[Toolbox]

Originally Posted by Keely

I have no interest in what happens in Canada..... it does not pertain to me.

You should care, the reasons are obvious.

[yaahl]

Originally Posted by Keely

Oh I found where the confusion is at you are in Canada... things are different there than they are here.

Since you are in Canada, I can only wonder why you have such interest in the IACA since it does not pertain to Canadians, that is, unless a person comes down to the states to sell, then they would need to sell their items as Canadian Aboriginal. Problem solved.

As Canadians, we have concerns with what goes on in the States with respect to a) legal jurisprudence b) First Nation treatment, c)trade and commerce d) sucking us into fights or not e) pollution, f) mismanagement of American resources g) technology h)research and development to name a few. We also have access to the Jay Treaty which affords all FN folks up here to travel to the states unhindered.

Also, my people have settlements and communities on both sides of the border and what occurs in one country can profoundly affect what will or may occur in the other. Just ask Sitting Bull and his Lakota people who were sheltered in Canada by the NWMP. Had American politics not come into heavy handedness and forced them to return to the US, those folks would be Canadians now.

And if that is too ancient history for you, ask The Mowhawks of Akwesasne, Mi'kmaq, Malicite, Abeneki or Three Fires people how they fair when their relatives are often on the other side of a border - we all have an eye on our families in the south because ultimately, what affect you, will trickle down to us in some way.

As every single First Nation empowers it's people to be and do better, our art and culture is becoming more mainstream. Up here we're working on copyright and IP laws being beefed up to protect the artist and our culture. The US on the other hand, is protecting the consumer from a fraudulent use of the label, "Indian made". I find the dichotomy between the two approaches intriguing and enlightening. I would have thought you, as an artist might have wanted to see how others are tackling the issues of cultural sovereignty and ownership of our cultural icons.

The very notion that we could come down there and sell our work and label it Canadian Aboriginal is perplexing. By whose standards are we to be deemed authentic. We recognize legally and constitutionally, Aboriginal, Metis and Inuit. Only those FN who are still under control of AAND carry status cards, those FN who have signed off on their self government agreements do not. The Inuit and Metis do not carry cards and are not required to here. So whose government get to be paramount in approving a Canadian Aboriginal to sell item as such in the US? The US or Canada?

My cousin just signed a deal with a fashion house to brand her clothing designs and sell them internationally. Guess where the only place is causing her grief? The US. She'll have to go to a community on the stateside and have them sanction her as an Indian so she can keep her logo, trademarks and labelling on her goods. The stateside community is reluctant because they fear it will set a precedent that will have negative effects down the road.

If, as you have ominously set out, there are to be more changes to the IACA, then yes, we are interested and curious to see how it trickles on down to us.

[yaahl]

Originally Posted by Keely

I have no interest in what happens in Canada..... it does not pertain to me.

Perhaps to you, but there are artists on both side of the border and not to mention First Nations councils that are in consultation with each other law, treaty, environmental concerns and self government etc that do care. Do you think pipelines are stopped because some nice men in DC and Ottawa decide to stop it or fishing and hunting rights aren't legally protected because what happens in either country was of no interest to the Ron Sparrows, Puyallups and Winans and all the others who looked south or north and said, we can do the same.

Do you know who stopped Keystone for the moment? BC tribal councils that's who. Not the countless celebrities who circled the White House, but the men and women of BC tribal councils when they collectively said no to granting easement over tribal lands.

Perhaps you should care what happens up here.

[Toolbox]

I knew you could write what I wanted to say but a thousand times better @yaahl LOL, which is why I didn't even bother.

[Joe's Dad]

Originally Posted by yaahl

As Canadians, we have concerns with what goes on in the States with respect to a) legal jurisprudence b) First Nation treatment, c)trade and commerce d) sucking us into fights or not e) pollution, f) mismanagement of American resources g) technology h)research and development to name a few. We also have access to the Jay Treaty which affords all FN folks up here to travel to the states unhindered.

Also, my people have settlements and communities on both sides of the border and what occurs in one country can profoundly affect what will or may occur in the other. Just ask Sitting Bull and his Lakota people who were sheltered in Canada by the NWMP. Had American politics not come into heavy handedness and forced them to return to the US, those folks would be Canadians now.

And if that is too ancient history for you, ask The Mowhawks of Akwesasne, Mi'kmaq, Malicite, Abeneki or Three Fires people how they fair when their relatives are often on the other side of a border - we all have an eye on our families in the south because ultimately, what affect you, will trickle down to us in some way.

