Technique Ownership - A Question of Ethics

This is the main board for discussing general techniques, tools, and processes for fusing, slumping, and related kiln-forming activities.

Moderators: Brad Walker, Tony Smith

Post Reply
Tony Smith
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 5:59 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Contact:

Technique Ownership - A Question of Ethics

Post by Tony Smith »

I would like to initiate a discussion about Technique Ownership. I don't want it to be a controversial topic, but one that is thought provoking and will establish some commonly-agreed-to guidelines for the rest of us to use in the future. After the discussion dies down, I will try to summarize the thoughts and opinions for everyone to comment on.

What prompted this discussion was that recently, someone asked me what I thought about another individual distributing detailed information about a technique that that person learned in a class they had taken. I was surprised that a person would do that as I felt it was unethical. Or is attributing the information to the original source adequate before distributing it to the world?

I think what we are witnessing within our community is the evolution of an artform accelerated by the advances in technology and communication due to this website and the internet. We are also seeing more classes offered in kilnforming than ever before. I'm sure the glass and kiln manufacturers are seeing increased sales as well. With this evolution comes the dilution of unique techniques. People are taking a technique here and a technique there, and combining them to acheive some other effect that was not possible with either of the original techniques alone. I believe that the person who combined the techniques can now call that technique their own and teach it or not teach it.

But what about the person who goes to Las Vegas and takes a class, then goes back to their studio and teaches that same class, verbatim, using the same information and the same class projects... There are some retailers who feel that this is a legitimate use of the classes in Las Vegas and at other conferences, and is a way to keep their classes fresh.

What about the perspective of the teachers? I'm sure that if someone were to teach a class only to see a student copying their work and competing with them on the teaching circuit there would be hard feelings... or not, I'm not sure. Certainly, there are a lot of glass artists making pattern bars. Many of them took classes and learned the technique from someone else. But by teaching the technique does the teacher have any justification for feeling slighted by her students who are now using that technique? Or is there an unspoken expectation that the students will use the techniques but not teach them?

Your thoughts on this complex topic will be appreciated.

Tony
The tightrope between being strange and being creative is too narrow to walk without occasionally landing on both sides..." Scott Berkun
Lisa Allen
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 3:23 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact:

Post by Lisa Allen »

Isnt that the point of learning a new technique......so that you can use it in your work??? I feel like everyone puts their unique slant on what they learn anyway, so the same technique can have many different incarnations depending on who is using it.

For me, this goes for teaching as well. I did not spontaneously know how to make pattern bars.......I learned it in a class. But, what I have done with it is my own, in design, color choice, firing schedules, final shape, final finish.......and I don't feel in the least unethical for sharing that information. Is my brother-in law, who teaches comparative religion at Loyola, unethical for teaching undergrads what he learned in college?

If the only things you could ethically teach or use in you work were things that you completely spontaneously generated, I am guessing that there would be very few teachers or artists out there.
Lisa Allen
http://www.lisa-allen.com
Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
watershed
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 1:44 am

Post by watershed »

I understand the concern, but here's another angle. If I have a super duper casting technique, and I want to keep it to myself, then I don't teach classes.

I have some personal issues on pieces though. My problem (still rasslin' with) is concerning a type of piece. A new application of glass, that I Also thought of and later found out that someone was making. But now they have ceased production. So is it fair game? Perhaps the question is better, " When do you (should you) offer to License a design from someone, or does it matter? So things are so basic that it would be tough to do anything without stepping on toes. Other things are almost easy.

Another example. Lino Tagliapetra(sp?) makes these Tall (36in +) vases with thin long necks. He does them with Cane. This other guy (I'll edit name if someone remembers it) Makes very similar (almost identical on the web) forms, but uses colors in a more standard way. Did he get permission? Did he work with Lino? Does Lino care?


Greg
Gale aka artistefem
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 8:14 pm
Location: MO-on the banks of the Mississippi
Contact:

Post by Gale aka artistefem »

Hmmm...Tony, this is a thorny one.

I recently had another fairly new to fusing glass artist ask how I acheived a certain surface on some of my glass work. Because I am not ready to share this particular technique with the world, I nicely told her that I'm not ready to give out this info.

She at least had the good grace to ask if I would teach a class on how to do this type of surface work - LOL! I'm not interested in teaching this technique (mostly don't have the time to teach) and unfortunately for both of us, she has been very cool since our conversation!

