Post #392249 by bananabobs on Mon, Jul 7, 2008 6:12 PM

On 2008-07-07 16:15, JenTiki wrote:
Um, wouldn't this be the same thing that City Buddha is doing to Paipo and all those other NZ carvers? It is plagiarism unless the person making the copy is keeping it for themselves, or has permission of the original artist to make copies.

On 2008-07-07 16:30, teaKEY wrote:
or unless the original artist is dead or unknown. Thinking of the many vintage tiki mugs, tiki prints (menus) and Polynesian weapons that are copies.

Okay, let's get to the bottom of this, here and now, where is the line? Is there a line? Grey area or sharp line? Who gets to decide? What is the high road and what is law?

I agree that copying Paipo's stuff is way over the top. All the talk of intellectual property and copyrights gets me confused, it often seems that the person who has something to lose, makes up rules as they go, then suddenly there is law to that effect. (Don't get ,me started with Architects...you pay for the plans out the wazoo and they still claim ownership, nice work if you can get it...)