Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lanlandesign]

I started my own jewelry design store online recently. A few pieces of my designs were inspired by a well-known indie jewelry designer. For example, one of the pendants was made of a silver frame that was embellished with gemstones, similar to the designer's piece, but completely different, if you compare. This designer found out and contacted me saying that I copied her design and threatened to sue. I don't think I copied anything! Is it too naive for me to say that if the designs are not the same, therefore I did not copy her designs? What might happen to me from this point on? Please help~

[JSonnabend]

If you're facing possible suit, it's highly inadvisable that you post any details here.  

In short, it's o.k. to be "inspired" by another's design, it's not o.k., to copy that design.  Of course, the $64 question is what constitutes copying, and nothing we can say here will definitively answer that question for you.

You might consider discussing this matter with an attorney directly.

- Jeff

[kevintalamantes]

I have someone interested in copying a piece of jewelry that I own.  It is a unique African tribal piece and I couldn t find it elsewhere.  I believe the tribe is nomadic and and their art is on the verge of extinction.  Any infringement problems if I cast my own piece?

[JSonnabend]

I have someone interested in copying a piece of jewelry that I own.  It is a unique African tribal piece and I couldn t find it elsewhere.  I believe the tribe is nomadic and and their art is on the verge of extinction.  Any infringement problems if I cast my own piece?

Yes, in all likelihood, if the original creator of the piece decides to make trouble for you.

- Jeff

[Rick Johnstone]

Info taken from here, Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts

Copyright protection for an original work of authorship does not extend to the following:

   * Ideas, concepts, discoveries, principles
   * Formulas, processes, systems, methods, procedures
   * Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans
   * Familiar symbols or designs
   * Mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring

99% of all jewelry made falls into the above category.

[JSonnabend]

Rick, I'd love to see some support for your statement.

- Jeff

[Rick Johnstone]

Well I can't post an active link (not a registered user), but copy and paste this, it's straight from the Copyright Office, you'll need to add the www at the beginning...    copyright.gov/circs/circ40.html#works   It's right there, it's not my statement, it's directly from the website.

[Lyza]

Rick,

I think your original statement followed the wrong pasted text.  You listed works NOT registrable under visual arts copyright and then said, "...99% of all jewelry falls under the above catagory."  In fact, jewelry is considered a visual art and is registrable.  Did you mean to say it a different way?  I was certainly confused.  Thanks.

[JSonnabend]

Rick, Lyza is correct.  I'd be interested to see your support for the statement "99% of all jewelry . . .".  I can tell you point blank that jewelry is protected by copyright -- the case law is rife with jewelry copyright suits, and the courts uniformly recognize the subject matter validity of such copyrights.

- Jeff

[Rick Johnstone]

Yes, jewelry CAN be copyrighted IF it meets the criteria for originality.
99% of all jewelry made/produced does not meet this criteria. They are simply variations of common designs.
This makes them fall into the category of items that copyright cannot be extended too.

Browse the US Copyright office for jewelry designs that have actually been granted a copyright and compare that with the number of jewelry products produced and sold.

I'll save you some work... there are less than 200 active copyrights for jewelry designs, and most of them are documented techniques for producing a particular type of piece, not an actual design.
This does not include periodicals, magazines or journals on the subject.

A couple of examples of non-copy writable jewelry.

Any ring, necklace or bracelet of common design or style.
Example: Tiffany style necklace (Tiffany and Co. holds no copyright on the design and cannot apply for one. It's based on a common link pattern used in jewelry making.) They just made it popular.

Charm bracelets... nothing new, people have been attaching items to bracelets longer than any copyright law.
The method of attachment or the design of a particular charm can be copyrighted or patented if it meets the criteria for originality, but the bracelet as a whole cannot be copyrighted. It's been done before.

Beaded necklaces/bracelets... while a variation of beads used in a particular piece may be unique, it is not an original idea.
The pattern might meet the criteria for originality, but again, one would have to prove that it is sufficiently unique to qualify for copyright status.

Variations of designs that exist in the public domain are hard, if not impossible to copyright.

In the end, only a slew of attorneys can ever say for sure what can and cannot be copyrighted, but even they can be wrong.

The Berne Convention throws a huge monkey wrench into this as anyone can "claim" copyright without actually filing for it.
Under these circumstances, the only way to be sure your copyright is legitimate, would be to sue someone for infringement and hope the judiciary sides your favor.
Pretty risky if you ask me.

[JSonnabend]

That's great, Rick, but your entire post rests on fundamental misunderstandings of copyright law.

Charm bracelets... nothing new, people have been attaching items to bracelets longer than any copyright law.

