Ouch! Does smart business=evil artist?

Susan Taylor Glasgow · Sun Aug 10, 2003 6:58 pm

Wow. Recent conversations with other artists about my patent pending process has made me question my worth as a good human being/nice artist! I'm secretly hoping for moral support here, but really, truly want honest feedback. I love creating work, but I can only continue to create if I sell it. No fancy business degree needed there. So early on in my R&D I decided I wanted to protect my technique/style so I could finally make a living in art, be special

, and maybe even make up for several lost years of "developing as an artist". Granted, I'm self-taught in both business and art, so I do live in my own little world, so set me right if I'm off base here....At a recent workshop where I was attending as a student, I got "poop" from not only the other students, but from the instructor as well for not wanting to "share" my technique! They argued that it was un-artist-like and you can't keep other artists from figuring it out using it anyway. My arguement is that this is my business! And I'll lovingly share alot of info, but lay off my signature style. It's a sad art climate where not even the Masters like Lino and Chihuly can keep knock-offs of their work out of every mid-range gallery in the nation! Am I alone here? Or have I just made myself out to be the Black Sheep?

Brock · Post by **Brock** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 7:06 pm

It's brave of you to post this Susan. I have always wondered myself how you could even get a patent. Is there more to it that is obvious in photos?It's not like human beings haven't sew odd materials together before, in fact, you may not be the first person to sew glass together at all. Will your patent mean no one else will be able to sew glass together? What if a native indian took out a patent on birch bark canoes? Would that preclude others from building one? What if Duchamp had taken out a patent on the dust on his famous large panel, would that mean that Man Ray couldn't have photographed it?

I'm going to be very interested to see where this goes, but kudos to you for posting.

Brock

rosanna gusler · Post by **rosanna gusler** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 7:16 pm

there is a very interesting article on patenting a process in this months crafts report. i feel if you are granted a patent of any kind that you have probably demonstrated in minute detail that you have something truly origonal going on. you do not owe anyone a detailed explanition of your process. it is yours. if you can stop knock offs then i say more power to you. rosanna....ps i am a long time admiror of your works style and content.

Kitty · Post by **Kitty** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 7:19 pm

i support you. i've been working on 2 trademarks for well over a year -- it's a time-consuming process. while my interest in trademarks is different from your patent, the underlying business principle is much the same. i've been developing my brand for over 6 years, am well-known in this area, and now find a competitor with virtually the same name, and it HAS caused confusion with stores. this fall the trademarks will be formally registered, which will allow me to pursue the matter full steam.

some people dont understand what patent and trademark are all about, and they criticize or disdain the implications. it's interesting you caught flak for it -- likely from people who haven't had an original idea in their life. good luck with your filing -- it's pretty cool. i would love to see the drawings you presented with your filing -- those alone would make a nice adjunct to an exhibition.

i noticed a long time ago that you had a patent pending, and i thought to myself, "that's interesting!" one doesn't often think of patents for art processes. in fact, you're the only person i can think of right now who has pursued that avenue. and apropos of brock's comments, it's always possible that the US Patent & Trademark Office will reject your idea. i've certainly had the Examiners challenge me enough times with my trademark filings.

Susan Taylor Glasgow · Sun Aug 10, 2003 8:02 pm

Thanks Brock and everybody for your input! What a patent would mean in my case is that others--in manufacturing or otherwise--could not make stuff that incorporated sewing panels together in the same manner that I do and ultimately make a product that could be confused with my work and technique. Of course I know that people have been making holes in glass and connecting it for decades, and maybe longer. But unless somebody tells me otherwise (maybe the patent examiner!), no one else is creating work in the manner that I am, making my product unique. You can save me additional lawyers expenses by proving me otherwise. (Examples have to be prior 2001.) Ya, I guess if our American Indians had the opportunity to patent their birch bark canoes, maybe they wouldn't be plagued with poverty. Oops! Did I say that out loud? Personally, all I really want is to be able develop this technique to its fullest without "distractions", make an honest living, and then be the first to teach it. Seems like a sound business plan to me.....Hey Kitty! Great idea about including the patent drawings in an exhibit, if I ever get issued! Using good manners, may I have your permission to use it?

