Old eyes and shakey hands needs some advice

[David Rice]

I am in my 70's. I have a very rare disease/condition called Stiff Person Syndrome. I have been fighting the disease for over 25 years.  I am currently trying to finish my 1:64 scale USS Syren Brig.  Over the years my vision has gotten poorer, and my dexterity isn't what it used to be. I am really struggling trying to finish the Syren. Rigging guns, sails, and small detail work. I do not want to stop modeling. I need help and want suggestions for choosing my next model based upon my physical limitations, which will continue to deteriorate over time. Which scale?  Type of ship? Stay with wood?  Move to plastic?

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  One idea:  Pyro (also sold under the Lindbergh brand) made a 1:163 plastic model of the steamboat Robert E. Lee.  Since the original was close to 300' (high 200's, but I don't have it memorized), what might seem a 'small scale' has about a 21" hull - nice sized for a model.  There is a detailed build (with some 'busts') of this kit on MSW for you to review, and also a laser-cut main deck available from HIS models (a Czech company I've used a couple of times).  Additionally, there is a 1970s Scientific model in wood at the same scale (I have both kits in my stash) with printed decks (saves the trouble of planking) included, plus a mahogany finished base for the project.  There is a contemporary kit that's around 1:130 - much bigger and costs more.  There's a build log of that on MSW).  

 

  This subject vessel (some old images are viewable on the internet) has some nice details, but there are no guns (and all the fuss that goes along with them), no masts & spars (and all that associated rigging, deadeyes, chainplate, etc.) and no copper plating.   Just some guy wires and some minimal rigging for the gangway and life boat.   Neither of the 1:163 kits has to have the hull planked.

 

  I have seen both these kits from time to time on Ebay (sometimes in multiples from U.S. sellers), mostly with a 'buy now' option that I'd recommend.  You can check out as a 'guest', so you don't need an account or need for international mail.  Why did I get BOTH ?  Some of the details in the Scientific kit (which is a good kit BTW) have to be semi-scratch built from wood stock provided, and other details are out of treated card stock of some kind.  The plastic kit has nice molded components that can simply be incorporated in the the Scientific build; like the boiler and piping amidships, the fully rotating paddle wheels (much superior to the static, partial segments Scientific has), the fancy tops that can be put on the wooden stacks and other details.  Everything gets painted, except the main deck.  Yet most of the Scientific kit have the heft and appeal of wood, which I find pleasing.

 

  You only live once, and your modeling skills may decline sooner - so spend a little (and these are not expensive kits) and build on your own schedule.  My manual dexterity is still at about 80 -90%, but i  found that my memory was the second thing to go.  What was the first? ... I don't remember.

[Jaager]

You could consider building small vessels at a larger scale.  I am thinking boats.

Tell a story about their evolution - which will work better if all are the same scale.

Mystic and its fellows have a multitude of mostly ignored small craft plans to choose from.

 

I was recently bitten by a bug to explore the various classes of 18thC RN Establishments  liners.

The NA is my focus so the guns would just be a time consuming distraction.  So I will omit them.

 

If you tackle a multi masted subject, go for stub masts

[druxey]

I symapthize with your limitations. Certainly a larger scale and perhaps models that either do not require rigging or leaving a model unrigged will help. Good lighting is crucial as well.

Best wishes as you find your way forward.

[Bob Cleek]

Double ditto to Jaager's recommendation. There are a wealth of small craft designs available. Many plans are available in book form, such as Howard I. Chapelle's American Sailing Craft and Small American Sailing Craft and Basil Greenhill and Julian Mannering's Inshore Craft: Traditional Working Vessels of the British Isles. These small vessels are generally in the under-50' range, some even in the 10' or 15' range. They can be built to larger scales, 1/2" or even 1" to the foot are not uncommon for small craft models. They do not have a lot of complex small-scale rigging details. As they tend to be somewhat primitive types, their fittings and rigging blocks are easily fabricated. Assuming you get yourself one of Jim Byrnes' mini table saws, a Syren Ship Models "Rope Rocket," and perhaps a scroll saw, you'd be set up for the rest of your days to mill your own modeling wood from that really great Alaska Yellow Cedar you've got growing up there, spin your own scale rigging line, and be entirely free to build anything you wanted at virtually no cost.