As every single First Nation empowers it's people to be and do better, our art and culture is becoming more mainstream. Up here we're working on copyright and IP laws being beefed up to protect the artist and our culture. The US on the other hand, is protecting the consumer from a fraudulent use of the label, "Indian made". I find the dichotomy between the two approaches intriguing and enlightening. I would have thought you, as an artist might have wanted to see how others are tackling the issues of cultural sovereignty and ownership of our cultural icons.

The very notion that we could come down there and sell our work and label it Canadian Aboriginal is perplexing. By whose standards are we to be deemed authentic. We recognize legally and constitutionally, Aboriginal, Metis and Inuit. Only those FN who are still under control of AAND carry status cards, those FN who have signed off on their self government agreements do not. The Inuit and Metis do not carry cards and are not required to here. So whose government get to be paramount in approving a Canadian Aboriginal to sell item as such in the US? The US or Canada?

My cousin just signed a deal with a fashion house to brand her clothing designs and sell them internationally. Guess where the only place is causing her grief? The US. She'll have to go to a community on the stateside and have them sanction her as an Indian so she can keep her logo, trademarks and labelling on her goods. The stateside community is reluctant because they fear it will set a precedent that will have negative effects down the road.

If, as you have ominously set out, there are to be more changes to the IACA, then yes, we are interested and curious to see how it trickles on down to us.

Next time I get in trouble, can I use my one phone call on you? LOL

[yaahl]

Originally Posted by Joe's Dad

Next time I get in trouble, can I use my one phone call on you? LOL

And you think I was joking when I said I could retire with just you guys from here...lol

One of the really neat things we have included with our IP laws is the moral rights of the owner. I've been pushing for more FN communities to line up their proverbial ducks on that one.

What it boils down to is, a copyright owner not only controls where and when wok is used but under morals rights it also protects them from the who and what it is used for. It also protects those working under a pseudonym/nom de plume.

How it works is, say I give permission for one of my paintings to be used for a book or magazine cover. Then the publisher changes their mind about which book or magazine it is to be on and it appears on a book cover that denounces Aboriginal Title by a anti-Indian nutbar. As the artist, I don't want my work associated with the author or the work so I can break the contract using my moral rights to the ownership of the art. I can effectively prevent anyone using my name, or work in something that would be derogatory to my reputation or the effects of the works. If someone uses my work without my permission and uses it for something derogatory or even tacky - like those art cards or t-shirts sold in tourist shops, then I can sue under both the infringement clauses and the moral right clauses. Damages under moral rights is way easier to prove.

The beauty of the those moral rights are they are not exclusive of any other type of copyright owner. But it's advantageous to FN because we can now claim copyright on images, songs, stories, beadwork, tribal history and dances... do you see why I keep urging FN to get their ducks in line? These clauses, if used effectively by tribes as copyright owners, means less and less of our culture can be lifted for sports teams, advertising and yes, mass produced trinkets in China.

All we need to do as FNs is push the envelope a little more to include unconventional ideals of property into the mix... those would be tribal names (both clan owned and family owned), ceremonies, territorial landmarks, berry patches and the ideas behind the artistic works. Right now, those are either dealt with in real or personal property laws and conceptual ideas are not protected at all.


Here's some boring old statistics on art sales in Canada (bit dates to 2000 but shows where the money is not going).

1. the visual arts are a billion dollar business in Canada alone,
2. 25% of Canadians visit art galleries each year - these do not include visitors to Canada.
3. Nearly 1 million school children are exposed to art by field trip to galleries.
4.Exports of art grew from 45 million in 1996 to 146 million in 2000
5. Canadian art finds itself displayed in museums, galleries, airports, restaurants, public buildings, exhibition centres, area shows and at major international exhibitions.
6. 10% of households purchase original art each year, spending half a billion, yes that's billion a year.
7. 17% of Canadian do art in their spare time, that's 250 million dollars a year in supplies.
8. The total auctioned Canadian art in 2000 was 25 million.
9. Over 50,000 Canadians volunteer at art galleries and community museums.

Kind of makes you wonder why more FN aren't trying for that piece of the pie... hmmm...

[wyo_rose]

I can't imagine any Indian artists have enough pull to get a law passed. This law is meant to protect the collector.

The only law I can think of that directly benefitted the artists was pertaining to only Alaskan Natives being allowed to sell Alaskan walrus ivory that has been carved or scrimshawed...probably passed after a collector was "taken".

[yaahl]

Originally Posted by wyo_rose

I can't imagine any Indian artists have enough pull to get a law passed. This law is meant to protect the collector.

The only law I can think of that directly benefitted the artists was pertaining to only Alaskan Natives being allowed to sell Alaskan walrus ivory that has been carved or scrimshawed...probably passed after a collector was "taken".

