PDA

View Full Version : more info on the style bite suit



BlueDevil
01-06-2006, 01:58 PM
From theolympian.com



Few court hearings require so much bubblewrap. Lawyers for famed glass artist Dale Chihuly brought two dozen undulating, colorful and extremely fragile pieces into U.S. District Court on Thursday as they persuaded a judge not to dismiss a copyright-infringement lawsuit brought against two glass artists accused of selling knockoffs.

“You can’t imagine how nervous I am about handling these things,” Chihuly lawyer O. Yale Lewis said of the pieces, which were spread across his table, the courtroom floor and a bench. “I’m not touching them.”

Chihuly Inc. and Portland Press Inc., which is Chihuly’s publishing company, filed a lawsuit in October against former Chihuly glass-blower Bryan Rubino, glass artist and broker Robert Kaindl, and four galleries that sold Rubino’s work, which Lewis described as Chihuly copies.

Rubino’s business, Rubino Glass Studio, is in Shelton.

The complaint, which seeks $1 million in damages, raises questions about when a piece of art is merely influenced by another piece, and when it’s an illegal copy of that work.

Chihuly, recognizable by his eyepatch, is an immensely popular artist in the Northwest, though a near-fatal car accident and a shoulder separation in the late 1970s left him unable to blow his own glass.

Instead, he designs pieces and has them rendered by a team of glass-blowers.

In 1987, Rubino received a scholarship to attend Pilchuck Glass School, which was co-founded by Chihuly. The following year, he was asked to return to Pilchuck as a master craftsman in residence.

Chihuly took notice of Rubino’s talents and hired him, according to a 2002 article in The Olympian.

“Dale is an incredible guy to work for,” Rubino said in the article. “And I’ve learned a lot from him — not just glass blowing, but business, too. I owe a lot to Dale.”

Rubino has displayed his own work in galleries across the country and conducted workshops in such far-off locales as Denmark and Sweden.

In July 2001, Rubino moved from Seattle and opened his studio in the former Bronze Works facility in Shelton.

Chihuly, who is based in Seattle, is widely credited with having legitimized glass-blowing as a fine art during the past four decades.

He created the ceiling of the lobby of the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas, and his pieces appear in the permanent collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago and about 225 other museums around the world, according to his Web site.

His work has been so influential that it’s not uncommon to see pieces similar to his style in shops and galleries throughout the Northwest, but his lawyers say this is the first copyright-infringement lawsuit he’s filed.

Lawyer Bradford Axel, who represents Kaindl and Rubino, asked Judge James Donohue to toss the lawsuit because Chihuly’s lawsuit didn’t do the basic task of indentifying specific pieces that infringed on Chihuly’s work, only some of which is actually copyrighted. Kaindl, of Redmond, and Rubino deny deliberately copying Chihuly.

“We sent (Chihuly’s lawyers) a letter immediately after the complaint was filed, saying, ‘What’s infringing what here?’ ” Axel told the judge. “No response.”

The judge said he was senstive to those concerns, but that he would allow the lawsuit to proceed, with trial expected late this year. He ordered the two sides to work together to specify which pieces are at issue, so the court can compare them side-by-side.

Axel and his co-counsel, Kathleen Petrich, contend that Chihuly is trying to claim copyrights over the techniques of making glass art and over a style of glass art — which cannot be legally claimed any more than someone could copyright the Impressionist style of painting.

Chihuly’s lawyers argue that Kaindl recruited Rubino to make copies of Chihuly pieces, which were then offered to local galleries. The pieces bore Kaindl’s name or the fictional name Lestat, not Chihuly’s.

Kaindl continues to operate Web sites where he sells glass art, though the galleries named in the lawsuit — Lakeshore Gallery in Kirkland, Kenneth Behm Galleries in Bellevue, and Trammell-Gagne and Unik! in Seattle — have stopped selling the disputed works.

Lewis said the Chihuly pieces were brought into court to demonstrate some of the copied work. Following the hearing, workers from Chihuly Inc. carefully wrapped the pieces in bubblewrap, placed them in large cardboard boxes and took them away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Man what a load of shit.....

burnoutboy
01-06-2006, 03:25 PM
can you really copyright a glass tech??!!!

prairieson
01-06-2006, 06:12 PM
can you really copyright a glass tech??!!!
To the best of my knowledge you can neither copyright nor patent a technique or procedure, but then again I'm not a lawyer... thank the gods, lol.

misticglass
01-07-2006, 12:30 AM
whys chihuly have to be such a cry baby about this, when hes already a millionare and doesnt even have hands on interaction with the glass!

rumplephorskin
01-07-2006, 08:08 AM
For a millionaire he is a grubby bastard too LOL. When i used to live in seattle I knew a girl that worked at this dry cleaners; he used to send his laundry there in a taxi to have it cleaned; said his boxers was skid mark city :puzzled:

Sharp Glass
01-07-2006, 01:43 PM
I met a guy in SLC that had him come and do a demo in his shop, He demanded really expensive color, but never used it at the demo, instead he took it, along with the demo fee. No Love.

shade
01-07-2006, 07:23 PM
There are also a lot of Italian Muranese glassblowers that say Chihuly copied thier techniques and made millions?!

steven p selchow
01-07-2006, 09:42 PM
ha...maybe they outta sue him...comes around goes around.

Fire on the mountain
01-07-2006, 10:02 PM
he and townsend should get together...theyd make a great couple

Coffee Break
01-08-2006, 08:54 AM
i don't know about the lawsuit...sounds weird.but i also think it's weird that people always bash Chihuly and Milon. they've both elevated the recognition of their respective crafts and managed to market themselves well,to their benefit. so what if they don't make each individual piece...it's their design,they assembled the team and showed the team how to execute the design. what's not to like about efficient production and effective marketing?

burnoutboy
01-08-2006, 08:58 AM
what's not to like about efficient production and effective marketing?

that's a good point. i mean how many of us wish this for our self's

burnoutboy
01-08-2006, 09:01 AM
To the best of my knowledge you can neither copyright nor patent a technique or procedure, but then again I'm not a lawyer... thank the gods, lol.

yea.. i knew all that "you step on my prodo lines, and I'll sue ya" i heard from an ex-teacher of mine, was b/s.

Julian
01-08-2006, 10:04 AM
to the best of my knowledge you can neither copyright nor patent a technique or procedure
Copyright, no. Patent, yes... thats what patents are.
Trademarks are for names, as applies to one area of business. One person can have Rolling Rock beer, someone else could have Rolling Rock tires.

Copyrights are for complete, finished, individual works - *NOT* series, styles, or blank forms, or the methods used to make something.

Patents are for procedures, ideas, algorithms and methods. They usually don't apply to 'art', thank goodness. If they did, we would start to understand the chilling effect they have on innovation in practically every other field, such as medical, computers, chemistry, etc. Imagine if one person owned the wig wag, or tube encasement, and they were the only one who could use that, and everyone else had to 'license' it from them. It's obvious to me how this would vastly hold back artistic advancement! And it's all about money.

Look at blackberry, the highly useful mobile email network.. almost shut down over patent bullshit. If the people who own the patent are so great, maybe THEY should have started a network based on 'their' idea instead of just suing the people that did, who probably did not get the idea from them, at all, since you can patent even the most frickin' obvious things. Did I mention how ridiculous and harmful software patents are? http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html