Is it a Patent or Originator Credit

[g_smolt]

Hey y'all-

Browsing through the UFM's "1,100 best" pattern book the other day, and noticed the names after some fairly common patterns...

So my question is: Are those originators, patent-holders, or both?

To those with experience on the subject (pro tyers or fly patent-holders), feel free to expound at length, as I have been tying originals for awhile and am wondering if there is a professional side to what my wife terms "a seasonal sickness".

Mark

[Bob Triggs]

Generally it is understood that a name given after a fly is an attribution to an originator or an innovator of that pattern.

A patent name usually requires some indication that the fly is actually a registered, copyrighted or patented design.

Not many flies are patented.

Truthfully- IMHO- it takes something away from our game when people go to those lengths to have their name on a fly, hold rights to it etc. It's mostly hype. And greed. Some may see it as a simple business decision. And maybe it is just that. But all of the best things that I have ever gotten from life, art and flyfishing, all came from sharing and a generous spirit. Not from patented items that had to be credited or purchased. I dont think it is a "bad" thing really. Just a vain distraction.

[Jerry Daschofsky]

Yeah, most of those names you see in the UFM catalog is simply the people who created (or submitted) the pattern. I bet some may be patented, but would say most are simply those patterns that were submitted by the innovator.

[Hywel]

Without naming names, there are a number of patterns in the UFM catalog in which the 'originator' has taken credit and is receiving royalties on someone elses design.

'Tis a nasty business.

[john wells]

greed and vanity indeed no names here but its the same old thing my flie my fish my Money, not why I got into this sport I tie because I m physcotic why else would I drive all over for expensive feathers and tie steelhead flies that end up costing more than double mochas. in the end if my buddies like my flies enough to fish them thats all good
john

[Kent Lufkin]

To follow up on the earlier question: the patent process involves at least two things, an attorney and money. It makes sense to patent something like computer software or an improvement in a jet engine where there is a major financial upside.

But the considerable expense of hiring a patent attorney, researching possible conflicts with predating designs, developing and filing an application for fly patterns that wholesale to the shop for 50¢ or less and MAY deliver a few cents each in royalties each to the originator at best would seem to be prohibitive for all but the stoutest egos with the deepest pockets.

I'm guessing that Jim Teeny is probably one of the few people to have ever patented a fly.

K

[Bob Triggs]

I dont see anything wrong with a guy making a few bucks, or getting credit where credit is due with an innovative or new fly pattern. As long as that person really created that pattern to begin with. :rofl:

I just think that the going through the expensive and arduous legal process of Patenting a fly design is a bit excessive. A bit overblown. :rolleyes:

[Anil]

With very few exceptions (as Kent mentioned, Jim Teeny is the only one I’m aware of), fly patterns are trademarked, not patented. It is common practice among fly tying companies to shamelessly steal patterns and simply change the name. This works around the trademark and eliminates the need to pay the ‘designer’ for the pattern.
We’ve all seen patterns that weren’t very original become trademarked and thought;
“why the hell is anyone getting credit for that?” On the other hand, if you have an ‘innovative’ pattern and don’t submit it, someone else probably will eventually. It may not be big money, but they’ll be drinking beer courtesy of your idea!
Anil
www.pugetsoundflyco.com

[Kent Lufkin]

. . . On the other hand, if you have an ‘innovative’ pattern and don’t submit it, someone else probably will eventually. . . .

Excellent point. Among other things, the late Yakima guide Larry Graham is probably best know for his famous Lightning Bug. But just Google up 'lightning bug fly pattern' and see how many other people have taken credit for it - or even for something entirely different.

K

[halcyon]

Kent,

A question regarding your interesting posts in this thread. Are the Lightning Bugs claimed by others the exact pattern of Larry Graham in every detail or are they simply other similar patterns to imitate the natural? And while I do not wish to take anything away from Mr. Graham, but since both artifical flies and natural lightning bugs have been around for centuries would it not seem probable that someone else independently having created a lightning bug imitation 100's of years ago?

As an aside, your guess would be incorrect he is in a rather good sized group of folks that have patented methods of tying flys and the flys resulting therefrom including, for example, the Water Wisp stlye, and the Potts woven style, tube flies, foam bodied flies, foam ants, parachute flies, Grant's hair hackle flies, and reverse body flies.

Regards,

[Hywel]

"...It may not be big money, but they’ll be drinking beer courtesy of your idea!"

In the words of Norm Norlander; "You won't make a lot of money (in the flytying industry), but it's good money."

The income stream I've developed from custom and contract tying certainly subsidizes my tying habit - and I am an unashamed flytying junkie. *g*

Back to the topic; It really makes you wonder how some people (and companies) can live with themselves knowing that they've 'liberated' the patterns of another tyer.


Hywel

[Anil]

Kent,

A question regarding your interesting posts in this thread. Are the Lightning Bugs claimed by others the exact pattern of Larry Graham in every detail or are they simply other similar patterns to imitate the natural? And while I do not wish to take anything away from Mr. Graham, but since both artifical flies and natural lightning bugs have been around for centuries would it not seem probable that someone else independently having created a lightning bug imitation 100's of years ago?



