copying someone else's work.
Ellsworth drew a distinction when the copies are put up for sale. In
effect, copying is OK for skill-building and personal enjoyment. Copying
to make sales is unethical. Many of these imitators don't charge prices
comparable to the creator's prices and are not only using someone else's
design and ideas but may be pulling sales from them as well.
> By the time someone has the skill to compete w/me, he's going to have an
> idea of his skill level and what his work is worth. Until then, he
> really isn't competition. Just like I'm not any competition to John
> Jordan or David Ellsworth. I'm just not that good.
>
> I say let the market decide. If someone is undercutting another to the
> point that the latter can't earn what they think they need to, then they
> need to redirect their marketing efforts in a new direction. If there
> is no market for their turnings, then the market has decided.
I think the effect will be that turners with unique designs and
techniques will no longer feel they want to share with others. The
market for turning seems fairly small - why show others how to make what
you make so they can copy you and potentially take away sales? Consider
that this phenomenon of wide-spread sharing only goes back 25 years or
so. I have heard and read many times that the turning community appears
to be unique in that successful turners are so willing to give of
themselves so that others may learn. Will imitation to make sales bring
about the demise of the open community?
Owen Lowe
Will <not...@SPAMsimpering.ca> wrote:
> Was that enough?
Plenty. Thank you for taking the time to remind me of all the other
things to consider with selling.
Owen Lowe
Lobby Dosser <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I suspect not very much at all. Take the $900 vs $100 hollow form. They
> are totally different markets. How many $900 items do you see at the
> average craft fair? How many $100 items at the average juried show or
> upscale gallery? Folks who sell at prices which do not reflect the time
> and materials - particularly the time - are not likely to be doing it
> for a living and probably not selling very much at all.
>
> Notice that I left skill out of the equation.. I think that a skilled
> and talented turner will know that they are and price accordingly.
Apparently not.
According to Darrell's account, the $100 hollow form imitation *was*
presented in the same market as the $900 original. And other than a
signature on the bottom it was indistinguishable from the work of the
known turner. Why should we excuse the non-pro turner who may not rely
on sales for a living and may not price his product in such a way as to
reflect his time, skills and direct expenses? Might the juxtaposition of
these two indistinguishable, as to maker, objects cause the higher
priced one to be passed over in favor of the inexpensive one? (I argued
in past posts that the $100 price was certainly, in my opinion,
unrealistically priced too low - while I suspect the $900 is high though
much closer to an accurate return for the turner's input.)
Actually your comments bring us right back to the original posting about
plagiarism. Ellsworth's article says (paraphrasing) that copying someone
else's design is a natural desire and should be encouraged as a learning
process. Displaying these things in your personal surroundings is to be
expected. However he draws the line when price tags are put on the
imitations. He says, "... copying for the purpose of learning can become
a tool for self-discovery. Copying for profit is simply a way of
stealing another person's voice and using it as if it were our own."
The pieces I'm excited about making for the future take me a lot of
time. Upwards of 18-20 hours - i.e. half a week. I don't see the time
coming down a whole lot as experience with the process grows. I plan on
being paid fairly for my design, turning and finishing skills - as well
as being able to purchase new tools, supplies, covering sales costs,
etc. I'm going to be pissed off when someone who works outside turning
makes his imitations in the evenings over several weeks and sells them
for 20% of what I know is a reasonable price. Almost makes me want to
hoard the design and protect what I've created from imitators who could
care less that they are taking from me.
George
"Will" <not...@SPAMsimpering.ca> wrote in message
news:QH5Xd.10755$JH1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>
> George wrote:
> > "Martin Rost" <rostmartin @ hot mail . com> wrote in message
> > news:393itbF...@individual.net...
> >
> >
> >
> >>Doesn't socialism also support subsidies. That is what I see Owen
arguing
> >>against. Many turners subsidize their turning sales with their day job
> >>income.
> >>Martin
> >>
> >
> >
> > Fixed prices are not "subsidies?" Of course we will all assume, with
Owen's
> > optimism, that they will be fixed higher, not lower.
