WaterFire

[runawayjim]

I'm not sure I understand the legal issue with WaterFire -- that is, what would be the artist's grounds for suing if someone else just started torching stacks of wood on barges?

That said, I see the appeal -- when we were in town last August, it seemed as though it was drawing a lot of people, not to stand around watching wood burn (especially on a muggy summer night), but to gather and socialize.

It's a little like the Cows On Parade thing they had in Chicago (not invented there, but they had a big display one year) and other cities -- a lot of people, including us, went into the city to look at the cows. In that case, I don't think there was any central authority getting paid for it -- different cows were sponsored by different companies -- nor was there any pretense of it being great art -- but it got people to come into town, anyway....

Urb

barnaby did waterfire as an art installation originally. he's very protective over the whole thing, and i'm really surprised it's patented or copyrighted or trademarked or whatever it is. it's not something that i would consider to be really different or even art. honestly, i am really surprised by what some people consider art.

i don't think any central authority gets paid for waterfire either. it's all volunteer work and it's sponsored by some company or group. the sponsor gets their name on things, but pays for it all to be done. i also think they donate some of the extra money to charity. and what goes to waterfire goes to upkeep of the pontoons boats, and for supplies and possible expansion.

[runawayjim]

See, that's the thing about Waterfire that gets me. The artist (Barnaby? - is that a guy or a gallery) seems to think it's this high art. People have been having lakeside and seasie bonfires for ages. The vikings lit burnig boats aflame (OK, so they were burning their dead), and even today they launch fires afloat, and floating lanterns.

Is it a really big art thing? Who knows. It's a kind of festival thing. Something neat to look at, like a lantern festival, or fireworks, or ice sculptures. Perhaps that is the appraoch more cities need to take, not necessarily just waterfire, but neat cool-lookin events.

bingo. you said it better that i did. barnaby's the artist who "created" waterfire.

i don't think cities should try to copy waterfire, i think they should do something that sets them apart from others. and maybe barnaby could be brought on board as a creative designer to help them come up with something like waterfire, but that isn't waterfire. something that doesn't necessarily have to be on a river (and that doesn't involve fireworks, they're so overdone).

[Gusterfell]

i don't think cities should try to copy waterfire, i think they should do something that sets them apart from others.

I agree. I don't have a problem with the occasional other city having Waterfire as a one-time, special event. However, if it becomes a common thing throughout the country, to me that cheapens what we have here. Waterfire is part of what makes Providence what it is. Providence alone should be its "home."

[runawayjim]

it's a bunch of fires (lights, something glowing orange) on water (something blue)

are we thinking of the same river??? blue?

[mr2448]

I don't think they should call it WaterFire, but WaterFire is something so generic it's really hard not to copy it. I mean, it's a bunch of fires (lights, something glowing orange) on water (something blue) with background music. You just can't get more generic than that. I mean, nobody goes out and says torches along a canal or river are an art event. Not that I am saying it's bad - just the opposite - it's a night atmospheric thing to enliven the city - don't let it exclude everything else going on.

Another thing I think Providence needs to do is find more tihngs like this. Capitalize on being a creative, atmospheric city. It already has the core for it.

As simple as it sounds, noone else ever did it. Thus, Barnaby Jones has the rights to "Waterfire" by name and action. Noone else can put objects into the water, light them, play music and entertain crowds in that manner by any other name. He has the sole rights. That is why Pawtucket and other cities have not been allowed to recreat the event in any form without his permission. I think he recreated Waterfire in Houston as a one time event.

Perhaps "Waterfire" needs to be taken on the road to three or four cities for a year. I would hope he would call it "Providence Waterfire" as he promotes it in other cities. The members of the Grand Rapids forum were not aware of this event or the beauty of our city at all until one visited Providence. As each event is recreated in other cities; photos of Providence should be on display. This would be a great promo for the city! Nothing beats the original!!

My ideas for improvements to Waterfire in Providence are; reduce the number of offerings to monthly with rain dates, provide live music for some of the performance such as string quartets, french horns, etc.

On the other Saturday nights in down city Providence we could have music night where there are different types of music on different city blocks. Each mid block could have reggae, strings, folk, celtic, pop, bop, barbershop, etc. I think this would bring people here. On another Saturday night we could have magician night with different types of magician thruout down city.

Just some thoughts. Any other ideas. Unfortunately Providence cannot live on Waterfire forever. We had the original X-Games and Gravity Games and lost them. Now we need new ideas!!

Mark

[CtownMikey]

we pretty much lost the infrastructure to bring back those games right?

[mr2448]

we pretty much lost the infrastructure to bring back those games right?

They couldn't be down city anymore, but for the most part their structures were portable and could have been placed anywhere. Parcel 12 is still vacant. But. I would enjoy seeing the street luge down college hill on a yearly basis. Even the events at RWP could take place without the down city skateboarding and bikes. These events aren't often mentioned, but again we were the envy of New Engalnd to have both events.

