Is Jewellery Art?
The Globe & Mail features an interesting article in the arts section today. Wade Papin and Danielle Wilmore of Vancouver's Pyrrha Design Inc. settled with Saskatchewan retail chain, SpareParts, receiving an undisclosed sum and an agreement from the retailer to stop selling knock-offs of the couple's jewellery designs.
Necklace from the Bubble Collection,
Pyrrha Design Inc.
The question of copyright protection was at the heart of the case. In Canadian intellectual property law, copyright protection applies to works such as painting, drawing, film, sculpture, music compositions, and literature. 'Useful articles' with utilitarian function are not protected by copyright, but apply to the Industrial Design Act.
Really, doesn't jewellery adorn ourselves as painting or sculpture adorns our environment? As in all things, I turn to Voltaire: "The superfluous is very necessary".
In an absurd twist to the Pyrrha Design claim, the article goes on to report:
Red wax impression of a the great seal of
Wilhelm I of Prussia circa 1900
Methinks they doth protest too much.
Necklace from the Bubble Collection,Pyrrha Design Inc.
Really, doesn't jewellery adorn ourselves as painting or sculpture adorns our environment? As in all things, I turn to Voltaire: "The superfluous is very necessary".
In an absurd twist to the Pyrrha Design claim, the article goes on to report:
"...their Seals rings and necklaces (cast from 19th-century wax seals) showed up at this year's New York Fashion Week...".Ladies and Gentlemen, is the difference between a retailer's knock-off and a designer's cast a matter of time?
Red wax impression of a the great seal ofWilhelm I of Prussia circa 1900
posted by Bill Pocock at 2:18:00 a.m.
5 Comments:
Time is a factor but context is more important. In your opinion are clothing designers who rework vintage pieces also comparable to the person who ripped off this company's jewelry? Or how about designers who quote from 19th century texts and engrave onto jewelry or print onto t-shirts. Here's a sidenote: Did you get the photographer's permission to reprint Pyrrha's image?
Anon,
My understanding is that copyright ends fifty years after the death of the creator. I may be wrong - Apollo knows I'm no expert.
I think copyright and design piracy has always been with us. It's a questiion for the legislature to write definitional law, parties to enforce through legal action, and the courts to interpret cases and rule on.
Pyrrha's sense of lost revenue and brand dilution prompted the firm to take legal action. A t-shirt quote of even a contemporary work does little more than promote the author in my view.
However, when I nudge Pyrrha rights claims it's not within the legal, but the artistic frame of mind. Art is a conversation with the past and present, isn't it? A host of subject matter (like centaurs) recur throughout time. The themes as human nobility struggling with brute animal desire (centaur) are reinterpreted for new eras in the visual language of the time. That is the natural right and duty of the artist as a representative of humanity. Artistic movements are based on the similiarity between the work of a group of artists. The geographic proximity of that process has now been eliminated due to the internet.
I didn't ask reprint rights from Pyrrha. Not because my post was a declaration of their victory, but because I consider posting an image on my blog lifted from the internet as significant as pissing in the wind. A judge would laugh it out of court and the worst - I think - I could expect is a cease and desist order from Pyrrah lawyers. I would be more than happy to comply as I don't think they need the free publicity.
Thanks for the great comment!
I don't know about art...but that second thing looks like a COCK RING!!!
sorry, first thing...
Designer cock rings?
It always amused me to see the Vancouver gay guys with the cock rings on the snap-off epaulet of their biker jackets.
Flaunt it, baby!
Post a Comment
<< Home