In related news, Chihuly donates his balls, ahem I mean, Niijima floats, to the Tacoma Art Museum :
Dale Chihuly Gifts Floats to Tacoma Art Museum

http://tacomaartmuseum.org/page.asp?view=5975

Jen,
#1 You say you've "talked to Hackett repeatedly about Chihuly and journalism, and she’s not for sale." ??? What the hell kind of statment is that? Anyone who knows Regina knows she isn't for sale, never has been and never will be.

#2 Settling a lawsuit does NOT mean defeat. It means let's get it behind us; I'm sick of it. The only persons who really gain in a lawsuit are the lawyers. In a settlement, each side gets a little, and each side gives a little. End of story.

Brenda,
Do you think a reporter's job is to make friends?

Seattle Man,
No.

Brenda,

As your own blog states "For a gal who's only been in town a short time, Jen ... (sure knows how to make friends)." So, you are aware that Jen moved to town recently; as her sentence reads, she is stating that in her (limited than others) contacts and discussions she came to the conclusion that Regina wouldn't have knowingly run a false story. ("I’ve talked to Hackett repeatedly about Chihuly and journalism, and she’s not for sale.") Apparently, you also have the same opinion. ("Anyone who knows Regina knows she isn't for sale, never has been and never will be.")

***

Sure, settling lawsuits means compromises on both sides. BUT, this lawsuit is about copying/copyright - either the work shape/form/curve is copyrighted or not; if Rubino's work is still on sale after this lawsuit/future settlement, then Chihuly implicitly loses/lost. Either other people are allowed to blow faux-natural sea-life based curved glass bowls or they are not. If they are, Chihuly loses.

***

In short, both your points are loonie rants.

I don't mean to sound like a loonie. The comment about talking to her "repeatedly" implied that Jen grilled Regina in order to assure herself that she was a reputable journalist. It raised the question unnecessarily, in my view.

As far as the lawsuit goes, my opinion there is probably influenced by one I was involved in years ago which I dropped, because it had taken over my life and pocketbook. My lawyer was convinced we would win, but civil suits can drag on forever.

Chihuly stated that he wishes he had never brought the suit even though he felt he was right. The unfavorable publicity that has ensued has no doubt taken its toll on him and all involved.

Several legal blogs on the net discuss the merits of this case with legal experts on both sides of the argument, so the outcome has never been cut and dried.

I have no dog in this hunt but do try to see both sides of every issue. If you still think I'm a loonie, I'm sorry.

OK, I see your point about "repeatedly", but I think Jen used it to indicate that she had had more than one conversation with Regina about this. But, ultimately either Regina ran a false story OR Regina was fed a false story; and Jen says it's highly probable then that Chihuly Inc intentionally fed her a false story.

I'm not so sure about the second point ("Chihuly stated that he wishes he had never brought the suit even though he felt he was right.") - that's the whole PR front to the lawsuit - the awshucks we-didn't-want-to but we-have-to-protect-chihuly-brand show. Chihuly doesn't say if he felt right about faxing "here is a sketch but just make whatever you can".

Sorry for my "loonie rant" comment.

As an attorney myself, I can just imagine what Susan Foster thinks of being blamed for this interesting state of affairs. It's highly improbable she misinformed anyone about the status of the settlement.

I hope Jen isn't in this business to make friends.

OMG blog art critic cat fight!!

If we read all the stories carefully, it seems there was a tentative verbal settlement, only if both sides agreed NOT to claim victory and both sides agreed to maintain silence. Wakefield clearly said in his interview with Regina, "We were close to an agreement, but the story put a dent in it."

Further down in the article he says that an acknowledgement from Chihuly that there had been no copyright infingement would "go a long way to ease the hurt."

But the money quote is here: "We acknowledge that," said Makela. "We never intended to imply anything else."

In high profile cases, lawyers always tell their clients to keep their mouths shut and not talk to the press. Now we see why.

There's the world of facts, which the lawyers inhabit, and the world of opinions & feelings, where the artists live. It doesn't matter what Chihuly did in the Lawyer's World, if he had won or lost, in _my_ world, he's a conceited hack.

And a fat, dishonest, talentless scumbag.

And a creepy Pirate.

I can't belive that some of you think that Regina Hackett is so not at fault she played right alonge with the pirate to help him out just like she always does. she may not be bought but she can be donated to her. I wonder how much of his glass she has in her house

Chihuly & Kaindl Lawsuit, Seattle Times Articles about Chihuly Inc. and General Discussions.

