民间的老样式进了橱窗，钱该算谁的

▍一方：设计也在创造价值

一种看法认为，手艺本身不会自动变成商品。民间样式流传多年，往往只在本村本镇流通，价格长期压在低位，年轻人看不到前景，手艺反而更快失传。设计方做的，是把它重新放进今天的审美与使用场景里，加上材料改良、品控、渠道和售后，这些都要成本。

按这个逻辑，售价里多出来的部分，买的并不只是那只杯子、那双鞋，还包括让它能在都市货架上站住的一整套工作。若要求设计方把利润按手艺的「原始贡献」分出去，会有人反问：亏损时，谁分担？

▍另一方：来源不该被抹掉

另一种看法针锋相对。所谓来源标注，指的是把一门手艺的出处、流传地与作者写进作品说明与包装，让买的人知道它从哪儿来。

审美与设计当然可以互相借鉴，文化本来就是流动的；但借鉴与无偿取用之间，有一条清楚的线。那条线不在价钱上，在来源上：用了谁的样式，就该写清它从哪儿来、由谁在做。法律在这一条上也留了话。

使用非物质文化遗产，应当尊重其形式和内涵。

——《中华人民共和国非物质文化遗产法》第五条（该法自 2011 年 6 月 1 日起施行）

持这一方的人担心的不是某一次合作没分到钱，而是长期后果：如果民间样式反复被取用却从不署名，公众就会以为它本来就属于品牌，属于「设计灵感」，属于无主之物。手艺人失去的不只是收入，还有被承认的资格。

▍我们看到的第三种做法

两边各有道理，也各有说不通的地方。争价格的分法，容易变成一笔谁也算不清的账；争来源的写法，反而更容易落地。我们这些年在各地工坊里见到过一种简单的处理：从山西平遥的漆坊到海南的织锦村寨，做得久的合作都把匠人的名字与手艺写进作品，让它在包装上、说明里、内容中长期出现。

署名不是慈善，它是一种结构。名字被写上去，合作关系就有了锚点：改样式要问谁，涨价要跟谁商量，出了问题找谁负责。

▍收束

手艺值钱，还是包装值钱，这个问题可能永远吵不出结果。相比之下，「用了就写清楚」是一条谁都能先走的路。你怎么看：一件东西的价钱，更该按手艺分，还是按把它卖出去的能力分？

▍问答

问 ｜ 非遗技艺被品牌用了，算不算侵权

答 ｜ 要分情况，不能一概而论。传统样式多为世代流传的公共形式，权利边界模糊，认定侵权往往很难；但「能不能追究」和「该不该署名」是两件事。判断标准可以简化为一条：有没有写清这门手艺的来源与作者。

问 ｜ 韵和鸣的器物是贴牌，还是和匠人联名

答 ｜ 联名，不是贴牌。器物由传承人手工完成，匠人的名字与手艺是作品的一部分，与品牌一同署名。分工上很清楚：内容、渠道、出海、翻译由品牌来做；作品的改动、工艺的判断、要不要合作，由匠人本人拍板。名字写在作品上，也就意味着出了问题找得到人。

📩 非遗项目 ｜ 匠人举荐 ｜ 跨境出海 ｜ 线下联营

欢迎留言或后台联系，我们与匠人同行。

—— 韵和鸣 · 与匠人同行

〖 辩 〗

English

One view holds that craft does not turn itself into a commodity. Folk forms may circulate for generations only within a village or town, prices stay low, young people see no future, and the craft dies out faster. What designers do is place it back into contemporary taste and use, adding material improvement, quality control, channels and after-sales, all of which cost money.

On this logic, the extra in the price pays not only for the cup or the shoes but for the whole apparatus that lets them stand on a city shelf. If designers are asked to hand over profit in proportion to the craft's "original contribution", someone will ask in return: who shares the loss?

The Other Side: The Source Should Not Be Erased

The opposing view is direct. Source attribution means writing the origin, the place it circulated and the author of a craft into the notes and packaging of the work, so that a buyer knows where it came from.

E> The use of intangible cultural heritage shall respect its form and content.

The opposing view is direct. Taste and design may borrow from one another; culture has always flowed. But between borrowing and taking without payment there is a clear line, and that line is not about price but about source: if you use someone's form, state where it came from and who makes it.

Those on this side are less worried about one unpaid collaboration than about the long run: if folk forms are used again and again without attribution, the public will come to think they always belonged to the brand, to "design inspiration", to no one. What makers lose is not only income but the standing to be acknowledged.

Both sides have a case, and both have gaps. Arguing over the division of price turns into a sum nobody can settle; arguing over how the source is stated is easier to land on. Over the years in workshops around the country we have seen one simple approach: put the maker's name and the craft into the work, and keep it there on the packaging, in the notes, in the content.

Attribution is not charity, it is structure. Once the name is on the work, the collaboration has an anchor: who to ask before changing the form, who to consult before raising the price, who answers when something goes wrong.

Whether the craft or the packaging is worth more may never be settled. By comparison, "if you use it, say so" is a road anyone can start walking. What do you think: should a thing's price be divided by the craft, or by the ability to sell it?

Does it count as infringement when a brand uses a heritage technique?

It depends; there is no blanket answer. Traditional forms are mostly public forms passed down over generations, their rights boundaries are blurred, and infringement is often hard to establish. But whether one can sue and whether one should attribute are two different matters. The test can be reduced to one line: is the source and author of the craft stated.

Is YUNHEMING's work white-labelled or co-signed with the maker?

Co-signed rather than white-labelled. The piece is made by hand by the bearer, whose name and craft are part of the work, signed alongside the brand. The division of labour is clear: the brand handles content, channels, export and translation, while changes to the piece, judgements about technique and whether to collaborate rest with the maker himself. Having the name on the work also means there is someone to find when something goes wrong.

ICH Projects · Artisan Referrals · Global Distribution · Salon Partnerships