Post #26449 by manic cat on Thu, Mar 13, 2003 10:52 AM

"MOMA has it's own problems with this I believe, I mean just because they attribute it correctly doesn't mean they should be selling post cards, shirts, bags, hats, over-priced books, etc. in the gift shop with "Impressionists" or whatever it happens to have printed on it."

The museum (and no longer the artist) owns these Impressionist artworks, and legally can reproduce them on a mug, t-shirt, etc; except, for artwork created within the past 50 years--permission from the artist or artist's estate would be needed.

Copyright is divided into two areas: protection of Idea and protection of Design. Obviously, TK's idea of a carved tiki image is not his own. But, let's say that TK came up with an "original work of authorship" whose design is automatically protected by copyright. As shown by Al, the design of this artwork was duplicated, and done so without TK's permission.

OK--now the argument--is TK's design really his own? Well, someone who does have legal ownership over an image of this tiki would have to show how the design of TK's artwork is not "original" because it is firstly, recognizable as their artwork. If the design really looks like someone else's, that person can claim you copied them. What's "really look like?" Well, if you haven't changed your design 15-20% from the original design, then you are a copy-cat.

I think that TK's image uses a tiki as reference material, but does not duplicate its design. There are differences in style, detail, 2-d graphic quality vs. 3-d sculptural/figural quality, which make it more than 20% original. (What a silly quantative method to understand art!) I don't think it's necessary to bring out the ancestors and permission rights for his design.

Thanks for all this food for thought. I've been learning alot through this conversation!