Ethics (was Beading Article in Atlanta Paper)

"Kathy N-V" wrote in message
.com...
You know, that wasn't the thing that struck me with the article. There
was a
quote that one woman who takes clippings from the Nordstrom catalog and
copies them for her own use. That bothered me.

Kathy N-V


I've been giving this whole subject a lot of thought recently.

This last issue of Beadwork had an Ethics quiz in it. One of the questions
was, and I paraphrase here since I don't have the magazine at hand, "If you
make detailed notes of something you see and then copy it, is that ethical?"
Answer was no, which I agree with. Copy, not ethical. Be inspired by, in
my opinion, ethical.

More questions: "If you buy a bracelet kit and then use the kit's
instructions to make several bracelets to sell, is that ethical?" Answer
was no. "If you use the instructions in a magazine to make several
bracelets to sell, is that ethical?" Answer was no.

This gets a bit fuzzier to me. If I'm using skills and techniques I learned
from published instructions, where is the line? I have assumed that once I
bought a kit I was free to use the instructions as often as I liked. And I
assumed the instructions in magazines carried implicit permission to use and
reuse if desired.

What are you guidelines?
--
This is a post-only address.
Send replies to e_lewis AT bellsouth DOT net
(with the obvious corrections)

I have assumed that once I
bought a kit I was free to use the instructions as often as I liked.

Most patterns are licensed for personal use only. When you sell a sewing
pattern design, the people who buy the pattern are getting the physical pattern
and cover art and instructions, plus the right to use it to make the clothing
article (or whatever) FOR PERSONAL USE. Meaning, make yourself a dress, or
forty, make some for gifting to your sister, your neighbor...but NOT for sale.
You can hire a seamstress to sew it for *you*--but NOT to make them for resale.
Some patterns for craft items also give you the rights to make them in limited
quantities, like "Angel" policy rubber stamps do--this means you can make a
limited number of BY HAND created items and sell them at your bazaar or gift
show---but NOT mechanically reproduce thousands, or set up shop with workers to
do them in bulk.
Sarajane

Sarajane's Polymer Clay Gallery
http://www.polyclay.com

view my auctions at:
http://www.polyclay.com/Collage/auction.htm

Precisely, Sarajane.

Most patterns are licensed for personal use only. When you sell a sewing
pattern design, the people who buy the pattern are getting the physical pattern
and cover art and instructions, plus the right to use it to make the clothing
article (or whatever) FOR PERSONAL USE. Meaning, make yourself a dress, or
forty, make some for gifting to your sister, your neighbor...but NOT for sale.
You can hire a seamstress to sew it for *you*--but NOT to make them for resale.
Some patterns for craft items also give you the rights to make them in
limited quantities, like "Angel" policy rubber stamps do--this means you can
make a
limited number of BY HAND created items and sell them at your bazaar or gift
show---but NOT mechanically reproduce thousands, or set up shop with workers to
do them in bulk.
Sarajane


~~
Sooz
-------
ESBC
~ Dr. Sooz's Bead Links
http://airandearth.netfirms.com/soozlinkslist.html
~ Bead Notes: Beading information A - Z
http://www.lampwork.net/beadnotes.html

In article , says...

I've been giving this whole subject a lot of thought recently.

This last issue of Beadwork had an Ethics quiz in it. One of the questions
was, and I paraphrase here since I don't have the magazine at hand, "If you
make detailed notes of something you see and then copy it, is that ethical?"
Answer was no, which I agree with. Copy, not ethical. Be inspired by, in
my opinion, ethical.

More questions: "If you buy a bracelet kit and then use the kit's
instructions to make several bracelets to sell, is that ethical?" Answer
was no. "If you use the instructions in a magazine to make several
bracelets to sell, is that ethical?" Answer was no.

This gets a bit fuzzier to me. If I'm using skills and techniques I learned
from published instructions, where is the line? I have assumed that once I
bought a kit I was free to use the instructions as often as I liked. And I
assumed the instructions in magazines carried implicit permission to use and
reuse if desired.

Skills and techniques are not the same thing as an entire design. If, for
example, you learn peyote stitch from instructions in a kit, there's nothing
stopping you from using peyote stitch on any number of other projects. What
*is* unethical is for you to remake that precise design again for resale.

