Richard Burkett on thu 24 jul 97
Rosette Gault has informed me that there is now a paper clay web site with
lots of basic info on paper clay. This should answer a lot of those
questions we see here on clayart. You can find out how to get more advanced
information or even sources for commercially produced paper clay (as
mentioned before here on clayart). The URL is:
http://www.ceramicpclay.com/ncc/
And it's added to the CeramicsWeb Add-a-link page, too, if you forget this URL.
I noticed that just today someone added an ocarina page to the CeramicsWeb
links. Always something new...
Richard
_ Richard Burkett, Associate Professor of Art
_ The School of Art Design & Art History, SDSU, San Diego, CA 92182-4805
_ http://www.sdsu.edu/art/
_ E-mail: richard.burkett@sdsu.edu - voice mail: (619) 594-6201
_ The CeramicsWeb: http://apple.sdsu.edu/ceramicsweb/
D. Kim Lindaberry on fri 25 jul 97
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> sources for commercially produced paper clay URL is:
> http://www.ceramicpclay.com/ncc/
Hello All,
I just went to the above mentioned URL which R. Burkett posted on the
list. I just wanted to have a look around to see what was there and to
find out more about P'Clay. It sounds like an interesting material to
work with. What has me puzzled about P'Clay is that they are trying to
get a patent on it (they have a patent pending if I read right). I am by
no means an authority on patent law but I didn't think that one could
patent a recipe. An example to support my thinking is one of the largest
international corporations based in the US, Coca Cola. Coca Cola has a
secret recipe but no patent on its formula because it can't get one.
They do have a registered trademark which prevents anyone else from
selling "Coca Cola" but can't prevent anyone from making & selling
generic cola's. Am I wrong in my thinking? And if not are there any
other clay companies out there that have plans to manufacture and
distribute a paper fiber based clay? Competition in the capitalist
system helps keep prices down.
Kim
--
D. Kim Lindaberry
Johnson County Community College
12345 College Blvd.
ATB 115
Overland Park, KS 66210-1299
USA
to visit my web site go to: http://www.johnco.cc.ks.us/~klinda
to send e-mail to me use: mailto:klinda@johnco.cc.ks.us
Cindy on sat 26 jul 97
You're right, Kim. That's one reason secret formulas like Kentucky Fried
are so carefully guarded. But anyone can say "patent pending". ;)
Cindy
> Hello All,
>
> I just went to the above mentioned URL which R. Burkett posted on the
> list. I just wanted to have a look around to see what was there and to
> find out more about P'Clay. It sounds like an interesting material to
> work with. What has me puzzled about P'Clay is that they are trying to
> get a patent on it (they have a patent pending if I read right). I am by
> no means an authority on patent law but I didn't think that one could
> patent a recipe. An example to support my thinking is one of the largest
> international corporations based in the US, Coca Cola. Coca Cola has a
> secret recipe but no patent on its formula because it can't get one.
> They do have a registered trademark which prevents anyone else from
> selling "Coca Cola" but can't prevent anyone from making & selling
> generic cola's. Am I wrong in my thinking? And if not are there any
> other clay companies out there that have plans to manufacture and
> distribute a paper fiber based clay? Competition in the capitalist
> system helps keep prices down.
>
> Kim
>
> --
> D. Kim Lindaberry
> Johnson County Community College
> 12345 College Blvd.
> ATB 115
> Overland Park, KS 66210-1299
> USA
>
> to visit my web site go to: http://www.johnco.cc.ks.us/~klinda
> to send e-mail to me use: mailto:klinda@johnco.cc.ks.us
Richard Burkett on sun 27 jul 97
Kim Lindaberry says:
> What has me puzzled about P'Clay is that they are trying to
>get a patent on it (they have a patent pending if I read right). I am by
>no means an authority on patent law but I didn't think that one could
>patent a recipe.