Two thoughts:

1. If you don't want other artists using your "possibly" proprietary techniques, then don't share the technique. If you do share this information, then don't whine about it when other artists apply your technique to their glasswork. Be glad that your teaching efforts were successful and continue to expand your own level of technique beyond your students working methods, saving for your own studio the techniques you don't want to share.

2. If you do teach a class, showing how to utilize your techniques, then it's up to you as the teacher to set your paramiters with your students. Paramiters about how you would like to be credited if your students reproduce and distribute your class notes - or tell them that you would prefer they not reproduce your class notes nor teach verbatum from your notes.

You can also try to impart the need for "ethical arts behavior" and even have a discussion about copyright laws as it pertains to your personal glass working notes.

But...... be prepared. There are students out there who will do exactly as they wish with the information you have passed onto them. Ethical behavior or not!

The question is: Are you prepared to copyright your notes and follow up with legal action?

Argh.......I just want to make stuff - not hassle it out in a court of law.
Bob
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:01 pm
Location: Salt Spring Island, British Columbia
Contact:

Post by Bob »

Interesting topic and questions Tony,

I have a couple of comments.

First ( and probably one of the most important things) ... it is important to share techniques and provide our community with more ways to creatively express themselves. I started fusing in 1988 with only a couple of books and if I didn't have a stubborn and obsessive streak in me I would have given up long ago. I wish I had had the opportunity to learn from others and avoid mistakes.

Second, if you teach a technique you had better be prepared to expect others to teach it. So only share what you are comfortable with becoming widespread through our community. I developed this powder wafer technique in the solitude of my basement during the loneliness of Canadian winters when there was nothing else to do but huddle around a warm kiln. I have shared it with many people in various workshops. There are others now teaching it both as parts of workshops and as dedicated workshops. All I ask is that they don't use my class jokes ( I spend hours rehearsing the punchline and timing).

Third, I am not particularly worried about people trying to teach my work "verbatim". I only teach techniques that I have either developed or have used extensively. For this reason I have committed most of the mistakes and learned the fixes, observations and work arounds. In order to gain that understanding with powder wafers you have to work with them continuously. I guess what I am saying is that I hope that people go to instructors who have demonstarted specialties. We are blessed on this board with a lot of very capable artists who are also excellent and sharing teachers.

Fourth (actually third continued) is as instructors we should all be changing and upgrading our classes. I have changed the powder wafer class significantly from last fall. There are more new techniques (literally months old), changes based on constructive feedback from participants, and attempts to focus the emphasis on working with colour. My handout notes have been completely revised. A year from now I expect to include more improvements. So people who "copy" the class are going to be outdated very quickly. I believe that, as you say, they will modify or assimilate techniques and come up with fresh approaches.

Fifth (or is it fourth, and are we getting bored yet).. actually it is a paraphrase of the second point I made. I have shared the wafer technique with participants and am always amazed by the wide range of wafers, and how they reflect the personality of the participant. On the other hand I have not shared the crackle technique because I would like it to be a signature style that hopefully will get me on Dale Chiluly's Speed Dial. The technique is not as veratile as the wafer technique and, if I was to teach it there potentially could be people out there cranking out the same stuff. I would be creating my own competition.

Well enough of my diatribe. If we teach.. we share.. we should expect others to teach techniques... we should all be continually trying to improve our classes... we should not teach what we do not want to share.

Cheers,
Don Burt
Posts: 573
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Contact:

Technique Ownership - A Question of Ethics

Post by Don Burt »

I think its OK to steal artistic techniques and turn your own profit from it. Actually I think its admirable.

I think its OK to teach something that someone else developed, and just recently taught you. No royalties necessary. Works for basketball coaches and professional musicians: they share info even with their closest competitors in order to advance the art.

I think its OK to try to keep your techniques secret. But don't cry when somebody cracks the code.

Isn't it usually the case though, that a wondrous new technique usually isn't just something easy like adding a teaspoon of bats blood to the kiln wash? It usually involves a practiced touch or is such a tedious pain in the ass that its not going to flood the craft fairs with ripoffs and make your work commonplace. Think of your halftone tricks Tony. I don't think I'm going to see quality blasted portraits in glass in every booth this summer just because you've posted the refined techniques on your sandcarving forum.
Cynthia

Post by Cynthia »

If I were to take a class in which I was being taught a proprietary technique and was asked to keep it under wraps, I absolutely would comply.

I have yet to take a class where I was being taught a technique that wasn't already out there in the universe and available to me through books. These are techniques or tricks that are old school. I take a class to learn hands on from someone who has experience with a particular set of tricks and is reputed to be a good teacher. Not because they are the inventor of a secret technique.