There was a project in Bead & Button a few years ago about making a 2-strand
bracelet with a beaded toggle. My opinion is that it's unethical for me to make
*that exact bracelet* for resale -- but not for me to make bracelets *in that
style* for resale. The technique is separate from the design.

Celine

--
Handmade jewelry at http://www.rubylane.com/shops/starcat
"Only the powers of evil claim that doing good is boring."
-- Diane Duane, _Nightfall at Algemron_

To me, the operative phrase here is "to sell". If you're copying exactly
what you see in a magazine or anywhere else, it should not be for sale -
especially on a large scale, like at a show or on the internet. If you're
incorporating a design element into something that's your own to sell,
that's ethical, to me - because that's what books are for. Take Corina's
book for instance. It's there to help with design elements and techniques.
But to copy the beads exactly, using the same colors and designs, and then
sell them online......that would be crossing the line in my view.
It's a matter of degree.
I wouldn't sell a product made from a kit - I would rather make up my own
design - but I am not sure of the legality of it. I am fuzzy on the ethics
of that, too. It depends really. Are people taking kit designs, mass
producing them and then selling them in a venue like a craft show, without
mentioning that they are from a kit? Or are they making two or three things
from a kit and selling them to friends as a way to make money to buy more
kits? What's ethical? I don't know. It's hard to say. So I just stay
away from kits altogether unless it's a cross stitch kit I am making to put
up in my own house. Can't sell those - no way!
--
Kandice Seeber
Air & Earth Designs
http://www.lampwork.net

You know, that wasn't the thing that struck me with the article. There
was a
quote that one woman who takes clippings from the Nordstrom catalog and
copies them for her own use. That bothered me.

Kathy N-V


I've been giving this whole subject a lot of thought recently.

This last issue of Beadwork had an Ethics quiz in it. One of the
questions
was, and I paraphrase here since I don't have the magazine at hand, "If
you
make detailed notes of something you see and then copy it, is that
ethical?"
Answer was no, which I agree with. Copy, not ethical. Be inspired by, in
my opinion, ethical.

More questions: "If you buy a bracelet kit and then use the kit's
instructions to make several bracelets to sell, is that ethical?" Answer
was no. "If you use the instructions in a magazine to make several
bracelets to sell, is that ethical?" Answer was no.

This gets a bit fuzzier to me. If I'm using skills and techniques I
learned
from published instructions, where is the line? I have assumed that once
I
bought a kit I was free to use the instructions as often as I liked. And
I
assumed the instructions in magazines carried implicit permission to use
and
reuse if desired.

What are you guidelines?
--
This is a post-only address.
Send replies to e_lewis AT bellsouth DOT net
(with the obvious corrections)

I saw that article too, and wanted to discuss it.

I saw a necklace in Bead and Button. It was strung beads and pearls,
meeting at and spilling through a Monty Fonda windswept freeform. I don't
use pearls, and don't have a "windswept" bead. But I will make something
similar with a Ginger Sanders free-form and other beads in that style. And
I do not consider it copying.

There was also the question of whether it was ethical to copy a photo to
your hard drive. I know I was supposed to answer "No", because I am an
ethical person. However, copying published information into a personal
scrapbook is something I consider to be an OK thing to do.

But back to the copying. What is copying? In most cases, making an exact
copy isn't even possible, because those exact beads aren't available, or the
colors aren't available or aren't in my palette.

Tina


"EL" wrote in message
...
I've been giving this whole subject a lot of thought recently.

This last issue of Beadwork had an Ethics quiz in it. One of the
questions
was, and I paraphrase here since I don't have the magazine at hand, "If
you
make detailed notes of something you see and then copy it, is that
ethical?"
Answer was no, which I agree with. Copy, not ethical. Be inspired by, in
my opinion, ethical.

More questions: "If you buy a bracelet kit and then use the kit's
instructions to make several bracelets to sell, is that ethical?" Answer
was no. "If you use the instructions in a magazine to make several
bracelets to sell, is that ethical?" Answer was no.

This gets a bit fuzzier to me. If I'm using skills and techniques I
learned
from published instructions, where is the line? I have assumed that once
I
bought a kit I was free to use the instructions as often as I liked. And
I
assumed the instructions in magazines carried implicit permission to use
and
reuse if desired.

What are you guidelines?

This is a good, practical distinction.

I like it.