>
> Are duties fixed by the state "subsidies" then? Countervailing duties,
> import taxes etc?
Yep, that's what they're supposed to do - limit competition and/or favor the
home team. Soviets had a solution to that as well. Non-convertible
currency. In order to buy a foreign product, you had to be eligible to do
so, and pay in convertible currency.
Derek Andrews
>> As long as they declare their
>>income, I don't mind competition of that nature.
>
> What do you mean by declaring their income? Taxes?
Yes. Income taxes and sales, taxes where required by law. It's very easy
to turn a hobby like turning into an income generator, but when it grows
beyond selling to friends and relatives, my ethics tell me I should pay
my dues.
The sales tax is probably the most visible issue. Every show I do (which
thankfully isn't many) I get customers complaining about having to pay
sales tax, or point blank refusing. I'm sure that most people who have
to collect this do so, but the craft show circuit I am into is full of
part-timers who don't sell enough to have to register.
Will
Derek Andrews wrote:
> Owen Lowe wrote:
>
>>> As long as they declare their income, I don't mind competition of
>>> that nature.
>>
>>
>> What do you mean by declaring their income? Taxes?
>
>
> Yes. Income taxes and sales, taxes where required by law. It's very easy
> to turn a hobby like turning into an income generator, but when it grows
> beyond selling to friends and relatives, my ethics tell me I should pay
> my dues.
That could make you unusual. (Not a criticism nor praise -- just an
observation.)
>
> The sales tax is probably the most visible issue. Every show I do (which
> thankfully isn't many) I get customers complaining about having to pay
> sales tax, or point blank refusing.
Then price them "taxes-in" and keep your thoughts to yourself on the
issue. It's easy to work the calculation backwards and submit the
required taxes. (I was going to say "appropriate" not required - but we
know how much "appropriate" is in this case.) This is done all the time
in these "sensitive" markets.
> I'm sure that most people who have
> to collect this do so, but the craft show circuit I am into is full of
> part-timers who don't sell enough to have to register.
Derek:
Is it possible to move up-market? Are you restricted by a combination of
time, geography and cost?
Best wishes.
Nice web site.
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Will
George wrote:
> "Will" <not...@SPAMsimpering.ca> wrote in message
> news:QH5Xd.10755$JH1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>>
>>George wrote:
>>
>>>"Martin Rost" <rostmartin @ hot mail . com> wrote in message
>>>news:393itbF...@individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Doesn't socialism also support subsidies. That is what I see Owen
>
> arguing
>
>>>>against. Many turners subsidize their turning sales with their day job
>>>>income.
>>>>Martin
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Fixed prices are not "subsidies?" Of course we will all assume, with
>
> Owen's
>
>>>optimism, that they will be fixed higher, not lower.
>>
>>Are duties fixed by the state "subsidies" then? Countervailing duties,
>>import taxes etc?
>
>
> Yep, that's what they're supposed to do - limit competition and/or favor the
> home team.
A rare understanding there. Many people never get that! LOL
> Soviets had a solution to that as well.
THE USA government has the their solutions too I guess. Protracted legal
suits and "anti-dumping" duties I guess.
> Non-convertible
> currency. In order to buy a foreign product, you had to be eligible to do
> so, and pay in convertible currency.
>
Guess we should go back on the gold standard.
>
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Will
The are you going to charge $2000 a piece? Or will the market not bear
the "real" selling price?
Will you have to sell them for $200 -- just to get a buyer?
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Will
Not intended for specifically you. Did the list as much for myself as
anything - just a quick reminder in Marketing 101. :-)
However, if everyone thought of all those costs and "jobs" then we would
have fewer people selling - because it costs money to sell and many
people "subsidize" each piece sold by using their "real income" to
produce and sell the pieces they make.
People who "dabble" in an arts and crafts occupation tend to bring down
the prices. People who dabble in the real estate market (or stocks) --
by contrast -- tend to raise the prices -- and cause a boom and bust
mentality.
Their practice of "dabbling" in crafts production cuts into your income
-- by perpetuating a long-term "bust market" in crafts.