I think a more critical aspect is that paper clay was not an original idea
of Rosette's, and I don't mean to diminish the work that she's done on
researching paper clay and refining the process. She does mention this on
her web site. People have been using paper clay for quite a number of
years. I'd like to see the patent and see what she's claiming as her
invention - it may well be a particular process or aspect of paper clay
making beyond the recipe (take clay slip, add paper pulp).
Richard
Richard Burkett - School of Art, SDSU, San Diego, CA 92182-4805
E-mail: richard.burkett@sdsu.edu <-> Voice mail: (619) 594-6201
Home Page: http://rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/rburkett/www/burkett.html
CeramicsWeb: http://apple.sdsu.edu/ceramicsweb/
HyperGlaze@aol.com & http://members.aol.com/hyperglaze/
Ditmar/Gayle on tue 5 aug 97
Just another comment on paperclay and patents. The very idea that someone (
won't mention her name ) is trying to patent something that has, in
principle and actual use,
been around for hundreds of years, makes me mad as hell. Potters have been
using fiber of all sorts to reinforce their clay. ( even non-fired
materials like adobe brick etc.
make use of straw or other fibrous plants in addition to hair )
The first specific reference ( other than passing reference in the Bible )
is from an Italian translation ( c.early 1500's - I forget if it was
Biringuccio or Agricola ) where potters would take the fine lint from
spinning or papermaking, and mix it in their clay to repair ware, or to
reinforce it.
Personally, I feel that it's an insulting rip-off to try and make potters
or artists pay a royalty for something hundreds of years old and part of
the public domain. In case you haven't seen a warning label yet, she's
already warning potential paperclay users that it's patent pending and not
to make more than one piece, or to display any pieces in public!!! At
least not until you pay up !
I have nothing against her personally. I just have some very strong
feelings about the arrogance of her actions.
Post your opinions and other historical references to fiber-reinforced
clay. Maybe the patent office will take notice and we won't be deprived of
the open and free use of a very old and useful material.
I'm getting off my soap-box now.
Thanks, Ditmar
gaylecat@maui.net
D. Kim Lindaberry wrote in article
<33D771E5.45C2@johnco.cc.ks.us>...
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> > ----------------------------Original
message----------------------------
>
> > sources for commercially produced paper clay URL is:
> > http://www.ceramicpclay.com/ncc/
>
> Hello All,
>
> I just went to the above mentioned URL which R. Burkett posted on the
> list. I just wanted to have a look around to see what was there and to
> find out more about P'Clay. It sounds like an interesting material to
> work with. What has me puzzled about P'Clay is that they are trying to
> get a patent on it (they have a patent pending if I read right). I am by
> no means an authority on patent law but I didn't think that one could
> patent a recipe. An example to support my thinking is one of the largest
> international corporations based in the US, Coca Cola. Coca Cola has a
> secret recipe but no patent on its formula because it can't get one.
> They do have a registered trademark which prevents anyone else from
> selling "Coca Cola" but can't prevent anyone from making & selling
> generic cola's. Am I wrong in my thinking? And if not are there any
> other clay companies out there that have plans to manufacture and
> distribute a paper fiber based clay? Competition in the capitalist
> system helps keep prices down.
>
> Kim
>
> --
> D. Kim Lindaberry
> Johnson County Community College
> 12345 College Blvd.
> ATB 115
> Overland Park, KS 66210-1299
> USA
>
> to visit my web site go to: http://www.johnco.cc.ks.us/~klinda
> to send e-mail to me use: mailto:klinda@johnco.cc.ks.us
>
Frank Tucker on wed 6 aug 97
At 08:53 AM 8/5/97 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Just another comment on paperclay and patents. The very idea that someone (
>won't mention her name ) is trying to patent something that has, in
>principle and actual use,
>
Hello All,
I think that I should try to clear something up.Rosette Gault and Diane
Baxter are not trying to patent the use of paper in clay.In fact Rosette
has written two books on the subject(the second to be out soon)which
explain how to make and use paper clay.However they have spent a tremendous
amount of time working out a viable way to produce it commercially.This is
the process which they are trying to patent.I do not mind at all paying
somebody for research.If our company had spent the time and money to
develop this process for ourselves then the cost would still have been
passed on in the price of the clay.
