TT Custom Cues

[Jazz]

Originally Posted by omgwtf

If a person sees a cue they like, but cannot afford it and then takes the design to another cuemaker, and asks them to duplicate this design (for half the cost of the original) what do you believe the cuemaker (being asked to do the copy) should do?

...just curious, for no particular reason... of course...

Well, I can think of at least one cue maker who's recently been getting a lot of attention lately of doing this ... - R - cue.

I think Jerry Rauenzahn cue plays pretty sporty. But most I have seen are replica/tribute of existing "traditional" cues including copies of Palmer, Szamboti and Balabushka.

Like I said before, if I were a cue maker, I'd want people to be able to look at the cue and said is that "Jazz" cue just by looking at it.

I guess some cue makers will do the copy simply because they can ... and because it brings in $$$$. And general public doesn't/wouldn't give frak about "design theft" - unfortunately.

And Koop, you ain't got nuthin to apologize for ...

[RichR]

Originally Posted by BoisdeRosie

I would liken TW's 'Lone Star Label' artwork cue to that of Andy Warhol's 'Campbell Soup Cans' painting(s), 'Coca Cola' painting(s), 'Brillo' painting(s), 'Absolut Vodka' painting(s), etc ...they're all pieces of 'pop art'. Does the fact that Warhol used what he perceived to be modern 'icons' as his subjects for his artwork, make him any less an artist? I am guessing that there are some art collectors out there that would beg to differ.

I'm not sure if this would be considered off topic or not.

Andy Warhol painted 'Campbell Soup Cans", as well as other trade labels.
They were considered high art and the critics raved about them, although they were only copies of company lables and logos.
Now, if someone else paints copies of these labels, is that artist guilty of design theft.

[pltrgyst]

Originally Posted by ThomasWayne

By law, informal copyright is automatically established upon creation of any original work. However, the level of protection [of intellectual property] ensured by this law is offensive only, meaning you can pursue at your own expense anyone who steals your work.

Formal, or registered copyright is established through applying for such recognition to the U.S. government, providing a "sample" of the claimed work, and paying a nominal fee. For VA copyright protection (the category cues fall under), the sample required is one or more photos and/or detailed scale drawings; the fee is currently $45. If the application is turned down this fee is forfeited and the work becomes public domain.

Obviously, filing a request for a copyright in an attempt to protect a diamond-and-dot cue is hardly worth the cost or effort, and will probably not be awarded. For very unique, on-of-a-kind cues the great advantage to registering a copyright is that the copyright owner gains the official support of the government in going after design thieves. The criminal penalties for copyright violation - hefty fines AND prison time - are severe, and the violations are actively investigated by the FBI, U.S. Customs (if knock-offs are imported to U.S.), FTC and other, rather serious men-in-black agencies. They do the work for you....

Well, not quite. Copyright is copyright. There are no "formal" and "informal" classifications. Registering a copyright simply records your creation, may save you time and effort in proving various facts when you're going after thieves in court, and -- most significantly -- allows you to pursue statutory damages and attorney fees in addition to actual damages. If you don't record, then you can only be awarded actual damages, which are often very hard to prove.

Copyright applications are rejected only for incompleteness, meaning that the application, the fee, and the deposit of the work have not all been received. There is no examination or evaluation of the matter being registered, and there is no automatic reversion to the public domain.

Registering a copyright further allows you to record the registration with the Customs Service, which can be beneficial in preventing importation of copies. But other than cases of bulk importation in which Customs is interested, or mass reproduction -- a a major, significant, corporate scale -- there are no Feds, FBI, or other Men-in-Black who are going to "do the work for you." No agency of the government is staffed to do that or interested in doing that for minor intellectual property violations. It's generally up to your lawyer and the courts.

Apart from that, you had everything right.

It should also be mentioned that copyright also secures the right to create derivative works, which would apply to the minor embellishments of TT's cue over JW's original design.

