Claiming a carving as “Original”

[William]

I know we’ve had this discussion many times but could we have
some thoughts on one specific part of this claim and that’s the 10% thing.

Some information on this subject says that if you make more than a 10% change
from the original reference you can claim it as an original. This 10% must
be things like a baseball cap instead of a cowboy hat and a pipe instead
of a cigar and maybe even a frown instead of a smile as long as this
combination makes up the 10% and not just a 10% decrease in quality
if the attempt was to copy the original exactly.

At what point would you stop referring to the original you used for the
basic pose or scene and claim the carving as your original and is
that 10% accurate?

In the Ward “antique division” competition in Ocean City you can enter
a carving as an original if it’s in the “Ward style” but not a copy of
one of the Ward brothers carvings but 10% does not sound like very much
and how would you know when you have met the 10% requirement if that’s
what it is? Some carvers have said that the judge told them the carving was to
much like sombodies carving so their opinion of 10% and your opinion may be different.

[mdallensr]

Think of originality in other contexts. You can't get a new patent by changing an existing patent by 10%. Ditto copyrighted music, art, or literature. It's the concept, in its entirety, that is original. It's the concept that creates an impression in the viewer that is original. If something is obviously a copy, a take-off of an original, then it's a copy.

However, if in a competition, someone makes an arbitrary rule about originality, I guess you are permitted to submit a one-armed cowboy that looks just like the original two-armed cowboy, assuming you can argue that's a 10% difference. I think the whole argument of originality falls apart when you're holding the true original next to your 90% copy, claiming yours is truly different.

The other side of this issue is one that you can see at Ward's. A black-capped chickadee is a black-capped chickadee, and there is some limit to making yours a true original. A lot of the originality at Ward's is habitat, and the rest is pose, since the bird itself must conform to the proportions, measurements, shape, feather count, and coloration of a black-capped chickadee. Mike

[cgm]

When u think about it, it is hard to be original.
Maybe a better term would be to say it was done in our style or say it is our interpretation
If I see a carving that looks like it was carved by some one other than the person listed as carving it, its not original in my opinion.
Carl .

[Steve Reed]

Guess I'll add my 2 cents worth. If using a roughout, unless you totally change it, I would NEVER claim it as original. Example: If you buy say a Witch roughout and change it to a Fisherman, one could make the "originality" argument. To my mind only, if you develop the piece from start to finish say, using a photograph as the idea, or something out of your own head, then you could claim it as original. Otherwise, using the phrase, "carved in the Mr. X style" should be good. ALWAYS give credit where credit is due! Example, hunter, carved in the Enlow style, or carved from a (inset name) roughout.
I agree with the above that a Chickadee is a Chickadee, a dog is a dog etc. The "originality" would come from pose, attitude, habitat etc.
Woodcarvers in general are a friendly bunch until you claim someone else's work as yours. After all, their hard work went into the design. I find it a little disconcerting when viewing show results in Chip Chats and you see the exact same carving in 6 different shows by 6 different people and they all claim originality, especially in the "expert" or "open" class. Remember we ALL get the same magazines etc., and we all know our work. Respect other carves, and they will respect you.
Again, just my opinion. . .

[Robson Valley]

When I substitute garlic for ginger as a major ingredient in a recipe, I can claim that recipe as my own but I see no need to do so. In large format photography, a closely derived/similar image is easily argued as a copyright infringement.
Thanks, Steve for the enlightenment regarding copycat carvings. Why do that? Why not be original? Is there a reason for doing that or is it just the easy way out? My head seems to be a fertile compost box of ideas.

I have no choice: my copying skills and most of my carving skills are poor, I'm no threat.
I can find a single justification for (attempted) copying: learning just how good they are!

[Lynn O. Doughty]

I work hard to make sure all my work is as original as it can get. Even when I duplicate something I change things in such a way that it still remains an original even though it might have a similar twin somewhere. I think one of the most important things about my pieces is that the people who purchase them know this and appreciate that extra effort. It also increases my sales for that same reason.

Other carvers ask if they can make their own copy of some of my pieces which were not part of a Blog project and I appreciate that and willingly tell them to go ahead as I know what they end up with will in no way be an exact copy of mine, at least I have yet to see one. Now if I should attend a show and see a copy of one of my pieces for sale I will probably feel a little hurt having given that person my permission only to see them abuse it. Same goes even stronger for someone who duplicated one of my carvings without the courtesy of asking for my permission. I have no respect for that type of person. I won't take them to court but you can bet they will be quickly added to my s-list!

