Intellectual theft?

[Bella]

Is stealing a technique stealing? Help!

I used to work for a glass-blowing studio, where I assisted the master artist in his work. I was taught the techniques necessary to help him while he was working on and finishing his projects.

On Tuesday, I was picked by the administration of my school to participate in a competition that involves creating an intricate art piece made out of worked sugar. One of the reasons I was picked was because, on my entrance application, I had put down that I had worked with glass - stained glass windows and blown glass - before. The school wants me to put my knowledge to work and create a showpiece to be entered in the competition.

I am very interested in this competition, however, I am having a problem with taking some of my former master's techniques and integrating them into a piece of art of my own. Is using some of the techniques he taught me stealing his work? Even if I'm not copying any of his designs?

[viscousmemories]

I can't imagine it's stealing to use the techniques your instructor imparted to you.

[The Lone Ranger]

Your master taught you techniques, presumably with the intention that you'd use what he taught you to create works of your own.

It would be wrong to copy his works without permission, I should think. But unless he specified that you shouldn't use the techniques that he taught you (then why teach them in the first place?), you're free to use them. Indeed, wouldn't it kind of be an insult to the master not to use what he taught you?

Cheers,

Michael

[wildernesse]

I don't think it's stealing to use techniques of working that you have learned--particular designs might be closer to the line, but a method, no.

Of course, if would probably be nice of you to acknowledge your teacher if you are given the chance to do so. But that's just being nice.

[Ensign Steve]

Your master taught you techniques, presumably with the intention that you'd use what he taught you to create works of your own.

It would be wrong to copy his works without permission, I should think. But unless he specified that you shouldn't use the techniques that he taught you (then why teach them in the first place?), you're free to use them. Indeed, wouldn't it kind of be an insult to the master not to use what he taught you?


Exactly, is that not the point of the apprentice/master relationship? You did work for him, and in return you received a payment of education and training by him. I don't know if you also got money, if you did, great for you. ;) But by training you, he must have expected you to use that training in the future.

[Godless Wonder]

I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that (in the U.S.) you can patent damn near anything, including "business methods" (e.g. amazon's infamous 1-click shopping) and "processes."

If you're using a patented process for producing works for sale, it might be a problem. If it's not patented, it's probably fair game. Might also be fair game if you use a patented method to produce something for your own personal use, not sure about that. (Copyrights sort of work that way, I think, not sure about patents. I can make my own Metallica T-shirt and wear it, say, but I can't make a bunch and sell them. Pragmatically that's true, if not legally. Not that I've ever done that. :) )

Personally, I dislike the entire notion of "intellectual property." Maybe it's because I've been brainwashed by Richard Stallman? Maybe it's because I dislike the idea of being able to patent (or copyright) a number, and my knowledge of computer science makes me know that anything that can be programmed can be (and pretty much always is) reduced to a single (very large) number, which is then summarily copyrighted/patented.

Always interesting when law intersects with computer science. Lawyers try to exploit, create or eliminate loopholes, programmers call loopholes "bugs" and know that you can't ever know if you've found them all, and are expert at finding them.

Anyway, my guess is unless the process is patented, or unless use of the process results in work that amounts to a copyright violation (unlikely) you're in the clear, legally. But, I"m not a lawyer, so this isn't legal advice, only amateur legal guessing.

[Adora]

Is stealing a technique stealing?
No. Cos then we'd all be fucked.

[Bella]

Whew. I'm so glad to hear an overwhelming OK from everyone.
Your master taught you techniques, presumably with the intention that you'd use what he taught you to create works of your own.
I never thought of our "relationship" in this way. I was hung up on the fact that I felt I was being taught the techniques in order to help with the production of the artwork that the master artist was creating.

[Dingfod]

Man, I sure hope techniques aren't intellectual property because I owe Debbie Fields for that apple pie of mine, big time.

[lisarea]

I think that techniques are covered under 'trade secrets' laws, and there is a great burden on the 'owners' of those techniques to make a serious effort to keep them private. Trade secret stuff usually has to stay locked in your desk, it cannot be duplicated at outside print shops, and people working on it have to have signed non-disclosure agreements.

If you didn't sign an NDA or something before he taught you, it's not illegal and you can't get in trouble for it. Besides which, even if you had signed an NDA, it probably wouldn't be broad enough to prohibit applying the techniques to a completely different medium, in a completely different field.