Well spoken Mr. Wiebe.

quote:

In the end, it's not the tools used, it;s the patience and talent of the maker

Very true.

I process little of either

So that is why they make glass bedding a perfect fit each and every time.

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:
I can shake it out if I shake it vigorously

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:
I can shake it out if I shake it vigorously

That's kinda creepy......downright strange how some folks spend time.

Congratulations?

They are your words, not mine Ted.
Too funny.

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:
They are your words, not mine Ted.
Too funny.

I agrre they are mine......it's creepy as hell that you took the time to dig that up to quote.

Its your time.......how you spend it is up to you.

This is one of my James Anderson rifle. The stock does not have any flies on it.

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
This is one of my James Anderson rifle. The stock does not have any flies on it.

Absolutely beautiful rifle, a true work of art.

But...

If you had told me it was a Duane Wiebe stock I would have believed that too.

So, to make my point, there just isn't a whole lot of real originality in the basic outside shape of any rifle stock. Everything is a copy of something that came before it.

The master's work starts when the duplicator stops. And bubba could screw up a semi-inlet patterned after a James Anderson, Duane Wiebe, or any other master craftsman's fine custom stock.

I just don't know what all fuss is about.

That is truly a beautiful piece.

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
This is one of my James Anderson rifle. The stock does not have any flies on it.

A very beautiful rifle how often has it been out in the field.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
This is one of my James Anderson rifle. The stock does not have any flies on it.

A very beautiful rifle how often has it been out in the field.

Only a couple times. Our squirrels aren't as big the last couple years.

quote:

I just don't know what all fuss is about.

I think it is about somebody wanting to be recognized as a creative artist, and not just a gunsmith.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:

quote:

I just don't know what all fuss is about.

I think it is about somebody wanting to be recognized as a creative artist, and not just a gunsmith.

Funny shit......either way

It's just a job....."recognition" aside

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:

quote:

I just don't know what all fuss is about.

I think it is about somebody wanting to be recognized as a creative artist, and not just a gunsmith.

Doug
Can you tell the difference between a chef and a cook? It's ok if you can't, not everybody gets it.

It's kind of tragic that there are many that hang out on this forum that still think a custom gun is just a list of options.

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:
Can you tell the difference between a chef and a cook?

Humility isn't one of your strong points now is it?

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:
Can you tell the difference between a chef and a cook?

Humility isn't one of your strong points now is it?

Come on Ted,
James is in a class of just a very very few that does the quality of work that he does. You don't know him as a person, I don't think.
Humility has nothing to do with it.

I somewhat know James, having been to his shop on a number of occasions.

What I would say is that he has Quiet Confidence in his ability, and I would also say that it is certainly justified.

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:
Can you tell the difference between a chef and a cook?

Humility isn't one of your strong points now is it?

Come on Ted,
James is in a class of just a very very few that does the quality of work that he does. You don't know him as a person, I don't think.
Humility has nothing to do with it.

Pardon me if I don't stand backstage hopeful to catch a fleeting glimps or an autograph.

Chef.....Cook.....Gunsmith.....Gunmaker......
Machinist......Toolmaker......Welder.....Fabricator
House painter or "Artist"

All just ways to make a living......jobs

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:

Can you tell the difference between a chef and a cook? It's ok if you can't, not everybody gets it.

It's kind of tragic that there are many that hang out on this forum that still think a custom gun is just a list of options.

Oh I get it, and I enjoy art.
That said, I really don't get spending 100s of hours and thousands of dollars on a gun that has lost it intended purpose somewhere along the way.

But if other people want to do it, it is OK by me.

But let's not kid ourselves, a typical custom stock without anything revolutionary would never withstand a patent or copyright challenge. Not when millions of wood stocks have been made for 800 years which are basically the same in form and function.

Doubtful that 600 years from now that people will be flocking from around the world, standing in lines around the block and craning their necks to just to view any gunmaker's art currently being created either.

Sorry that isn't what you wanted to hear, but please keep posting pics of your work because I do enjoy and appreciate looking at it.


Merry Christmas to all!
Doug

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:

Can you tell the difference between a chef and a cook? It's ok if you can't, not everybody gets it.

It's kind of tragic that there are many that hang out on this forum that still think a custom gun is just a list of options.

Oh I get it, and I enjoy art.
That said, I really don't get spending 100s of hours and thousands of dollars on a gun that has lost it intended purpose somewhere along the way.

But if other people want to do it, it is OK by me.

But let's not kid ourselves, a typical custom stock without anything revolutionary would never withstand a patent or copyright challenge. Not when millions of wood stocks have been made for 800 years which are basically the same in form and function.

Doubtful that 600 years from now that people will be flocking from around the world, standing in lines around the block and craning their necks to just to view any gunmaker's art currently being created either.

Sorry that isn't what you wanted to hear, but please keep posting pics of your work because I do enjoy and appreciate looking at it.


Merry Christmas to all!
Doug

No sir! You don't get it. Unfortunately, all of this is over your head.
A Merry Christmas to you also.

The complete irony of this thread is the guy in the video copied a copy machine. And then took credit for it.