 

Working in larger scales can be very satisfying. Smaller boats have fewer and less complex details and when modeled at larger scales little detail need be sacrificed as is otherwise the case with larger vessels at smaller scales. Another advantage of small craft modeling is that the models are generally smaller and easier to display, and you can build more of them in a shorter period of time, which avoids the inevitable boredom in the middle of a large model project that may take years to complete with a lot of repetitive tasks along the way. 

 

With no malice intended to plastic ship modelers (of which in my misspent youth I was one,) assembling plastic sailing ship models can be every bit as tedious as building wooden models (and yield a finished model of far less archival value.) There is relatively little difference in difficulty between rigging a plastic square-rigger and a wooden one. It would not appear that you would be gaining much in terms of compensating for your physical challenges by building in plastic rather than wood. I do admire your dedication in staying at modeling despite the "ravages of age." You certainly are among good company in this forum! I'm guessing a large majority of this forum's members have reached retirement age and by the time we get there, most have "old war wounds" with which to contend. My particular modeling challenge is the loss of feeling in a number of my fingertips due to peripheral neuropathy. Others, I believe, are wheelchair users and, of course, most of us have progressive deteriorating close-up visual acuity. Nevertheless, "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers," soldier on.

 

Additionally, small craft models are sadly overlooked by many. While I risk stepping on a toe or two here, I will say that in my opinion there is much  well-deserved accomplishment to be had by any ship modeler in doing a good job assembling yet another Victory or Constitution kit, but, at the end of the day, beyond that the result of all that work is no more than addition of another kit model added to the hundreds, if not thousands of models of these same ships built before. On the other hand, scratch building small craft offers the opportunity to create a unique model of a vessel which will have been rarely, if ever, modeled by anyone before and, if well researched and documented, it can be appreciated not only as a satisfying accomplishment of the modeler's skill, but also as a valuable addition to the historical record. 

 

Up in your neck of the woods, the Pacific Northwest canoes of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian tribes raised dugout canoe building to perhaps its highest level of development. They carved thin-hulled canoes out of cedar and Douglas fir logs and then filled them with water and hot rocks to steam the wood which was then spread to increase the beam and thereby yield a graceful and seaworthy hull. These canoes were then colorfully painted in shamanistic themes. The construction method of these canoes perhaps explains the fact that they don't seem to be frequently modeled. That said, a clever modeler could perhaps take on the challenge and, if successful, really produce a fascinating and academically valuable set of models of these indigenous watercrafts.

 

 

 

BELOW: NOOTKA CARVED CEDAR DUGOUT CANOE MODEL Late 19th/Early 20th Century
Bow and stern with vertical incised carving. Length 30".

Auction catalog estimate $400 - $500.

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Bob Cleek

[Roger Pellett]

Bob,  Welcome to the club.  I have peripheral neuropathy in both my hands and feet.  I have had it for some degree for almost 20 years.  Oddly enough, I believe that ship modeling is actually helpful.  My brain seems to keep rewiring itself as I use my hands going forward.

 

David,  I agree that building larger scale small craft might be a good choice for you.  Chapelle’ History of American small craft provides a wealth of ideas.  I have long been interested in building a series of related small craft to a standard scale of 1:32.  I chose Warship Boats.  I have finished three examples: a 1900 40ft Standard Steam Cutter, a 26 ft motor whaleboat, and a 32ft Early Eighteenth Royal Navy Longboat.  

 

A caveat;  Small Craft have thin planking and very small scantlings.  This sort of defeats the idea.  My three models are not POF they have hulls carved on the outside and hollowed out on the inside with frames added. IMHO they are still quite convincing. So, I second Bob’s idea of building “dugouts.”  The NOOTA with its bold colors is a great idea.  Or, if you want to build a model with some rigging how about a Chesapeake Log Canoe?

 

Roger

 

[Cathead]

I completely agree about the potential value of building smaller craft in larger scales. Another thought occurred to me while reading the responses here: maybe consider altering the purpose of your modeling and trying models that are simpler and more artistic, more representative than to-scale? For example, I could imagine a really neat-looking modern towboat and barge set built from basic lumber that would simplify details but capture the essence of the vessels, especially if the finish and presentation are well thought out. Or maybe a cargo ship with relatively simple lines? Think of it as 3D art rather than literal scale modeling.

