Inspiration or Plagiarism: Borrowing Ideas or Stealing Ideas

sequoia

sequoia

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
3,354
Reaction score
513
Location
Little River, California
I'm a big admirer of Pete Howlett's ukuleles. Recently he posted a picture of one of his creations. I was especially taken by the "two tone" peghead design and "borrowed" this idea and incorporated it into one of my own designs. I was reading about a volcanic eruption in Hawaii and thought that would be a cool thing to try and incorporate into a peghead. The idea was to do flaming lava with a walnut burl and flamed maple.

I prefer to think that I was inspired by Pete's design rather than "stealing" it. Now it must be said that I do not sell my ukuleles and only build for my own pleasure and have absolutely no interest in making money.

I will try and post a picture of Pete's instrument and then my design. Did I cross the line? Is this inspiration or a copy? Anyway, thanks Pete for giving me the inspiration. Please take it as flattery and not a rip-off.
 

Attachments

  • HawaiianCrop_zps59837c81.jpg
    HawaiianCrop_zps59837c81.jpg
    26.8 KB · Views: 163
  • uke1.jpg
    uke1.jpg
    23.7 KB · Views: 161
  • uke3.jpg
    uke3.jpg
    55.7 KB · Views: 168
For what it' s worth, I think that is inspiration rather than a knock off. It is a bit like headstock shapes, very few if any are original, most are derived from other shapes. I think the only unique headstock shape I have seen is Chuck Moores, now whether that is totally original, or is some way derived from some other shape I don't know, nor do I think it matters that much.
 
I am not in complete agreement with Pete about this issue. IMO you have done no wrong. HOWEVER it might have been a good idea to send him an e-mail and ask. Explain that you don't intend to sell it and that you admire his work etc... And if he says "please don't" and you do, I wouldn't put pictures of it on the internet. :)

Edit: If however you were selling these ukuleles, I would think it might be unethical.
 
Last edited:
Brian1 said:
I am not in complete agreement with Pete about this issue. IMO you have done no wrong. HOWEVER it might have been a good idea to send him an e-mail and ask. Explain that you don't intend to sell it and that you admire his work etc... And if he says "please don't" and you do, I wouldn't put pictures of it on the internet. :)

Edit: If however you were selling these ukuleles, I would think it might be unethical.
Click to expand...

If that is/was the case, we may as well all give up.
 
I'm with Dennis. This is not enough of a copy to cause concern whether or not the uke was for sale. I'm not a builder but as a musician I often take snippets of chord progressions or tweak a melody line for use in "my" song. As long as I give proper credit and try to bring something of my own to the table, I consider this inspiration and not stealing.
 
DPO said:
If the scenario, as you described it happened, then we may as well give up.
Click to expand...

GIve up for what reason ? I still don't understand your post. Would you :

A) give up because it was too difficult to come up with original designs.

B) Not continue to make ukuleles because your designs are not protected ?

C) Wouldn't be worth it if you had to send Pete an e-mail.

Jim Hanks said:
I'm with Dennis. This is not enough of a copy to cause concern whether or not the uke was for sale. I'm not a builder but as a musician I often take snippets of chord progressions or tweak a melody line for use in "my" song. As long as I give proper credit and try to bring something of my own to the table, I consider this inspiration and not stealing.
Click to expand...

It is a strange world out there: Restaurants can't sing happy birthday to their customers anymore, but the group you come to table with can. You can also copyright a melody and lyrics but not a chord progression. I don't see building a uke at home for your own use as more unethical than singing in the shower.

A musician wouldn't think about recording someones song and selling it. And even if it is only similar George Harrison got sued over "my sweet lord" for being too close to "my guy".

Edit: Not my guy it was "He's So Fine"
After reconvening in September 1976, the court found that Harrison had "subconsciously" copied the earlier tune, since he admitted to having been aware of the Chiffons' recording.[101] Judge Richard Owen said in his conclusion to the proceedings:[102]

Did Harrison deliberately use the music of He's So Fine? I do not believe he did so deliberately. Nevertheless, it is clear that My Sweet Lord is the very same song as He's So Fine with different words, and Harrison had access to He's So Fine. This is, under the law, infringement of copyright, and is no less so even though subconsciously accomplished.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Jim Hanks said:
I'm with Dennis. This is not enough of a copy to cause concern whether or not the uke was for sale. I'm not a builder but as a musician I often take snippets of chord progressions or tweak a melody line for use in "my" song. As long as I give proper credit and try to bring something of my own to the table, I consider this inspiration and not stealing.
Click to expand...

Jim, a chord progression is not copyrightable. Many songs have the same chord progressions or partial chord progressions.

Please Don't Talk About Me and Five Foot Two are exactly the same.

