[Mike Capanelli]

[Chad Arnow]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Paul Watson]

Regardless of whether an Albion is an exact reproduction of an historical sword, such as their Museum Line, very close to an original sword, such as the Oakeshott and Hospitaller, or a composite of historical examples, Peter has done the research and the designs are copyrighted. If any one wants information on the swords they should purchase or otherwise source one and take to it with calipers themselves. Albion are sword manufacturers not an information database supplier.

[Francisco Simões]

All this rambling and concerns about intellectual property and copyrights, and what belongs to whom, and following you folks line of thoughts and philosophy, I think we should go to the root of Property then. And no I do not believe in what I’m about to write, but instead are the true core of your own believes.

Most of Peter’s researches and swords that inspired the NG were from countries from Europe and their national museums and armouries therefore property of the respective governments. Being this so, and following your thoughts and believes , it shouldn’t be given for free to a serious researcher like Peter, or even further, and it should not be given any access to those swords, as that info gathered is now used for commercial purposes.

The above is what you Sirs truly believe, and therefore the only swords available for Albion to reproduce today would be wooden swords and sabres of the cavalry in blue.

Great work Peter has done to the sword community with this project of his, and he has my most humble bow.

[Gabriel Lebec]

Francisco,

Material property rights and intellectual property rights (artistic copyrights) are not the same thing at all. The museums own the swords, not the designs of the swords. This is the mirror image of how Albion owns the designs of your swords, even though you own the swords themselves. Artistic copyrights legally expire after a certain duration (depends on the context, but usually well after the designer is dead) and this is in line with moral/ethical theory on why copyrights exist in the first place and what their limitations are. I think it is safe to say that the intellectual rights of the original designer of the antique the Hospitaller was based on and his estate (family) expired a very, very long time ago.

Of course, the situation becomes more complex (and controversial) when museums try to use "permission fees" and such to generate revenue on images of their collections, even on antique works. But clearly the design of a several-hundred-years-old sword is in what's known as the public domain.

Your last comment only serves to illustrate that you do not fully understand these distinctions and should, as Nathan suggested, actually do a bit of research on intellectual property rights - both their legal and moral theory.

[Chad Arnow]

Francisco,
Drop the sarcasm and histrionics or you'll find your posting privileges revoked. Please debate and discuss calmly and rationally.

You are missing the point. Still. For the purpose of this discussion, it doesn't matter why Peter studied originals or where or when or with whom. His study yielded results that he is under no obligation to reveal to anyone. He has chosen to use that knowledge in his own products and in those he designs for Albion. He has also made many posts on this forum and elsewhere helping people out and giving out info. The same goes for the folks at A&A who have been very generous with info to the public.

However, when it comes to their designs (especially ones that are a fusion of study of antiques and their own creativity), they are under no obligation to reveal anything to anyone.

You never answered my question about whether you would ask Honda for engine specs so you could have Toyota make a similar one. How would Honda respond? Would they dignify the question with a response? Would that response be any different that Albion's?

If you really want to know how the Hospitaller or any other sword works out, go buy one and study it. Or ask an owner. But it's absolutely unreasonable to expect a maker to give out that info. Next Gen swords aren't exact copies of historic designs, so they aren't historic swords to be copied. They're new designs and subject to intellectual property rights.

It's also unreasonable to condemn people (everyone in this thread but you) who happen to believe in intellectual property rights.

I wish there were more books published on this subject with better pics, more stats, and lower prices than what we usually find. In an ideal world, we'd have tons of new or updated publications coming out that were widely available and accessible to all. Unfortunately, many of the people studying swords today are doing so to help make their own recreations better. While there are some academics studying weapons and armour, we're lacking today's Oakeshotts and Claude Blairs: people who studied weapons and armour and widely published that info that we now find critical to our understanding. A lot of what is being published today are in academic journals, which are not always easily accessible.

Since researchers-makers (probably the majority of the current crop of researchers) have a commercial interest in their research, it is foolish to expect them to give away all they know to help a competitor's project.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Actually the question of copyright and swords could be an interesting one.

I hope this will never come to pass, but perhaps one day a problem of alleged sword copying will have to be settled in court. Then, if the contentious sword is a copy of an original, I wonder if the copyright stands (can you actually copyright something claimed to be an exact copy of an item that does not even belong to you?)... I also imagine that investigating the differences between swords claiming to be copies of the same original antique would prove to be something of a nightmare, judging what part of the design is original, and what part is from the antique...

Judging less exacting reproductions, such as swords of the NextGen line, would probably be easier because they are more original designs. But if the copy deviates from the copyrighted work as much as some antiques differ from the same work, is this still infringement?

Perhaps off-topic for this thread though...

[Nathan Robinson]

[Joe Fults]

You suffered no injury but you have attempted to frame the issue (against Albion) as if you did.

We don't know what Peter had to do in order to get access to the stuff in those armories. We don't with certainly know how much is exact measurement and how much is his creativity. We don't know if he paid to see the originals he studied and measured. For all we know he did and has exclusive license.

Simply put, by your telling, many of us feel your demand was not reasonable.

Poor sportsmanship on your part is drawing out these responses.

[Francisco Simões]

Albion US had or have a campaign that offers the 9th sword for free after buying 8 previous swords. Has I’m sure my money for 8 Albion swords has reached Albion’s account and the 9th sword never reached my address! I still believe that asking for a perimeter measure of a pommel (not to be copied) is well enough paid and a reasonable request.

How many swords have you Sirs paid to Albion Armourers, in order to speak to me as if I was a info. thief or a undesired beggar at the door?

But again you insist on punching the bag, using pick and hide behind laws and use of hypocrisy to justify your servant attitude towards Albion Armourers.

And Joe, just because majoritys have entrusted power dosen't mean they are right! And taking care of serious issues is not sports, it's serious issues.

I think that all of you Sirs, problem of not paying for the right to have access to the Hospitaller sword stats is resolved, and I will post no further here.

Thank you very much
Godspeed
Francisco

[Jean Thibodeau]

You asked for information with the attitude that it was your right to get it and that Albion was being unfair in not giving it to you because you have bought many swords from them.

Now just the diameter of a pommel you where asking for does seem like a minor thing and I might also have been surprised or disappointed by the refusal to give out the information.

Now everyone has been trying to explain why Albion would be reluctant to give out this information, and legalities aside, they don't have to give out any information just because it is requested: I think in general everyone has tried to be polite in giving their views, you don't have to agree with the reasoning and discussing it is very much O.K. but you really shouldn't interpret disagreements as being attacks on you.

You do make things difficult by taking all comments as being some sort of personal attacks and attacking Albion for just protecting their business.

One small bit of information for one pommel is a very small thing but if Albion starts giving one little bit how could they refuse to give out a lot more information ? Also, I don't think they have the time to go and fill these kinds of requests as time is money and I'm sure that Mike can't start putting in a lot of time answering questions that don't have any link to actual purchases or at least potential purchases.

Even if you don't believe it I am trying to be helpful and not attack you.

[Chad Arnow]

[Allan Senefelder]

[Mike Capanelli]

[Chad Arnow]

I think we've all made our point. Francisco has said he's done with this discussion, so maybe we can let it go rather than keep fanning the flames.

I'll take my own instructions on this one, also.