Guys, I appreciate the thoughtful responses. I expect we’re more in agreement than disagreement. To me it’s definitely a nuanced issue and not black and white.
So @rator, yes these are artistic renderings of a watch using a medium different than the original. If we can agree that the medium, whether that be charcoal sketch, oil on canvas, or digitally drawn would all amount to the same thing, then that gets back to my earlier point that this is only an issue because a digitally rendered version can also be functional.
Although, as a side bar… our often very creative and inventive solutions for coding to replicate complex mechanical movements could be considered an art/craft in itself that we have full ownership of and has no relation to the original mechanical solutions.
And in the end, a digital functioning watch face is still not a mechanical watch. Imo, it can not be called a clone.
I would also take slight issue with your statement “they ARE just drawings/paintings of someone else’s art” . You seem to be implying that automatically diminishes their artistic merit. I don’t feel that is a given. In my view the artistic qualities of the work can still stand or fall on their own regardless of the subject. So naturally I extend that view to a artist-created rendering of a watch, regardless of the medium.
To me the distinction of being a legitimate art form is crucial to the consideration of legal/ethical issues. Obviously we all agree that selling such replicas, or making a replica and putting your name in place of the original brand is both unethical and illegal. But the creation of such art by itself, and even sharing among friends is not anywhere in the same conversation imo.
I think the issue is further complicated because 99% of replica watch face makers use photos of the real watch to build their replica and do not draw their own.work, and 99% of those are mediocre at best. And perhaps even worse people make their own design alterations to some of these watches yet leave the original brand or maker’s name on it. If that’s what this conversation was about I’d be totally on board calling it unethical. Sure, probably illegal too but really just more offensive and disrespectful. I seriously doubt the brands have put a lot of time into researching the watch face scene, but a superficial look would reveal a lot of crap out there with their names on it so I don’t blame them for trying to put a stop to it. (But I do still believe they are also lazily equating watch faces with actual physical watch knock-offs) So what I’m talking about in terms of replica “art” probably occupies less than .05 % of all the replicas out there. It’s certainly a lot easier to simply address the 99.5% and say it’s wrong.
Sorry, very long winded… . But as I’ve become quite serious and passionate about this very specific art form in which I consider myself among that .05% I have given it a lot of thought. …and I guess I’m a bit sensitive about what I do being lumped in with that other 99%.
I’m going to post some more pics layer to lend some visual accompaniment to my views.
Thanks for indulging me in this discussion