Post #624326 by Swanky on Thu, Feb 9, 2012 12:29 PM

On 2012-02-09 11:05, Captain Jack wrote:
I don't claim to have a well qualified opinion since I'm new to this game, but it seems to me that it would be quite difficult to lay claim to certain aspects of tiki carving. If someone puts a pineapple on their work is it stealing from the design of that guy who claims to have done it 37 years ago? If a fleur de lis style nose is used does it mean I copied from someone else? Seems like a bit of an ego trip for that guy to claim people are stealing his style just because of similarities.... for instance, there are only certain aspects of a traditional Hawaiian tiki or a Marq that can be altered to still have the same effect.

I write novels that have cave trolls and eagle-headed warriors as the main characters .... if I hear of another eagle-headed warrior out there in the book world I don't cry foul and piss a fit about it .... there are only so many eagle-headed creatures around these days! I think it as a compliment that someone would like the idea of an eagle-headed warrior enough to make their own ..

As for the dispute on the "drawing" of the moai that is on that web site... if that picture was taken without approval by the one who put pen to paper, then that is copyright infringement. Unless, of course, it is considered public domain. .... the stonetiki guy is an artist! Why not draw a moai of your own, shoot a high res picture of it and slap onto your site?

... so there it is ... a lengthy unqualified opinion ....

... oh, and if anyone knows of a novel that has eagle-headed warriors in it, I'd love to know so I can read it!

Have a Great Day!

Have you ever seen an image and thought "that looks like a Shag" and then you pick it up and it is a Shag? Or it isn't a Shag? Well then you just realized that Shag has a style and it can be copied and imitated. People like it and want to have a Shag image, but instead of paying to have Shag do it, they get someone else to copy it. If they take a Shag work and literally duplicate it, that's an easy legal matter. If they use his style, then it is tougher. Yet, you look at it and think "that's like a Shag". It is a rip-off, even if it is not a legally challengable rip-off of Shag.

So, I am driving by Ron Jon in Florida and I see this big Mai Tiki out front and I think "way to go Wayne!" and then I get up to it and it says "Bert" on the side, right where Wayne has "Mai Tiki" and, well, they ripped off Wayne. This has happened to me dozens of times in Florida. It has happened because for nearly 40 years Wayne has been carving and putting his work all over Florida. When people there think of a Tiki, it look slike Wayne's Tiki.

He did create a new style. So did Shag. Other folks did too. And when you see their work you know it. And when you see their work and know it, and then you see they didn't actually make it, you are acknowledging the fact that someone ripped them off.

I can see a style too and think it was likely carved by Benzart. It may be a Ku, but I know the style. But in this case, Wayne made something his own. The "Flodia Tiki" is actually a Mai Tiki. He created it. It isn't a ku or a kane or a rarotanga that he tweaked. Well, it is, but, it also isn't going to get confused for original oceanic art in a book.

This is a Mai Tiki. If you see it in Florida and it does not have "Mai Tiki" carved on the side of it, it is someone ripping off Wayne Coombs. If you walk up and check to see if it is really a Mai Tiki, you are acknowldeging that it is either genuine or a rip off.