KEEPING ABREAST OF MODERN ART; IN STITCHES; FEB COMES EARLY FOR SWEETS


Keeping abreast of modern art

It must be the silly season for Ananova. The news site has just startled the IPKat with two pieces of really silly news. First, an Australian woman called Di Peel has become famous for her ability to paint with her breasts. Her first canvas sold for £5, her second for £10 and she's now busy with an order for 10 at £40 each. The mother of two, from Tasmania, who is happy to describe herself as a big woman, works at the kitchen table rather than at an easel, reports the Mercury newspaper. She said:

"I either apply the paint to my breasts and lean on to the canvas or apply the paint to the canvas and then lean into it to spread the paint. I sign every picture with my nipple".
The IPKat observes that there is no requirement of artistic quality for artistic works that are protected under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 4. Merpel adds, people seem to pay a lot more for paintings of breasts than for paintings by them.

If you really like breasts, click here



In stitches ...

Secondly Spike, a three-year-old budgerigar, has been named Young Cross-Stitcher of the Year. He picked up the Cross-Stitcher magazine award after picking up the habit from owner Sandra Battye. Sandra, 31, of Stevenage, Herts, who nursed Spike back to health after a food allergy almost killed her, said:

"She would sit on my shoulder and watch me for hours. One day I just sat and didn't stitch. It seemed to frustrate her. Then suddenly she picked up the needle in her beak and began cross-stitching herself. I was staggered. Now I can't stop her. She still gets a bit confused at how the patterns work but she is very good at pulling and pushing the needle through the fabric".Cross-Stitcher magazine editor Cathy Lewis said: "We were amazed by the photos of Spike".

The IPKat was unable to find a photo of Spike the budgie but he got a good one of his friend Spike the chicken (above, right). Merpel says, is this another of those dodgy blogs about animals as authors of copyright works?

Subscribe to Cross-Stitcher here.


And now it's February

Sweet and Maxwell has really excelled this time, getting the February issue of the European Trade Mark Reports out on the streets before January has even got into double figures. Well done, lads! Key cases in this issue include

* Case C-405/03 Class International BV v Colgate-Palmolive, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling on the extent to which a trade mark owner (in this case the owner of AQUAFRESH) can lawfully interfere with the importation into the European Economic Area and the subsequent storage there of goods that are not clearly going to enter the EEA for trade purposes but which, the owner suspects, will infringe its trade marks if they do so;

* Case C-120/04 Medion AG v Thomson Multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH, another ECJ decision - this time on the place of the German doctrine of Pragetheorie in European trade mark infringement law;

* Case T-140/02 Sportwetten GmbH Gera v OHIM, a delightful Court of First Instance decision ruling on whether a Community trade mark (INTERTOPS) is contrary to good morals or public policy only on the ground that its proprietor cannot lawfully use it in one of the EU Member States.
KEEPING ABREAST OF MODERN ART; IN STITCHES; FEB COMES EARLY FOR SWEETS KEEPING ABREAST OF MODERN ART; IN STITCHES; FEB COMES EARLY FOR SWEETS Reviewed by Jeremy on Sunday, January 08, 2006 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.