Hi all. Have been doing tribute watches on WatchMaker for some years now. I tend to specialise with older and retro faces from the 70’s. Most of these do not fall into banned branding on WM. My question, are they allowed here or is this predominantly for original work? Cheers T.G.Hall
Hi and welcome to Facer Community.
The only way to find out for sure is to contact the brand and ask. Save your correspondence in case Facer’s filter flags them.
Hmmm. I don‘t understand how WM can make a decision what can be cloned? Do they have a list which brands are permitted and which ones are allowed?? Cloning watch faces is always a copyright infringement. It doesn‘t matter how old the watches are or what brand they are coming from…
If you would clone a Rolex, a TAG Heuer or a Breitling from 1970 and the swiss watch association finds your watch face on facer they will not be amused.
Those „Tribute“-Watch faces were the reason why Facerepo is closed now.
But i have a question: Why don‘t you design own watch faces instead of cloning? It‘s an ever better and bigger challenge and totally legal. You could do 70’s retro style as well…
1 Like
Hi all, Terry is a great designer of originals and replicas. He’s one of the very small handful of us longtime WM guys who do everything 100% from scratch. I mean watch faces that look made of real materials and textures, not the cartoony stuff, I suppose there are many who do that. His graphics are top shelf! Also most of his replicas are of very rare brands that often don’t even exist anymore.
But, actually yes, WM does have a list and are very strict about it. Some brands (Rolex among them strangely) don’t seem to mind. Other brands such as TAG, Van Cleef, Patek, UN, and others have made clear to WM (and Facer too I’m sure) they don’t allow.
1 Like
Oh, i don‘t say he isn‘t a good designer.
Just stalked a little bit some of his WM creations if he is T. G. Hall…
To answer your question regarding copyright. Yes there is a list if brands that have issued infringement notices, they are not allowed on WatchMaker. However the list is very unusual. Predominately SWISS brands and Rolex is one of the few that are allowed. I do all brands on my own group, that is private and by invitation only. As far as design my own, I have but I prefer to don the classics.
Thank you, will try.
Sigh…yet again, another of these conversations where all sides makes their respective cases and nobody agrees on anything other than that they all disagree.
Examples:
Side 1 - I make clones and/or tribute watches that look almost exactly like the originals. Because of my painstaking detail and artistic effort, I should be able to publish these products for others to use.
Side 2 - I believe clones and tributes that are copied from the originals violate copyright laws. The amount of hard work and talent involved is irrelevant because the intellectual property owner has not approved of such copies being distributed.
Side 3 - it is nobody else’s business if someone recreates and publishes these clones. None of the original intellectual property owners are losing money since these are technically published on a different medium.
1 Like
I don’t know why the topic is so difficult for people to grasp.
If you steal anything whether it’s money, cars, artwork, jewelry, or intellectual property, and nobody catches you, or you hide the item in a private group, put it behind a tree, disguise it in another medium, or bury it in the ground that does not make it ok. It’s still stealing. It also speaks volumes about your character.
1 Like
Wow that an interesting response. Don’t loose any sleep, Facer us obviously not the place for me.
Well, i love classic watches. I think i watched thousands of watch faces, low and high budget, faces like art, aviation style, military, sportive, elegant, wealthy … i couldn’t write down all brands and famous watch makers i included in my research.
In the beginning i made as well a few clones but then i came very early to a point where i recognized that this way is totally wrong for me. I have always been a free creative mind, accepting no limits.
The extensive research helped a lot to find my own style - to get a feeling for forms, proportions, colors, materials, textures, finishes. It was a step on the journey but not the final goal.
Life and Art get interesting when we leave the track, break the barrier, leave the past behind (without forgetting the roots). Then we are able to create new things.
I create all textures and guilloches myself in CAD in 3D, adding light effects and animations. Some of my watches are classic like, some are hybrids, some pure creative.
I want to know that people like my own creations, not copies from a famous watch maker, maybe you understand that i think different.
I am not the one to judge your ways. I think you are very good with graphic programs.
I only don‘t understand why you do walk in circles and don‘t go one step beyond.
Greetings, GAUSS.