If it's considered unethical to share knowlege learned in a class, then I am guilty. I then shouldn't teach anyone how to paint, or how to use an air brush. I shouldn't teach anyone how to silkscreen, or use photosensitive materials to produce images, acid etch or darkroom techniques that I first learned in printmaking classes. Most, if not all the techniques and tools I use are old old old, and have been adapted for use in glass. I just happened to chose to learn from those who are willing to teach, and I am willing to pay for those classes. To this day I have not recieved instruction on techniques that are not common knowlege and readily accessible through a number of venues, so I don't see the conflict in sharing that knowlege.

It seems a bit of a conundrum to me. The ones teaching, and appearantly the one who expressed concerns, learned from someone else or out of texts. Therefore the instructors themselves then are behaving unethically by sharing knowlege that they gained in a class or out of texts within the boundaries of this premise. Or did they get some kind of release to teach what they learned from others?

If what is being taught is proprietary...don't teach it. If you have a technique that is your baby, you developed it and then you decided to teach it, unless you have an agreement otherwise, there is nothing to prevent someone from going out and teaching it themselves. If it is proprietary, then protect it by not teaching it. That seems the simple and reasonable solution. If information isn't to be shared, then don't share it to begin with.

In my community the stained glass people were so secretive about what they were doing that they never collaborated, never shared skills, never supported each other, wanted no competition and as a result were not terribly successful. Their work lacked a lot...mostly they were so frightened of competition that they ended up cutting off their noses to spite their faces. They never taught and they never learned and you can see that their work is stunted and stagnant.

If instructors feel that students who share info can interfere with their student pool, then I expect they don't have enough confidence in their teaching abilities or their cirriculum. Most of us look for good teachers and we have many to chose from who are teaching the same tricks in one form or another.

When we share knowlege, we expand the pool of those doing good and innovative work. It raises the bar or exellence and we have to strive to meet or exceed that level...Competition that is driven by good work is desirable, and the only way to raise that bar is to share knowlege. That's what this forum is all about, that and community.
Last edited by Cynthia on Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Michael
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 8:47 pm
Location: West Cork Ireland
Contact:

Technique Ownership - A Question of Ethics

Post by Michael »

As a practicing teacher of art techniques I gain as much as my students if not more,by imparting information designed to extend the creative palette i will invariably see techniques used in a way that i would not have thought of, most new techniques have been done before or are a subtle variation on an existing one! In a nutshell, the more you give the more you get back. :)
Avery Anderson
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Cheshire. Oregon
Contact:

Post by Avery Anderson »

I agree with Bob. If one is to teach, they must expect their students to use the techniques that are taught. In the workshops Brock and I teach, we hold nothing back. We encourage our students to utilize and develop any of the techniques we cover. We hope they are excited and inspired when they realize how much can be accomplished in fused glass. Our workshops are constantly changing as we add new projects and ideas to keep them fresh. Our student base ranges between newly beginning fusers to professional glass artists running full time studios. We'd been foolish if we didn't think many of our projects and techniques would be taught by others.

I hope our handouts and writings will not be copied, but if they are, it would be nice if proper credit is given. It would also be nice if credit is given to those who have invented or developed techniques, such as Bob's powder wafers. We teach an abbriviated version of this process in our comprehensive workshops, but we always credit Bob. I introduced the micas two years ago, after I had been working with them for close to 12 years. Now, many people are using them in their work and have done beautiful pieces with this process. I am thrilled when I see them.

The only gripe I have is when my name is used without permission ("the mica technique as taught by Avery Anderson"), or when someone tries to copy my artwork, which is another issue totally. I'm also concerned about the number of instructors who are teaching techniques they have never attempted or know little about, or who are so new to fusing that they are giving erroneous information. We've encountered several incidents where our students have been fed the wrong information and as a result became discouraged about continuing with their glass work. If one is to teach and educate, they should be well versed in the subject matter and have the experience to back them up.

Avery
Glenda Kronke
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:44 am
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Post by Glenda Kronke »

Sounds like another great topic for BECon (BE teacher's conference).

My thoughts on learning.... I want to be sure I am learning a specific technique from a qualified teacher. Certainly there are different levels of teachers just as there are in any subject. Let's see.....joe blow goes to a class, learns a technique, and then goes home and teaches it..... can they teach it as competently as the teacher that taught them? Perhaps this person learned it from someone who learned it from someone who learned it from someone who learned it from someone, etc. Seems the technique could easily get watered down. (Or perhaps it was improved. Maybe it morphed like these discussions do) Me being the student, I definately want to do my research to be sure I am being taught by a competent teacher.

