LEGALLY SPEAKING

ACCREDITATION ISSUES:– Paul Sugden

We have explored rights of joint ownership as expressed in copyright (issue #91), and now we will examine the broader issues of accreditation. Here we consider the case where the work is derived using techniques or styles of other textile creatives. In the next issue we will look at false accreditation.

The issue of identifying a style with a person or creator is often used in conversation as a shorthand way of describing to another person the look of a work. For example, describing a work as a “William Morris” or a “Liberty Print” usually gives the receiver an immediate mental picture of the overall work.

As we saw in previous articles, style is an issue that copyright will not protect. Copyright protects the visual pattern used by William Morris, or by Liberty as artistic works, but allows all textile creatives to develop their own textiles, but not to copy a substantial part of William Morris’ or Liberty’s artistic work. Neither William Morris nor Liberty could prevent someone else producing a textile that uses their ideas or ‘style’ of textile. All textile creatives can create floral textiles or geometric designs.

In relation to textiles, the style of doing something in a particular way is an idea - and thus not a form of expression for purposes of copyright protection. On the other hand, the graphic image of the textile repeat (or a tapestry, as another example), being in itself the artistic work, is a form of expression protected by copyright.

To what degree is it all right to use a recognised style? When do you have to accredit the person who inspired the textile you created? (At this point we should bear in mind that some textile artists might actually be offended to have their work classified as a “William Morris” or “Liberty” style. Obviously, accreditation is not something they will wish to pursue, even if they have strongly referenced one or both of those styles).

Someone known to be in the textile industry is Nancy Crow who has a distinctive style, and who has taught in Australia in the past. It has been known to happen that after someone has been a student in one her classes their work is often recognisable to people in the textile industry as strongly influenced by Nancy Crow. The fact that Crow has taught her approach to design and making to the extent that it is recognisable does not mean that every student who produces a work using her techniques has to acknowledge that the work was so produced and/or influenced.

Nancy Crow did not produce the work referred to above, nor was she involved in the creation of the work, so she is not a joint author. No copyright ownership occurs and the student who produces the work is entitled to be the copyright owner of said work, no matter how often people say, “That reminds me of Nancy Crow!”

While accrediting Nancy Crow with the production of an artwork she did not make is an incorrect accreditation, the issue of recognisable style does relate to the issue of reputation. In the textile arts industry certain courtesies are best observed, such as acknowledgment of influence. When displaying heavily influenced work, the maker may include in the exhibition notes something along the lines of “Using the Nancy Crow technique” or “..resulting from a workshop with Nancy Crow where I was heavily influenced by her approach to design.”

This prevents wrong accreditation, and is truthful, because it acknowledges a fine and powerful teacher and artist; teaching distinctive techniques/styles that give rise to creativity in others is useful and desirable. The reputation that Nancy Crow has developed in her technique and style is acknowledged and verified, much as an artist was once recognised as a student of Raphael or Michelangelo, and proud to say so.

Problems can arise when someone accredits the work as being in the style of a person when in fact there is no connection whatsoever with their style of artwork/imagery. The issue of false accreditation will be examined in the next article.