|
Fine Art is heavily dependent upon per-piece uniqueness. However, sometimes a good style / form comes along that excites people. Does this fall under the category of a design patent (on a specific rendering / likeness)? Does this instead come under the level of copyright? Does much value exist, or do Fine Art products rarely see likeness-competition except from forgeries? |
|||
|
|
It depends, the work can be protected as a design patent or under copyrights.
So the author of the work has to choose which one suits him/her best. Another interesting information I came across, thanks to this question, is that, in the US there is a separate provision for design protection it can be found here. I am not much educated on this one, so you will have to check it out. |
|||
|
|
|
I would argue that art is often conciously operating with citation. Ultimately the quality of a piece can then be defined by how comprehensible the citation works as an argument in the piece itself. I doubt that a blunt copy of an existing idea would be accepted by any professional or the art market as being itself a piece of art. There wouldnt be any value in it. |
|||
|
|
I like to think of Design Patents as being more of an extension of the "trademark" system than applying to copyrightable works. Remember that the goal of these different systems is to protect your original work from infringement, and typically for the longest period of time possible. Copyright should be applicable here and has the longest protection. Go with that. |
|||
|
|
|
Design patents are only for articles of manufacture.
A painting is not an article of manufacture. A painted bread box probably is.. If a vase design can be fine art - why not - then mass "reproductions" of that vase are certainly subject matter for a design patent and are also probably fine art. A limited signed numbered set of reproductions would certainly be fine art and no less patentable. Design patents are for ornamental versions of things. The fineness of the art does not govern. |
|||
|
|