Tina


"EL" wrote in message
...
My guideline so far has been that if someone looks at something and says,
"Oh, that's the bracelet from Bead and Button", it's a copy. If they say
"That kinda reminds me of the bracelet in Bead and Button", it's in that
style.

Elise

Well, you have to read the instructions that come with the kits. Often,
they will specify that they are for personal use only.

--
Kandice Seeber
Air & Earth Designs
http://www.lampwork.net

I completely disagree that it's not ethical to sell something you got the
instructions for out of a magazine or if you bought a kit. You have paid
for the instructions, and if you can sell it, what's wrong with that. If
someone does not want their work reproduced, they probably should not
write
a magazine article explaining in detail how to do it!! The unethical thing
would be to lie about coming up with the design purely on one's own.
KathyH

"mkahogan" wrote in message ...
I completely disagree that it's not ethical to sell something you got the
instructions for out of a magazine or if you bought a kit. You have paid
for the instructions, and if you can sell it, what's wrong with that. If
someone does not want their work reproduced, they probably should not write
a magazine article explaining in detail how to do it!! The unethical thing
would be to lie about coming up with the design purely on one's own.

I agree w/you on this (for the most part). The thing about that
article is that it is entitled "Ethics" when most of the questions
actually have to do with "copyright law." The questions that do have
to do with ethics -- well, it's the author's opinion (who I know and
like and admire, btw).

The thing about ethics is, they're situational, not universal. If I
take a class in my town, there is no way I'm going to start selling or
teaching that item here in this town. Halfway across the country where
they think beadwork is a magical gift from the goddess, perhaps.
Preferably with the knowledge and permission of the original designer.
See? Situational.

Ethics are moral guidelines, and people make their own choices about
what their own moral guidelines are. (Outside of the obvious copyright
coverage, of course). Groups, such as "the beading community" or the
"rubber stamping community" or the "polymer clay community" may
formally or informally evolve a set of group ethics, but eventually
they may cross the line into "group think" which is not necessarily
right (or wrong). For instance, why do beaders feel comfortable saying
"If someone doesn't want their work reproduced, they shouldn't publish
an article..." when the rubber stamping community routinely admonishes
people who don't acknowledge who made their stamp (which I really
don't get, esp. if/when the stamps come from public domain sources in
the first place...sigh but ANYWAY...).

The main problem I had with the article, this time and the first time
it came out, is that it never addresses the main number one easiest
and best solution to an ethical situation -- which is simply to *ask
the designer*. The answer would not be no if the designer said yes. A
lot of times these discussions focus on the negative instead of the
positive.

Is it ethical to make a kit to sell that is based upon someone's
published article, esp. if/when the author sells kits too? For me, no,
IMO. But for a bead store owner who is swamped with requests for those
exact materials the day after the article hits the stands, maybe the
best thing for them is to just make up the kits (what are they going
to do, pay retail for the author's kit? spend oodles of time helping
each customer pick out the materials one by one? Why not just put some
together and let the customer get out the door already, lol?)

So yeah, I wouldn't say it's *always* appropriate to sell something I
learned from a book or tutorial, but I wouldn't say it never is.

About the using other people's designs for inspiration in another post
-- personally I think it's wrong to stand in a gallery window or
department store or art show and take notes or make sketches. I think
it's tacky and I know for a fact it can dramatically undermine
somebody else's business. I have also seen where that kind of thing
has led to people's original designs being published in books and
magazines without credit and without their knowledge. But in case you
think I'm preaching, well, reformed sketchers are the worst aren't
they? I used to do that, much to the horror of the poor girl who paid
for her booth at the craft show, LOL. But this was when I was just
learning and not selling. It took me a long time to accept that if I'm
selling I'm responsible for my own original work, or I need to ask
permission to market a design based on somebody else's creative
success. Influenced by, sure, we couldn't help that if we tried, but
copying is copying and if we would prefer that people not do that to
us, we shouldn't do that to them.

Because I write and get published and have freebies on my website, I
know that the author's byline and even the editor's name are not
"symbols" of impersonal, faraway corporate constructs or gurus in
lofty towers. Everyone whose name you see is pretty much a regular
jo(sephine), and they accessible, way more so these days then ever
before. So to me, they are people with kids and feelings and slim
profits behind every venture ;-) particularly in the beadwork world.
It's just good to ask -- it solves every ethical dilemma that I can
think of...