Kitty · Post by **Kitty** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 8:15 pm

yes, susan, DO IT. i've seen those drawings for patent applications, and knowing what your work looks like, the drawings would be a perfect exhibit within an exhibit, regardless of the status of your application.

i have enjoyed the trademark application process, including the challenges and repeated hearings before the Examiner. of all the things we spend tax dollars on in this country, it's nice when you work with an agency of people who are actually thinking. the stuff i've been challenged on was not trivial, and it was a pleasure to rebut. i hope your experience is similar.

let me know where that show is gonna be with the drawings. i'll come.

Susan Taylor Glasgow · Sun Aug 10, 2003 8:31 pm

Hey Kitty! I appreciate your personal support! The patent office has had my application in examination an unusually long time--18 months--I don't know if that's good or bad! I'm looking forward to the first office action. I think I might get my patent attorney to help me with that step, but I filed on my own originally. Good luck to you too on your trademark adventures. This type of legal examination of an idea certainly makes a person examine their work/technique in detail!

Kitty · Post by **Kitty** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 8:40 pm

i have legal counsel doing the filings, too. i only provide the necessary information to answer a challenge. the process didn't look like something i thought i should undertake by myself, and considering the way things have gone, i think the patent & trademark attorney was $$ well spent. i'm at about 14 months now, and am advised that october will see me in the primary register. it'll be a champagne day, lemme tell you.

the idea of a schematic drawing representing what you do strikes me as a unique bit of conceptual art.

Tony Smith · Post by **Tony Smith** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 9:28 pm

Having a patent does not prevent others from duplicating your work, that challenge will be up to you and your team of lawyers. You will have to defend your patent nationwide. I'm not sure that you had this in mind when you said that you wanted to be "free of distraction".

That's not to say that you don't deserve exclusive rights to your unique process, it just says that you may find it's more trouble than it's worth.

Brock's point about people sewing materials together for years will be a significant factor when the examiners look at your invention for its "obviousness"... although the patent office has issued some pretty obvious patents recently. If you have time, take a look at patent #6,368,227 which is a methods patent. It is a method of swinging on a child's swing... swinging side-to-side rather than front to back... of course I rememer doing this when I was a kid, but then my father wasn't a patent attorney with nothing else to do. I'd like to see them try to enforce that, but the kid probably made it into the Guiness Book of World Records for being the youngest patent holder in the US... so it's all what you want to get out of it.

Tony

Geri Comstock · Post by **Geri Comstock** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 9:42 pm

Susan Taylor Glasgow wrote:Wow. Recent conversations with other artists about my patent pending process has made me question my worth as a good human being/nice artist! I'm secretly hoping for moral support here, but really, truly want honest feedback. I love creating work, but I can only continue to create if I sell it. No fancy business degree needed there. So early on in my R&D I decided I wanted to protect my technique/style so I could finally make a living in art, be special , and maybe even make up for several lost years of "developing as an artist". Granted, I'm self-taught in both business and art, so I do live in my own little world, so set me right if I'm off base here....At a recent workshop where I was attending as a student, I got "poop" from not only the other students, but from the instructor as well for not wanting to "share" my technique! They argued that it was un-artist-like and you can't keep other artists from figuring it out using it anyway. My arguement is that this is my business! And I'll lovingly share alot of info, but lay off my signature style. It's a sad art climate where not even the Masters like Lino and Chihuly can keep knock-offs of their work out of every mid-range gallery in the nation! Am I alone here? Or have I just made myself out to be the Black Sheep?

My opinion is that you should just go, girl! Do it! You aren't a bad person for trying to protect your own business interests. Sheesh!

If you've figured out how to do something new, you have every right to protect your investment. You've put hours (months? years?) of research and money into it. It may be art, but it's also your "product" and it's the way you make your living. Other kinds of businesses are allowed to patent their newly discovered processes/inventions...why not artists, too?

Geri

Brock · Post by **Brock** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 9:50 pm

I guess I feel it's about the ART not the PROCESS. Your work is less about sewing, to me, than it is about a feeling, or a mood, rooted in feminity. My feelings are complex on this, I'm as ambivalent as Yossarian because while I feel you have a right to protect proprietary techniques, I'm not sure that I feel that this is your proprietary technique. . .

