I learned in Maria Brophy’s newsletter article an-open-letter-to-jeremy-scott-did-you-rip-off-artist-jim-phillips, that a popular Santa Cruz California artist, who has licensed his work to several companies, appears to have had his work copied (some with changes in the artwork) and printed on clothing by a fashion designer–unknown to the artist!
This High Snobriety article contains many details and images of the clothing printed with artwork side-by-side with the Jim Phillips licensed art.
What I learned from the Ted talk in the video below, is that there are many industries that cannot copyright their work. Here is a video transcript excerpt:
“You know, it’s not just the fashion industry that doesn’t have copyright protection. There’s a bunch of other industries that don’t have copyright protection, including the food industry. You cannot copyright a recipe because it’s a set of instructions, it’s fact, and you cannot copyright the look and feel of even the most unique dish. Same with automobiles. It doesn’t matter how wacky they look or how cool they look, you cannot copyright the sculptural design. It’s a utilitarian article, that’s why. Same with furniture, it’s too utilitarian. Magic tricks, I think they’re instructions, sort of like recipes: no copyright protection. Hairdos, no copyright protection. Open source software, these guys decided they didn’t want copyright protection. They thought it’d be more innovative without it. It’s really hard to get copyright for databases. Tattoo artists, they don’t want it; it’s not cool. They share their designs. Jokes, no copyright protection. Fireworks displays, the rules of games, the smell of perfume: no. And some of these industries may seem sort of marginal to you, but these are the gross sales for low I.P. industries, industries with very little copyright protection, and there’s the gross sales of films and books.” (Applause) It ain’t pretty.”
Watch this video for some eye-opening information–