Did you hear that??? It's my knees creaking, this soapbox is getting
wobbly!

Mary T. 8-) who has said way enough

Aunt Molly's Bead Street
http://www.flash.net/~mjtafoya/
eBay and JustBeads: seriousbeader

What good (common?) sense! Thanks, Mary.

Tina


"Mary Tafoya" wrote in message
m...
"mkahogan" wrote in message
...
I completely disagree that it's not ethical to sell something you got
the
instructions for out of a magazine or if you bought a kit. You have
paid
for the instructions, and if you can sell it, what's wrong with that. If
someone does not want their work reproduced, they probably should not
write
a magazine article explaining in detail how to do it!! The unethical
thing
would be to lie about coming up with the design purely on one's own.

I agree w/you on this (for the most part). The thing about that
article is that it is entitled "Ethics" when most of the questions
actually have to do with "copyright law." The questions that do have
to do with ethics -- well, it's the author's opinion (who I know and
like and admire, btw).

The thing about ethics is, they're situational, not universal. If I
take a class in my town, there is no way I'm going to start selling or
teaching that item here in this town. Halfway across the country where
they think beadwork is a magical gift from the goddess, perhaps.
Preferably with the knowledge and permission of the original designer.
See? Situational.

Ethics are moral guidelines, and people make their own choices about
what their own moral guidelines are. (Outside of the obvious copyright
coverage, of course). Groups, such as "the beading community" or the
"rubber stamping community" or the "polymer clay community" may
formally or informally evolve a set of group ethics, but eventually
they may cross the line into "group think" which is not necessarily
right (or wrong). For instance, why do beaders feel comfortable saying
"If someone doesn't want their work reproduced, they shouldn't publish
an article..." when the rubber stamping community routinely admonishes
people who don't acknowledge who made their stamp (which I really
don't get, esp. if/when the stamps come from public domain sources in
the first place...sigh but ANYWAY...).

The main problem I had with the article, this time and the first time
it came out, is that it never addresses the main number one easiest
and best solution to an ethical situation -- which is simply to *ask
the designer*. The answer would not be no if the designer said yes. A
lot of times these discussions focus on the negative instead of the
positive.

Is it ethical to make a kit to sell that is based upon someone's
published article, esp. if/when the author sells kits too? For me, no,
IMO. But for a bead store owner who is swamped with requests for those
exact materials the day after the article hits the stands, maybe the
best thing for them is to just make up the kits (what are they going
to do, pay retail for the author's kit? spend oodles of time helping
each customer pick out the materials one by one? Why not just put some
together and let the customer get out the door already, lol?)

So yeah, I wouldn't say it's *always* appropriate to sell something I
learned from a book or tutorial, but I wouldn't say it never is.

About the using other people's designs for inspiration in another post
-- personally I think it's wrong to stand in a gallery window or
department store or art show and take notes or make sketches. I think
it's tacky and I know for a fact it can dramatically undermine
somebody else's business. I have also seen where that kind of thing
has led to people's original designs being published in books and
magazines without credit and without their knowledge. But in case you
think I'm preaching, well, reformed sketchers are the worst aren't
they? I used to do that, much to the horror of the poor girl who paid
for her booth at the craft show, LOL. But this was when I was just
learning and not selling. It took me a long time to accept that if I'm
selling I'm responsible for my own original work, or I need to ask
permission to market a design based on somebody else's creative
success. Influenced by, sure, we couldn't help that if we tried, but
copying is copying and if we would prefer that people not do that to
us, we shouldn't do that to them.

Because I write and get published and have freebies on my website, I
know that the author's byline and even the editor's name are not
"symbols" of impersonal, faraway corporate constructs or gurus in
lofty towers. Everyone whose name you see is pretty much a regular
jo(sephine), and they accessible, way more so these days then ever
before. So to me, they are people with kids and feelings and slim
profits behind every venture ;-) particularly in the beadwork world.
It's just good to ask -- it solves every ethical dilemma that I can
think of...

Did you hear that??? It's my knees creaking, this soapbox is getting
wobbly!

Mary T. 8-) who has said way enough

Aunt Molly's Bead Street
http://www.flash.net/~mjtafoya/
eBay and JustBeads: seriousbeader