Being a lifelong student of glass, I want to learn a lot of different techniques. I am just grateful that someone is willing to teach me. I personally want to learn 'from the master' so-to-speak. (I think I would want to learn a specific technique from someone who's work I admired rather than from the (example only/no insult intended) local community college teacher-unless I admired their work also).

Having said that, I will agree with Bob and others that if you are concerned about someone teaching a technique that you yourself are teaching, then don't teach it to anyone. My main concern is that whatever technique is being taught, I would hope that others wanting to teach it are competent enough to teach.

Seems like this is why a lot of people want to 'certify' fusing teachers, hence, conferences like BECon.

Perhaps this will be one of the more lively topics discussed at that conference.... I'm not a teacher so I won't get to be there to hear it. :cry:
Bert Weiss
Posts: 2339
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:06 am
Location: Chatham NH
Contact:

Post by Bert Weiss »

If it was only ethical to teach a technique that one developed one's self, there wouldn't be many teachers out there. Klaus would have the burden of being the only pattern bar teacher and Narcissus would have to be the painter of light, I mean with light.

I went to Pilchuck and learned kiln casting. I came back to Maine and immediately taught the technique. Otherwise I might have forgotten it. Teaching was the best way for me to continue learning. After doing several projects, I have come to disagree with the approach I was taught. I go about it differently now.

What I hope is that there will be more and more techniques being taught so that the work being produced doesn't get homogenous. I'm not too worried about that. I haven't heard that any of Avery's students are making fabulous tigers.
Bert

Bert Weiss Art Glass*
http://www.customartglass.com
Furniture Lighting Sculpture Tableware
Architectural Commissions
Candy Kahn
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 9:24 pm
Location: Southern Oregon

Post by Candy Kahn »

What a wonderful topic and wonderful responses. I read this board daily to learn and update my methods. I truly appreciate when someone shares their new knowledge as Marty did the other day about the new stuff he tried out for HIS. He couldn't wait to share.

I believe sharing knowledge, either through teaching or sharing on this board, propels our collective art form forward. I have yet to teach but hope someday to do so and hope any students I might share my knowledge with would take that knowledge and run and then hopefully they would add to that knowledge and share it with someone else, and on and on. What a difference in the quality of our kiln formed glass as it has evolved just over the past 15 years.

To all from whom I have learned, I am forever in your debt!

Candy Kahn
watershed
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 1:44 am

Post by watershed »

Just an Historical note(that you have all heard before).

Back in the Middle ages (1100-1500) The island of Murano was a CLOSED shop. It was where the very best glass in the world was being done. Any Apprentice KNEW that it was a wonderful, enriching trade, they also knew that it was a life sentance. If they were caught off the Island there was a literal price on their heads. This was to control the knowledge of Glassblowing.

There was also a splinter group. It was formed in Altare (outside of Genoa). Their goal was to teach as many people as possible how to blow. They would shelter the Murano escapees, and then send them out as Glass Missionaries. Once they had trained a Master, and founded a working shop, they would come back to Altare for re-education and re-assignment.

The attitude of secrecy in Hot glass continued into the 1980s. (well maybe mid 70s). I found a COMPLETELY different attitude in the Potteries of that same time. Now they wouldn't give you their Copper red, but they'd give you enough clues to screww up a whole kiln load. But you could watch them throw, share regular glazes, kiln design, you name it. I've been out of hot glass for some 15 yrs, but things changed once the Italians started coming over.

If I can posit a thought. Teachers (for pay) "would" be getting paid "royalties/tuition" on their techniques. That's what you are paying for in the classes? It's one way to think of it.

Greg

BTW great Q
dee
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 5:20 pm
Location: Atlanta GA
Contact:

Re: Technique Ownership - A Question of Ethics

Post by dee »

Tony Smith wrote:I would like to initiate a discussion about Technique Ownership. I don't want it to be a controversial topic, but one that is thought provoking and will establish some commonly-agreed-to guidelines for the rest of us to use in the future. After the discussion dies down, I will try to summarize the thoughts and opinions for everyone to comment on.

What prompted this discussion was that recently, someone asked me what I thought about another individual distributing detailed information about a technique that that person learned in a class they had taken. I was surprised that a person would do that as I felt it was unethical. Or is attributing the information to the original source adequate before distributing it to the world?

