In article ,
Will wrote:

Very thoughtful. I disagree on a lot of points but respect your thoughts.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

SNIP
I read the article and have paused several times since to consider the
matter. Do you think Jaques Vessery would be able to copyright his
feathered vessel design?

Under the new Intellectual Property laws (IP laws) you do not need to
register a copyright. The creation of a new physical work - painting,
story or other item like a carving or work of artistic impression (or
even a computer program) "gives" you the copyright, and the "moral
rights". They are independent of each other. (The moral rights prevent
someone from changing your work without written consent - and must be
granted independently..)

Right. One is not required to submit the form in order to enforce
copyright on their work though registering with the Copyright office
does have benefits. Copyright is also an individual's responsibility to
enforce - in other words, the police aren't going to arrest an
infringer. I guess my question would more properly be phrased as, "Do
you think Jaques Vessery would be able to enforce the copyright on his
feathered vessel design?"

Snip of good stuff

I think there is much more to be considered when emulating another's
work beyond condemning an attempt to sign their name and pass it off as
original. Creators like Vessery, Jamieson, Liestman, Burchard, Pho, etc.
have distinct styles of either shape, color, carving or some
combination. To mimic their work in any way other than as a learning
exercise for one's own development and limited display should, in my
view, be discouraged and may be unethical.

Unless it is an "exact" copy there should never be a problem. I think
any dispute would have to show that someone "intended to deceive".

I'm not sure if this fits your comments, but are you familiar with a
photography and sculpture case a decade or so ago? A photographer took a
picture of a man and woman holding a line of puppies in their arms. A
sculptor then made a version of the photo in 3-D with slight variations.
The photog won the infringement arguement. Granted this is different
than "in the style" but here the entire medium was changed with
variations and still the court found an infringement.

Some folks try to cite a degree of variation from the original as being
OK. "Just change 10% and there's no infringement." That has been shot
down by the courts in no uncertain terms. There is no degree in which
you can change something and be confident there is no violation -
except, of course, 100%.

Frankly if someone ever imitates my work I will probably kiss them - as
long as I see their name and a date on the work. Others may feel
differently and maybe we will see some legal battles in the future. Hope
not. Understand why you would feel this way if you create works that
might be imitated.

Do you think you'd feel the same if you were actively selling your work?
(Not knowing if you do or not.) What of the effort and expense you went
through to arrive at this work that seems to spawn imitations? Keep in
mind that much of my strong views on this relate directly within the
sales arena. In an accompanying side piece, Ellsworth wrote that this is
when the "rules begin to change." If one is not selling their work then
I believe they are merely stunting their development if they continue
making "copies" past a limited few to learn technique. Whether the
intent is to deceive or not, selling work in the style of another's
recognized work is unethical. It has the distinct possibility of harming
the creator of the design through diluting sales potential.

On a related note to this entire discussion, consider the current work
of Eli Avisara - the segmented candlesticks. They sure look like Olsonik
to me... but then Avisara took them a few steps further. The creative
process at work.

--
"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long