So are They're Red Hot, Bring It On Home, Alice's Restaurant, John Hartford's Boogie and, except for the bridge, Jada

Hundreds of songs have been written with a 12 bar blues or I vi IV V progression.
 
Thanks Pete. I'm much relieved... Not sure what the reverse trick is. It is just laminate over laminate. I thought hard about putting in a thin line to true up the line but left it rough. Sort of like what lava would look like.
 
In my opinion this is both inspired and beautiful. Lovely work brother.
 
Pete Howlett said:
If you copied my logo it would be theft. This is not a copy. Glad I inspired you. Did you use the reverse trick to get a lineless match?
Click to expand...


In the US it has been ruled by the courts that copying someone's post like I did above was an infringement of copyright or what Pete calls "theft". That has since been reversed.

A person holds a copyright on everything they right or put to paper. And above I just copied what Pete wrote. However "damages" can only be collected on "registered copyrights". Damages are assessed by how much money the "theif" makes off of the sale of an item or how much money Pete looses because someone made a copy.

In other words if you copy someones unregistered works and do not profit from it or if the creator can't prove he lost money because of it, they get the right to wag their finger at you and call you a thief.

It is unethical to take away from someone else. There is nothing taken away when you don't profit from the creation.

Strange as it may be copyright on a photograph of one of Petes ukuleles is copyright of the photographer.
 
1
Brian1 said:
In the US it has been ruled by the courts that copying someone's post like I did above was an infringement of copyright or what Pete calls "theft". That has since been reversed.

A person holds a copyright on everything they right or put to paper. And above I just copied what Pete wrote. However "damages" can only be collected on "registered copyrights". Damages are assessed by how much money the "theif" makes off of the sale of an item or how much money Pete looses because someone made a copy.

In other words if you copy someones unregistered works and do not profit from it or if the creator can't prove he lost money because of it, they get the right to wag their finger at you and call you a thief.

It is unethical to take away from someone else. There is nothing taken away when you don't profit from the creation.

Strange as it may be copyright on a photograph of one of Petes ukuleles is copyright of the photographer.
Click to expand...

Yes. But their are many variables depending where in the global village one resides. In my village if Pete contracted me to photograph his ukes then he not the photographer, owns the copyright. As far as Petes "theft" scenario, it would be a very expensive legal minefield to prove either way. What if someone in the Amazon jungle happened quite by chance to come up with the same design. Then what?
 
You have a pretty unique and if I may say amoral view Brian. There is a right and a wrong way to do things and most people know what it is. Your personal use argument is morally weak and although it may stand up in court it does not make it right. Unfortunately common sense and decency needs to be legislated because society has lost its moral compass. In my profession there is an understanding that you simply don't pass another'a work off as your own regardless of whether you sell your stuff or not. If you do want to copy you then get permission. If you publish your copied work you acknowledge the source. I hope my position is now unequivocal...
 
Well, I think New Zealand like the US have the same international copyright laws. In the US you have to contract away your of copyright. But when you look at the quote from the George Harrison case the judge mentioned that Harrison was aware and had access to "he's so fine" and unknowingly violated copyright. THat implies that you must have access to something. But My understanding from lawyers I have dealt with on copyright cases (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice) even someone unaware of violation can be in violation.

The important part to remember is that someone in the jungle would not be causing damages, and is probably not governed by copyright laws. If however the role was reversed and I drew a picture that was later seen on a cave wall I would be less likely to collect damages after its discovery.
 
Pete Howlett said:
You have a pretty unique and if I may say amoral view Brian. There is a right and a wrong way to do things and most people know what it is. Your personal use argument is morally weak and although it may stand up in court it does not make it right. Unfortunately common sense and decency needs to be legislated because society has lost its moral compass. In my profession there is an understanding that you simply don't pass another'a work off as your own regardless of whether you sell your stuff or not. If you do want to copy you then get permission. If you publish your copied work you acknowledge the source. I hope my position is now unequivocal...
Click to expand...

Pete, I have never said anything about passing someones else's work off as their own. And a person who makes a uke for his own use is not passing it off as his own, he is the only person who knows or cares who came up with the design. YOUR argument is weak sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbkobabe
Waiting for inspiration? It can take time...
Replies
8
Views
345
bbkobabe
bbkobabe
S
Searching for Inspiration
Replies
5
Views
267
Kenn2018
Kenn2018
Brad Bordessa
Blues/Metronome Inspiration
Replies
1
Views
217
ripock
ripock
S11LKO
Inspiration...
Replies
11
Views
726
Joyful Uke
J
S
A bit of inspiration, perhaps?
Replies
7
Views
701
Sven
S
Top Bottom