Then maybe it's time to give the IACA a pass and move onto using and beefing up the IP laws. More native artists need to be able to use IP law to their favour. I'm still wondering where all the proceeds from the fines go to - tribal councils or the US treasury?

[wyo_rose]

Originally Posted by yaahl

Then maybe it's time to give the IACA a pass and move onto using and beefing up the IP laws. More native artists need to be able to use IP law to their favour. I'm still wondering where all the proceeds from the fines go to - tribal councils or the US treasury?

Not to the tribes that's for sure...probably to the purse that funds the regulating agency.

Originally Posted by timmy tiger

Learned fast, didn't ya.HAHAHAHA

Hey, I was all, you know, rated Joe's Dad, 'til she got a hold of me.

[timmy tiger]

Originally Posted by pigheaded

Hey, I was all, you know, rated Joe's Dad, 'til she got a hold of me.

HAHAHA Yeah, right. I know better then that. Not even close and neither is Joe's dad.HAHAHAHA

[timmy tiger]

Originally Posted by wyo_rose

Not to the tribes that's for sure...probably to the purse that funds the regulating agency.

I believe the funds do go there Wyo-rose. The excuse is is to pay for the time of the employee's who go out and find the frauds and fakes, so the fines all go to them. And it "has to pay for court costs" for their services as well. That's what I've been told anyway. ANd that was by an employee of one of those departments.

[yaahl]

Originally Posted by timmy tiger

I believe the funds do go there Wyo-rose. The excuse is is to pay for the time of the employee's who go out and find the frauds and fakes, so the fines all go to them. And it "has to pay for court costs" for their services as well. That's what I've been told anyway. ANd that was by an employee of one of those departments.

Too bad the fines don't go to the tribes that are the victims of having a cultural ripoff occur. At least up here, if you are a victim of a crime you can receive some level of compensation through the Victim Surcharge that any fines dealt out by the court pay a portion towards.

[timmy tiger]

Originally Posted by yaahl

Too bad the fines don't go to the tribes that are the victims of having a cultural ripoff occur. At least up here, if you are a victim of a crime you can receive some level of compensation through the Victim Surcharge that any fines dealt out by the court pay a portion towards.

I agree that if they are going to impose fines then the tribes being mistreated like that should get some of the money for restitution. But they consider it paying for the attorney's to fight them and then to keep people on staff to catch the frauds who are doing it.

it's like here, I was threatened once or twice and I called the police just to make sure they were aware of it. A week later, both times, I got a letter in the mail from an organization about Victims of Violent crimes and how i could be entitled to some kind of settlement for harms done to me. There wasn't any, just a threat that could have gone somewhere but didn't. But that happened so why can't it be the same there?

For example the Cherokee task forces now that are out there and doing it, they have to 'cause the gov wouldn't and look, people started dying in the name of fakes.

[subeeds]

Originally Posted by timmy tiger

I believe the funds do go there Wyo-rose. The excuse is is to pay for the time of the employee's who go out and find the frauds and fakes, so the fines all go to them. And it "has to pay for court costs" for their services as well. That's what I've been told anyway. ANd that was by an employee of one of those departments.

I don't understand why they couldn't first send a cease and desist letter. I have been browsing around the venue I use to sell online-just window shopping online. I've often come across items that said they were NA made. I've looked at the bio. If no tribal affiliation is listed, I send an email to the venue with a link to the IACA and what they need to see to determine if the seller is legit. Usually within 48 hours the seller in question has either changed their descriptions and removed any NA reference or they have listed their tribal affiliation. The venue I use is based in Tuscon, so they are pretty up to date on the IACA.

As artists, especially for jewelry artists, it's hard to copyright certain things. Designs can be copyrighted, but not stitches or techniques-when it comes to bead work. There is really nothing new out there when it comes to stuff like that-just reworks of older ideas. How many ways are there to bezel set a stone in silver? Not that many. A cuff bracelet is a cuff bracelet, no matter what kind of design is placed/done on it. How many different ways are there to coil a pot? Copyright gets so complicated when it comes to artistic stuff. Enforcing it can be even tougher.

[yaahl]

Originally Posted by subeeds

I don't understand why they couldn't first send a cease and desist letter. I have been browsing around the venue I use to sell online-just window shopping online. I've often come across items that said they were NA made. I've looked at the bio. If no tribal affiliation is listed, I send an email to the venue with a link to the IACA and what they need to see to determine if the seller is legit. Usually within 48 hours the seller in question has either changed their descriptions and removed any NA reference or they have listed their tribal affiliation. The venue I use is based in Tuscon, so they are pretty up to date on the IACA.