Nobody is ripping anybody off here.If you would rather mix it yourself,feel
free.
Frank Tucker
Tucker's Pottery Supplies
1-800-304-6185
LINDA BLOSSOM on wed 6 aug 97
Dear Ditmar,
I went to Rosette Gault's webpage and looked for the patent information
that you reported. I did read that there is a patent pending. The only
place where I saw it mentioned about something being shown in public was
the last sentence where it was said that new developments were being made
that weren't ready to be disclosed. I remember Rosette's first article in
CM and I have her book, and looking at her webpage, it seems to me that she
has done a lot of research on using paperclay and has shared a lot of
information that will save others a lot of time. Exactly what is being
patented, I don't know, but if I read the patent page correctly, there
don't seem to be restrictions. Maybe you found something I missed. If so,
what was the heading it was under?
Linda Blossom
2366 Slaterville Rd.
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-539-7912
blossom@lightlink.com
http://www.artscape.com
Carol Durnford on thu 7 aug 97
I've been following the paperclay discussion with much interest
since I've use it for quite some time in most of my new sculptural work. I
do not however use the digesting process. It is a waste of time for me. I
obtain paper pulp from my local pulp mill which makes liner board for
cardboard boxes mostly. It saves me one step. I have found my own way to
stop the paper fiber from rotting and I do not purchase the paper clay from
a commercial source, but mix my own.
I've found, at least in my clay body, that it does not make pieces
that much lighter, but; from the green to the bisque or once fired to cone
9, it is strong and rarely breaks. When slaking down dry pieces, I've had
to take a hammer to them just to break large pieces into smaller ones. That
is why I use paper-clay. I can move large pieces and bump them without the
fear that they will crack or crumble. I think that the greater porosity
make glazes soak into my pieces more, which can be a good or a bad thing
depending on how you use that opportunity.
Any process is going to have to be damn special to be patented. I
can't remember anyone using a Greek terra sig process asking whether someone
had a patent on it. I think that the purpose of patents and ethics may be
in conflict here............or maybe not......Maybe it's just the ethics of
economics.
Have a good day.
Dave
Barbara Lewis on fri 8 aug 97
I have had similar experiences with paperclay. Strength, and not lightness,
being a main advantage. I buy cotton linters from Pyramid Atlantic, an art
center for papermakers. I mix it by eye with porcelain slurry (left over
from throwing and mishaps) by adding no more than about 25%. I can pour
ultra-thin porcelain slabs on plaster that do not warp. I then use the slabs
as a canvas and either raku, saggar, or high fire them. I have also used
paperclay for making tiles. Carving is not effective because of the paper
pulp, but you could carve a design into plaster or use water erosion as I
have done with good results. In the winter I have no trouble with the
cotton linters growing bacteria because it is cold enough in the studio (sad
to say), but in the summer I try to keep it in the fridge. Cotton linters
have become one answer to clay recycling. Barbara
At 09:05 AM 8/7/97 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> I've been following the paperclay discussion with much interest
>since I've use it for quite some time in most of my new sculptural work. I
>do not however use the digesting process. It is a waste of time for me. I
>obtain paper pulp from my local pulp mill which makes liner board for
>cardboard boxes mostly. It saves me one step. I have found my own way to
>stop the paper fiber from rotting and I do not purchase the paper clay from
>a commercial source, but mix my own.
> I've found, at least in my clay body, that it does not make pieces
>that much lighter, but; from the green to the bisque or once fired to cone
>9, it is strong and rarely breaks. When slaking down dry pieces, I've had
>to take a hammer to them just to break large pieces into smaller ones. That
>is why I use paper-clay. I can move large pieces and bump them without the
>fear that they will crack or crumble. I think that the greater porosity
>make glazes soak into my pieces more, which can be a good or a bad thing
>depending on how you use that opportunity.