I think what we are witnessing within our community is the evolution of an artform accelerated by the advances in technology and communication due to this website and the internet. We are also seeing more classes offered in kilnforming than ever before. I'm sure the glass and kiln manufacturers are seeing increased sales as well. With this evolution comes the dilution of unique techniques. People are taking a technique here and a technique there, and combining them to acheive some other effect that was not possible with either of the original techniques alone. I believe that the person who combined the techniques can now call that technique their own and teach it or not teach it.

But what about the person who goes to Las Vegas and takes a class, then goes back to their studio and teaches that same class, verbatim, using the same information and the same class projects... There are some retailers who feel that this is a legitimate use of the classes in Las Vegas and at other conferences, and is a way to keep their classes fresh.

What about the perspective of the teachers? I'm sure that if someone were to teach a class only to see a student copying their work and competing with them on the teaching circuit there would be hard feelings... or not, I'm not sure. Certainly, there are a lot of glass artists making pattern bars. Many of them took classes and learned the technique from someone else. But by teaching the technique does the teacher have any justification for feeling slighted by her students who are now using that technique? Or is there an unspoken expectation that the students will use the techniques but not teach them?

Your thoughts on this complex topic will be appreciated.

Tony
tony, my $.02 is this:
if i take a class in a technique and i come home, work that technique, become proficient in it and teach that technique locally, people who might not be able to travel to the place i took the class originally benefit but as a repsonsible, ethickal person, i SHOULD NOT take class notes/distributed info from the instructor i learned from and use that as my teaching guide. to me that smacks of plagarism, whether or not the info is attributed to the original instructor - did they actually give me permission to use their handouts to replicate their class myself? they put as much work into developing their class as they did the technique.

if i learn a technique, as an ethical artist/person, i use that technique to make work that has my soul in it, not just use it with a slight twist on what i was taught. the mica powders are a good example - i've seen what ron coleman has posted for pics, they are wundebar, avery's work is incredible and sara's twist on it is fabulous - same materials, different voices.

as far as taking technique a and technique b and coming up with technique f yes, i agree that then becomes yours and if you choose to teach it, then expect to see your students using it and hopefully using in their own style

as for sharing how you do things, if you don't want it copied, don't tell all your secrets. while i'm relatively new, i have a couple of signature looks i'm doing and when people ask me how i do it i give a very general answer - this is my proprietary process that i don't choose to share, i spent a couple of months working out the exact way to achieve the look i want, i'm continuing to refine it and i've made it into my signature style so i won't share the details but i'll share general fusing knowledge anytime that i've learned..

i will probably never teach classes, it's just not my forte, but my husband is an instructor for a large computer company for one of their products and i know even in that situation when he has been asked to specifically build some special class by one of the other instructors that hasn't the capability to do it himself, has put several weeks into working out the class outline, exercises, examples - and the bugs out of the exercises and examples - and then has to turn it over to someone else to teach doesn't make him real happy - so i don't believe i would be overjoyed to find that someone i taught technique 1 to a year ago is going around teaching advertising that they are teaching that technique and that the class is content is what i developed. while i know good instructors will keep updating and improving their classes regularly, it still is unethical to me for someone to take another's hard work and use it in this fashion unless they have requested permission from their teacher.

D
Dee Janssen
Unicorn's Creations Studio
http://ucjewelry.com
dee@ucjewelry.com
Hugo Gavarini
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 12:03 pm
Location: Patagonia Argentina

Post by Hugo Gavarini »

I would wonder why Seattle (and that countries where the Studio Glass Movement have grown up) is the site where the Venetian glass art renassaince took place.

I believe it was Pilchuck the first glass school at least in such a dynamic way. Teaching and teaching and teaching. I think that only the best artists teach and that teaching is the way to be better. A virtuous circle.

Of course, I can't go to a workshop and automatically bear the mind and soul of the teacher. I have to be humble student and to know my limits.

It was upon a time when I went to a workshop and the outstanding teacher stated "You are not abled to say you have learned with me, it's MY right, I am the only one capable to say that you have actually LEARNED with me!".