As artists, especially for jewelry artists, it's hard to copyright certain things. Designs can be copyrighted, but not stitches or techniques-when it comes to bead work. There is really nothing new out there when it comes to stuff like that-just reworks of older ideas. How many ways are there to bezel set a stone in silver? Not that many. A cuff bracelet is a cuff bracelet, no matter what kind of design is placed/done on it. How many different ways are there to coil a pot? Copyright gets so complicated when it comes to artistic stuff. Enforcing it can be even tougher.

You'd be surprised what can constitute a copyright image or work.

One of the biggest myths that artists pass around is that pieces have to be registered in order to be enforced. Not true in the least. The minute something has been created, you have generated a work that is subject to copyright. The manner in which you produced it is a whole other IP area. But a completed creative work is subject to copyright laws.

All you need is a picture of all sides of the work, the date it was completed and you have your basis for enforcement. Like I mentioned earlier included in my price is the registration fee to register the copyright with Industry Canada. I don't have to to enforce it.

Don't sell yourself short on how you can enforce your own designs. What is encouraging is that jewellery makers and beading artists are starting to respect each other's copyright and seeking permission to use a design.

[subeeds]

Originally Posted by yaahl

You'd be surprised what can constitute a copyright image or work.

One of the biggest myths that artists pass around is that pieces have to be registered in order to be enforced. Not true in the least. The minute something has been created, you have generated a work that is subject to copyright. The manner in which you produced it is a whole other IP area. But a completed creative work is subject to copyright laws.

All you need is a picture of all sides of the work, the date it was completed and you have your basis for enforcement. Like I mentioned earlier included in my price is the registration fee to register the copyright with Industry Canada. I don't have to to enforce it.

Don't sell yourself short on how you can enforce your own designs. What is encouraging is that jewellery makers and beading artists are starting to respect each other's copyright and seeking permission to use a design.

All the photos I use to list my work have the EXIF data imbedded in them. That proves when I completed the work. Learned a lesson the hard way about that. My photos are copyrighted, so is the complete work. I just meant that I couldn't copyright the stitch I used to make it.
People are starting to ask permission for design use, but not often enough, yet. Frequenting jewelry making forums, I see far too often threads that start with "I'm being copied". Usually it's not a copy if a design, but an idea. It started getting out of hand when the Scrabble tile pendant craze got started.
BTW, something that is copyrighted that really knocked me for a loop is the phrase "shabby chic". The chick that holds the copyright for that is quite vigarous in protecting, it, too. She has hit most of the online selling venues looking for people who are using that phrase in their descriptions.

[Toolbox]

Something we do on occasion to protect our scripts during the early phases of development (right after draft 1) is to send it snail mail in a USPS envelope to ourselves and one other entity. The trick is to NEVER open it and to get it certified mail with a signature. Therefore there is a legal time stamp to it.

[subeeds]

Originally Posted by Toolbox

Something we do on occasion to protect our scripts during the early phases of development (right after draft 1) is to send it snail mail in a USPS envelope to ourselves and one other entity. The trick is to NEVER open it and to get it certified mail with a signature. Therefore there is a legal time stamp to it.

I've heard of people doing that with written stuff. Wouldn't work for me, though. I would be "ooohh, package, might be shiny-rip, rip, open". LOL!

Edited to add: Way back at the start of this thread, a link was posted to an online bio from the venue I sell on. I asked a moderator to remove the link, not because I am ashamed of anything there, but because I felt it was really spammy. I appreciate it being removed. If you want a link to there, just contact me and I will supply it.

[yaahl]

Originally Posted by Toolbox

Something we do on occasion to protect our scripts during the early phases of development (right after draft 1) is to send it snail mail in a USPS envelope to ourselves and one other entity. The trick is to NEVER open it and to get it certified mail with a signature. Therefore there is a legal time stamp to it.

You don't really need to do that anymore, it's one of those urban legends that is still kicking around. Computers and whatnots now have ways to embed a time and date stamp into a draft work. Copyright arises by virtue of creation, rather than registration, and the first owner of copyright in a work is the creator.

BTW, something that is copyrighted that really knocked me for a loop is the phrase "shabby chic". The chick that holds the copyright for that is quite vigarous in protecting, it, too. She has hit most of the online selling venues looking for people who are using that phrase in their descriptions.

I think you'll find that she trademarked the name rather than has copyright I'm not sure if she registered it or just trademarked it (that would be the difference between a little r or tm beside the name). This is why tribal names would have to be trademarked but the creative works that arise from tribal history/lnowledge could very well be copyrighted. The neat thing about trademark that even if say, the auto manufacturer has a hols a certian tribal names, you can trademark the same name but for a different market. So unless the car manufacturer is into tribal stuff, then there shouldn't be a problem. (which is why you see the name Cherokee every where on different items -clothes, cars etc.