newbie question: ethics of copying designs

[mikey_r]

Please don't flame me for asking this question - I have no history with anyone involved in the Granite Falls whistle review thread. But it got me thinking. One of the issues raised was whether or not a new maker had copied another maker's design. My question is: Is this considered a bad thing to do?

On the one hand I understand the value of intellectual property rights. If one maker goes through the trouble and expense to develop some fundamental innovation or configuration that makes his product unique (and really good, which doesn't always follow from unique), and another merely exercises skill with the digital caliper and reverse engineers the first maker's design, that's not only unfair to the first maker, it is demotivating as well. We have things like patents and copyrights to protect people from having the fruits of their intellectual and artistic labor stolen in industries where there's more money changing hands. Invoking the legal process to enforce IPR for whistle makers would be prohibitively expensive. So we have to depend on ethics.

On the other hand, copying successful designs has long been a tradition in musical instrument making, from Strads to Strats. A superb instrument is often defined as much by execution as it is by design. Cheap copies often feel and sound like cheap copies. Good copies are rarely cheap, and it's questionable that they adversely impact the market for originals.

What are people's feelings about this? If I come along with a good copy of a Rose blackwood whistle (not likely), would it be wrong for me to offer it for sale?

[Wanderer]

In my experience, I've never met a high-end whistle brand that was any other's twin, no matter how similar.

In the cheap factory-produced whistle category, there are several brands that are near identical twins to each other. But these are nearly commodity-priced instruments, and no one seems to care about any similarities here.

In the expensive whistle category, there are a few whistles of very strong similarity.

Busmans are nearly visually identical to Weasels (for obvious reasons), and I seem to recall that Weasels were originally patterned after an Abell that Glenn saw and thought was a more antique instrument.

Abells used Susatos for inspiration (again, going by memory, which may be faulty).

Greenwoods have an extreme amount in common with concert O'Riordans.

Several whistles share a half-moon-type labium ramp. Kerry Songbird low Ds and Alba Low Ds share similarities in this regard.

Several whistles share "tabs" or "wings" in the fipple block.

But even with these apparent similarities and borrowings, each brand executes the whistles in a different way. Some folks may like Songbirds and some may like Albas. Some may like Busmans while others like Weasels. I personally don't think it's a bad thing, for one reason. People will gravitate toward the sound they prefer, regardless of if another instrument looks similar.

What I don't understand is that seemingly sometimes it's OK to copy (I remember JessieK reporting on the Greenwood/O'Riordan similarity in a positive manner) and in some instances it's not (such as the craziness that occured when I posted my Kerry Songbird low D review). The difference mostly seems to be whether or not someone likes a particular whistle maker and are therefore willing to give their motives the benefit of the doubt. I find that an awfully subjective yardstick, personally.

[OBrien]

The following sentences are copied from a certain maker's website. I decided to be flattered, rather than taking legal action.


"A design breakthrough came when Thomas chanced upon a lonely David O’Brien pennywhistle at auction. Certain construction details at once made perfect sense."


Copying another's design exactly would be unethical, but I think there's a long tradition among instrument makers to adapt features others use into their own designs. For instance, I am now experimenting with fipple wings, with very positive results.

How many people can tell a Strad from a Guarneri by looking at it?

[peteinmn]

There's also the very longstanding tradition of flute builders emulating the design of older instruments.

[PhilO]

I think it may have to do more with other variables and less with whether two whistle brands are very much alike. For example, maker A apprentices under maker B who after some time happily sends A out to custom hand make whistles on his own. A then produces whistles by hand that are similar to those produced by B, but has some distinguishing differences as well. Moreover, A announces his own brand of whistles and gives some public thanks to B. Nothing wrong there.

OTOH, let's say that A apprentices under B and after some time goes out on his own but produces whistles that are the very same he was making under B, and distributes them as B's whistles without permission. That's not kosher. In addition, if A then mass produces these whistles again without permission thereby undercutting B's market, well that's probably not quite cricket either, is it?

Philo

[anniemcu]

If they aren't *exactly* the same, how much of it *can* be design theft?

We are talking about a very limited set of design options - it's got to be a tube with six holes, set at pretty much consistant intervals, and of pretty much consistant sizes, and it has to have a fipple ... certainly there are endless tiny variations possible, like how many sections, how wide the bore, the material, the fipple shape, but the fact is that they are all going to have a whole load more in common than different.

Plus, with all the makers that we have, and the interaction and discussion, there will be loads of crossover, just because of mutual inspiration and the like.

edited to add: I think that a maker's reputation is what makes the difference. I'd wager that all of them started out copying someone else's design, whether as an official apprentice to a recognized expert, or as a DIY-er. When they get to the point where their work can be counted on to be of high quality, they begin to see loyalty and word of mouth advertizing. A new maker may have some successes and get some word of mouth sales too, but it will take consistently satisfied customers to build the reputation. *That* you cannot copy.

[peeplj]

I think anniemcu has the right of it: many makes of whistles look similar to each other.

Whistles aren't unique; most musical instruments are like that. Trumpets look like trumpets, and although there are differences from make to make (and from price to price), only a trumpet player can spot them just by looking.

A $1000 Emerson flute and an $9000 Powell flute to anyone but a flutist are going to look very much alike.

The real differences are in the details, and have more to do with how it plays than what it looks like.

And I think that's true of whistles, as well.

--James

[anniemcu]

I think it may have to do more with other variables and less with whether two whistle brands are very much alike. For example, maker A apprentices under maker B who after some time happily sends A out to custom hand make whistles on his own. A then produces whistles by hand that are similar to those produced by B, but has some distinguishing differences as well. Moreover, A announces his own brand of whistles and gives some public thanks to B. Nothing wrong there.

