As I mentioned in my last post on
Copyright 101, I have just enough knowledge on the subject to be dangerous. I am not a lawyer, but an artist who was a contract negotiator and legal analyst in a former life (and who actually enjoys the subject of intellectual property). Go figure. While the last entry focused on the artist's rights to protect their creations (in that case, images of paintings), this entry comes at the subject from a different angle - what you cannot claim is your protected intellectual property.
 |
"Welcome Home" (2007) art quilt by Krissi Sandvik
featuring Skelekitty© character created in 2006 |
ART & IMAGES
Every now and then I get e-mails from fans or friends who are concerned that my character,
Skelekitty, may have been used without permission when they see skeleton animals with a similar "vibe" on the internet or in shops.
I always take their concerns seriously since two of my colleagues,
Art by Suzi Boneshaker and Queenie of
Pocket Full of Posiez (both of whom I adore as artists and as women) had their copies of their art reproduced by a large corporation without permission (*ahem* "stolen"). Luckily, when the blatant copyright infringement was brought the the company's legal department, sale and production of the stolen images ceased. Not everyone is so lucky, especially when dealing with overseas entities or smaller companies. So this is no laughing matter, especially now when images are so easy to "borrow" off of the internet.
 |
| "Kit" ©Skelanimals, LLC |
I have been fortunate so far, since the images that raised concern with my friends have been primarily from the
Skelanimals line and not someone actually reproducing Skelekitty illegally. However, people see a "skele - kitty" and think my idea has been swiped, but here's the thing:
the very idea of a 'cute skeleton animal' is not subject to copyright protection.
Let's look at how the Skelekitty / Skelanimals "Kit" designs differ: Skelekitty is a less stylized (more realistic) skeleton than the Skelanimals "Kit" character. Kit and her Skelanimal pals are rounder, shorter and have just a few bones inside a black body shape. As you can see, there really isn't any crossover once you get past them both being
damn cute skeleton kitties.
 |
skeleton cat
©Ladislao Loera |
A day or two back, I received an e-mail from a good friend asking about a skeleton cat by
Ladislao Loera (aka "Ladi" / Frenzy Art). Ladi happens to be one of my favorite artists, so this was a great compliment. At first glance, Ladi's skeleton cat and Skelekitty have more of a similar look and feel to each other since they are both articulated skeletons with a bright color scheme. However, they are each recognizable as separate and distinct creations. Skelekitty is modeled after the long-bodied 1950's kitties where Ladi's skeleton cat looks more like a traditional Día de los Muertos figurine (complete with Frida-esque unibrow!).
 |
Dia de los Muertos cat by Patrick
Murillo, hanging in my art studio |
Another skelefied critter Skelekitty has been compared to (and I take it as a
HUGE compliment) is by my friend, artist
Patrick Murillo (who is on a cruise ship heading toward Mexico with the Crafty Chica Cruise!). I adore his stuff, having purchased several pieces. I even have one of his skele-kitty paintings hanging in my art studio! Again, by glancing at his paintings, it's clear that Patrick's kitties,
doggies and skeletons are painted by Patrick while Skelekitty and the Skelecritters are instantly recognizable as "Skelekitty & Friends."
OK, so you get how this works with cartoon skeleton cats (and dogs) now. What about other stuff?
Late 2012 Update: Check out this real life example of outright stolen images where an artist reproduced images by two other artists,
Jason Levasque (aka Stuntkid) and
Marie Killen. In this case, the original images were art photographs and the "copied" versions were paintings with not-insignificant imagination and talent, but the original work was used without permission or even reference to the original artists. Although the copying artist swore the copies were
homages, the online art community, his agent and his gallery would have none of it - he was drummed off social media and out of representation.
DESIGN
One of my good friends and a fellow member of the
Corporate Rejects team of artisans, Brooke of
Brooke Van Gory Designs makes totes, diaper bags and baby accessories (wet bags, changing pads, etc.). Anybody can sell diaper bags and a lot of handmade sellers do. What makes Brooke's bags special, besides her incredible attention to detail and excellent construction, is her
design. The bags aren't cut from someone else's pattern -
she drafts her own patterns, which are copyrightable. All of her diaper bags are sewn from her original designs, so, unless she gives permission, no-one else is allowed to sell bags of the same size, shape and with the same features. Therefore, she would have every right to claim infringement if someone were to make a bag identical to hers.