And I guess that's what you have to prove.

There's a fabric artist here in Vancouver, who's name escapes me, I've been in shows with her, who sews tin sheet metal together to make . . . feminine armour? Impenetrable bodices? I'm also thinking about those Inca mummys with their elaborate chest plates made of Jade discs sewn together.

I guess I could have gone to the trouble of patenting my double irid technique, or Avery could have patented her Mica process, or Bob L. could patent his crackle technique . . . the reason I didn't is that I feel my work is distinctive and copying will be obvious. The glass world is a small commuity and somewhat self-policing, and this behaviour is frowned upon.

It does happen though . . .

Firmly imbedded on the fence . . .

Brock

Ron Coleman · Post by **Ron Coleman** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 9:51 pm

The patent application process is an interesting one for sure and it does take time, maybe up to two years. One thing I hope you are doing is selling your work NOW and not waiting for the patent to be approved before you start the big push.

Something you have to consider is the expense of the patent vs the potential value for sales of your work in the future. The patent will give you 17 years of protection but the potential life of your art will probably be much shorter. Not that your work will fall apart or anything like that, but will it still be marketable 3 or 5 years from now. Will you still be interested in creating your current work 3 or 4 years from now? In todays fast paced world product life is very short for most things.

I have seven US patents and in only one case has the product outlived the patent. This was my first patent and the company is still selling the product 25 years later and all I got out of it was a silver dollar a plaque and a dinner. But I still get a big grin

when I see they are still selling what I designed.

I really get a kick out of people that have to know all the secrets of others work. For the most part, they haven't a clue how to do anything themselves. They just have to know it all in case the spirit ever moves them.

Good luck with the patent.

Ron

Kitty · Post by **Kitty** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 9:53 pm

oh, i think that susan's patent is a checkmark in the plus column. for an artist as well-known as she is, and with the considerable attention her patent application has gotten, it is unlikely that premier galleries would show work of a similar nature. the patent has contributed to the notoriety of her work. she may not be able to control whether her concept gets copied, but the newsworthiness of her patent application will certainly affect whether a copycat gets into a premier gallery or exhibition. she owns the turf for this concept

Susan Taylor Glasgow · Sun Aug 10, 2003 10:59 pm

Hi Kitty,
You touched on another tender spot for me--in my little vaccuum world, galleries should be helping artists protect their ideas and not sell knock-offs like they do. There are so many good, fresh ideas and artists out there....Once I saw one of the organizers of BMAC make a glassblower remove a Chihuly-like chandeler sculpture from his booth. (Initiated by Chihuly's folks?) But that's was at the show level. The galleries aren't that concerned.
I am enjoying Ron's comments about the worth of spending time protecting an idea that I may outgrow and time that is ultimately spent out of the studio. And the headache I get about trying to separate business and "art"--what's fair interpretation and what's just plain copying?! Yikes! I do understand what you're saying Brock. My work is more than the process. But it took years to perfect the technique--it's my child, artistic outlet, and source of livelihood, all wrapped up in one very touchy (and apparently vocal) package!

Kitty · Post by **Kitty** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 11:48 pm

i guess that's the Ultimate Goal, to get into that rarified atmosphere of top galleries that don't show knockoffs. i think you're well on your way, susan. jam on.

i, too, enjoyed ron's remarks, especially since he's been thru the process a few times. 17 yrs is a long time ... i shall be 70 years old then, and sincerely hope to be doing something quite different than what amuses me now.

K Okahashi · Post by **K Okahashi** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 1:42 am

Susan and Kitty, I commend you both for pursuing patents for your techniques and work. I once worked for the federal court system and sat through some copyright and patent cases in litigation. It is true that it is up to the holder of the patent to ensure others within our country are following the law. No one is really policing it except private individuals. One thing to consider is other countries do not necessarily honored our laws. The music industry deals with this all the time. Prescription drug companies are also in the same boat.

I really don't want to discourage either of you in this, I just think you might want to gather more information on the larger picture and see if it is truly worth your time and money. With the vast globalization happening now, I don't know if anyone can truly stop others from stealing techniques or ideas. I hope I don't sound like too much of a bearer of bad news. I am sorry if I do sound that way.