At the university, it is used to consult teachers about who is in condition to start teaching. It's an Ethic issue, not to honor a particular teacher or a particular right but rather to honor a human heritage.
Hugo
David Williams

Post by David Williams »

I think if its being taught its fair game. If on the other hand it was learned on the sly by visiting somebody's studio and asking questions in an ostensibly innocent way, that sucks. That happened to me and it cost me some nights sleep. Maybe that's a reflection on some character deficiency in myself--nevertheless. That artist is far more well known than me and I wanted validation from them and had no hint it would happen. So I learned a lesson. If that happens to you there's not a damm thing you can do as far as I know. One gallery owner asked why didn't I patent some things. But I think then you really put it out there and have to be prepared to sue which I'm not. So anyway my two cents.
Paul Tarlow
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Helios Kiln Glass Studio - Austin
Contact:

Teaching

Post by Paul Tarlow »

I believe there is a legitmate case to be made that a proprietary technique (i.e. developed or significantly enhanced by an individual) is intellectual property and re-teaching it, without bringing meaningful added value of your own, is unethical.

This past weekend I taught a powder wafer class. It was a very different class from the one that I took from Bob in the fall -- but it was absolutely based on what I learned in Bob's class. Even though I bellieve I brought a lot of unique added value to the base knowledge I asked for permission to teach his technique. Had Bob expressed any reservation I wouldn't have taught it -- and I wouldn't have blamed him.

In the end, though, it is probably more an issue of practicality and not legality. Even if a teacher makes students sign something there is a good chance there will be neither the budget nor the stomach to pursue real legal remedy when the student decides to re-teach it.

If you teach something -- and it is good -- it is going to be re-taught.

- Paul
Monica
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 3:37 pm

teaching

Post by Monica »

Speaking as both a teacher and a student, I agree with much of what has been said. I would like to add that teaching a class that is focused on technique or skills (which I admit is a portion of my own methodology) is a wee bit like the proverb about "giving a person a fish" versus "teaching a person to fish". It is often a substitute for teaching the student creative problem solving. If you can also find a way to provide your students with an artistic challenge, that promotes independent expression, then you have truly taught something valuable which can't be "copied".
(I'm off my soapbox now...)
Geri Comstock
Posts: 340
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 4:16 pm
Location: Northern CA
Contact:

Post by Geri Comstock »

Good question, Tony.

I think if you learn something in a class, it's fair game for you to use in your own work in your own way. It doesn't make sense to me that anyone would teach you to do something and then not allow you to you it in your own work. LOL.

I'm unclear about the teaching aspect of this. I've only taken 3 fusing classes, and those were 10 years ago. When I teach, I expect my students will use anything I teach them, but if any of them believe they're qualified to run out and teach it themselves the next week, I'd be concerned. It takes practice/experience to learn to do something well enough to be able to teach it to people who are paying to learn it, in my opinion.

What I do object to, however, is people who also do kiln-worked glass that stop by my booth at a show, and think that I am for some reason obligated to tell them how I do everything in my work. For some reason they appear to believe that because I'm showing work using a particular technique at a show, I have to teach them the technique right then and there simply because they want to do it, too.

I've also heard from some kiln-worked glass artists who have had people new to glass come into their booth and spend a long period of time analyzing the work and trying to figure out how it was done. I haven't had that particular experience myself, but I can understand why someone might be annoyed by that. When an artist is showing their work at a show, their primary purpose is to sell it to a customer, not to educate possible future competitors on the show circuit.

Just my opinions -

Geri
Bert Weiss
Posts: 2339
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:06 am
Location: Chatham NH
Contact:

Re: Teaching

Post by Bert Weiss »

Paul Tarlow wrote:I believe there is a legitmate case to be made that a proprietary technique (i.e. developed or significantly enhanced by an individual) is intellectual property and re-teaching it, without bringing meaningful added value of your own, is unethical.

This past weekend I taught a powder wafer class. It was a very different class from the one that I took from Bob in the fall -- but it was absolutely based on what I learned in Bob's class. Even though I bellieve I brought a lot of unique added value to the base knowledge I asked for permission to teach his technique. Had Bob expressed any reservation I wouldn't have taught it -- and I wouldn't have blamed him.

In the end, though, it is probably more an issue of practicality and not legality. Even if a teacher makes students sign something there is a good chance there will be neither the budget nor the stomach to pursue real legal remedy when the student decides to re-teach it.

If you teach something -- and it is good -- it is going to be re-taught.

- Paul
I think that teaching somebody a technique and then requiring that they don't repeat what you have told them is absurd. If you put it out there, it's out there to be adapted and bastardized in whatever way being has to twist and turn it around. If you are lucky somenbody will improve upon your idea and share that with you.

I don't think that applies to a design, only to a technique. The problem with copyright theft is that the situation is definitely easier for the copier than the owner of a copyright. Like David said, you have to sue them and win.
Bert

Bert Weiss Art Glass*
http://www.customartglass.com
Furniture Lighting Sculpture Tableware
Architectural Commissions
Post Reply