Are you all with me so far?
 |
Brooke Van Gory Designs "Doodle
Skull" Expedient© diaper bag |
Another 'element' that set Brooke's creations apart from most other sellers are the fabrics that she uses. Most of them (with a few exceptions, like the hand-painted
Rocky The Zombie collaboration bags) are constructed using commercially available fabrics with a bit of a 'punk rock mommy' feel to them. There are LOTS of skulls (really, really cute skulls; and PINK!)!! Now, while the fabric combinations that Brooke uses are definitely a part of her shop 'signature,' they are NOT something she can copyright. Remember where we came in with the mere idea of a skeleton cat wasn't subject to copyright protection? Yep. We're right back there.
The simple IDEA of putting skulls on baby stuff cannot be and is not protected by copyright.
It's not infringement, it's good old fashioned American
competition!! Besides, the fabrics are commercially available - heck, as long as I didn't swipe her bag designs, I could go back to sewing and make and sell a ton of baby stuff just swimming in skulls - even the same skull fabrics that Brooke uses. She could threaten to sue me until she's blue in the face, but it wouldn't make a difference, legally speaking. Don't worry though, I'm sticking to my painting and letting the seamstress extraordinaire do that thing she does so well.
TITLES
Here's another example of stuff you can't just threaten to sue people over: I received an e-mail in mid-February from someone threatening me for using the title "Pyrography 101" on a video tutorial (just a little video of my wood burning techniques). She claimed,
The name is the title of my book & registered domain. Please read the notice at the bottom of my website page regarding the use of the name Pyrography 101 and remove that title from your utube[sic] page. [link removed]
I will check back and if not removed withing the next 24 hours I will proceed with the next step of action to have it taken down and/or legal action.
Okayyyyyy......
Since this woman contacted me anonymously through one of my ArtFire listings, I had to do about 2 minutes of research to find her e-mail. I responded immediately and told her that while she may indeed have a registered domain in that name, domain registration does not afford her copyright protection and since "101" is a term that has been in common usage for decades, it is not subject to copyright or trademark. Furthermore, since I had never heard of her, any similarity between the techniques in my video and her book are coincidental or are common practices. (I also suggested that if perhaps she had used a title that was a little more unique, she wouldn't have felt the need to send legally unsubstantiated threats to people who are providing simple tutorials.) Just for fun (because I hate bullies), I also looked up YouTube's policies on intentionally mis-reporting copyright infringement and found that they don't like that much, so I told her that if she flagged my video as copyright infringement I would file a counter-claim and provide a copy of my e-mail to YouTube as proof that her claim was both frivolous and harassing.
I never heard from her again.
UPDATE - April 24th, 2011: It appears I spoke too soon since I received a comment from @nedraspryro on my YouTube video today (slightly over 24 hours by about 63 days). It went something like this:
Interesting Pyrography 101 tutorial. A very simplistic outline & nothing more. What is funny is that at the end of your tutorial you state the images & burning are your own & not to steal it. Very funny coming from someone who has stolen the title of someone else's book & online tutorial series entitled "Pyrography 101" to make your own pyrography tutorial. Although titles are not protected by copyright law it is protected by other IP law & you should read the law before using it publicly
She's wrong on a few things here - actually, titles can be covered by copyright law, but not something that is in such common usage as "_______ 101." She also accuses me of "stealing" her "online tutorial series" which, as I told her in my first response, I'd never seen. However, I see no point in arguing with someone who's pretty clearly off their nut, so I just sent her a response stating,
I see you created a YouTube account for the express purpose of harassing me again. Perhaps you forgot my very detailed message to you in February, therefore, it is once again attached below.
As promised, I have reported you to YouTube for harassment and for malicious mis-reporting copyright infringement. I actually have a background in intellectual property law, so perhaps it is YOU who should read the law before publicly and ignorantly accusing people of things which you do not understand fully.
Any further contact from you on this matter will result in additional action on my part, including, but not limited to, contacting publishers, suppliers, internet providers, etc. and advising them that you are harassing me.
And yes, I really did report her to YouTube. You can report anyone who is harassing you by bullying, posting hate speech/rude comments or making threats on YouTube via this link:
http://www.youtube.com/safety_help
* ☠ * ♥ * ☠ * ♥ * ☠ * ♥ * ☠ * ♥ * ☠ * ♥ * ☠ *
I hope that this clears up some of the questions that I've been getting lately about what is and isn't copyright infringment and doesn't raise
TOO MANY others. Now feel free to go draw your own skelefied critter or make a baby blanket with skulls on it. Nobody can stop you as long as you don't do anything naughty.
Oh yeah, and remember that I'm not a lawyer and this doesn't constitute legal advice, kthxbai.
