More about nothing?

Seeing as how my last blog entry got some attention on it's own, I decided to post one of the interactions I got with someone about the topic. The emailer (who shall remain anonymous) posted this in reply to my opinion:

Mr. Reece would appear to consider his photograph as iconic in the same way that Joe Rosenthal's photograph of the flag raising on Iwo Jima's Mt. Suribachi is iconic. Apples and oranges. Rosenthal captured a unique moment in time and the image belongs to him, strictly speaking. Reece's image belongs purely to Kahiko or ancient hula. As such, it belongs to all Hawaiians. The absence of specific detail in the Collucci stained glass, such as the tide lapping over the dancer's knees or the pattern in the pa'u, and the presence of ocean and mountains in the background, make the works sufficiently distinguishable so as to render Reece's claim without merit.

To which my reply was:

Interesting point of view... I see your point... So then I should be able
to take Mr. Rosenthal's photograph and put a backdrop of Mt. Fuji, and /
or a Wal Mart, or anything for that matter, to make it sufficiently
distinguishable enought that i can call it my own, and therefore sell it?
Or would i have a run in with advocated calling me a liar and file an
injuction so I can't sell? In addition to that, for about the last 61
years, every source and or reproduction (in the slightest) that has
borrowed, stolen, referenced and or owed to, should stop? No they don't,
why? Because they all have paid royalties to the person for whom the
picture is owned. They all recognized that the image was borrowed and was
used for their own intent. At least for the art work that made money,
meaning "... used with permission".

You're right, it is apple and oranges... But the "core" matter is the
artwork, not the hula. If Ms. Colluci made a piece of artwork that
depicted a different hula stance / pose / position, I'm sure we would not
have heard any of this, it would never have come to the light of day. The
fact that the backdrop in the stained glass is differnt, it pales in
comparison how the SUBJECT MATTER is too similar.

Assuming that KTR is "considering his photograph as iconic" is subjective.
I don't recollect reading anything that he suggests it. The stance that
he takes, in vehemently defending his artwork may suggest this. But if
your artwork was in danger of infringement, I think you too would be as
well. Also the position of "Reece's image belongs purely to Kahiko or
ancient hula" Does that too apply to ALL artists that come before him?
Does all art work made of Hawaiiana, belong purely to the Hawaiians? So
then if that's the point maybe we as Hawaiians, should try to rally to
forbid any further depictions and / or imagery of anything kanaka maoli,
so that way we wont run into this situation?

Really, I'm trying to drive the point and make the distinction that it's
NOT about hula. Nowhere in the media has he said it's about hula.
Everyone else is saying it's about hula. Kumu Takamine says it's about
hula. This is with out a doubt a sensitive subject, and I have been
playing devils advocate. And if / when I do come across something that
suggests more than what KTR's position is, then I will be the first to
admitt it. My own position is not in defending KTR, please don't make the
mistake in reading that. I'm not defending him, I'm trying to add
perspective...

What's sad is that before typing this post up, I took some time to look at more sites to see how people are debating this issue and found a few things. I found this:

• Hawaiian Kingdom Info
  
• HaloScan
• Honolulu Advertiser
  

The second link is what got me a little ticked off. My feeling is that people are just too quick to make blurred subjective opinions on something like this. I understand heritage pride. But alas we will not hear the end of this...