Copyright for Stick Figures
EJOSL
claim copyright protection for "stick figures".
The stick figures have been sculpted and there are some details such as
eye-glasses, short tufts of hair. Basically, however, the figure is the
familiar circle on a stick with stick arms. It is a sculpture.
Our position is that (1) the stick figure is public domain (2) that the
sculpture does not rise to the required level of creativity and (3) that
the details added by the artist are so trivial as to not distinguish the
subject art from the art in question.
The artist contends that the minimal levels of creativity are met. She
further claims that any "derivation" of the subject art is also protected
(which raises questions as to whether she is making a claim as to all
stick figures from now on.)
I would appreciate any insight, experience, wisdom you might offer on
this. Thus far, I have been unable to locate a case close enough on point
to make it compelling.
----LIABILITY WAIVER--- In consideration of any reader responding to this
request for information, the undersigned hereby releases such reader from
any liability the reader may have for providing the information. Poster
shall not rely on the information provided nor consider it to be the
rendering of legal advice.
Eric Lieberman, Esq.
Huck Bouma Martin Charlton & Bradshaw, P.C.
1755 S. Naperville Rd.
Wheaton, Illinois 60187
huc...@ix.netcom.com
Fax: 708-221-1756
Eric Lieberman
huc...@ix.netcom.com
R.Cammer
>I am an attorney involved in a case ...
>of an artist ... claim[ing] copyright
>protection for [sculpted] "stick figures" ....
>[with] some details such as eye-glasses,
>short tufts of hair [but] basically ...
>arms.
>vation of the subject art is also protected
>... [and that he] would appreciate any
>insight, experience, wisdom ....
1. Settle, quickly.
2. Query whether these are Keith Haring's stick figures, or Pablo
Piccasso's stick figures or those of a similar such and, respecting the
(mere?) "detail" of, e.g., "eyeglasses" and other accoutrements, whether
the design thereof is of the sort Ralph Lauren gets $-Gazillions/year in
license fees, or of the sort Calin Kline get his $-Gazillions/year in his
and his partner's license fees, or those of M. Fendi .... well, one gets
the idea.
Conversely, query what market of the artist's is impaired and, arguendo if
there were clear liability, nonetheless what the measure of damages would
be.
While, concededly, there are important differences between the case posed
and the following, recall that in the Alex Haley "Roots" copyright
infringement case, Haley argued that most of the claimed infringements
couldn't be such since his work and the assertedly infringed work both
copied from "generic" expressions about light from a slave-owner's lamp,
gingham dresses covering wee southern belles, braying mules,
spiritual-singing slaves, etc., etc.
Wm. Marvin
>
>Our position is that (1) the stick figure is public domain (2) that the
>sculpture does not rise to the required level of creativity and (3) that
>the details added by the artist are so trivial as to not distinguish the
>subject art from the art in question.
I like your liability waiver. I'm not the IP expert, but it
sounds like you're mingling the tests for patent protection.
Copyright doesn't really depend on quality or uniqueness of the
infringed work.
Those issues are mainly relevant, it seems to me, to enhance
the] possibility of independent origination . . . i.e., to rebut the
artist's claim that you must have copied her work because of the
similarities.
+-William D. Marvin, Esq. ++ wdm...@ibm.net-+
|+++ Legal Domain BBS == (215) 639-9225 +++|
+------+ Free Speech Forever +-------+
Jeffrey Friedman
You might want to take a look at the Atari v. Oman decision. Ruth Bader
Ginsberg upheld the Copyright Office's denial of a copyright to the
Breakout game, finding that using a simple regtangle as a paddle, and
circle as a ball, did not meet the minimal level of originality
sufficient for copyright purposes. --Barbara Friedman
Seth Breidbart
>I am an attorney involved in a case centering on the right of an artist to
>claim copyright protection for "stick figures".
>
>The stick figures have been sculpted and there are some details such as
>familiar circle on a stick with stick arms. It is a sculpture.
>
>Our position is that (1) the stick figure is public domain (2) that the
>sculpture does not rise to the required level of creativity and (3) that
>the details added by the artist are so trivial as to not distinguish the
>subject art from the art in question.
Wasn't there a case where somebody copyrighted thousands of pictures
of seagulls, and then sued somebody else when the latter published a
photo of a seagull? IIRC, the court ruled that the first person's
copyrights would appear to cover just about every possible picture of
a seagull, and he couldn't have copyrights that broad.
Of course, that wouldn't apply if the second person had copied the
first person's photographs, rather than making his own.
Seth
Terry Carroll
<jfri...@minerva.cis.yale.edu> wrote:
>
>You might want to take a look at the Atari v. Oman decision. Ruth Bader
>Ginsberg upheld the Copyright Office's denial of a copyright to the
^^^^^^
>Breakout game, finding that using a simple regtangle as a paddle, and
>circle as a ball, did not meet the minimal level of originality
>sufficient for copyright purposes. --Barbara Friedman
You misspelled "reversed."
--
Terry Carroll | Netcom's email system is unreliable, as a
Santa Clara, CA | result, it is possible that messages sent to
carr...@netcom.com | carr...@netcom.com will not reach me. If you
car...@aimnet.com | require reliable transmission, please use my
Modell delenda est | address car...@aimnet.com.