Bjarte Runderheim wrote:
American Woodturner has an article on plagiarism i the latest edition.
There are obviously problems attached to this area of legal usage.

The example used in the article is a piece by Rude Osolnik as opposed to
a "knockoff" by someone else.

First: How on earth can Rude Osolnik prove to anybody that _his_
piece is the first?

Copyright can be established by creating the work, "publishing" the
work, or registering the work with a copyright office is simply an
affirmation. As you point out later this may not be as easy as it looks
or seems. :-)

Where did he get the idea?

Who else did almost the same at different points in time without
being registered by the author of the article?

Not relevant to establishing a copyright. Possibly relevant to a
challenge -- I would guess.

As a point of interest, I would think that quite a few such objects
have been made since 1960, the form being a typical 60ies thingy.
Neither is it especially complicated, so, in my judgement a lot of people
could have made the thing independently without knowing about any
of the others.

Quite true. Similar works often raise these issues. An "author" would
need to come forward. But for copyright -- probably irrelevant.

Are we then speaking plagiarism?

Good questions. Are you -- like Arch -- trying to make my head hurt?
It's working.

Maybe - maybe not. You certainly raise all the issues.

If an item went to trial a judge would look at the case "in all the
circumstances". And you do raise quite a few... :-)


In my opinion the fact that a piece has been sold by somebody does not
create copyright unless you can document being "the first".

Selling has nothing to do with it. Creating, "Publishing" and possibly
registering create the "copyright". Creation of a work grants you the
copy rights and the moral rights. It does not grant you a patent --
which is quite another matter. I mention a patent because some of your
concerns border on "claiming a form as ones own" -- which is closer to
the Intellectual Property (IP) rights granted by a patent.


In my opinion it is not enough to be the first in your neighborhood to
make a certain form, to establish copyright, or the right to deem others
"knockers off".

Not true. Simply creating a work creates a copyright. Copyrighting a
style or form -- now that might be a challenge. Copyright is quite
specific. You raise two quite different issues here. 1. copying; 2. In
the style of...

The techniques and the materials are pretty universal,
and the one hollow form does not differ too much from the other,
unless, and here is one point that I feel is important:
Unless the technique is so complex and the choice of materials and
the finishing touches are so distinct and rare that little doubt can be
had as to the originality of the work.

Collectors value was mentioned, and the copies was said to diminsh
the value of the original.
This I can not understand:
Like the collectors of sculpture and painting, there are two significant
ways to establish the value and origin of a piece:


I have trouble with this as well. As long as copies are identified and
there purpose identified, the should not diminish the value. Fraud is
another issue altogether.

The signatu
If a piece is signed, and someone else copies the work _and_
the signature, then I imagine that existing laws in all countries
have been breeched, and a lawsuit is a near possibility.


Agreed. This is my understanding of IP and copyright. Except....

Taiwan for example insists that IP (at least patents, have to
investigate copyright -- if I get motivated...) be registered there
first -- if at all. Otherwise it does not recognize the Intellectual
Property (IP) rights. There are probably other countries with similar
"gotchas"...

The technique:
If the artists technique is sufficiently complex and special that
an expert or two can examine the work, and state that the probability
of the piece being an original from this or that artist, then the
probability may be worth the money.

That's how (fraudulent) art copiers often work. :-)

Sometimes the copy brings as much money as the original,
even though "everybody" knows the piece to be a copy, it is
that interesting, or well made.

I think this "problem" of plagiarism is a bit out of proportion.
Expensive, well known pieces that are well documented by the
artist or the gallery is one thing: There the term plagiarism may
have some meaning.

Undocumented "firsts" or very local "firsts" of simple form
and common materials should be treated as "public domain"
because of the problem of establishing a real "first".

Unless you take a patent. Someone in this forum mentioned he was working
on "round". Not sure how he made out. LOL

If the artist signs his pieces and documents his production in a
satisfactory way, he is, of course, in a better position to grumble
about "knockoffs", but it is my opinion that the form cited
in American Woodturner as being an "Osolnik" is far too simple
both in the form and in the choice of material to represent
a real "first".

Will look for the article before I dare comment on that. Then it would
be only an opinion. Only a formal court hearing could give a final
verdict in the case of a dispute -- and that is most unfortunate.


Bjarte



This issue was discussed previously. Is it "plagiarism" to "work in the
style of".

Don't think we ever resolved it.


--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek