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...

Copyright infringement or ownership of hula?

Yesterday I came across an email that was sent to me by a hula sister. She was not the author of this email but forwarded some interesting information in the hula world.

What the subject of the email was another email composed by a well known Kumu Hula, Vicki Holt Takamine. The matter was that of a well known photographer who takes pics of hula dancers, Kim Taylor-Reece. The claim is that KTR [Kim Taylor-Reece] aleges that another artist Leialoha Colluci, has infringed on his copyrighted material. And that KTR has filed an injunction on Leialoha Colluci, to ban her from selling further art work. The piece of art work in question is seen here the picture to the left. I did a transpose from the photographed art work from KTR to a stained glass art work from Leialoha Colluci. You can see where the concern is.

Well in the email composed by Kumu Takamine, she brings to light the situation brought on my KTR and that "...he wants exclusive rights to the hula." She says:

'Ilio'ulaokalani Coalition is outraged that photographer Kim Taylor
Reece has filed an injunction against Island Treasures Art Gallery
calling for them to halt the sale and destroy artwork by Leialoha
Colucci. Reece claims that he owns the copyright to the image
portrayed in Leialoha's piece by the mere fact that he photographed a
dancer in that position.

Well after receiving that email, I took it upon myself to look into the matter a bit. At least try to find articles on the web that I could read. I came across many sources:

Star Bulletin, KHNL, Pacific Business News, On Point News, and KGMB9.

In all of those links, KTR asserts that he's not trying to own hula or it's motions, but the artwork itself. I replied to that email that recevied with my own assertion:

I'll play devil's advocate here:

Here's a link to an article published on the KHNL website:

http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=5628631

Also here:

http://starbulletin.com/2006/11/03/news/story04.html

After searching for and reading pertaining articles. I hear what KTR is saying. He did say in this article that he's not trying to own hula or it's motions, but the artwork itself. Look at the stained piece of glass and then look at the photo. It is REALLY similar. I took it upon my self to line the pictures up, the only manipulations i did was just position it in place, no warping or anything. It's pretty darn close: http://www.moiha.com/Images/hula/hula.gif

In the StarBulletin, KTR says that ..."In the court document, Reece accuses Colucci of copying his photograph." Not the hula moves. Also in the Star Bulletin, Kumu Takamine goes one to include KTR trying to take ownership of "any hula positions". But I really don't think that's the case, that sounds like something that is subjective. Tempers flair when it comes to the encroachment of all things Hawaiian. I am agreement when it comes to protecting what is uniquely kanaka maoli. But again, I'm playing devil's advocate here, making sure that before people start rattling their sabres, make sure you read the details.

So basically, what he claims is that the "art work" that he created, not the hula move, is what he's says was infringed upon. You're going to see many articles giving KTR grief. And unfortunately it's already started. When looking for a more objective article, i kept coming across people voicing their disdain for this court suit. But the reality is that they're not really all that familiar with the case and are basing their arguments on feeling rather than looking at what he is saying and the details there in. Bottom line, read all you can.

Me personally, I do like some of KTR's work, although hella expensive. But in the end, as an artist, i can understand where he's coming from, looking at the stand point of, finding what looks to be a VERY similar piece of art work in someone else's store, AND THAT person making money off of it.

In my own experience with people "copying" your artwork, and myself, who has done that at one time or another, not for monetary or personal gain, I know the feeling when I see something you created in someone else's possesion. In the field I work, Visual FX, we have demo reels. Demo reels are basically sample video clips from past work. It's used to show potential employers your abilities and so they can confidently hire you. Now, everyone I know in my industry can tell you that they have had one at one time or another. But what you come across sometimes is some one who has a piece of work on their reel who is trying to claim as their own that YOU created. Now I know that this isn't exactly the same circumstance, but I'm just trying to iterate that I understand, to a point, where KTR is coming from.

I think in the end, the courts will have a hard time prossecuting Ms. Collucio because of artistic creativity. How do you copyright something like that?