Think of it this way. If you are selling a house, the market is normally
controlled by the lowest price house on the street. If you have a $1
million home on a "$150,000 house" street. It is very tough to sell at
your price - maybe impossible. A $155K house will sell easily.
A new low -- is a new high.
Owen Lowe wrote:
> In article <HbDWd.260$JH1....@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Will <not...@SPAMsimpering.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Was that enough?
>
>
> Plenty. Thank you for taking the time to remind me of all the other
> things to consider with selling.
>
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Will
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> I think everyone 'accepts' the premise. I don't think some of us believe
> that a turner who does not price effectively has much effect on the
> market. If that turner is full time, they will not last. If they are
> part time, they will not be making much product.
>
You don't have to make a lot of product to depress the market. You don't
even have to sell it. You just have to make a low value product and
offer it. That is usually enough to encourage people to buy neither.
Think about the mechanism. Good horses usually win by a "nose". Same
with any good work. Most good work is "a little bit better in all the
details" -- apparently to the consumer.
So -- if you were buying a work and there were $100 pieces and $900
pieces -- very similar except the more expensive piece was a bit better
in all the respects -- actually making a much better piece in reality.
Would you wait to see if the expensive piece were lowered in price? Bet
you would.
If you were the seller -- would you eventually cave-in on your price?
Probably.
The lower price is usually set by somebody wanting to pay for their
lathe (saw or whatever) and their supplies.
Their work is usually "good" but not "great". Since that is the majority
of the crafts market -- that is probably how the pricing is set.
This was pretty terse. The explanation should take a lot more care --
but I have a stool to make today since I decide not to go to the PDAC
except for the last day - tomorrow. Let the younger folks stand around
all day. :-)
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Derek Andrews
> That could make you unusual. (Not a criticism nor praise -- just an
> observation.)
I didn't say I like paying taxes:)
> Then price them "taxes-in" and keep your thoughts to yourself on the
> issue. It's easy to work the calculation backwards and submit the
> required taxes. (I was going to say "appropriate" not required - but we
> know how much "appropriate" is in this case.) This is done all the time
> in these "sensitive" markets.
It is always at the back of my mind to do this, but it introduces the
problems of increasing ticket price and creating a disparity in inline
and offline price structures. Maybe next time I review my costs and
pricing structure I will bite the bullet.
When the tax structure in this province was changed a few years back,
the original intention was to use tax inclusive pricing, but it met with
a lot of opposition from the 'retail giant' lobby and our spineless
politicians backed down. I believe it would have been much better for
the consumer. I much prefer the way VAT is implemented in the UK.
> Is it possible to move up-market? Are you restricted by a combination of
> time, geography and cost?
Most of those factors are a problem. The nearest decent shows would
require overnight stays, so that immediately ups the capital cost of
doing a show, not to mention the much higher booth fees. I would also
need a new booth and lots more stock than I ever have at that time of
year. That in turn would require a larger vehicle to get it all there.
Maybe one day, but on the other hand my dream is to be able to drop
shows from my marketing mix altogether:)
Derek Andrews
> THE USA government has the their solutions too I guess.
I wouldn't put it past them to have been slipping BSE infected feed to
Canadian cattle, or blighting our spuds, or...... Any excuse to close
the border. :)
--
George
"Will" <not...@SPAMsimpering.ca> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > Yep, that's what they're supposed to do - limit competition and/or favor
the
> > home team.
>
> A rare understanding there. Many people never get that! LOL
>
> > Soviets had a solution to that as well.
>
> THE USA government has the their solutions too I guess. Protracted legal
> suits and "anti-dumping" duties I guess.
>
> > Non-convertible
> > currency. In order to buy a foreign product, you had to be eligible to
do
> > so, and pay in convertible currency.
> >
>
> Guess we should go back on the gold standard.
>
Swing and a miss. There is more to trade economics than that.
Lets talk steak first, then sizzle. Argentina produces steak at a lower
cost than a Nebraska producer because it has lower cost of production, or
export subsidy, or might even be "dumping," which is selling below even its
low cost of production because getting something keeps its producers in
business instead of falling into whatever social safety net they might
have - presumably at a higher social cost than the anticipated loss from
selling below cost of production. Then there are other considerations, like
creating a demand which will be fulfilled later at a higher price. Won't
even go into balance-of-payments considerations where selling for a more
universally accepted currency will buy things their money won't.
