I don’t think anyone here is saying that it doesn’t take talent to recreate another person’s artwork. It does. It’s just kind of an illegal talent like Mike said, as a forger. Or a thief. High end jewel thieves are talented. Talent doesn’t make art. Artists make art.
1 Like
@Rator well, see that’s the kind of statement that triggered me in the first place 
Drawing (in whatever medium) is NOT recreating another’s artwork unless that artwork was also a drawing. It is a completely different discipline or form of art. I have complete confidence that Kari Voutilainen can no more recreate my art than I can recreate his.
The analogy of the forger of a painting only goes so far because that person is literally trying to duplicate the exact same art using the exact same methods and materials. Regardless of merit or legality, I don’t think this distinction can be in dispute. The only thing a smartwatch face maker can forge is another smartwatch face.
I think it helps to imagine the opposite scenario. Here is one of my recent original designs. Now let’s say a skilled watchmaker chooses to make a mechanical watch that looks EXACTLY like this. To me how I would label and view the result would depend on a couple of things… did he dedicate himself to an equivalent level of detail and quality? did he leave my name on it? if so did he leave the design intact with no alterations? is he trying to sell it? Did he put his own name on it??
If he was simply inspired to create HIS art using MY art as a model, while fully crediting me for the design and inspiration, I would a) never dismiss it as merely craft and “not art” and b) I would not view it as re-creating my art. It isn’t. It is creating a different kind of art based on my art.
Obviously it’s a given that selling or fraudulently claiming design ownership is something else but I’m assuming everyone understands by now that is completely outside of the scope of the point I’ve tried to make.
If I draw a Picasso painting with pencils, i still recreated another persons artwork. What you’re saying is that if I made a logo in photoshop and you draw it in pencil, that you didn’t recreate it. But you did.
So you’re saying you can legally recreate a Dali painting but use acrylics instead of oils? And I bet swiss watch makers would beg to differ on what “the only thing a smartwatch maker can forge” is.
He took your “sketch” and made it in real life. Imagine someone took Musk’s Tesla drawings and just made it before him. Without asking or consulting him and without cutting him in on any of it.
Also, if we’re not talking about selling or claiming original creation, then why are we talking lol?
Yes it takes skill to recreate someone else’s skills.
Is it art? Technically, possibly.
Is it yours? As previously said, you own the canvas, and the paint, but not the content.
Maybe in terms more relatable, if you wrote a song on the guitar and then you heard someone playing it on the keyboard, did that guy MAKE art? Or is he just PERFORMING yours? I feel like it’s kinda like that.
2 Likes
I can’t comment on the nature of art - I am not competent.
However I can say that intellectual property rights are generally independent of the physical form that they take. A registered design drawn by hand on paper affords protection in all mediums including digital and physical. As I understand it, just creating a 3d cad or photoshop recreation of that registered design would be a breach of their IP. Publishing such a recreation, with or without attribution, with or without the original trademarks, free or paid, would likewise be a breach.
You might find this link interesting:
The analysis is based on UK laws …
Of particular note is:
Is digitisation a copyright restricted act?
Digitising is copying (making a digital copy) and the right to do this is reserved to the copyright owner. Publishing and making available to the public likewise are acts restricted to the copyright owner which can only be done by the copyright owner, with the copyright owner’s permission or in reliance on one of the exceptions in the CDPA.
3 Likes
Lovely face by the way!
That fits in quite well to the overall point of the discussion. Part of intellectual property rights granted with copyright, trademark, et al, is the right to determine how said works and derivatives are published. Anyone publishing a face that violates those rights, even if the face is “free,” is still in the wrong.
Personal use is allowed, of course, but publishing any material relating to original IP without express permission of that content’s owner violates that owner’s rights. Period. You can claim all day long that a free watch face doesn’t violate because no money changed hands for that transaction of goods or services, but keep in mind that anything published on Facer does in fact work to generate revenues for Little Labs. Any and all content may be displayed for advertising purposes, even when a user is simply browsing the site.
Of course, this discussion is of little real value as long as I see a plethora of Casio, Tag and other knockoffs that use the actual product logos and names in their titles listed as trending. When I browse any given category and see unauthorized brand name designs coming up as some of the most popular designs, you can be assured these are generating revenues for Facer.
1 Like
Does ownership of the original as well as of the IP not come into play here too?
Many owners of high value artworks have the original locked in a safe / vault to protect it. To be able to still enjoy it easily, they commission an artist to produce a copy for display in public (or even just in their livingroom) .
Surely such a copy is not illegal.
It would be illegal to try and pass such a copy off as the original though.