Good luck to you both!
keiko

Kitty · Post by **Kitty** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 2:14 am

aloha keiko
susan is applying for a patent.
i'm applying for trademarks.
from my point of view, the registration is well worth it.

hey, keiko, have you moved up north yet?
still in the tiny apartment or finally in the house?
your new studio will be a treat after all this rumpus.

a hui hou, kitty.

cant seem to spell your name tonight ... kept typing 'keiki', and i know you aren't THAT young. LOL.

rodney · Post by **rodney** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 2:17 am

i totally agree with you not telling anybody about how you do something that took your time and imagination,,,,,but if you would have, im sure the words and looks you would have got would have been something like, "oh yeah, i could have figured that out",,,,,,,,but why should they spend their time figuring it out when its so much easier to just ask, then to plead, and finally to demand, im glad you told them nothing

as far as the patent goes, if you wanna spend your life and money in court protecting your special thing, have at it

rodney

Don Burt · Post by **Don Burt** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:31 am

Susan Taylor Glasgow wrote: clip
I love creating work, but I can only continue to create if I sell it.
clip

Thats a self-imposed constraint.

To think that you should be able to protect the use of a type of joinery, so that it can be associated with your 'style', rubs me wrong in a number of ways. First it over-emphasises the stylistic element and joinery as a theme, one that you'll be tempted to stay with too long to milk the gallery/notoriety association. I know its central to your work, and central to your current notoriety. Second, I don't think metaphor should be patentable. They'd all be taken by now. Third, I don't think as artists we should worry about wether we're using somebody's patented joinery technique, particularly when its a few tens of millenia old. Can I sew together clay tiles? Wood panels? Will that be covered? Can I use cane if Toots patents her process? Will Avery file the mica thing before Ron can? Does it dpends on who files first? I heard what you said about Chihuly knockoff plagueing the market, but if every little glassblowing trick was patented, nobody'd be able to do anything anymore.

I don't like the idea. But I'm not trying to live on gallery sales. I don't like the idea of a government agency protecting artistic content.

Sara · Post by **Sara** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 8:24 am

Susan,

I've a different spin on this . . . spontaneous genius. How can we draw the line on creative expression, certainly not with a piece of paper. How many times have many of us opened a magazine or checked out a link on this board only to see a variation of something we've been working on and scream s**t)? Does this mean we table our projects? Are we labeled as 'copyists'? Must we add fighting a patent to the process? Like Brock said we are a self policing group.

Regardless if I were to start sewing my glass tomorrow your work and voice would remain unique to you, as mine would to me. Now if I were to sew pieces and designs just like yours, shame on me . . . If I were to add sewing as a joining technique on something different good on me. If having someone else doing sewn work will preclude you from selling your work something is very wrong.

I do agree that unless you are teaching you have no reason to share your hard learned techniques, although if someone were to figure it out you'd be hard pressed to challenge it. As we've learned the most it will do is give you a slight edge. My work is a much smaller scale and I willingly share "almost" all of what I do, the small tricks I keep close and let others figure them out for them selves.

My husband and I have been in process of doing a patent on a product to use with glass and the paper arts market for the past 14 months also. This proceedure has been expensive and time consuming and very informative. We were hopeful that it would be financialy beneficial down the road, although question our sanity for persuing this. We are working on a licensing agreement with another company to produce this product for us. We are not concerned with individuals making this product for themselves, simply don't want another company producing this product for sale. At this point we feel that our money would have been better spent adding a hot tub to our back yard. Heck it was costly enough that we could have purchased a new car albeit a Hundai ha ha. Keiko makes excellent points and I wished I'd listened to them before I started the aforementioned legal time/money suck.

Guess my convoluted point is not to worry about 1. people copying and 2. those who want to force your creativity outta you. Both these worries suck up energy that could better be used in creative endeavor.

good luck,

Sara

WarmGlass.com

Ouch! Does smart business=evil artist?

Ouch! Does smart business=evil artist?

Re: Ouch! Does smart business=evil artist?

Re: Ouch! Does smart business=evil artist?