If you take a block of wood and carve a gunstock from scratch out of it.(IE original artwork) This is the definition of 3D artwork that is covered by US Copyright Act under Visual Arts.

This isn't an opinion.

If someone other than the creator of this visual art puts it in a copy machine and duplicates it without permission, this is the definition of Copyright infringement.

The fact that few, if any copyright holders would pay a lawyer to defend it in court has nothing to do with the fact that ripping sombody's stock patterns isn't alowed by the US Copyright Act.

Lester Brooks and Duane Wiebe have posted detailed step by step threads on how to produce a stock from a blank. IMO this is an important skill to have for those that are in the business of duplicating gunstocks. As well as having a good grasp of the work required to finish the stock off the duplicator.

If all this was really important then the creator of these original works (probably in the category of Sculpture in the Copyright laws because that is essentially what they are; wooden sculptures), would register them. That requires two copies of the piece, to be placed in the Library of Congress. (US Copyright Office, Circular #1)
But I understand that no one wants their original designs copied.
Too late for that though.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
If all this was really important then the creator of these original works (probably in the category of Sculpture in the Copyright laws because that is essentially what they are; wooden sculptures), would register them. That requires two copies of the piece, to be placed in the Library of Congress. (US Copyright Office, Circular #1)
But I understand that no one wants their original designs copied.
Too late for that though.

Straight from https://www.copyright.gov/
When is my work protected?

Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created . You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

I see you are reading the same document I am.
Protected? Definitely.
Able to enforce it? You already know the answer.

You are correct.

I’m not disagreeing with the use of the term “art”, but I think we use it a lot when what we really mean is “precision craftsmanship that is aesthetically pleasing”.

The key word in the copyright laws is the term “original”. Unless you invent some brand new style nobody has seen before, there really isn’t such a thing as an original rifle stock. Every style combination under the sun has been replicated countless times.

Think yours is somehow different? Go ahead then, make your case. We are listening...

If you are a fan of Ansel Adams and travel the national parks taking pictures from the same spots that he did, and framing them the same, you would hold the copyright to the pictures that you took. This has been done thousands of times by thousands of different photographers.

Now, if you took an Ansel Adams photograph and put it in a copy machine, that would be infringement.

This is the exact same as duplicating stock made from scratch with a pantagraph, digitizer, photogrammetry, laser scanner or any other method of reverse engineering. If you don't have permission to copy it, that would be infringement.

Just like the Ansel Adams example, it makes no difference if the stock looks similar to others.

Patents and trademarks do not apply in the same way as copyright protection.

I'd wager plenty of accomplished stock makers would argue they have spent a lifetime attempting to perfect the fine points of stock design, and stock making. The devil is in the detail and small changes can make all the difference.

It's also true there is not a lot of printed reference material on design and fitting of stocks, particularly rifle stocks, that has been published by great stockers, so there is a lot to be learned that is perhaps not apparent to some, and opportunities to share this knowledge are generally somewhat limited. You might get an apprenticeship or the chance to work under a good stocker. You could pay for a few short courses, and hopefully get as good an insight into it as you can in such a short time.

It's not just about art. To some it's also about the evolution of a tool and it's handling qualities. I reckon a smart stockmaker is life-long thinking student, learning from the work of past and present masters. It is necessary to have a conversant understanding of past work to try and build from - to improve and evolve. This understanding can be as broad and deep as you like it to be. I believe strongly if a person cannot study past stock makers work and pick out subtle but important differences and learn from them, well he or she will be somewhat limited.

Or, you can choose to be limited to copying the work of others. Big difference, even if you have permission to copy such work.

To say all stocks in a similar style are all so alike, is to throw sand in the face of those who don't just copy or re-invent the wheel, but who also try to evolve the work in their field both from mechanical aspects, fitting, and aesthetics.

A good custom stockmaker is expected to provide adequate fit AND good looks. This is something that is not easy to do all of the time, and unless a sample is available to copy it must be created. To some folk unable to determine and appreciate the subtleties, they may all look the same, but to others the differences are profound. Not necessarily in looks, but in fit, handling and function.

This, to me, is why the ability to make a pattern ought to be a requisite skill for those who run a duplicator and separate themselves from those who just copy stocks. Gun fit is a lot more complicated than getting the length of pull and pitch right. There is the opportunity to offer much more than just a "cookie cutter custom" attitude to machined stocks. The machine doesn't make the stockmaker.

Some makers choose to machine one-off jobs on a duplicator, from custom patterns that may well never be used again. It's often assumed this is because they cannot make the stock from the block. It is not generally considered that they may have other reasons for doing so. For example it allows the customer a chance of handling, or even shooting the job wearing a pattern stock. It allows final adjustments and approvals, something not able to be done from the block unless a near perfect example already exists. It also allows the stock maker to better chase grain flow and colour more easily to the limits of the blank in question. This can be done from the block too, but I reckon it's much harder to do so and more time consuming. Lastly, it allows the stock maker the chance to machine the job over size on the outside shape and under size on the inlet. The stock can then be monitored for movement, and allowed to do so before it takes it's final shape. This is done to some extent during stocking from the block, but it ain't the same.