So much for a 12 oz T-bone, which should not be considered as merely 12 oz
of high-grade protein. Now we try to sell the sizzle. It can be as simple
as Bonanza versus the ambience of your favorite steak house, or we can
vigorously promote the piece as tastier because it's Angus rather than
whiteface, more patriotic because it's locally produced, environmentally
friendly, or perhaps it's "signature" beef which has received a testimonial
from some gourmand. This touches on the subject of this thread - is there
some definable "value" beyond 12 oz of meat or a 14" ash bowl? Simple
answer, there is if the prospective buyer thinks there is.
My turning wood arrives at $60 per cord. Some city guy pays half that for a
single blank, where I get a dozen pieces for the same - more if I use a
coring system. My lathe is an antique, my tools are not the latest alloy,
I'm efficient enough to make the thing within two hours, and my cost of
living and standard of living may be lower as well. Not to mention, the
prospective buyers in this lower wage area are more interested in a bowl
than my name on the bottom. Steak versus sizzle.
Do I charge more because the other guy's costs or desired return is higher?
Most call that gouging. What if the other guy has a more saleable
signature - s/he's "recognized" as a great turner. If they've got a
monopoly on sizzle, I'm going to have to sell steak, or sell nothing.
Either that, or come September I'm going to be short on tuition, my shelves
full of unsold stock, which makes it some pretty labor-intensive firewood.
So I'm not in competition with that recognized turner at all. I can't
compete. What I charge for steak in no way affects the price of sizzle. If
my piece happens to resemble his - well, as we know, an infinite number of
monkeys like me will eventually produce pieces that look like someone
else's. Of course, they make things that look like mine, too.
Will
> Will wrote:
>
>
> I wouldn't put it past them to have been slipping BSE infected feed to
> Canadian cattle, or blighting our spuds, or...... Any excuse to close
> the border. :)
>
Yeah! It time we put "our guys" along the border to guard it properly.
Get them to polish up their Lee Enfields, get a couple of Sopwiths to
patrol the land border and a couple of those Surplus DUKWS to patrol the
river borders. That otta stop-em-cold-in-their-tracks. LOL
No more spud infecting so-called tourists gonna get in here... ROTFLMAO
--
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
George
"Derek Andrews" <look-on-m...@seafoamwoodturning.com> wrote in message
news:6bhXd.15907$oh4.5...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> The sales tax is probably the most visible issue. Every show I do (which
> thankfully isn't many) I get customers complaining about having to pay
> sales tax, or point blank refusing. I'm sure that most people who have
> to collect this do so, but the craft show circuit I am into is full of
> part-timers who don't sell enough to have to register.
>
Unless your governing body is exceptionally generous, you _must_ collect and
pay sales tax, except on one-time sales of personal property. You don't
have to have an EIN to pay tax in my state, they take it based on SSAN.
After a particularly busy feeding frenzy of purchasers a few years back, I
started rolling taxes into my prices and rounding to the quarter (favoring
me, of course). If I hadn't, my daughter suggested she would never help me
sell again. Since I enjoy shooting the breeze with other wood lovers more
than making change and bagging, I took her advice.
Will
> Will wrote:
>
> require overnight stays, so that immediately ups the capital cost of
> doing a show, not to mention the much higher booth fees. I would also
> need a new booth and lots more stock than I ever have at that time of
> year. That in turn would require a larger vehicle to get it all there.
> Maybe one day, but on the other hand my dream is to be able to drop
> shows from my marketing mix altogether:)
>
>
> Derek Andrews, woodturner
>
> http://www.seafoamwoodturning.com
> http://chipshop.blogspot.com
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/toolrest/
Maybe you should consider doing the shows with someone who does related
work. Turner and a small furniture maker together etc. or something...
I have been thinking about finding a craft jeweler to work the shows
together. (When I start.)
