Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Lawsuit Could Clarify What Is Original in the Art World
It is a well-settled copyright axiom that only an original expression of an idea is protectable. In the world of fine art, however, the concept of 'original expression' is often too vague to be defined. Dale Chihuly, a world famous glass artist known for designs inspired by sea life, filed a lawsuit in October 2005 that may clarify the concept. He is fighting to protect his distinctive style of glass art in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Chihuly has accused former employee Brian Rubino of producing glass sculptures that infringe Chihuly's copyright-protected glass works. The suit also asserts that another individual, Robert Kaindl, is selling Rubino's copycat sculptures at prices below market value, thus injuring the market value of true Chihuly sculptures.
At the heart of the dispute is whether Chihuly's style of glass blowing is sufficiently original to be protected by copyright law. Chihuly depicts objects from nature in elaborate, lopsided shapes. The complaint discusses that the off-center nature of his sculptures, in particular, is distinctive. The defendants' counterclaim, filed in May 2006, contends that they are using methods of glass blowing that have been around for centuries and are not original. They claim that the lawsuit is Chihuly's attempt to monopolize the glass blowing market behind a smokescreen of copyright law.
The pleadings also question the authorship of Chihuly's works. Chihuly has been unable to blow glass since the 1970s when he was injured in a car accident. Nonetheless, Chihuly contends that Rubino worked for him, partly as an employee and then as an independent contractor, but always under Chihuly's direction and control, creating only works for hire.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?