> Any process is going to have to be damn special to be patented. I
>can't remember anyone using a Greek terra sig process asking whether someone
>had a patent on it. I think that the purpose of patents and ethics may be
>in conflict here............or maybe not......Maybe it's just the ethics of
>economics.
> Have a good day.
> Dave
>
Kevin Hulmes on fri 8 aug 97
Linda Blossom asked for references to Ditmar's comments, and Frank
Tucker assured us that the patent application was for paper clay
manufacture only.
Frank, if what you say is correct, then I don't see a problem in
principle with the patent application. But that hasn't always been
Rosette's position.
Linda, I first came across this four years ago (July 1993) at the
International Potters' Festival at Aberystwyth, Wales. Brian Gartside
from New Zealand very effectively demonstrated the use of paper clay in
building slab forms. It generated a tremendous amount of interest, which
turned to incredulity and then fury when he said that Rosette had
submitted an application to patent its use except in the case of one-off
pieces. The arguments were many and varied, especially from those who
were already developing their own approaches to paper clay. As I
remember it, the main arguments were based around the question "How can
she patent the use of vegetable fibre in clay, when it has been in use
over many centuries prior to her own 'discovery' of it?"
A subsequent article by Brian in Ceramic Review no. 148 (July 1994)
implied that Rosette initially worked on it with Brian and Ibrahim Wagh
while sharing a residency at Banff Centre of the Arts in 1991, and that
she continued to research the material after the residency.
A well illustrated article by Rosette herself in Ceramic Review no. 155
(Sept 1995) concludes with a statement which supports Ditmar's position
and conflicts with Frank's. The statement follows:
"This process is patent pending. Individual artists may create one of a
kind works, but licences for commercial applications should be obtained
from the author."
It clearly implies that all works, other than one of a kind works
created by an individual artist, will require a licence from Rosette. I
have to say that unless the position has since changed to that described
by Frank, I fully support Ditmar's position. In a discipline where so
much expertise is freely and generously shared by those who have
discovered, rediscovered, or simply acquired it, I was appalled to see
what appears to be a blatent commercial exploitation of fellow potters.
Would Rosette care to publish her patent application on Clayart?
If the statement made in Ceramic Review still holds true, how can we
fight it? Will this patent be awarded by default because we haven't
objected? Is there a body in the US which is representing potters'
interests in this matter?
--
Kevin Hulmes
Now at: kevin.hulmes@clayze.demon.co.uk
Apologies to anybody trying to contact my previous address since March.
N. B. Pickering on sat 9 aug 97
Help, I understand the concept, but not the process of, >water erosion as
it applies to clay.Would you mind explaining please?
Thanks
B'racha
nbpick@juno.com
LINDA BLOSSOM on sat 9 aug 97
Thanks for the information, Kevin, about the paper clay and the patent
issue. I forwarded your message to Rosette, however, she will probably
receive it from others as well. I hope that she will respond and join the
discussion.
Linda Blossom
2366 Slaterville Rd.
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-539-7912
blossom@lightlink.com
http://www.artscape.com
Barbara Lewis on sun 10 aug 97
Water erosion has been used by many potters including Carlton Ball, Arne
Arse, Robin Hopper. . . Basically, paint a pattern or design on your bone
dry work using either hot wax, wax emulsion or thickened shellac. (You may
thicken shellac by leaving it uncovered for several days.) Then wipe the
bone dry piece a soft sponge and water. The water erodes the unresisted
clay surface, leaving your pattern raised -- looking like the piece was
etched. Barbara
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Help, I understand the concept, but not the process of, >water erosion as
>it applies to clay.Would you mind explaining please?
>Thanks
>B'racha
>
>nbpick@juno.com
>
| |
|
