Can You Copyright Nature
That's what this case reported in the New York Times appears to be asking. It seems that Mr. Dale Chihuly, a famous glass artist, is suing two people for infringing his copyright on "lopsided creations" inspired by the sea.
But now Mr. Chihuly is in the midst of a hard-edged legal fight in federal court here over the distinctiveness of his creations and, more fundamentally, who owns artistic expression in the glass art world.
Mr. Chihuly has sued two glass blowers, including a longtime collaborator, for copyright infringement, accusing them of imitating his signature lopsided creations, and other designs inspired by the sea.
"About 99 percent of the ocean would be wide open," Mr. Chihuly said in an interview. "Look, all I'm trying to do is to prevent somebody from copying me directly."
The glass blowers say that Mr. Chihuly is trying to control entire forms, shapes and colors and that his brand does not extend to ancient and evolving techniques derived from the natural world.
"Just because he was inspired by the sea does not mean that no one else can use the sea to make glass art," said Bryan Rubino, the former acolyte named in the suit who worked for Mr. Chihuly as a contractor or employee for 14 years. "If anything, Mother Nature should be suing Dale Chihuly."
The suit, rare in art circles, offers a sometimes unflattering glimpse at how high-powered commercial artists like Mr. Chihuly work. The two glass blowers say that he has very little to do with much of the art, and that he sometimes buys objects and puts the Chihuly name on them, a contention that Mr. Chihuly strongly denies.
He acknowledges that he has not blown glass for 27 years, dating from a surfing accident that cost him the full range of shoulder motion, an injury that struck three years after he had lost sight in his left eye in a traffic accident.
Still, Mr. Chihuly said, he works with sketches, faxes and through exhortation. Nothing with his name on it ever came from anyone but himself, he said.
Andrew Page, editor of Glass: The Urban Glass Art Quarterly, which is published in New York, said that Mr. Chihuly deserved a high place in the pantheon of glass artists, but that the suit could hurt his reputation by igniting countercharges and opening a window into how a celebrity artist works on a mass scale.
"I think Dale Chihuly is a pure original," Mr. Page said. "He has a tremendous sense of color and composition. And he has done a tremendous amount for the field. But this lawsuit may have been the worst thing he could have done."
And it very well may be that Chihuly will manage to damage himself in the long run with this. Can someone – or even more importantly, should one – be able to copyright nature? I suspect that's somewhat arrogant. Later in the article some case law is mentioned that a different case involving other artists was thrown out because the judge ruled that nature could not be copyrighted. I suspect that's going to be the outcome here. We'll see, I guess. The article does give an interesting glance into the world of people like Mr. Chihuly, a glass artist who hasn't actually blown any glass in 27 years. Fascinating.
Other Links to this Post
-
A Photo a Day » Strange Flower: Chilhuly in Miami — June 5, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
By Black Jack, June 1, 2006 @ 11:14 am
I can’t resist the temptation to compare “Chihuly, a glass artist who hasn’t actually blown any glass in 27 years…” to our so-called “liberal” friends in the Democrat party, who refuse to support the actual liberation of over 50 million people because a GOP president accomplished it.
Or to the so-called fiminists who turned their back on Paula Jones and Juanita Broaderick.
Or to the Black Caucus who trashed Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, and Mike Steele.
By Laurenz, June 5, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
isn’t this a bit like architecture? It’s usually not the architect who actually builds a house…
On the other hand, I never heard of an architect claiming a copyright to the use of a special material – or a building style.
By Gaius, June 5, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
It seems a bit odd to try to claim a copyright in this case. I don’t think the studio system he uses is at all unprecidented (it is similar to an archetect, you’re quite correct). But it does hold him up to a bit of ridicule, I think. I suspect he’ll lose quite a bit of his reputation over this, which will hurt him a lot more than the other guys.
By Gaius, June 5, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
Thanks for the link, by the way.
By Bruce, September 11, 2006 @ 11:14 pm
Is Chihuly protected from photographers taking pictures of his work as part of a nature photograph (like the botanical gardens and the beautiful pictures that appear here) or is that considered an infringement also?
By Gaius, September 12, 2006 @ 5:08 am
Good question. I have no idea.