Mark

[urbie]

As simple as it sounds, noone else ever did it. Thus, Barnaby Jones has the rights to "Waterfire" by name and action. Noone else can put objects into the water, light them, play music and entertain crowds in that manner by any other name. He has the sole rights. That is why Pawtucket and other cities have not been allowed to recreat the event in any form without his permission. I think he recreated Waterfire in Houston as a one time event.

OK, but my question (above) was, says who? Is that like Amazon's "business model" patent on one-click ordering, or a trademark on the Waterfire name, or what? Suppose someone else went ahead and did the same thing, but maybe didn't call it Waterfire -- who would he sue, and on what grounds? What's the case law on this? (Just curious -- I took a business-law class this spring, so I get curious about this kind of stuff....)

Urb

[mr2448]

OK, but my question (above) was, says who? Is that like Amazon's "business model" patent on one-click ordering, or a trademark on the Waterfire name, or what? Suppose someone else went ahead and did the same thing, but maybe didn't call it Waterfire -- who would he sue, and on what grounds? What's the case law on this? (Just curious -- I took a business-law class this spring, so I get curious about this kind of stuff....)

Urb

My understanding is that he has "Waterfire' trademarked by name and action. If anyone put on a waterfire type event by another name he could sue for infringing on his invention, fire on water with music. This would come under federal law because patents are federally controlled. As I said, so simple an idea with some great controls protecting it. Those who have attempted to do this ie; Pawtucket, needed his permission even though the fire was to be in a ring rather than linear. I do not know what his lawyers would have sued for if it had continued without his permission? Money, obviously, but how much? Who would they have sued? The city of Pawtucket!

Mark

[jencoleslaw]

if Fox News can trademark "fair and balanced" then certainly "waterfire" can be trademarked by its creator. Just because it is easy to duplicate doesn't take away from the fact that he did it, and he owns it. Waterfire is not like a riverwalk. it is a "thing" that people come to "see" and "experience," like art. If you don't think it is art, then think of it as music. You may not like it but it doesn't mean you can play the same thing and make $ off it.

[dgreco]

if Fox News can trademark "fair and balanced" then certainly "waterfire" can be trademarked by its creator. Just because it is easy to duplicate doesn't take away from the fact that he did it, and he owns it. Waterfire is not like a riverwalk. it is a "thing" that people come to "see" and "experience," like art. If you don't think it is art, then think of it as music. You may not like it but it doesn't mean you can play the same thing and make $ off it.

Paris Hilton has "That's Hot" trademarked....

[Cotuit]

if Fox News can trademark "fair and balanced" then certainly "waterfire" can be trademarked by its creator.

I believe WaterFire is actually patented, not trademarked (though the name WaterFire I'm sure has been trademarked too). A patent is a trademark on an action, like a patent on a particular type of engine, WaterFire it would seem has patented the way that WaterFire is displayed. I'm sure someone could creatively read the patent and find a way to have a similar display that did not infringe upon the patent.

A trademark isn't as strong, for example, FOX has trademarked fair and balanced but only in particular usages related to how they use the term, i.e. other news networks can't use it, but I could name a book that had nothing to do with the way FOX uses the term, Fair and Balanced.

I'm not a legal scholar on these things, but I do wonder if they have even patented WaterFire. I know from working in the game industry that you cannot trademark or copyrigtht or patent a gameplay. For example, anyone can design and market a game that uses Monolopy's game play, they can't call it Monopoly though (that's trademarked by Hasbro) and they can't use the same art (also trademarked). Now if a game had a particular piece of equipment, something like Hungry Hungry Hippos, that machinery can be patented.

[Gusterfell]

...but I could name a book that had nothing to do with the way FOX uses the term, Fair and Balanced.

Indeed. Fox lost a suit against Al Franken several years ago when he subtitled his book "A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." Al even went so far as to place this text on his cover adjacent to a screenshot of Bill O'Reilly's Fox show, arguably linking his use of the term to Fox's.

[Recchia]

Now if a game had a particular piece of equipment, something like Hungry Hungry Hippos, that machinery can be patented.

I loved Hungry Hungry Hippo's!

[urbie]

if Fox News can trademark "fair and balanced" then certainly "waterfire" can be trademarked by its creator. Just because it is easy to duplicate doesn't take away from the fact that he did it, and he owns it. Waterfire is not like a riverwalk. it is a "thing" that people come to "see" and "experience," like art. If you don't think it is art, then think of it as music. You may not like it but it doesn't mean you can play the same thing and make $ off it.

Oh, not at all -- I did think it was cool, in a way, when we were in town last summer. I'm just not sure the intellectual-property protection would hold up in court, if someone went ahead and did a similar stacks-of-wood-on-barges display, made it somewhat different, and called it something else. Asking for permission and not receiving it is one thing -- but going ahead and doing it without permission, then having a court battle, would be the proof of the pudding. There's a whole industry of companies that produce something slightly different from a patented invention and make tons of money, leaving the hapless inventor flat broke...

