There is no “must” in art, because art is free. – Kandinsky
As an American, a creative thinker, and someone keen on making a living with her creativity I’ve been warned to review the concepts inherent of copyright in order to protect my “intellectual property”, and to be wary of people with more resources than me as they can swoop in, take my ideas and run away with them. I get this; however I still don’t know when a veteran artist, writer and freshly-minted “perfumer” should carry an NDA around before having stimulating dialogs with other creatives about possible projects and collaborations?
Years ago I hit a stumbling block on one of my creative projects, a layman’s guide to contemporary art. I could not afford the publishing rights so I shelved the project. I then became obsessed with cultural commons and the history of copyright. My Coloring Project was born and that was that.
In my research, I learned that cultural commons were once a seminal idea in the Jeffersonian era, almost 200 years ago knowledge sharing is exactly why Benjamin Franklin could have invented all of the things he did (swim fins! urinary catheter! odometer! bifocals!). He had access to papers, discoveries and inventions. Or Nikola Tesla who never patented ideas on anything with the express purpose of passing ideas on so future generations could use his work to evolve society and technology. Nowadays if you invent something, you guard it in the event that it makes you, and only you, money. And since we live in a capitalist society, the things that make you money are considered valid and legally protected.
So where do the arts fit within this? The arts in the legal forum are only literature, music, or visual arts. If you considered the arts as a family of the senses, you would quickly see that only the hearing and the visual are considered “fine art” as it’s impossible to copyright a recipe (taste), and now I’m learning it’s also not possible in the states to copyright a scent (smell), never mind basket weaving (touch).
Since the Age of Enlightenment, 300 hundred years ago in the Western world the visual and hearing have retained top status amongst the senses, while the touch, taste, and smell senses remained in the domestic sphere; one might add, as well, that these were considered related to the feminine. So the noble versus the primitive senses march side by side within the sensorium. Increasingly, however, the distinctions between art and craft have blurred where painting (vision), olfactory art (smell) and haptic art (touch) may actually be seen as equals in the art/craft value system. The sense of smell in particular seems to be having a renaissance at the moment, charting its course back to the top of the sensorium – thanks in part to artists commanding the use of scent in their works as a medium, as legitimate as painting, sculpture or film.
In our litigious society authorship and originality are rewarded for better or worse with a copyright. So, is scent or scent art copyrightable? As suspected, the US version of copyright says in fact, it is not at least in the opinion of Charles Cronin, author of the article “Genius in a Bottle: Perfume, Copyright and Human Perception.” His argument is that “copyright should protect only the works that are “perceptible to humans through our sense of vision and hearing”.
This kernel of admission is fascinating. It could take months and years for a perfumer or artist to create fragrance or an olfactory experience, and yet there is no true copyright of this work? It’s too ephemeral, according to lawyers. Trademark, trade secret, and patent laws, Cronin says, are sufficient. Mind you, these are only things available to large perfume corporations and not the smaller, and more innovative niche scene of fragrance; most small entities can not pay legal counsel to navigate these waters. The author cites that in Europe, because of the French legal system without binding precedence which means every judge makes their own decision regardless of past court outcomes, there are disparate outcomes where some cases are in favor of copyright for scent, in that it could bear the personal imprint of the creator, thereby rendering it an original work of authorship eligible for copyright protection; in other cases they see no grounds for this.
The French court at one point said that fragrance is not copyrightable because people who smell them cannot meaningfully or consistently describe them. Unlike pornography, for fragrance you supposedly cannot know it when you smell it. Cronin goes on to cite that because people can recognize a song in a beat or two but have no idea what a fragrance is or how to describe it, this is sufficient evidence for an artfully designed scent (with an author) to not have a copyright. I beg to differ; songs are repeated over and over on the radio, creating a sense of frequency and awareness. On the other hand, people are not exposed to fragrance or scent in this same way. It is not a reflection of scent being inferior to music; it is simply an illustration of people’s lack of exposure to, education on, or curiosity of the medium to date.
A proper analogy following his argument to copyright scent, in order for music would be thus: in order for music to be copyrightable, someone other than the author would need to accurately describe “Take Five” by Dave Brubeck in words. So Cronin’s argument sinks further, as I know no one who could describe in words the tune of this or any song regardless of how many times they have heard it (not humming, but in words).
He continues his hostility toward scent by stating that scents are primal and therefore instinctual versus visual, which he cites is appealing to the intellect. I would beg to differ again, as the most remarkable shifts in perception, intellect, and awareness happens simply by paying attention to the abstract – which is the sense of smell. They are not unrelated, and it is possible to “think” in odors.
He argues that the goal of perfumers is to replicate nature and therefore they are artisans, not artists. Perhaps true of the past, but most perfumers today are not imitating nature; instead, they use notes and fragrance in entirely new ways – a point of fact that should be considered in the argument of artisan versus artist. Again, following his line of thinking, if artisans try to replicate nature, then Monet would have been an artisan and not an artist.
A reminder to author Cronin that first we are animals, and then we are these intellectual beings that we perceive only through our words. First we smell, touch, taste, listen and see. Lastly, I believe the chink in his argument lies in his statement that if one lost their sense of smell, they would not go “crazy” in the same manner as if they lost their sight and hearing. This is an obvious prejudice here with the senses, and clearly he has never heard of the genius that is Helen Keller.
Fragrance is Art and it won’t prosper unless it becomes less secretive.
“As art, perfumery will not rise to the height it should attain because those who benefit from it commercially are so secretive about their procedures. No industry that operates under a veil of secrecy can advance or take a position of any general importance. I would suggest following the path of physicians from Ancient Greece who, every year, inscribed in the temple of Asclepios all the cures they had made and means by which they were created.” – Septimus Piesse
The good news is that the fragrance world is opening up and artists are able to procure the same materials used in large perfume houses. The economies of scale are not friendly to the artist but, given proper sponsorship or commissions, artists may be able to crack these walls. Along with the financial support and legitimacy, though, artists, perfumers, or otherwise, should commit to knowledge sharing per the idea of physicists sharing their cures for the sake of innovation and growth.
“A major new perfume is not the result of industrial process. but is an aesthetic project that consists of the artful combination of some dozens of essences with the purpose of obtaining thereby an olfactory creation both beautiful and distinctive.” – Edmond Roudnitska
Does this sound like art? I think so, too. Now, should there be a copyright? For this I’m still on the fence, and look to those more experienced for counsel.Tagged: copyright for fragrance, copyright for perfume, cultural commons, five senses, haptic art, olfactory art, recipe, sensorium