In a telephone interview from his New York office, Staehle said: "Artists
should be free to do what they do. I'm outraged at how the dinosaurs are
trying to stomp all over us."
An etoy spokesman who gave his name as "zai" (the group's dozen or so
members do not divulge their real names) expressed disappointment with
the initial ruling. In a telephone conversation from Switzerland, where
the group has been conferring with its lawyers, he said: "Etoy.com was
our concept. It's not just another home page from a band.
"Etoy.com was the art piece," zai said, and giving up the domain name
"will be the end of this art piece."
But eToys, which is the leading toy retailer on the Internet, says it
is only being responsible by taking the dispute to court.
"The primary concern of any business is serving its customers, and we
found that a number of ours were confused and were understandably upset
by the etoy site," said Ken Ross, vice president of corporate communications
for eToys. "We tried to resolve the matter amicably, and we remain open
to doing so. But if that is not to be, we think that asking the court to
render an opinion is the most responsible and common-sense approach we
can take."
|
|
| Since
etoy was formed before eToys existed, no one could accuse the artists of
being cybersquatters. |
|
|
|
This is not the first time that
a toy-related company has clashed with an online artist. In 1997, Mattel
Inc. asked the Internet service provider hosting "The Distorted Barbie"
by the New York artist Mark Napier to remove the project from the Web,
saying it violated Mattel's copyrights. It is now called The
Distorted $arbie.
RTMark, another group of anonymous
provocateurs, have successfully tweaked the campaigns of George Bush and
Rudy Giuliani this year by launching parody sites with domain names that
are confusingly similar to those of the campaigns' official sites. The
group has been selected to exhibit in the Whitney Museum's biennial survey
of American art next year.
Since etoy was formed before eToys
existed, no one could accuse the artists of pulling a similar prank or
of being cybersquatters -- people who register company and product names
and then demand payment for them. But if a settlement cannot be reached,
it will be up to the courts to decide if the dispute is an example of reverse
domain-name hijacking, in which someone who covets a domain name but has
no legal right to it tries to coerce the owner into surrendering it.
The seven original etoy members joined forces
in October 1994. They registered the etoy.com domain in October 1995, and
launched their site soon after, making it one of the pioneers in the Internet-art
category. Among their first works was "Digital Hijack," which fooled search
engines into sending visitors to their subversively minded site. The project
earned the group the top prize in the Web category at the 1996 Ars Electronica
Festival, considered the most prestigious competition in the electronic-art
world.
Etoy applied for a trademark on its name in the United States in 1997
but has yet to receive one. More recently, the group has been selling shares
in its "corporation," in part to point out how intangible Internet-based
art is. The group has been spending some of the proceeds on the $16,000
in legal fees it has racked up in its fight with eToys. But one of the
terms of the preliminary injunction is that etoy is forbidden to sell its
shares in the United States.
The case is certainly fulfilling etoy's goal of toying with the perception
of corporations in cyberspace, albeit not in ways that the group might
have intended. Some of etoy's more deliberate activities have included
displaying material that seemed to promote terrorism, although visitors
who were in tune with etoy's philosophy were not likely to take it seriously.
Asked how much the etoy site, which did not mention eToys, might hurt
the company's business, Ross said: "It's very hard to really know that.
We found that there was confusion, and we found that people were upset,
and it's clear that one of the stated intents of the etoy site is to disrupt
business. We believed that we had the responsibility to address the situation."
EToys was founded in 1996, and registered both its domain name and its
trademark the following year. Given the timing involved, experts in Internet
and intellectual-property law said that, despite the artists' initial setback,
they may have a reasonably strong defense.
A. Michael Froomkin, a University of Miami law professor, said:
"In the case of a regular old garden-variety trademark, it is pretty much
an ironclad rule that, if you're using it legally before the trademark
owner creates his business and trademarks his use, then all those uses
you were making up to the time the trademark was filed, you may continue
to make."
In an e-mail message, Jessica Litman, a law professor at Wayne State
University in Detroit, said: "Trademark law is predicated on the assumption
that different businesses can use similar trademarks for different products.
On the Internet, of course, there can be only one trademark.com. If the
Internet weren't an issue, a U.S. toy merchant wouldn't have a cause of
action against a European art firm because there would be little likelihood
of confusion."
The courts may not have to make a decision in the dispute. Before filing
suit, eToys officials indicated they were willing to buy out etoy, and
the latest offer was somewhere over $400,000, in a mix of cash and eToys
stock. If accepted, the price would probably set a record for a work of
Internet art, although the work would likely vanish after the transaction.
The group has not agreed on a selling price, but zai said the most recent
offer was insufficient. "We are not against selling," he said, "but at
the moment we see how they treat us, like we're some kind of thing you
can manipulate. We don't sell art under this pressure. You cannot force
us to sell you this site just because you need it."
arts@large is published on Thursdays. Click here
for a list of links to other columns in the series.
Related Sites
These sites are not part of The New York Times on the
Web, and The Times has no control over their content or availability.
Matt Mirapaul at mirapaul@nytimes.com
welcomes your comments and suggestions.