I can't really speak about bird carvings as it's already been pointed out that a bird is a bird. I guess about the only originality of a bird carving is how it's presented.

As carvers all of us should strive to become more than "Corner Carvers" where you knock off the edges of a blank and paint it or "Tuesday Carvers" as I call the ones who only show up and carve at the once a week club carve-a-long and then put their tools away till next Tuesday. Originality will never be part of your goal if you look at carving as a social occasion. Now if you have to take a break from your carving to attend that weekly meeting and then head back to the shop afterwards to do some more serious carving then Originality might be just around the corner and your goal should be to get there as fast as possible. With that kind of attitude it won't be long before you become a real woodcarver and not just a clone of someone else.

[Inadv]

Well said Steve and Lynn. I am by no means what I would call an accomplished carver... yet, however I am fortunate to have a fertile imagination and try my best to create from my own original conceptions. If I buy a book and carve from a pattern in that book then it is done for the experience and as an attempt to learn a new technique or category of the art. I have yet to post such a piece on this forum, and I likely never will. Even though I feel the end result has value as a gift for family or friend, it is nonetheless a copied work, and I have no claim to it's origin even when I change it around a bit as I will inevitably do. But even when I make marked changes in someone else s pattern I still consider it copied. I have never bought a rough-out, and likely never will. Not that there is anything wrong with that either, but I have great respect for creativity.

I indulge in other art forms also. Music, writing, cartooning, bonsai, and drawing to name a few. I feel exactly the same way about all of these indulgences as well. I would be untrue to myself as an artist to replicate someone else s work and call it my creation or even just without due credit to the originator. Just how I feel about the subject. It is the way I would want my work to be respected.

L.P.

[Donsexton]

I like to look at them but caricature carving ant my thing I even own some very collectable original caricature carvings. I am sure I will cut a deal with Lynn sooner or later for one of his famous carvings. That style is the most copied and who wants a copy I don’t if I did I would make my own knock off.
I paint as well and many years ago I was into painting nude women I know go figure. I started this style of shapely women engaged in normal life in black and white. The only thing I painted with color was their shoes or toe nails.
It was 35 years later I was shopping at a local art festival and show over in Fair Hope Alabama and this young woman had some exceptional paintings that featured nude women in black and white with painted shoes or toes. I ask her as I was buying one of her paintings where she came up with the style. She told me that when she was a child and with her mother they bought a painting in Bay St Louis MS by a local artist. Named signed D W Sex 1978 I showed her who I was she hugged me and she signed more prints for me. I sold that painting for no more than $100 back in 1978 and that day I gave her over a grand for her art and was glad to do it.

[Sean R]

Wow, Great answers all the way around. Inadv, Lynn and Steve hit it on the nose for me at least. I carve every day and every day I try to come up with my own ideas. Just the other day I had this great idea to carve a santa with his head sticking out of his boot. Was all excited that I came up with this idea and had never seen one before. Then I go flipping through I think it was the new issue of WCI, and low and behold there is someone who carves heads sticking out of a boot. Now I did not see a Santa, but to me if I carved my idea it would not be mine since he already did it first. So I scrapped the idea altogether.
When I do my work I do want it to be mine and not a copy. I am working very hard to gain skill in carving, and the last thing I want to do is be known as a copy cat carver. However being taught by Don, do I want to try and carve a hobo someday? you bet. I just want it to be original is all. I do love the rough out and patterns etc. I just would not want to sell them as Lynn said it is taking advantage of someones generosity. But at the same time there is only so many ways you can carve some stuff.

[johncarves]

If you try to limit a woodcarving show or competition to only original work you may as well cancel the event.

There are woodcarvings that are "craft" and there are woodcarvings that are "art" (hey let's start that debate again). Most woodcarving shows are craft events with some surprising art involved.

Woodcarvings that so closely mimic some other persons work fall more into the craft category. They are not original but are perfectly acceptable to me. I wish I knew how many of Tom Wolfe's patterns have been carved over the years (and that's great), He has helped so many people develop and perfect their craft.

There is nothing "new" under the sun. But when a carver can take a subject and give it such a different and refreshing treatment in execution and presentation it then becomes a work of art! My wish is that all woodcarvers would perfect their craft and continue on to become artist in their own right.

Every once in a while I will do a "Tom Wolfe" pattern. But it is obvious to knowledgeable carvers that it's base on Tom's work, it is all so obvious that it it wasn't carved by Tom. I have displayed them with the title "John Moore does Tom Wolfe" and been proud of my work and of Tom's sense of humor and artistic ability.

But I ramble on...