Procuring a design patent would provide much more protection than registering a copyright. I assume that most cuemakers don't take this path because it's much more expensive and requires more time and effort.

Regards, Larry (not speaking for the gummint, but I do work at the US Patent and Trademark Office...)

[pltrgyst]

Originally Posted by ThomasWayne

Actually, I got the necessary 'go ahead' from an authority much higher than the trademark owners; I got it from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office itself. Works of art such as my "Lone Star Cue" (and the other pieces you mention) are protected expressions, and are not considered infringement under U.S. law.
TW

What is this, USPTO week? No, Mr. Wayne, you did not get anything from "the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office itself." You got it from the US Congress. Congress makes the law; PTO executes applicable law, but establishes no procedures other than for its own responsibilities. PTO doesn't interpret the law for the public; nor does it have any enforcement arm. PTO also is not involved in Copyright administration, rule-making, or enforcement.

Regards, Larry

[pltrgyst]

Originally Posted by ThomasWayne

Not to question your deep profundity here, Jazz, but the word "condoning" means you are in favor of something....

No it doesn't. Condone: "To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure."

To condone something clearly coveys disapproval.

I have nothing against you, Mr. Wayne, but you play fast and loose with the facts when you're in bullying mode.

-- Larry

[ThomasWayne]

Originally Posted by pltrgyst

[...]
Copyright applications are rejected only for incompleteness, meaning that the application, the fee, and the deposit of the work have not all been received. There is no examination or evaluation of the matter being registered, and there is no automatic reversion to the public domain.
[...]
Regards, Larry (not speaking for the gummint, but I do work at the US Patent and Trademark Office...)

If you work for the USPTO then you need to take a refresher course. A while back I had a VA Copyright application rejected for a non-cue submission that was determined to be too simple to claim. The examiner (yes, there apparently IS an examiner of copyright applications - at least there was on this one) stated that my apparent desire must have been to copyright the construction technique of the item, which is not something that can be protected by copyright. I didn't dispute the finding, and my $30 fee (at the time) was forfeited for their effort.

And, by default, if a piece of art is rejected for copyright registration based on content then it is apparently unable to be protected by a copyright and therefore would seem to be effectively "public domain".

Other than that, you may have gotten everything right.

Thomas Wayne

[ThomasWayne]

Originally Posted by pltrgyst

No it doesn't. Condone: "To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure."

To condone something clearly coveys disapproval.

I have nothing against you, Mr. Wayne, but you play fast and loose with the facts when you're in bullying mode.

-- Larry

As do you, "Larry".

Taken IN CONTEXT, the orignal writer misused the word "condoning", and my response accurately corrected his mistake - without the rather anal need to quote a "precise" definition.

The orignal poster wrote:

“Of course, I'm condoning passing off someone else's creation as mine ...”

That statement can ONLY be taken to mean that the writer favors the design theft being discussed - which he clearly does NOT - and my correction of his misunderstanding of the word “condoning” was perfectly valid.

But, to sink to your level, I offer a more COMPLETE definition of the word "condone", which includes the parts you preferred to leave out:

con·done Audio Help – Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh n-dohn] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -doned, -don·ing.
1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
2. to give tacit approval to: “By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.”
3. to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.

Nowhere, either in the abbreviated definition you offer or the more complete one I’ve quoted, do I see the word “disapproval”. I do, however, notice that at least one very common use of the word condone clearly indicates approval – as noted in the more complete definition of the word.

TW

[mullyman]

Who is this Larry? Seems like a real ass hat. 4 posts and he's already acting like a douchebag.
MULLY
must be that Fast Larry that people have been talking about

[ThomasWayne]

Originally Posted by mullyman

Who is this Larry? Seems like a real ass hat. 4 posts and he's already acting like a douchebag.
[...]

It's not acting, MULLY, but if it were he'd already be type-cast.

Originally Posted by pltrgyst

[...]
I have nothing against you, Mr. Wayne [...]

-- Larry

TW<---- sure glad "Larry" doesn't have anything against him - lol