The Seattle Times 3 Day Exclusive “Series” starting on Sunday August 6th. 2006 “Chihuly, Inc.” has exposed interesting information that should include follow-up discussions in this forum. The Seattle Times also provides PDF files of the actual court filing on both sides for you to view...

For those who haven’t seen the Seattle Times articles. Here is the link that will provide you with the entire 3 day and 9 page series of the articles, Lawsuit documents in PDF formats and sub-links. Go To: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/chihuly/ to go to the 3-day series and downloadable PDF’s.

SEATTLE TIMES - Titles of the “Exclusive” 3 Day Series Include:

PART 1: BUILDING AN EMPIRE
“Inside the Glass Empire”
What Do You Get When You Buy a Chihuly?
Fax to a glassblower. “Here’s a little sketch but make whatever you want”

PART 2: BENIFITING FROM CHARITY WORK
“Chihuly Benefits from His Own Philanthropy”
Taking a closer look at the artist’s affiliation with charities.
KCTS discusses its relationship with Chihuly.

PART 3: DEFENDING HIS TERRITORY
“Chihuly Turns Up Heat on Competing Artists”
“Billy” O’Neill: Dale Chihuly’s Right-Hand Man.
Arkansas artist responds to Chihuly complaint that he’s making “replicas”.
Six-page confidentiality agreement required of Chihuly employees.

LAWSUIT DOCUMENTS [PDF’s]
Copyright – Infringement Suit
Robert Kaindl’s Counterclaim
Bryan Rubino’s Counterclaim
Chihuly wants to Seal Suit
Kaindl, Rubino argues against it

Again the Seattle Times 3-Day Series link is: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/chihuly/

As Forum members… What are your opinions of all of this?

PONDER THIS:

Have any of us truly dived deeply down the read the case, articles, and history of art glass… (not that I believe everything I read in the press) however… I believe that Chihuly should be accredited with substantiating Art Glass within the US and he has certainly enjoyed and capitalized on in the campaign for his own exposure. Chihuly self-professes to be a supporter of the Murano style works of glass teaming originally relocated to the US by Littleton…oddly it seems as if Chihuly doesn’t support any Artist who might have slightly more than creative talents unless that artist subscribes to or has been taken past the second tier of Artists that have been schooled at Pilchuck. Sue the threats, seems to be the new answer to competition…

How is this happening? Mr. Kaindl, as an artist is attempting to defend himself in this lawsuit. Chihuly is spending (I imagine) millions of his dollars to now expose himself and his business practice’s to what originally was sought out to destroy the competition is now backfiring severely…Chihuly behaves as if he is a “victim” and that he has actively set out to hire and fire law firms to persecute any and all artists that are in his way… Now we know that Kaindl and Rubino “ARE NOT” the first to be involved in litigation or threats from this artist…

Answer me this.

How can an artist own the process for the effects of gravity in relation to creating a vessel with a fluted body, wrinkled sides, or elongated neck?

How can an artist own and claim textured or molded surface designs from a mold that is sold in an art glass supply store that every glass artist can purchase to use?

How can an artist own techniques for glass working / blowing that have been created originally since before the Romans wandered the Earth?

As a few examples,

In the18th Dynasty (1800 B.C.) King Tut’s mother “Akhenaten’s” famous gold funeral mask was adorned with cast glass of blue and yellow together similarly to what glass workers and artists are using as processes today.

The Egyptians glass were accredited with using colored “cane” on the sides of there vessels along with the zig-zag patterns that are widely seen in art glass today.

The Romans made glass cups and vessels with adding lip wraps to strengthen the edges there creations. The Romans are also accredited with creating the techniques for the body wraps and side-by-side body wraps that glass artists embellish today.

In 1894, Louis Comfort Tiffany created a series called the “Persian” Rosewater Sprinkler Vessel. This “Persian” is a very organic shaped bulb’as glass shaped vessel that was stuffed in an mold then pulled by one side of the open lip to an elongated neck by the lip wrap. It’s beautiful. It looks very similar to what famous Glass Artists are doing now and claiming as there original ideas including the reproducing the name. Louis Comfort Tiffany is also known for popularizing the use of iridescent gold’s, silver’s, minerals, and oxide metals on Glass. LCT is also accredited for electroplating ceramic vessels to create the patina and sheen on surfaces of art.

If an artist finds a similar artistic creation buried somewhere in history and then copies those pieces using previously establish techniques and then announces the replication processes, designs, concepts, names or titles as that artist’s now original ideas… What is that artist really doing?