Dwiggins, Sandra (NCI) on mon 27 mar 00
But wait....trademark is different than copyright. You can copyright a song,
or a work or art, I thought. There was a case recently about a sculptor who had
his design reproduced without his agreement. The ruling was, I believe, that
although he was working on a commission, the people who commissioned the work
did not have the right to own the design of the work, therefore could not
reproduce the work without the artist's agreeing to it. I think one can
copyright a particular object. Therefore, if you put a little c with a circle
around it on every piece, perhaps that could be a way of stopping this...
However, it's really a useless gesture. My ideas are ripped off by people in
my community studio as soon as they come off my bat. So, what's new....
Remember the thread a few years ago from Frank Gaydos?
Sandy
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathi LeSueur [SMTP:KLeSueur@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 3:12 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: pricing, mugs, etc(long)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
In a message dated 3/26/00 6:23:08 PM, claysky@highfiber.com writes:
<< Kathi,
Can you expand on this ruling regarding copying? It's new to me.
Don Jones
http://www.highfiber.com/~claysky
>>
The supreme court just handed down a ruling on copyright infringement. Samara
Brothers had designed a distinctive looking line of clothing that Penney's
and other upscale retainers sold. Wal-Mart took photos and had another
garment maker copy the clothing line and sold it in their stores. Obviously
at a significantly reduced price. Samara sued and won in lower courts. But
the supreme court reversed the decision.
"Consumers should not be deprived of the benefits of competition,.....Shoes,
jewelry, golf clubs or other merchandise that simply copy the distinctive
look of a famous brand do not violate the nation's trademark protection laws."
The trademark laws come into play only when a design is "likely to cause
confusion....as to the origin".
In other words, you can make a copy of a Rolex watch as long as you don't put
Rolex on the face of it. Design evidently, by supreme court standards,
cannot be copyrighted.
So the next time you have a great idea. One that you've developed for a year.
One that people flock to your booth for. Be aware that the likelihood that it
will end up in Wal-mart in several months is a real possibility. A line at
your booth for a certain item is a sure sign that you've created a design
worth ripping off.
Kathi LeSueur
Ann Arbor, MI
Teres Whitney on tue 28 mar 00
This was a "trademark" decision right? Copyright is different and I can't
tell by the various comments which we are talking about. If it is trademark
and Wal Mart did not use that trademark to offer the same design of
clothing, the judges decision was correct. If the design was copyright then
I see your concern. I don't understand what is being discussed here. Could
some one clarify.
Teres-Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Dwiggins, Sandra (NCI)
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
Date: Monday, March 27, 2000 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: copyright was:pricing, mugs, etc(long)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
But wait....trademark is different than copyright. You can copyright a
song,
or a work or art, I thought. There was a case recently about a sculptor who
had
his design reproduced without his agreement. The ruling was, I believe,
that
although he was working on a commission, the people who commissioned the
work
did not have the right to own the design of the work, therefore could not
reproduce the work without the artist's agreeing to it. I think one can
copyright a particular object. Therefore, if you put a little c with a
circle
around it on every piece, perhaps that could be a way of stopping this...
However, it's really a useless gesture. My ideas are ripped off by people
in
my community studio as soon as they come off my bat. So, what's new....
Remember the thread a few years ago from Frank Gaydos?
Sandy
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathi LeSueur [SMTP:KLeSueur@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 3:12 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: pricing, mugs, etc(long)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
In a message dated 3/26/00 6:23:08 PM, claysky@highfiber.com writes:
<< Kathi,
Can you expand on this ruling regarding copying? It's new to me.
Don Jones
http://www.highfiber.com/~claysky
>>
The supreme court just handed down a ruling on copyright infringement.
Samara
Brothers had designed a distinctive looking line of clothing that Penney's
and other upscale retainers sold. Wal-Mart took photos and had another
garment maker copy the clothing line and sold it in their stores. Obviously
at a significantly reduced price. Samara sued and won in lower courts. But
the supreme court reversed the decision.
"Consumers should not be deprived of the benefits of competition,.....Shoes,
jewelry, golf clubs or other merchandise that simply copy the distinctive
look of a famous brand do not violate the nation's trademark protection
laws."
The trademark laws come into play only when a design is "likely to cause
confusion....as to the origin".
In other words, you can make a copy of a Rolex watch as long as you don't
put
Rolex on the face of it. Design evidently, by supreme court standards,
cannot be copyrighted.
So the next time you have a great idea. One that you've developed for a
year.
One that people flock to your booth for. Be aware that the likelihood that
it
will end up in Wal-mart in several months is a real possibility. A line at
your booth for a certain item is a sure sign that you've created a design
worth ripping off.
Kathi LeSueur
Ann Arbor, MI
Kathi LeSueur on wed 29 mar 00
In a message dated 3/28/00 1:25:48 PM, teres@flash.net writes:
<< This was a "trademark" decision right? Copyright is different and I can't
tell by the various comments which we are talking about. >>
This was not a trademark decision. It was a copy right decision. The clothing
in question had very distinctive applied designs (fruit, etc). Anyone
familiar with the line would recognize it any where it was sold. The only
difference in the Wal-mart line was that the label inside was from another
manufactuer.
Design was specifically mentioned in the decision. It appears you can copy a
design as long as you don't copy the trademark along with it. So you could
copy every distinctive feature of a Nike shoe but the trademarked "swoosh"
and be just fine according to the decision.
This is an expecially bad decision for any craftsperson. I can think of a few
garment makers who can expect to see their designs copied and sold in
Wal-mart in the near future. The "artist" doing really one of a kind work
MIGHT be safer. But I wouldn't bet on it. It's open season on our creativity.
Kathi LeSueur
Ann Arbor, MI
| |
|
