Re: Copyrights/Copywrongs

From: Steven Adler \( A3DM \) (adler@a3dm.com)
Date: Wed Feb 21 2001 - 19:30:50 EET


Well said, thank you for passing that along....I never thought the
conversation would go this far.....

I wonder what the jewelry industry will do as they are moving towards CAD
being a viable creative form. I know some people who have made more on
copyright infringement suits than they did producing the item ( net ). The
process of protecting Copyright and Trademark in this industry is a business
in itself.....

Did you know that no jeweler can make a "nautical" style stainless steel
cable product that includes a gold component without infringing on a US
trademark owned by a French holding company.....? Strange but true.....

Steven Adler CEO
Automated 3D Modeling
adler@a3dm.com
www.a3dm.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elaine Hunt" <ehunt@ces.clemson.edu>
To: <rp-ml@bart.lpt.fi>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 11:21 AM
Subject: Copyrights/Copywrongs

> by Jack Munday,
> Esq. http://wuarchive.wustl.edu/edu/arts/metal/News/Waves/copyrgh2.html
> Munday and Stanton
> 3434 Garrett Road, Suite 100
> Drexel Hill, PA 19026 610-259-2381
>
> The English poet Keats has said that "A thing of beauty is a joy for
ever."
> Whether by intention or by pleasant surprise, metalworking artisans
> occasionally create a thing of beauty and a work of art. The
> concern we have as artisans, therefore, is not whether the beauty will
last
> but whether we will be able to reap the benefit from our work. In other
> words, while Emerson may have said "The reward of a
> thing well done is to have done it" he made his living as a writer, not as
> a creator of beauty for the beholder. How does an artisan protect the
> beautiful thing that has been created?
>
> Congress has recognized that works of art need to be protected and has
> included pictorial, graphic and sculptural works in that class of works
> that may be protected by copyrights. Title 17 U.S.C. Section
> 102(a)(5) covers these types of creations. Congress has also said that the
> definition of sculptural works implies no criterion of artistic taste,
> aesthetic value or intrinsic quality. In other words, as long as
> you made what you consider to be a work of art as a metal worker, it is
> capable of being protected by the copyright laws.
>
> There are two separate issues for metalworking artisans and these issues
> arise depending upon what the artisan is intending to do. An artisan may
> create a sculpture that has no functional use, such as a
> statue or ornamental object that has its appearance as its sole function.
> The non-functional object is clearly entitled to copyright protection. At
> the other end of the scale is the creation of a totally
> functional work, as simple as a nail or as complicated as a working
> machine. If the functional object also is aesthetically pleasing, such as
a
> door knocker, bookend, candlestick and the like, then the form
> (but not the substance) of the object is properly protected by a
copyright.
> While the machine may be patentable, and that is a totally different
> matter, by itself it is not protectable by copyright laws.
>
> QUESTION: How do I obtain a copyright on my 18 ton artistic,
> aesthetically pleasing (to me, if no one else) sculpture?
>
> ANSWER: Registration of copyrights for sculptural works and objects
> of art may be accomplished by sending in Form VA with the appropriate
> information requested, along with a $20.00
> fee to the Register of Copyrights at the Library of Congress. The
> form is relatively self explanatory, and can be done by the author without
> assistance of an intellectual property lawyer.
>
> QUESTION: If I make a metalwork sculpture, or several incorporating
> the same intrinsic artistic appearance, can I sell a copy that I make and
> still keep my copyright?
>
> ANSWER: Yes, just as a publisher sells books without concern that
> others will make copies of the book to sell, a sculpture or other
> ornamental design is sold without giving any right to
> the purchaser of the object to make copies. That right remains with
> the owner of the copyright, not with the owner of the copy.
>
> If your artistic work is worth protecting, it is advisable to contact an
> intellectual property attorney who has had experience in copyright law, at
> least for an initial consultation. Getting good advice before
> you start is like any precautionary measure. Better safe than sorry, as
> someone is always saying.
>
> The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to display sculptural
> works and other solid, physical creations that might be created by an
> artist-blacksmith. Included in that right is the exclusive right to
> reproduce the pictorial, graphic or sculptural work in copies, including
> reproducing the work in or on any kind of article, whether useful or
> otherwise. An artist, for example, can paint a picture, register the
> copyright of the painting, and then license the right to reproduce the
> image on tee-shirts, plates and cups, and other functional objects. The
> artist-blacksmith can do the same thing.
>
> Samuel Yellin created the gates at the entrance to Northwestern
University,
> in Evanston, Illinois. I wonder if he sold the rights to copy the work, or
> if he even obtained a copyright. The gates are used
> often by the school as a symbol unique to Northwestern.
>
> Here in Philadelphia we are witnessing the demise of the famed Wanamaker
> department stores. In the 'showcase' store in center city, Philadelphia,
> the 2500 pound bronze eagle has been in residence since
> 1911. The eagles individually crafted feathers were hammered and bent
while
> hot, and fit into place by hand. The head alone contains 1600 feathers,
and
> 5,000 more on the body. Created by August Gaul
> of Berlin and manufactured in Frankfort, Germany, the eagle was created
for
> the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition, held in St. Louis.
>
> The Wanamaker eagle, as it is known, has served as a landmark in the city
> of brotherly love, and has become a trademark logo of Wanamakers. The
> company undoubtedly has made great and substantial use of the work ever
> since it took its place. One presumes that the copyright was purchased,
for
> it is clear copyright law that purchasing an object, even a great work of
> art, does not convey the copyright as well. Remember our analogy that one
> who buys a book does not obtain the right to copy it.
>
> While most artist-metalsmiths are not fortunate enough to create a work
> that becomes the symbol of a major retail organization, they are creating
> works all the time. Remember that the right to copy your original work is
> not transferred when you sell the work. One advantage of being
commissioned
> to create a work of art for a company or organization is that the work
will
> become prominent. It would be worth while reminding your purchasers of
that
> fact as they intend to use the image of the work in their main business.
> Then might want to pay more for all the rights.
>
> In 1990, the Visual Artists Rights Act. 17 U.S.C. 106A was added to the
> copyright laws, hence lawyers are involved with those items that qualify
as
> visual arts. These things include paintings, drawings,
> photographs, sculptures and the like, provided that less than 200 copies
> exist, that the author has signed or placed an identifying mark thereon,
> and has numbered them consecutively beginning with the
> first or original version. Thus sculptures would seem to qualify, and in
> fact do qualify under this provision of the law if it is placed in a
> building in such a way that it cannot be removed from the building
> without modification or destruction. An example would be a major sculpture
> created in the lobby of a building , and, of course, the fact that it is
in
> a building means that there is a real estate owner
> involved. Real estate being what it is, mainly something far less lasting
> than art, there often comes a time when the owner decides to change the
> nature of a property, such as by making a parking lot out
> of the building. The use of a bulldozer or other form of building
> destruction would, in its use, also destroy the sculpture. To destroy a
> wonderful, or not so wonderful, work of art is a violation of the
> author's moral right. And all that is true unless the work of art is in
the
> public domain.
>
> This law is new and applies only to visual art that is protected by a
> copyright and that is not created as a work for hire. There is one major
> decision on this provision in which an artist was successful in
> preventing a major property management firm from removing the work from
the
> lobby. A trial judge actually found that the work was one of recognized
> stature and removing the work would in fact
> damage the artists' reputation.
>
> What does this mean to building owners? They are having their lawyers draw
> up the appropriate contract language to make sure this never happens
again.
> In fact, real estate lawyers who don't take this
> law into account when it fits may be guilty of malpractice.
>
> What does this mean to a metalsmith? It means that when a metalsmith
> creates a work of visual art by creating a sculpture, and when that
> sculpture is placed in a building on display, the metalsmith also
> creates certain rights that may be valuable to him. These rights are
> attribution rights and integrity rights. The former includes the right to
> have the author's name used in conjunction with a display of the
> work and also to prevent the use of the author's name after the work has
> been distorted, mutilated or modified to be prejudicial to his or her
honor
> or reputation. Integrity rights permit the author to
> prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation or other such modification.
> Under some circumstances that means the building can't be torn down and
> even, possibly, that the sculpture can't even be
> removed.
>
> Which brings me back to the lawyer in the situation. If you create
> sculpture or any other visual art, see an intellectual property lawyer
> before you create it and before you sign any contract relating to that
> creation. Knowing your rights puts you no worse than on equal footing with
> the building owner.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> Opinions, suggestions, and other controversial matter VOID where
prohibited.
>
> Hell is truth learned too late. John Locke
>
> ******************************************************************
> Elaine T. Hunt, Director elaine.hunt@ces.clemson.edu
> Laboratory to Advance Industrial Prototyping
> Clemson University 206 Fluor Daniel Bldg.
> Clemson, SC 29634-0925
> 864-656-0321 (voice) 864-656-4435 (fax)
> http://www.vr.clemson.edu/credo/persall/persall.html
> http://www.vr.clemson.edu/rp/
> http://www.vr.clemson.edu/credo/rp.html
>
>
>
>
> For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
>

For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jan 04 2002 - 09:56:52 EET