Good artists copy, great ones steal?
I was brought up to avoid being an "artist" though we were encouraged to develop artistic skills and design awareness. Something you were supposed to be competent in like occasional necessary butchering or like changing diapers, but took with you to more "important" tasks in the world. Much, much later in life, artist friends (practicing art school grads including MFA's) explained "look, Steve, you can have talent, but being an artist is about attitude".
You will note my OP asked about legalities. The Q is totally practical: how much can I steal up to & including referencing the source and the original owner, without creating an actionable situation. Don't have the time.
I have no qualms taking ideas and making them mine. If you can do it back we can start a conversation. For instance, lots of people have put adjustable throats in infill smoothers since I did it first. I mean come on, it's obvious. But none that I know of want the trouble of making a "loopie". I feel kind of like Richard Newman, though he has done much more and much more interesting original work than I have; but my unintentional insurance plan for those few original ideas is that no one else is dumb enough to work that hard & long for the income potential.
My interest in copying a specific early 19thc mechanical table & possibly commercializing it in series inspired this post. But I probably won't live long enough. I'm not at all slow at what I do and actually quite efficient. But I seem to stupidly pick things that inherently require immense time dedication anyway.
The comment about people like Krenov and Maloof basically creating a marketing plan by encouraging good craftsmen with lesser talents to copy them is very apt: to be recognized as an artist you generally have to be prolific, and your work has to be "recognizable". It's the original form of branding. It's pretty pointless to copy people who spend their lives copying themselves, but you can get some good ideas. Much "art" or at least "culture" depends on a communal awareness of connected references. So including a "reference" to a known work/school/artist can sometimes add interest to a piece and inform a masterpiece.
Having said all that, I have developed a few items recently that could be mass produced. If I get that far I almost expect them to be knocked off. How could I not. But am also slouching in the direction of at least understanding how to protect them.
Something I've posted before: If the carpenter industry worked like the music industry I would get a royalty every time anyone but the original purchaser went through an "interesting" door, walked on a floor, or climbed a set of stairs that I made. If not carpenters, then at least architects. So no particular reverence for the "rights" of songwriters as far as free sharing and downloading. Fundamentally, historically they never had other than bragging rights either, until lawyers and managers figured out how to protect income streams for themselves, and had to share a bit with the artists to not look totally foolish.
Above being random thoughts and pot stirring in no particular order.
smt