Attack of the Clones

[TheGoalNet]

@craig I am not defending Harrison either, I’ve never met or worked with him

Potvin Mask is Just the most  obvious example of the genesis  of my research  

[bunnyman666]

1 hour ago, TheGoalNet said:

@craig I am not defending Harrison either, I’ve never met or worked with him

Potvin Mask is Just the most  obvious example of the genesis  of my research  

I don’t endorse stealing Harrison’s paint jobs unless he stole your deposit; but then again- I endorse much more organised crime style punishments for stealing money

[coopaloop1234]

On 7/1/2018 at 6:45 AM, CG35 said:

As a Bruins fan I found this one interesting... Manny Fernandez inspired by Andy Moog... doesn’t get much closer than that.

Those aren't even close to the same though...

The animal mouth = cage opening isn't copyrighted and the animals don't resemble each other at all.

[TheGoalNet]

[BadAngle41]

1 minute ago, TheGoalNet said:

I'm with you (if i interpret your emoji correctly)... not sure how I feel about this tribute set.

[dreadlockgoalie]

This one is a little tough - if you want a very specific look to replicate Roy's 1992-93 set, you're not getting it from CCM.  What choice would you have?  It's a one-off that skirts the line between homage and clone.  If Kenesky turned around a whole line of these and advertised them as such, that'd be different.

[TheGoalNet]

10 minutes ago, dreadlockgoalie said:

This one is a little tough - if you want a very specific look to replicate Roy's 1992-93 set, you're not getting it from CCM.  What choice would you have?  It's a one-off that skirts the line between homage and clone.  If Kenesky turned around a whole line of these and advertised them as such, that'd be different.

As much as I want a Potvin set... I’m now of the opinion that if the designer doesn’t want their graphic used anymore, it shouldn’t be done 

the execution on this set is fantastic, it’s the request I don’t like 

You can also still buy this one...

https://www.goaliemonkey.com/koho-goalie-leg-pads-589-vintage-pro.html

[dreadlockgoalie]

49 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

As much as I want a Potvin set... I’m now of the opinion that if the designer doesn’t want their graphic used anymore, it shouldn’t be done 

the execution on this set is fantastic, it’s the request I don’t like 

You can also still buy this one...

https://www.goaliemonkey.com/koho-goalie-leg-pads-589-vintage-pro.html

I thought of the Goalie Monkey Koho's immediately, too.  BUT, that is also a different grade of pad, with none of the custom details like the straps, toe caps or catcher palm.  I do see the danger of ignoring a designer's right to control the use of their work but at the same time, if something like this is strictly a one-off that can't be purchased from the original creator, is it actually a deprivation of a sale?  I'd say that it's not worth losing sleep over.  

However, there are lots of players out there in the market mass-producing rip-off equipment designs/graphics and marketing them as such to undercut the original.  I'm thinking the lookalikes to Wright's masks (down to even the names), near clones to the major gear makers pads and gloves.  It might be well made, quality stuff but that's not really the point. That kind of thing I am on board with as getting into the scope of predatory copyright infringement.  It's a little harder to pin the line down between homage and rip-off with this Kenesky set.

[Naz]

With those Keneskys.. something as simple as using the words "Roy Tribute" instead of "Revolution" in that same font.  As it stands now, it has the appearance of Kenesky making the Revolution line.

[stackem30]

Man, if I had known Kenesky was down to do work like that, I might have made my pads into full-on Heaton ripoffs! Oh well

I'm still not sure how I feel about some of the more specific points of this debate. Generally speaking, I want to support original work (and the people behind it), and I am totally against cloning graphics that are currently available from the companies that designed them. I can't stand some of the stuff Simmons and Boddam have done over the years, and it's made me think less of them. But when it comes to graphics from long-defunct companies, I'm a little less sure.

For my own selfish example, let's pretend I want to get some Heaton clones for my next set of gloves. CCM (who owns the Heaton brand) isn't making them, and doesn't do custom work. If that stuff were widely available today, I'd never get a cloned version for less money or anything. And sadly, Brian Heaton is no longer with us, and to my knowledge, there'd be no way to commission any equipment that would benefit his estate or anything like that in the long run.

To me, getting a Heaton clone would be a thing of total homage, something to honor a man who made gear that I pined after as a kid, and keep the look alive. Isn't that a positive thing when a brand/graphic are truly defunct? It's kind of sad knowing that certain things would fade into memory when so many people still love and appreciate them.

Not sure what I think of those Revolutions (I mean, they look sweet as hell, but...). Is CCM/Koho no longer offering that Revolution graphic? I know it was revived a few years back... I don't really love the Kenesky Revolution seal and logo. To me, that just hits too close to home, and feels to much like taking credit for the Revolution line. But this whole debate comes down to some interesting points and specifics, and so many of the things that either sit fine with me or rub me the wrong way are not far apart.

[IPv6Freely]

I'm 100% okay with somebody requesting a cloned graphic. As long as the company doesn't start selling it as their own, and only doing it by request, then I don't see a problem. 

That said, cloning a graphic and making logos that look like the original are two quite different things. 

Edited July 25, 2018 by IPv6Freely

[stackem30]

1 minute ago, IPv6Freely said:

I'm 100% okay with somebody requesting a cloned graphic. As long as the company doesn't start selling it as their own, and only doing it by request, then I don't see a problem. 

If you were a writer, would you be okay with someone else publishing your words, as long as they didn't claim they were the first to write it? They're still making money for your work, even if they don't claim to have come up with the text...

I think someone not taking credit for a clone doesn't mean anything if the person who created the original is still around, and not getting paid for it. Credit won't keep the lights on.

