Official Luthiers Forum!

The truth of the matter is that most likely some photographer or artist was ripped in the fist place. Now maybe the original person who did the inlay purchased the image from a stock house but very likely it came from a book, magazine, or other copywritten source. So most of the time you would be ripping off the ripper. Having said that maybe the image came from a stock house in which case you would be in the wrong. The bottom line though is there is no joy or glory in copying another persons inlay so make your own.

I have done headlock of Mucha's designs. That certainly doesn't mean another luthier can't use the same Mucha design for his or her inlay. Nor would it be unethical to do so. Same goes for that lion if the image is in the public domain. I'm speaking of the lion image not the image of the inlay.

_________________
Michael F Smith
Goat Rock Ukulele
http://goatrockukulele.com

I believe Mr. Orr has already offered a short explanation re: the origins of the Lion of Judah treatment being discussed, so while in general, it might be said that all art draws from other art, it appears unlikely in this particular instance that Mr. Gallagher 'ripped off' anyone.

_________________
A constellation only takes shape when one maps the whole.
- Beth Brower

Having reread this thread my opinion changes. You have the image in hand that the lion was taken from. If the image you have is not copywritten you are as free as a bird to design an inlay image from it. That is true legally and morally as far as i'm concerned I have done inlays based on the work of Mucha. That does not give me any rights what so ever to exclusive use of Mucha's designs for inlay purposes. Not in the slightest. You should not copy the inlay but you have every right to work directly from the image of the lion. That is one of the problems doing designs from images that are not original. Original as in you went to the zoo and photographed lions for half a day and came home and used those photos for your design.


If you think of the original lion image as a song. Lets say the song is out of copyright or has been purchased from Michael Jacksons songbook. The Beatles record the song, Joe Cocker also likes the song and records it. There is no foul there. Even if Joe did it almost exactly like The Beatles did still no foul. If you coppied the way the Beatles did the song but with the Cocker Band it would be tacky but not a foul. It all goes back to the original song and who owns it. And in your case back to the orginal image of the lion. By the way if you run that image through one of the filters in Illustrator (can't remember which one it will turn it into 3 or 4 or however many you chose line art.

I went back an ran the Illustrator cutout filter on the image of the lion you posted. It is not the image of the inlay you posted. It is very very different.

_________________
Michael F Smith
Goat Rock Ukulele
http://goatrockukulele.com

And imagine if the blind player had a non-original lion .... THE HORRORS ....

Andy

Ok folks, after spending the last few weeks trying to reach out to the family of the original lion inlays creator, I have come up empty handed. With that said, I decided to make my own unique lion inlay from the ground up as to not infringe upon his design. I found a very basic "Paint By Number" printout online and printed it out in a large and faint format. I then traced it with a fine line sharpie and created my own unique paths as to not copy that design either. I then scanned and shrunk that down to its final size and printed it out to use as a template for my final design.
Yesterday I spent a full 12 hour cutting, gluing, and inlaying the artwork and here is the final result! I couldn't be any happier with how it came out, and I feel it pays respect to the original artwork, yet steers clear of a copy in any way. After all this inlay came to creation starting with a pen and paper and I never once looked at the previously referenced inlay while creating it. The lion is made from: Koa, Cocobolo, Ziricote, EIRW, Ebony, MOP, and Myrtlewood. It consists of 40 individual pieces.

_________________
Chris Alvarado
www.ChrisAlvaradoLive.com
www.Driftwood-Guitars.com

Wow! That is wonderful. And, you are free from any guilt of copying the other inlay. Well done.

_________________
Bryan Bear PMoMC

Take care of your feet, and your feet will take care of you.

Excellent!

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"

That's fantastic!

_________________
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right - Robert Hunter

Incredible! And even more incredible is you did it in 12 hours. It would have taken me 36, at least.

Wow, beautiful!
Nice job Chris

_________________
Jim Watts
http://jameswattsguitars.com

Paint by numbers! Brilliant!!!!! I've been trying to think of a source of inlay art. Never thought of that!

Superb work!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wow very very nice work ! I gotta a lot to learn

_________________
"Practice enough till the results aren't hopes but expectations" forum member Peter Havriluk

Chris well done!!! That looks fantastic!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson

Suuuuuweet!

_________________
Pat

I like the design of the inlay, but I find the shell around the muzzle a bit distracting (under the eyes looks O.K.). The picture may make it stand out more than it really does. Overall very nice.

Very nice inlay, and I think the right solution to the ethical dilemma.

I though though that I should (as a law professor who knows some copyright law) comment on Goat Rock Ukulele's post:



If an image (or song) is out of copyright, then you can do what you like with it. But the assumption here seems to be that if the original author/artist is dead, copyright stops. Not so! Copyright continues in most countries, including the US, until the end of the 80th year after the author dies.

So Mucha's works are still in copyright until Jan 1 2040, and Michael Jackson's songs have many years yet to run.

In practice, it's very unlikely that an artist is likely to sue if a luthier copies his or her work as an inlay. But the risk is always there.

I happen to think the ethical issue is more important, for the original artist as well as the luthier. But the copyright issue is worth considering if the owner (usually the financier or investor in the copyright, rather than the original artist) is known to be assiduous in protecting it. Mucha's work is exploited commercially very strongly, and so although the copyright owners probably wouldn't bother with a one-off luthier inlay, they certainly would chase after a mass-market manufacturer who made Mucha inlay fretboards or headstocks.