#1
I don't think anyone ever called this handle style a Polo 2XL, but it's double-beaded. 

Here's a link to the offering page: https://www.paladinshaving.com/pages/mci...acy-series

And here's one to the Flick preview: https://www.flickr.com/photos/141014234@...2232605132


[Image: 228SM-A01-L19-FRONT_zpsegm9cabt.jpg]

bendavid, Niro884, Darktrader and 4 others like this post
#2
I’ve read the disclaimer about ownership on the Sears website. Regardless of who “owns” these designs, you are copying an entire line of work currently being produced by another artisan. Beyond the pale, if you ask me.
#3
(This post was last modified: 12-17-2019, 02:09 PM by ChiefBroom.)
(12-17-2019, 04:36 AM)TrumptUp Wrote: I’ve read the disclaimer about ownership on the Sears website. Regardless of who “owns” these designs, you are copying an entire line of work currently being produced by another artisan. Beyond the pale, if you ask me.
You're entitled to your opinion. I don't share it. 

FWIW, Brad Sears didn't develop any of these designs. His renditions are acknowledged copies of Rooney and/or M&F handle designs that were themselves derivatives to varying extents.

In any case, the handles I've turned aren't copies of any of handle Brad has made. I'm turning handles based directly on CAD files owned by Frank McInroy. I've done that with his permission, which he concluded he had the right to give me. 

No once since 2013 has turned shaving brush handles on CNC lathes based directly on those CAD files. There is a material difference. The handles we've made are authentic in a different way. I have not imitated Brad in any way whatsoever.

Watson, MarsEnglish, bendavid and 6 others like this post
#4
The designs belong to Lee and Lee works with Brad. Don’t know if you and Lee had a falling out and that’s what sparked this desire to copy his designs.
#5
(12-17-2019, 03:18 PM)TrumptUp Wrote: The designs belong to Lee and Lee works with Brad. Don’t know if you and Lee had a falling out and that’s what sparked this desire to copy his designs.

What exactly is the nature of the rights that Lee holds in relation to those designs, which, according to Brad, Lee gave to Brad. 

Are they property rights or contractual? 

If they are property rights, what kind? 

And how did Lee acquire ownership of them?

I'm not baiting you with these questions. I'm curious to know the answers.
#6
Lee states through Brad that McInroy acknowledges that only Lee (and now by extension, Brad) has the right to use these files.

You also failed to answer the pertinent question. Why release Brad and Lee’s portfolio under your own label? I smell a grudge or two and a petty (and yes, unethical) response following.
#7
(This post was last modified: 12-17-2019, 05:47 PM by ChiefBroom.)
(12-17-2019, 04:35 PM)TrumptUp Wrote: Lee states through Brad that McInroy acknowledges that only Lee (and now by extension, Brad) has the right to use these files.

You also failed to answer the pertinent question. Why release Brad and Lee’s portfolio under your own label? I smell a grudge or two and a petty (and yes, unethical) response following.

There was no falling out with with Lee. And my interest in turning handles based on the McInroy CAD drawings has nothing to do with either Lee or Brad. 

What Lee stated through Brad was taken from an email that Frank McInroy sent to me in November of last year. That was the first email I received from Frank. There were many emails after that. What Frank later described as his verbal understanding (he never mentioned a contract) with Lee was what he referred to as a "right of first refusal" to Frank's CAD drawings and G-Code. Frank wrote to Lee and tried to contact him by phone without any response. Frank didn't tell me he'd done that until after he concluded he had satisfied his obligation to Lee. That was months later. 

If I were of the opinion that Frank's sharing of CAD files would constitute a breach of contractual agreement with Lee or infringement of existing intellectual property rights, I would not have done anything with them. I am not of that opinion. 

Now, back to the rights Brad claims to hold, exactly what is their nature and how did they come into existence?

Watson, ChiefThunder, TheHunter and 2 others like this post
#8
Clearly the ownership or right to use of the designs is in dispute. Putting all that to one side, I’ll ask again, what is your motivation behind copying what Brad and Lee are currently producing? The only two reasons I can fathom is personal animus toward Brad and/or Lee or a money grab (and to hell with the ethics).
#9
(This post was last modified: 12-17-2019, 07:11 PM by ChiefBroom.)
(12-17-2019, 06:16 PM)TrumptUp Wrote: Clearly the ownership or right to use of the designs is in dispute. Putting all that to one side, I’ll ask again, what is your motivation behind copying what Brad and Lee are currently producing? The only two reasons I can fathom is personal animus toward Brad and/or Lee or a money grab (and to hell with the ethics).

I already answered your question. Personal animus toward Brad and/or Lee has nothing to do with it. And neither is it a money grab. If I were a billionaire, I'd give the brushes away. As it is, we have to make this work as a business, but that's not the primary motivation. Did you read Parts 1 & 2 of my posts with regard to Frank and Lynn McInroy?

As to ownership of rights to use of the designs being in dispute, I'm not disputing who holds them. Since you appear to assume such rights exist (apart from FrankLynn Tech's copyright and trade secret rights), I'm asking what that assumption is based on.

Pc4406 and TheHunter like this post
#10
My assumption is based on the word of another artisan’s assertion that you have no right to use the designs, hence the dispute with your use. Let’s wait for Lee to speak on this.

Your statement that you are paying homage to someone is just a smokescreen with a nice backstory.


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)