![[self-portrait]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aph-FWKPAtw/Sb7dbBwgg0I/AAAAAAAAAAU/xefH94KcXQA/S220/LawShark5204a.jpg)
Scrivener's Error| null | |
|---|---|
|
Scrivener's Error |
Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting. |
link to: 09:14 [GMT-6]
The Seattle Times online edition often carries tidbits on controversies in the arts that somehow escape the notice of "bigger" papers. An article on a pending lawsuit over blown-glass sculptures is an excellent example… particularly in the other issues it illuminates.
How does an artist go about proving — or disproving — copyright infringement? How do you differentiate between Chihuly's influence on other glass artists and artistic plagiarism? Can he claim exclusive rights to designs that are modeled on things such as Navajo blankets and sea life? And what does it mean for the world of art glass?
Maureen O'Hagan, "Glass Artist Chihuly's Lawsuit Tests Limits of Copyrighting Art" (16 Dec 2005) (emphasis in original). Of course, this is the obvious issue. The less-obvious issue is buried a bit later in the story:
Chihuly hasn't blown the glass himself since accidents left him physically unable to do so. Instead, he has a team of employees who execute his ideas, the lawsuit said.
Id. So, then, the work-for-hire doctrine—complicated by the issue of derivative works—raises its ugly head. In more than one place:
The lawsuit alleges that a former Chihuly employee, Bryan Rubino, was enlisted by Kaindl to make Chihuly knockoffs. Rubino, who worked for Chihuly for about a dozen years, worked on virtually every Chihuly series, the lawsuit said. The suit claims that Kaindl signs the Rubino-made works as if they were his own, then puts them up for sale in local galleries and through an array of Web sites.
Id. (fake paragraphing removed for clarity).
So it's not just the direct copying at issue; it's moral rights, too, whether one bases them in copyright (or VARA) or in trademark. Functionally, we have two parallel chains:
designer → craftsman 1 → artwork 1
employer selects artwork 1 → craftsman 2 → artwork 2
Note, too, that both artworks are attributed not to the craftsman, but to the designer (artwork 1) or employer (artwork 2).
Too, "inspiration" and "influence" are particularly appropriate topics right now; tomorrow is deaf Ludwig's 235th birthday. This illustrates some of the tension between copyright and artistic influence—and Beethoven isn't nearly as good an example (nor as parallel to the Chihuly dispute) as would be other composers who copied more directly and extensively from "folk art."
Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.
All material © 2003–12 except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. This blawg does not use the Creative Commons License, although I'm usually pretty good-natured about permissions for attributed reuse.
I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg, and I do not approve aggregators and syndicators whose page design reflects only an intent to use the reference(s) to this blawg without actually providing the content from this blawg.
Sausages?
Internet link sausages, as frequently appear here, are gathered from uninspected meaty internet products and byproducts via processes you really, really don't want to observe; spiced with my own secret, snarky, sarcastic blend; quite possibly extended with sawdust or other indigestibles; and stuffed into your monitor (instead of either real or artificial casings). They're sort of like "link salad" or "pot pourri" or "miscellaneous musings" (or, for that matter, "making law"), but far more disturbing.
I am not responsible for any changes to your lipid counts or blood pressure from consuming these sausages... nor for your monitor if you insist on covering them with mash or sauce.
| Archives |
|---|
Warped Weft
Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of
the more infamous threads that have appeared here
by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some
of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.
Links of Interest
Links open in a new window.
Other Blawgs, Blogs, and Journals
These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.
A blawg is sort of like a blog on legal issues, but usually has a lot more links to outside resources (other than other blogs) than does a typical blog. Scrivener's Error is a blawg, not just a blog. You can find other blawgs at < ? law blogs # >.
Optimized for
at 1024x768.