Whether the original artist /owner of the IP should have a say in this is another question. The business model of the artist then comes into play.
With “conventional” art, artists mostly produce only one copy and does not intend to try and sell the art multiple times.
With physical watches the business model differs; the big brands mass produce with the aim to selling the same “art” multiple times. Enter big money…
This is where IP owners become concerned about replicas / copies.
In the case of digital watch faces, there is a big difference between a watch brand approaching a didital watch face designer to create a digital version of their physical IP, and a designer creating a digital version without consulting with the owner of the IP.
So many “grey” areas here plus the fact that art is by its very definition subjective, that I doubt if it is possible to reach consensus on this topic even just within the Facer community! 
My scruples / ethics / values differ from yours…
Pretty safe to say don’t replicate anyone else’s work and you’ll be fine.
2 Likes
Absolutely ‘Ninja’, I mean, seriously… after all the effort someone’s invest in the integrity of a product, all the time and money spent on developing a brand, and communicating it through every Chanel, so that that the given target market feels a connection…, why shouldn’t you pretend to be them?
Then that must put me in the 1%, since I built every single element of this recreation below (and many others like it) entirely from scratch?
And to further complicate it, this is a design from 1880. How does a 142 year old design from a company that hasn’t existed for decades fit into the discussions of the previous posts?
PS-- For a pocket watch from 1880, I found it to be a very interesting design with its dual time zones and thermometer.
PPS-- I did also update the thermometer for the Fahrenheit scale, but #WCT# was always off from temperature readings that my Samsung Galaxy itself was reporting!
2 Likes
That is the most Beautiful Battery Discharger I have Ever seen ; )
3 Likes
Lol ,i suggest a solar panel hat btw just invert and it’s a fine work 
1 Like
Done that too… this one is from a 1915 railroad pocket watch, normally with a white enamel dial, inverted for less battery drain. Even has a conveniently built-in “wind” power level dial that was scaled 0 to 40 hours, adapted for 0-100% battery power.
2 Likes
Stunning. I love the way there is a tiny bit of the 12 peeking. Personally I would have left the Winder Dial 0 to 40… If people can not adapt to that they can always get another face. Were the original seconds red. I would love to see that in white with a little Patina on the Enamel… You will have to excuse my joke about the Battery Drain it is just standard silliness… What a splendid Idea having a pointer to tell you your watch is running low. I used to have pocket watches as people were giving them away at one stage. Now if someone did a Smart one the Battery would last ages and that one would be my Face of Choice.
Yes they are red but darker red, here’s the actual original watch itself, I had to make do with the closest font I could find.
And… there’s no need to excuse the battery joke-- it is true, but it is funny and I appreciate good humor! 
(although I sense yours is instead humour 
)
2 Likes
My Oh My @kourosh That has made my day . I did not sleep well last night and was trying to work out in my head how the 40 hrs dial worked . I think one of the pictures in that post confirmed my suspicion . Sir please go back to the 40 hrs Wind Up Dial and Please publish a White version . I love the Enamel Colour Bleed effect which is difficult to reproduce I know . I have several kinds of humour most are not funny and work even less well via a Keyboard. You are really teasing us with your Posts.
I have just made myself a Night Watch with 1/4 Second Ticks . I wonder what that watch had .
The reason I chose to move away from the 40-hour range is because of how the scale was segmented into 1 tick per hour for a total of 40 ticks, see side by side below, whereas for battery level you really want to look at multiples of 2, 5, or 10 for the scale to make “instant” sense. Otherwise a 70% battery would read 28, and, at least at the time, I really didn’t want to be figuring out fractions and conversions every time I look at the dial to see how much battery I have left! In retrospect, I can see how you can still get a general idea of how much battery life you have left with a 40x scale, but, do you really want to have it be 40?
Are you calling me a tease?! 
1 Like
Sir . It is your work your way . I just feel that the face should be reproduced as Faithfully as possible . Interestingly the major divisions are the same . The original designer could have used 10 20 30 . l love that 8 16 24 32 40 . Sorry but if someone cannot see the Hand is Half way and the battery is Half discharged . They should send their Smart Watch to Me . The Font you found is spot on.
The major segments are indeed the same across both the 40 and 100 scales, so… okay… I’ll probably put it back to 40!
1 Like
Well my friend you then have two faces . One for those who want to be Precise and one for Me . I think the whole point and Beautiful of Analogue is the Relationship of the two Hands . so we can have faces with no mark at all and still tell the time . Since you have gone so far with your Faithfull Representation . I think it important that the 0 to 40 is there .