 

And something like that could still have value beyond your own collection; if it's a design relevant to your region, then a local library, small museum, or historical society might still value a model that would engage the average visitor. Even a simplistic model helps people understand the three-dimensional nature of a vessel, better than a photo or drawing.

 

For example, here's a pretty simple model of the Missouri River steamboat Bertrand, proudly on display at the museum displaying her artifacts just north of Omaha, Nebraska (all photos mine). Something like this would be more manageable than a truly scale model, but still has a very real role to play in engaging visitors. 

Note that the museum prominently displays this alongside a much larger, more detailed, very much to scale model:

Both have a proud place in the museum's collection. If nothing else, the simpler one is probably more understandable and accessible to kids than the giant hyper-detailed one. I wonder if you'd consider something similar that would work for your current abilities yet be of real value to a local entity?

 

EDIT: Shortly after posting this, I ran across a perfect example of what I'm talking about: the current Australian Couta boat build by @Louie da fly. As the builder (Steven) wrote, "It was never intended to be a 100% accurate model, more just something simple that could be made easily to raise funds..." but it so far it seems to me to do a great job of capturing the essence of a specific design of regional historical importance while being a relatively straightforward design and project, compared to a truly scale model.

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Cathead

[Bob Cleek]

3 hours ago, Roger Pellett said:

Bob,  Welcome to the club.  I have peripheral neuropathy in both my hands and feet.  I have had it for some degree for almost 20 years.  Oddly enough, I believe that ship modeling is actually helpful.  My brain seems to keep rewiring itself as I use my hands going forward.

 

Same here. I think the fingers and toes, hands and feet, usually come as a package. Mine in my fingers doesn't bother me as much as it used to as well. I never figured out whether it was my  nerves finding other circuits to use or just my imagination! As we know, once the damage is done, it's irreversible. Mine was my own damn fault. I just ignored symptoms I should have recognized and done something about until I ended up on a gurney in the ER with a blood glucose level in excess of 500 that they picked up on a blood test taken for a long overdue routine physical. Dodged a diabetic coma in the nick of time. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt! Fortunately, there was no other permanent damage! A word to the wise: We're all supermen until we're not!

[Roger Pellett]

Mine is apparently a result of MGUS, an acronym fo Monoclonal Gammopothy of Undetermined Significance .  I have no idea what this means and apparently many Doctors don’t either.  It is supposedly an extra protein in my blood.  It’s presence can signal an enhanced chance of getting some really ugly blood diseases but it has been 19 years since they found it so we just continue to watch.  I do have a pair of carbon fiber devices that fit in my shoes and are strapped to the back of my legs to help with the Foot Drop that comes with the nephrology.  Unfortunately, as it has advanced it has ended sailing.

 

Roger

[David Rice]

18 hours ago, Bob Cleek said:

Double ditto to Jaager's recommendation. There are a wealth of small craft designs available. Many plans are available in book form, such as Howard I. Chapelle's American Sailing Craft and Small American Sailing Craft and Basil Greenhill and Julian Mannering's Inshore Craft: Traditional Working Vessels of the British Isles. These small vessels are generally in the under-50' range, some even in the 10' or 15' range. They can be built to larger scales, 1/2" or even 1" to the foot are not uncommon for small craft models. They do not have a lot of complex small-scale rigging details. As they tend to be somewhat primitive types, their fittings and rigging blocks are easily fabricated. Assuming you get yourself one of Jim Byrnes' mini table saws, a Syren Ship Models "Rope Rocket," and perhaps a scroll saw, you'd be set up for the rest of your days to mill your own modeling wood from that really great Alaska Yellow Cedar you've got growing up there, spin your own scale rigging line, and be entirely free to build anything you wanted at virtually no cost.

 

Working in larger scales can be very satisfying. Smaller boats have fewer and less complex details and when modeled at larger scales little detail need be sacrificed as is otherwise the case with larger vessels at smaller scales. Another advantage of small craft modeling is that the models are generally smaller and easier to display, and you can build more of them in a shorter period of time, which avoids the inevitable boredom in the middle of a large model project that may take years to complete with a lot of repetitive tasks along the way. 