To run a machine to fine tolerances as James Anderson and his peers do, is also no small undertaking. This skill set has to be gained on top of other stockmaking skills, and the quality of work done is in direct proportion to skill, experience and knowledge of the job.

People generally make a lot of assumptions about the use of duplicators, without having a bunch of relevant experience. A wise man once taught me that assumptions are the mother of all mistakes.

For those who reckon it's all so easy and a big old load of BS is made of it all by name stockmakers, by all means lead by example. Take up the tools and show how it's done. It's all too easy, after all!

Excellent points above, thank you for both of those posts!

Juglans
Could not have said it better myself

The best thing to do is just avoid people that talk about lawyers and litigation. I guess I will have to stop making stocks for myself in case they call the stock police on me.
What a thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnum Hunter1:
The best thing to do is just avoid people that talk about lawyers and litigation. I guess I will have to stop making stocks for myself in case they call the stock police on me.
What a thread.

Do buy your movies from a street vendor that sells pirated movies?

What's the difference?

IMO
The movie production companies can afford a bus load of lawyers.

quote:

The best thing to do is just avoid people that talk about lawyers and litigation

Sound advice.

I would also add people who ask if you have insurance.

If people ask if I am insured I politely refuse to do business with them.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

The best thing to do is just avoid people that talk about lawyers and litigation

Sound advice.

I would also add people who ask if you have insurance.

If people ask if I am insured I politely refuse to do business with them.

When I was in business, I avoided clients that came in, who I knew had been clients of my competitor, if they came in complaining about the level of services that had been provided by the competitor. Particularly if they mentioned suing them. Generally those that aren't satisfied with one business will not be satisfied with the next, or the next, or the one after that.

As far as intellectual property goes, a stock design is as much intellectual property as any other art or craft work. It would be a courtesy, at the least, to ask the artist/craftsman before copying. Or, as suggested in this thread, develop your own patterns.

On duplicators; having one, I can definitely say that it doesn't make me a stockmaker. I can make a stock, here are a couple of posts where I have:

Making a high wall stock

Making a cherry wood stock

That and the duplicator doesn't make me a Lester Brooks and Duane Wiebe or James Anderson. I envy their skills and patience in making a quality, artistic stock.

The duplicator only gets you a rough form, big deal.
In 2005 Dave Petzal wrote an article about Dakota rifles and used the term, "blued steel and fine walnut" in the copyrighted piece. On "gunmaker('s)" (and I think some British firm may have used that title years ago) website he uses the term, "fine walnut and blued steel" that says its copyrighted in 2016. I wonder if that is enough of a difference to keep a lawyer off of him for copyright infringement.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnum Hunter1:
The duplicator only gets you a rough form, bid deal.
In 2005 Dave Petzal wrote an article about Dakota rifles and used the term, "blued steel and fine walnut" in the copyrighted piece. On "gunmaker('s)" (and I think some British firm may have used that title years ago) website he uses the term, "fine walnut and blued steel" that says its copyrighted in 2016. I wonder if that is enough of a difference to keep a lawyer off of him for copyright infringement.

Hey fellers, this is Christmas.

Happy Christmas, fellas...

now, this guy really can work and run a duplicator .. great skill and a great machine ...

the rest is all opinion - and those tend to vary

Quite a topic.
Stock duplicating by machine is 200 years old.
Which was first built after an offhand remark.
Bringing it back as a great read.

https://www.copyright.gov/register/va-useful.html

From the US Copyright office:

Useful Articles
A “useful article” is an object having an intrinsic utilitar¡an function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. Examples are clothing, furniture, machinery, dinnerware, and lighting fixtures. An article that is normally part of a useful article may itself be a useful article, for example, an ornamental wheel cover on a vehicle.

Copyright does not protect the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of such works of craftsmanship. It may, however, protect any pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of an object. Thus, a useful article may have both copyrightable and uncopyrightable features. For example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware could be protected by copyright, but the design of the chair or flatware itself could not.

Some designs of useful articles may qualify for protection under the federal patent law. For further information, contact the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 or via the Internet at www.uspto.gov. The telephone number is 1-800-786-9199 and the TTY number is (571) 272-9950. The automated information line is (571) 272-1000.

Copyright in a work that portrays a useful article extends only to the artistic expression of the author of the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. It does not extend to the design of the article that is portrayed. For example, a drawing or photograph of an automobile or a dress design may be copyrighted, but that does not give the artist or photographer the exclusive right to make automobiles or dresses of the same design.

https://www.copyright.gov/register/va-useful.html

You can copyright a checkering pattern, you cannot copyright the design of the stock.

You could possibly patent the design of the stock if you can meet all four of the requirements of a patent.

-The invention must be statutory (subject matter eligible)
-The invention must be new
-The invention must be useful
-The invention must be non-obvious

Going to be pretty tough to meet requirement #2

And that, my friends, is the final nail in the coffin containing the very notion of a copyrited or patented rifle stock.
Good job.
Happy New Year.