OTOH, let's say that A apprentices under B and after some time goes out on his own but produces whistles that are the very same he was making under B, and distributes them as B's whistles without permission. That's not kosher. In addition, if A then mass produces these whistles again without permission thereby undercutting B's market, well that's probably not quite cricket either, is it?

Philo

Yup - two very different outcomes... and depend on the *person* even more than the whistle design. I would galdly buy from A in the first scenario, but not the second.

[StewySmoot]

If I come along with a good copy of a Rose blackwood whistle (not likely), would it be wrong for me to offer it for sale?

Nope. As pointed out, it is 6 holes and a fipple. If I liked it, I would consider owning it. If I didnt, I wouldnt.
From my ethical standpoint: my industry has people who are skilled in tuning things. There are good ones who can make bring the physics to life, some who can make it clunk. The good ones exchange ideas for the good of the industry by observation, in forums or at conferences. They dont ask permission. That would be professionally absurd.
I am one of those people. If I teach a junior the subleties of what I do, and he goes out and freelances or in competition with me, fine.
If someone looks at my product and figures he can mass-produce it with similar results by studying the physics of my model, who am I to argue? To me it is physics and material working together and nobody owns them but the Creator.

[brewerpaul]

<quote>I am one of those people. If I teach a junior the subleties of what I do, and he goes out and freelances or in competition with me, fine.
If someone looks at my product and figures he can mass-produce it with similar results by studying the physics of my model, who am I to argue? To me it is physics and material working together and nobody owns them but the Creator<quote>

That sounds like something Glenn Schultz might have said, although his rendition probably would have been a bit saltier
He firmly believed in sharing knowledge and that all of mankind builds on what has come before. No big secrets to whistlemaking, no mysteries although sometimes he preferred to just steer me and other whistlemakers in the right direction and let us find our way ourselves, putting our own mark on the process. Otherwise we'd all be simply turning out exact replicas of each other's work.

[IDAwHOa]

One thing that I have noted, with one and maybe two exceptions, is that is usually a third party that raises the flag of objection to something that is perceived as a "copy" of an existing design. THAT is what inspired this thread: A third party seemed to imply a perceived violation of what they believed to be crossing the line of copying.

It is the same phenomena that prompts people to be third party moderators as well, I think.

[khl]

<quote>I am one of those people. If I teach a junior the subleties of what I do, and he goes out and freelances or in competition with me, fine.
If someone looks at my product and figures he can mass-produce it with similar results by studying the physics of my model, who am I to argue? To me it is physics and material working together and nobody owns them but the Creator<quote>

That sounds like something Glenn Schultz might have said, although his rendition probably would have been a bit saltier
He firmly believed in sharing knowledge and that all of mankind builds on what has come before. No big secrets to whistlemaking, no mysteries although sometimes he preferred to just steer me and other whistlemakers in the right direction and let us find our way ourselves, putting our own mark on the process. Otherwise we'd all be simply turning out exact replicas of each other's work.

Note what Chris Abell says in his interview with Dale. When asked what his secret is he says this:

"First of all, my philosophy is that there really are no trade secrets.
Once someone has an instrument of mine, they have all my "secrets" in
their hand. I will usually answer any questions concerning dimensions and
methods of manufacture to anyone interested. If someone wants to make
exact copies of my instruments and try to undersell me in the
marketplace, I wish them all the best; because it isn't only the
instrument that is of concern. The intentions and integrity of the maker
are of equal importance to the finished product in building a trusting
customer base that will last over time. If someone, on the other hand,
uses my instruments as a springboard for an original and unique
improvement, I am honored to have been a stepping stone in the evolution
of whistle-making. George Kelischek in the whistles and Bickford Brannen
in the flutes were the stepping stones for me and I continue to be
thankful for their influence on my instruments. I believe that I have
added a small dimension to the flute and whistle worlds through my work,
but it hasn't been solely my own work and I acknowledge that fact every
day."

Steewy, Glenn, Paul, and Chris all on the same page here (with varying degrees of salt ).

[Jim McGuire]

Not much an instrument maker can do about disguising their 'published' product. They do own the 'secrets' of their process.

As an example, with wood, it starts with sourcing it, selecting it, seasoning it, turning and resting it, lathe setup, a million variations. With pipes, no two people make a reed the same exact way.

Unless a design is patented, it is open season on anyone's design and final product - at least that's the way society's legal system sees it.

The world's progress is dependent on people understanding what's happened already and finding a way to improve or streamline the process.

[anniemcu]

I think part of it, and this relates to Chris Abels comments in that interview, is that anyone working to make a better product, rather than looking to get a piece of the pie, as it were, is going to be welcomed. Anyone horning in for the sole purpose of undercutting and riding on the coat-tails of genuinely good makers is in for a short career with serious musicians.

The quality of their product will limit their market, and the cheapos (in quality here, not necessarily price) will mostly be purchased by those who have yet to learn better. Those who want to play that instrument, really want to play, whether whistle, flute or cow bell, will seek out better instruments until they find the one they like best.

No matter which one they like the best, most will end up owning quite a few others as well, and eventually they will see the error of their wicked ways and offer some of them up for sale so the rest of us get a chance to own something better than we already have.

And so it goes.

[StewySmoot]

Those who want to play that instrument, really want to play, ... will seek out.....instruments .... until they find the one they like best....

I couldnt have said it better. T'ain't the road, t'is the destination.