[IPv6Freely]

If I took somebody's words that meant something to me, and had a sign made by a sign maker to go in my living room with those words... is that the same thing as being a sign maker and selling multiple copies of signs with those words in your shop? 

Edited July 25, 2018 by IPv6Freely

[BadAngle41]

19 minutes ago, IPv6Freely said:

If I took somebody's words that meant something to me, and had a sign made by a sign maker to go in my living room with those words... is that the same thing as being a sign maker and selling multiple copies of signs with those words in your shop? 

I believe I understand what you're saying in that there is a difference between a customer request one off a maker provides, and when that maker then takes that one off and starts creating a line of products based on it (which is known to be a copy of another's design work.)

Others might argue that an aesthetic one off, even when no longer made by the original and/or has functional differences from it, is a design rip off and especially so when it is what some consider to be relatively iconic to a brand.

Years ago I had a mask painted to mimic that of Patrick Lalime's Marvin the Martian but in green. I can say seeing it now (and even then) that when compared to original ideas I had painted on masks, the copy it didn't feel the same or right. Didn't feel mine. IMO there is a line where imitation stops being the sincerest form of flattery, but some will want what they want, and someone will make it. So the discussion will continue... as will the tribute gear...

[stackem30]

1 hour ago, IPv6Freely said:

If I took somebody's words that meant something to me, and had a sign made by a sign maker to go in my living room with those words... is that the same thing as being a sign maker and selling multiple copies of signs with those words in your shop? 

I don't think this analogy holds up — or it depends, at least. When you say somebody's words, do you mean like an author's? Is the author alive? Do they have an estate that has rights to/can profit from those words?

In your hypothetical scenario, you are taking creative property from someone (words), and asking someone else to make something entirely different with them (a sign), something the original creator never offered, or isn't around to make/profit from. But in the majority of the cases we're looking at, companies aren't taking the original creator's design/labels and making something totally different... they are making goalie equipment, the same thing that the original creator makes. And if the original creator is around to make that thing and/or profit from it, I think there's a problem.

[IPv6Freely]

I guess I just don't care.

[TheGoalNet]

52 minutes ago, IPv6Freely said:

I guess I just don't care.

Then why comment? Wouldn’t it be easier to not comment on a topic that doesn’t interest you? 

[IPv6Freely]

5 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

Then why comment? Wouldn’t it be easier to not comment on a topic that doesn’t interest you? 

You misunderstand. I meant I don't care enough about an artists feelings to not get whatever graphic I want.

[TheGoalNet]

20 minutes ago, IPv6Freely said:

You misunderstand. I meant I don't care enough about an artists feelings to not get whatever graphic I want.

Apologies, that makes more sense. All good 

[bunnyman666]

As far as the Kenesky Roy tribute goes, I myself would have done a play on words with “Revolution” and just made it a teeny bit different, but for me, it is not a complete rip off; that being said- it gets tough when it comes to stripe patterns. Eddie VanHalen did actually patent his Frankenstein, 5150, bumble bee and original striped paint schemes on his guitars and has (with the help of Fender) sued the pants off of people who sold those paintjobs for guitars. That’s why I will NEVER show my Frankie-inspired Wolfgang I painted myself anywhere on the web! 

[IPv6Freely]

On 7/26/2018 at 7:26 AM, bunnyman666 said:

As far as the Kenesky Roy tribute goes, I myself would have done a play on words with “Revolution” and just made it a teeny bit different, but for me, it is not a complete rip off; that being said- it gets tough when it comes to stripe patterns. Eddie VanHalen did actually patent his Frankenstein, 5150, bumble bee and original striped paint schemes on his guitars and has (with the help of Fender) sued the pants off of people who sold those paintjobs for guitars. That’s why I will NEVER show my Frankie-inspired Wolfgang I painted myself anywhere on the web! 

Using that example... again there is a HUGE difference between painting a guitar that way and selling it, and painting it yourself. And then there's another threshold in the grey area in between where you pay somebody to paint it for you. Is that on the painter for doing it? The customer for requesting it? Both? Neither? 

But again, for me personally I just don't care unless the painter is trying to pass it off as their own work and making money from it. Otherwise, fair game. 

[bunnyman666]

18 hours ago, IPv6Freely said:

Using that example... again there is a HUGE difference between painting a guitar that way and selling it, and painting it yourself. And then there's another threshold in the grey area in between where you pay somebody to paint it for you. Is that on the painter for doing it? The customer for requesting it? Both? Neither? 

But again, for me personally I just don't care unless the painter is trying to pass it off as their own work and making money from it. Otherwise, fair game. 

The reason why EVH patented his paint schemes (not merely trademarking or copyrighting) was because there were companies putting out guitars with those paint schemes and he did not make a dime from those copies circulating everywhere for a couple of years! Of course now you can buy official striped painted guitars at a $200 or so premium over the stock offering.

I did build my own Frankenstein, as well. I picked an earlier era than what the $25K version was based upon that was out a few years back. I think I did a better job than Fender’s Custom Shop version. Of course I will never show this to the world, either. I will not sell it; whomever inherits my guitar collection will have to figure out what they will be doing with those guitars...

I do see your point, @IPv6Freely; but I also know I would not be happy if I saw my paint job everywhere if I created something really cool and only made money on the original commission. 

Edited July 30, 2018 by bunnyman666

[TitanG]

This is the closest clone of a 961 that Pro’s Choice has done to date (even more than Martin Biron’s):

[TheGoalNet]

Good eye on that chin 

[southpawtendy48]

(deleted)

Edited January 17, 2019 by southpawtendy48