ebrown_p wrote:Joe, I am always curious about this stuff.
What do you copyright with jewelry?
The artistic work that is embodied in the jewelry itself. For instance, if I designed a ring, I could not copyright the ring's circular form, since that is purely utilitarian. For the same reason, I couldn't copyright the post on an earring. But I could copyright the design of the ring or the earring.
ebrown_p wrote:If I make a silver ring that has 4 rubies in a square, and someone else has a silver ring that has 4 rubies in a rectangle, is this violating my copyright...
It seems that there would be a lot of gray area.
A lot would depend upon the uniqueness of the design. I couldn't copyright the pattern of four stones in a square, because I'm certain that particular design is already in the public domain.
ebrown_p wrote:I know that since I wrote "George Bush is a dumb as a rotten tomato on the third of July" this unique combination of words is now owned by me.
A simple phrase like that can't be copyrighted. Your best bet would be to trademark it.
ebrown_p wrote:As I understand it I don't have any claim to the idea Bush is dumb, or even to comparing Bush to a tomato.
I'm sure those sentiments are also in the public domain :wink:
ebrown_p wrote:It seems to me that claiming damages for a similar jewelry design would be awfully hard to prove, unless it were a clear egregious and exact copy.
I'm no expert on jewelry, but I imagine that the designer aims for uniqueness of expression. I don't know the extent to which such uniqueness is attainable.
ebrown_p wrote:I guess that's what they have law school for...
Well, that's
one of the reasons.
ebrown_p wrote:Based on my knowledge of the lack of protection for ideas in software, I still think a NDA is a great idea.
A non-disclosure agreement is only practical when one is dealing with trade secrets. Since jewelry is expressly designed to be
displayed in public, however, a non-disclosure agreement really doesn't offer very much protection for the designer.