1 Like
I’d say if you don’t mind staying or leaving, at least test the waters before heading out the door 
Some people just need to relax I think. You do you. Push comes to shove you’ll get your face taken down with an e-mail from Facer saying why and give you an option to appeal.
2 Likes
Thank you Allen, but already gone.
Interesting, but already gone.
@Linlay I see an extremely vast range of drawing/painting/graphics styles in your collection, I’m curious if all of those graphics are drawn by you? If so I am genuinely impressed by your talent and skills. I say that in all sincerity.
I only ask because you have such strong views on the topic, even going so far as to insult Terry’s character.
I am going to stay out of the tête-à-tête going there. I will however, point out that the thread was created to ask a question about permission to publish copyrighted content by third parties (those third parties would be us creators). The answer is in the terms of use and also pops up when a creator publishes his or her work on Facer. The few users on here involved in this thread do not represent Facer as a company, nor do any of us represent the entire complement of users/creators on Facer.
I find the part of the conversation to be of great interest is the regard of clones or tributes of watches that have not been made or marketed for decades, and whose IP owners may have no longer hold a legal stake in said content. Honestly, if you have done your homework and these are up for grabs, then there exists no legal issues to navigate. On the other hand, if you are going to be publishing clones of Rolexes, as an example, even old outdated models, you still need to either have express written permission to publish the designs or you keep them to yourself for personal use.
The TL;DR version: artistic reasons, skills and endeavors aside, why would anyone expect a business to take on the risk of allowing copyright infringement that could put said business in legal jeopardy that could possibly take down that business? No matter what any of our respective opinions are, this is the heart of the topic and the conversation, thereof.
2 Likes
@kvansant
Yes, my designs are created by me. Today I painted Easter flowers that amount to 33 layers so far. That is only the background. I didn’t get to the watch face yet. My work doesn’t look any better than what is available on clip art sites, but I have the peace of mind knowing that everything is 100% mine.
When I first joined Facer I thought people were just misinformed and did not bother to read the TOS, but it seems that others resist cultivating their creativity and feel the need to debate.
I don’t know who Terry is and what you mean about “Terry’s character”.
@Linlay Terry is the new guy who was asking a question to start this thread, who presumably you were responding to when you said “it also speaks volumes about your character”. Maybe you were speaking more generally but he took it personally.
Are we talking about the same thing btw? I know your designs are your original work, and I think you’ve good eye for layout and balance. But I was asking about the some of the elements you’re using. If you painted everything, then I have true respect for your talent. There’s a very wide stylistic range of painting/drawing styles and techniques on display. From cutesy cartoon owls to highly detailed expressive Norman Rockwell-esque Santa faces, Pretty amazing skills for one artist! I have good Photoshop skills, I can create photorealistic textures and mechanical watch parts from a blank file, but freehand painting or drawing on paper or canvas has never been my talent.
But again, because you’ve expressed such strong views on the topic I’m just curious about some of the art elements I saw while browsing through your collection (you’re very prolific!) this one for example which caught my eye because I’m familiar with this character from a book I’ve read to my son. And a quick Google search finds the exact image, already conveniently in transparent png form too.
Is this not a copyrighted image of a copyrighted character AND someone else’s work? On the website this image comes from it even says “All content © Axel Scheffler 2020” . I’m trying to understand how does this reconcile with your expressed opinions here?
You know, there is an unspoken “rule” that we don’t call out other designers in the forums. There are private channels and official channels for such accusatory actions.
Sorry, I’m new here. Last thing I want is an internet argument. Only reason I got involved in the thread in the other section was to address what I perceived as a blanket dismissal of something not having artistic merit, so I only wanted to speak to that aspect. Along the way I read some pretty strong sentiments. I was happy to bow out and let that go, I said what I had to say.
But then again, only got drawn into this one to try to speak up on behalf of my friend Terry, but then it went downhill again, to the point of kind of a personal attack. There’s also the old “glass houses” or pot/kettle rules too.
I really don’t care how anyone chooses to make their faces, that’s their business, also no desire for official accusations. Just trying to understand why someone would be making such strong statements when apparently they don’t adhere to their own views.