Urb

[runawayjim]

patents can be revoked if you can successfully argue in court that the "thing" that was patented is "obvious". i'm not a lawyer, so i can't really explain better than that. lawyers also have different definitions of "obvious" than the normal person. patents also have a limited time period. i'm not sure what it is, but 20 years keeps popping into my head.

[Gusterfell]

...patents also have a limited time period. i'm not sure what it is, but 20 years keeps popping into my head.

That's generally right, according to US legal code.

[runawayjim]

so i did a search on the patent and trademark office's site and i couldn't find anything in the patents for barnaby evans or for waterfire. i did find 2 trademarks for the term waterfire. interestingly enough, you can trademark a design (it's called a service mark). it's so vague that anyone doing a waterfire-like event (not even remotely similar to what we do in providence, unless you do it without music, live or recorded, and without a civic art or sculpture festival) is infringing on barnaby's trademark. the wording is so vague as far as the water and fire is concerned, you can float a candle in a salad bowl filled with water and have a festival around that with music playing and that's a waterfire event.

fun fact... the first waterfire trademark happens to be dead... but surprisingly enough, it was also held by a RI entity, hasbro.

[runawayjim]

What do you mean no one had ever thought of it before? The Scandanavians have been doing things like this for over a millenium. Fire pots in water ways have been used in Bali and other resorts for years. Disney has been doing for over 20 years. Sorry, this isn't a new idea.

Trademarkable, yes, as in the name Waterfire. But as pointed out before, trademarks are pretty hard to enforce, and this is a performance. So you are going to start getting into all sorts of copyright and fair usage issues.

PErsonally, it's more a matter of lawyers games than anything. But as in any case, if you defend something to eagerly, it is bound to get shot down sonner or later.

i agree... i actually find it really arrogant that barnaby trademarked the whole event. i can understand trademarking the name to prevent others from using the name for a similar event. but trademarking the whole event is pretty bogus if you asked me. his lawyer must be one heck of a BS'er.

[Magellan98]

Nice article about Waterfire on CNN.com...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/DESTINATION...e.ap/index.html

[Cotuit]

WaterFire is a hot topic this week I guess:

Get out: Fire on the water [Boston.com]

[Jenkins]

Went to Waterfire Saturday night, brought my 12 year old niece from CT. Wow, was it crowded, more people than I have ever seen there. Part of it was due to the very annoying sidewalk closure in front of Waterplace park condo's, but even down at the other end it was mobbed. So much so that it really was more work than fun just navigating around and through the crowds Anyone know how long the sidewalk will be shutdown in front of WPP condo's?

[runawayjim]

Went to Waterfire Saturday night, brought my 12 year old niece from CT. Wow, was it crowded, more people than I have ever seen there. Part of it was due to the very annoying sidewalk closure in front of Waterplace park condo's, but even down at the other end it was mobbed. So much so that it really was more work than fun just navigating around and through the crowds Anyone know how long the sidewalk will be shutdown in front of WPP condo's?

i was there as well... i showed up late and it wasn't as crowded, but man, downtown was still hoppin'. i didn't get downtown until like 10:30 because i was coming home from CT. i was surprised to see it still crowded, even when we left fairly close to midnight. got my del's and a bag of kettle corn (which was really good).

i assume the sidewalk in front of the condos will be like that until they're done with the major construction. they're slated for occupancy in early 2007 (according to the development map on UP), so i imagine that the sidewalk will be open for next year's waterfire, but remian closed for the duration of this season.

[Jenkins]

i was there as well... i showed up late and it wasn't as crowded, but man, downtown was still hoppin'. i didn't get downtown until like 10:30 because i was coming home from CT. i was surprised to see it still crowded, even when we left fairly close to midnight. got my del's and a bag of kettle corn (which was really good).

i assume the sidewalk in front of the condos will be like that until they're done with the major construction. they're slated for occupancy in early 2007 (according to the development map on UP), so i imagine that the sidewalk will be open for next year's waterfire, but remian closed for the duration of this season.

thanks for the info. it is just going to be so very weird when the WP condo's are finished. I can't even imagine what Waterfire night will feel like with those two towers looming over things.

i was there as well... i showed up late and it wasn't as crowded, but man, downtown was still hoppin'. i didn't get downtown until like 10:30 because i was coming home from CT. i was surprised to see it still crowded, even when we left fairly close to midnight. got my del's and a bag of kettle corn (which was really good).

Scrolling up this page and seeing the Boston.com feature on WF this week it dawned on me that maybe that had something to do with the increase of foot traffic?

[Cotuit]

Did anyone notice One Financial Plaza's lights were on late? At least 11:30pm last I looked.