Used these tactics before in volume marketing. Always having stuff that
related to the main sale. That way you could sell on the "real or
perceived" issue -- since you had all the pieces...
Darrell Feltmate
I like your comments on "steak and sizzle." I used to live within ten
minutes of a professional turner. I was turning craft (I like to think high
quality craft, but craft none the less) and he was turning art. Both of us
overlapped a fair bit. We were also good friends and still are. I would turn
a salad bowl similar to one of his. Mine sold for $75.00 and his for
$200.00. Part of his "sizzle" was his reputation, well earned and enjoyed.
Collectors bought his work more so than did the casual buyer. They bought
mine. We sold in the same place and in fact he had some of my turnings in
his gallery. No conflict there. On the other hand, there was a regional
pricing of most things as a starting price. No collusion, no price fixing,
just a thought of what a piece of a certain type should bring. Part of the
gentleman's agreement was to keep people like me, a hobby turner, from
affecting the income of the pros.
On the other hand, there was another turner in the area trying to become
pro. Both my friend and I helped him with technique and such. I had a vase
for sale at about $80.00, my pro friend had a similar one for sale at
$300.00, the new guy had a similar one for sale at $260.00. The pro sold his
first as I recall, I sold mine second, and as far as I know the new guy
still has his after these years. He needed more sizzle to justify the extra
cost.
--
God bless and safe turning
Darrell Feltmate
Truro, NS Canada
www.aroundthewoods.com
Will
I think we are pretty much in agreement. What you said lays out the
issues and offers not too much in the way of a universal solution.
Mainly because there is none.
Sounds like the Canada-USA timber/softwood war in a nutshell.
You seem to have a better understanding than some International
Negotiators and Legal Experts I have run into.
I will leave it at that.
PS: Run for President. They could use you. (No humour intended)
Best wishes. Sell lots of bowls.
Liked your web site btw. Will use your techniques for some of my
turnings. (No I won't send you a royalty -- just think of you. :-) )
Derek Andrews
> Unless your governing body is exceptionally generous, you _must_
collect and
> pay sales tax, except on one-time sales of personal property.
Unfortunately our governments likes to make things as complicated as
they possibly can, so they have implemented a ceiling below which
registration is optional. They have simplified the system somewhat by
combining federal and provincial taxes into one entity, but only in
three provinces. Fun eh?
Derek Andrews
> George
> I like your comments on "steak and sizzle."
I think you have hit it on the head.
I think many of the economic theories can only be applied to
commodities. You can't sell a barrel of oil for anything much other than
the current global price for oil.
Things change a bit when you get into consumer commodites, say digital
cameras, where you have variation from one product to another in terms
of functionality. You then get into less easily quantified values such
as brand, reliability, warranty etc, and things get even more complex
when you take the retailers and their value added options. But I bet you
a top class camera shop selling top of line cameras is impacted by Wally
Market selling the cheapest they can get their hands on. The market is
full of a cross section of buyers, some who will gladly pay top dollar
for quality products from someone who can offer top class customer
service, others who will buy the cheapest thing that takes pictures.
Once you get into much of our work, craft or art, the price you can get
is much more to do with perceived value by the customer, and the size of
their wallet, and the way and place you market it. The $50 hollow vessel
in the farmers market is unlikely to impact the $900 hollow vessel in
the exclusive gallery.
I have customers who buy my work for all sorts of reasons that economics
(at least not the economic level I took) could not compute.
George
"Will" <webm...@mc.com> wrote in message
news:7yjXd.16105$JH1.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> Sounds like the Canada-USA timber/softwood war in a nutshell.
>
>
would just jack up the price rather than try and steal the livelihood from
US producers....
Then there are domestic problems as well. After Bubba's lame-duck land grab
shut off a mess of acreage up here, we lost a competitive mill because the
diminished supply of softwood logs could not keep it in production.
Darrell Feltmate
"$75.00 for a salad bowl?" "No," I replay, "$74.00 for the time, skill and
the beauty of the wood. $1.00 will get you a salad bowl at the dollar
store." If what I was selling was utility, the dollar store would have me
beat six ways from Sunday.