Halcyon,
I have to disagree in this particular case. Larry Graham’s ‘Lightning Bug’ is not (and was never intended to be) an imitation of the insects commonly referred to as Fireflies or Lightning Bugs. Larry’s lightning bug is a bead head pattern tied with the silhouette of a mayfly nymph, but seems to work extremely well during dense Caddis hatches too. I don’t like to use this term for nymphs but I suppose it should be called an ‘attractor.’
I agree that if it was an imitation of a real species of insect and other tiers had similar interpretations it would be difficult to fault them. But these patterns are slight variations of an ‘attractor’ and then use the exact same name. In this case it seems unfair that Larry never received the credit or any compensation for a great fly, particularly when others have.
Anil
www.pugetsoundflyco.com

[halcyon]

Anil,

As I recall mentioning in my original post, I was not in any way taking away from Mr. Graham's creation. And obviously I am not familiar with his pattern. I was simply asking the opinion of Kent regarding his post.

Regarding slight modifications to an existing pattern I believe on several boards this has been discussed at length and the general consensus was that a slight modification should keep the same name with a modifier. Thus Hare's Ear nymph, Olive Hare's Ear nymph, beadhead Hare's Ear nymph, ad infinitum, ad nausem. And the beadhead style brings up another interesting question. Since the use of beadheads was the idea of a Dutch tyer aren't all patterns using a beadhead his creation, and everyone else's beadhead patterns (including Mr. Graham's Lightning Bug) just slight modifications? At what point a pattern moves from a slight modification of an existing style or pattern, to a novel new pattern or style, would seem to be a personal call by each individual. What are your thoughts?

Regards,

[Anil]

Halcyon,
I agree that we are talking about shades of grey. I certainly wasn’t taking issue with you, just with people who were taking the lightning bug pattern and making little or no changes, while happily putting their name right next to it.
There are only so many ways to wrap material onto a hook or tube. So I can hardly blame anyone for their tying being ‘derivative’. Taking an existing pattern and changing the material or adding a component (tail, legs, etc…) where there wasn’t any before, is totally normal and acceptable.
Tying a soft hackle lightning bug on a curved shank hook with rubbers legs, is fine with me. Even if you felt it was original enough to call it ‘Halycon’s Lightning’ I don’t think I would take issue. As you mentioned, incorporating the name into the pattern is almost a way to pay homage to the original. I just want to see some changes to the pattern and also to the name, so that some credit could go where it was deserved.
Anil
www.pugetsoundflyco.com

[Les Johnson]

If you change the color of a Polar Shrimp from hot orange with a white wing to black with a grey wing, is it still a Polar Shrimp? I'd say it is something entirely different and should be given a different name. In all due respect to the originator of a fly, I maintain that we should just tie it and fish it and call it by its original name. I feel the same way when I hear about someone "improving" another person's pattern. What a lot of nerve!
Good Fishing,
Les Johnson

[Taxon]

As to the matter of getting and retaining credit for a pattern name, I believe it is largely a matter of reputation. In the first place, the pattern needs be extremely effective at attracting fish. Once the pattern becomes sufficiently popular on a local basis, just like a virus, it begins to spread. Once that happens, others will attempt to take credit, either for the pattern name, or for having originated the same pattern under another name.

If the pattern is sufficiently original, and the originator has sufficient reputation, credit for origination will likely be retained. At least, that’s the way it seems to me.

[Kent Lufkin]

Kent,

A question regarding your interesting posts in this thread. Are the Lightning Bugs claimed by others the exact pattern of Larry Graham in every detail or are they simply other similar patterns to imitate the natural? And while I do not wish to take anything away from Mr. Graham, but since both artifical flies and natural lightning bugs have been around for centuries would it not seem probable that someone else independently having created a lightning bug imitation 100's of years ago?

As an aside, your guess would be incorrect he is in a rather good sized group of folks that have patented methods of tying flys and the flys resulting therefrom including, for example, the Water Wisp stlye, and the Potts woven style, tube flies, foam bodied flies, foam ants, parachute flies, Grant's hair hackle flies, and reverse body flies.

Regards,

My apologies for being awol from this thread for several days. In my absence, Anil answered your question about Larry's Lightning Bug much better than could have.

As an addition though, I'm not sure how many of those 'other' Lightning Bugs one can Google up were intended as knock-offs of Larry's original and how many were simply other folks using the same name for an entirely different creation with no knowledge whatsoever of Larry's. It's hard for me to believe that a bead headed nymph with a similar profile and iridescent mylar body could be an accident.

In fairness though, I have no absolute knowledge that Larry was indeed the pattern's creator and that other similar versions are derivative. In naming him as the originator, I'm only passing along what I've heard from others whom I assumed were in a better position to know. Plus, it just feels better to think that someone locally created it rather than someone from somewhere else!

Regarding your list of other who have patented flies, I defer to your obviously greater knowledge. My mention of Jim Teeny was flip and off the cuff and by no means intended as a comprehensive list.

K

[Les Johnson]

I believe that respecting another person's fly pattern -- and its name -- is a matter of respect. It doesn't matter if the person has a great reputation or not. I really don't see this as being much of an issue. For those tying flies commercially or selling them I'm sure it is a bit different. So be it. I would simply ask that they respect the originator in every regard.
The snatching up of Larry Graham's Lightning Bug for commercial profit has been a big disappointment for me. Larry was a soft-spoken gentleman and the best layman entomologists I ever knew when it comes to the Yakima River. His knowlege of the Yakima was peerless and he shared it absolutely unselfishly. It would be nice if those now selling the Lightning Bug would prefence the name with "Larry Graham". I don't hold my breath however.
Good Fishing,
Les Johnson