How is this relevant?  Let me save you some time: it isn't.  Copyright has nothing to do with the concept of attaching charms to bracelets.  It only concerns the particular creative elements of a charm (for example).  If you create a new charm that's not a copy of a previous charm, it's protected under copyright.  

Beaded necklaces/bracelets... while a variation of beads used in a particular piece may be unique, it is not an original idea.

Great, Rick, but you're confusing patent law with copyright law.  Copyrights, by definition, do not protect ideas.  So the "idea" of beaded necklaces is irrelevant.  The only question of substance is whether or not the beaded necklace shows the necessary "modicum of creativity" to be protected -- well, at least if you count the Supreme Court's opinion for anything.

Browse the US Copyright office for jewelry designs that have actually been granted a copyright and compare that with the number of jewelry products produced and sold.

The number of copyright registrations doesn't indicate squat.  Copyrights exist independently of registrations, so the absence of a registration doesn't indicate the absence of a copyright.

here are less than 200 active copyrights for jewelry designs, and most of them are documented techniques for producing a particular type of piece, not an actual design.

I'm not sure what you were looking at, but if you found "copyrights" covering "techniques for producing" jewelry, then you weren't looking at copyrights.  Few things are certain in this world, but that's one of them.  You seem not to understand the difference between patents and copyrights -- perhaps you searched the Patent Office's records?

Really, if you'd like to rant on topics you know nothing about, feel free, but others here should understand your complete lack of basis before taking anything you say to heart.

- Jeff

[rjohnstone]

My search was performed form the Copyright office website.
Not from the USPTO site.

In the charm bracelet example, I never said the charm or attachment could not covered by copyright/patent.

The beaded necklace reference is in regards to the pattern.
The pattern design can be copyrighted. Last time I checked, a pattern design falls into the area of copyright under 2 dimensional or 3 dimensional works of visual art. Not really a patent case.
Do you know how many pattern variations have been used for making beaded necklaces??? Too many to count.
The chances of someone coming up with a pattern that hasn't been done before is pretty slim.

And yes, I am fully aware of copyright without registration.
Personally I think it's a bad idea. If you want to assert a claim, file the form and pay the fee. It's not rocket science to fill out, but if your confused, hire a good attorney to do it for you.  

My point, to get to it quickly, is that the vast majority of jewelry that is being created and sold are based on centuries old designs and techniques.

Ask anyone who has been in the jewelry business for more than 20 years and they will tell you the same thing.

In the eyes of a long time jeweler, it is a rare occasion that a truly unique piece of jewelry hits the market.
It's more like "Oh look, they added ruby instead of an emerald" (insert a touch of sarcasm in the tone). Yes, it's over simplification at its finest, but you get the point.

I'm currently in a situation where a designer is claiming the right to a variation of the dog tag. Without going into too many details, the designer is basing the claim on size, material and typeface.
The designer is under the illusion that nobody else can make anything using the same material of a "similar" size and stamped with words using a "similar" typeface.
The typeface used on both products is in the public domain and can be used for commercial purposes without permission.
The material is a precious metal.
The alleged offending piece is half the size of the other designers piece and uses a similar, yet different typeface.
The designer is claiming blanket protection for a common design.
The "dog tag" has been around for centuries and has existed in many shapes and sizes.

The complaining designer has been advised that she has no standing for the "dog tag" design.
The basic design has been in the public domain for over 200 years.
Or to be more basic, letters stamped into a metal oval.
Yes, it's been done before. No, you're not the first to do it either.

[JSonnabend]

Yes, it's been done before. No, you're not the first to do it either.

Right, but that's not the test for "copyrightability".  That's a patent concept, not a copyright concept.  

The chances of someone coming up with a pattern that hasn't been done before is pretty slim.

Again, not a copyright concept.

And as for your tale of woe with some other designer, simply because some third party grossly misunderstands copyright doesn't mean your contrary view of the subject is suddenly correct.  Unfortunately, it looks as if you're both greatly misguided.

I'd be happy to continue this discussion, but you might want to read up a bit on the law of copyright, not the world of jewelry.  You can start with the Feist case.

- Jeff

[rjohnstone]

Very interesting read.

For the record, I'm in the jewelry business.
My family has been in the business for over 50+ years.
Selling, designing, repairing, etc.

As for the copyright issue, I guess my conclusions were totally wrong.

[rjohnstone]

I'd be happy to continue this discussion, but you might want to read up a bit on the law of copyright, not the world of jewelry.
- Jeff
 

I sent you a private note. Thank you for clearing things up.
I never took patent law into account when it comes to the design patterns. I always thought it fell under copyright.

I have contacted an attorney locally who specializes in IP law and I'm having him perform a review of the issue at hand.