 

With no malice intended to plastic ship modelers (of which in my misspent youth I was one,) assembling plastic sailing ship models can be every bit as tedious as building wooden models (and yield a finished model of far less archival value.) There is relatively little difference in difficulty between rigging a plastic square-rigger and a wooden one. It would not appear that you would be gaining much in terms of compensating for your physical challenges by building in plastic rather than wood. I do admire your dedication in staying at modeling despite the "ravages of age." You certainly are among good company in this forum! I'm guessing a large majority of this forum's members have reached retirement age and by the time we get there, most have "old war wounds" with which to contend. My particular modeling challenge is the loss of feeling in a number of my fingertips due to peripheral neuropathy. Others, I believe, are wheelchair users and, of course, most of us have progressive deteriorating close-up visual acuity. Nevertheless, "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers," soldier on.

 

Additionally, small craft models are sadly overlooked by many. While I risk stepping on a toe or two here, I will say that in my opinion there is much  well-deserved accomplishment to be had by any ship modeler in doing a good job assembling yet another Victory or Constitution kit, but, at the end of the day, beyond that the result of all that work is no more than addition of another kit model added to the hundreds, if not thousands of models of these same ships built before. On the other hand, scratch building small craft offers the opportunity to create a unique model of a vessel which will have been rarely, if ever, modeled by anyone before and, if well researched and documented, it can be appreciated not only as a satisfying accomplishment of the modeler's skill, but also as a valuable addition to the historical record. 

 

Up in your neck of the woods, the Pacific Northwest canoes of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian tribes raised dugout canoe building to perhaps its highest level of development. They carved thin-hulled canoes out of cedar and Douglas fir logs and then filled them with water and hot rocks to steam the wood which was then spread to increase the beam and thereby yield a graceful and seaworthy hull. These canoes were then colorfully painted in shamanistic themes. The construction method of these canoes perhaps explains the fact that they don't seem to be frequently modeled. That said, a clever modeler could perhaps take on the challenge and, if successful, really produce a fascinating and academically valuable set of models of these indigenous watercrafts.

 

 

 

BELOW: NOOTKA CARVED CEDAR DUGOUT CANOE MODEL Late 19th/Early 20th Century
Bow and stern with vertical incised carving. Length 30".

Auction catalog estimate $400 - $500.

 

It's against the law to use N.W. Native Art if you are not a Tribal Member. I am not a member. However,  I have Native/Children and grandchildren, but I am not allowed to "copy" or distribute any traditional Native Art.

Edited September 11, 2023 by David Rice

[Roger Pellett]

That’s really interesting!  How about a Chesapeake Bay log canoe.  I can send you some plans if you need them.

 

Roger

[David Rice]

My condition is very rare. Chronic. The singer Celine Dion has it.  It can sometimes flare up and be extremely  painful, and nothing taken seems to help. If you have ever been in so much pain that you almost pass out, vomit, or laying on the ground squirming, then you know what I am talking about.  I have already lived longer than most who have contracted the condition. No life isn't fair.

 

Lot's of good suggestions above.  I am considering another wood kit. Larger scale. But which one? 

[Cathead]

David, I was under the impression that such restrictions only applied to sales and implied provenance, as described on this Department of the Interior site:

 

Quote

The Indian Arts and Crafts Act (IACA) of 1990 (P.L. 101-644) is a truth-in-advertising law that prohibits misrepresentation in the marketing of Indian art and craft products within the United States.  It is illegal to offer or display for sale, or sell, any art or craft product in a manner that falsely suggests it is Indian produced, an Indian product, or the product of a particular Indian or Indian tribe or Indian arts and crafts organization, resident within the United States.  

 

The wording here seems to clearly refer to arts and crafts for sale that are representing themselves as Indian-made, rather than broader artistic themes that simply incorporate Indian imagery as a natural part of the art. For example, under your description, a historical painter couldn't include any imagery of Indian jewelry, basketry, or clothing if they are not themselves native; same for a museum diorama builder; and that hardly seems to be the legal situation. To me, it seems that a representative scale model of a vessel of native design is quite different from a model actually built or carved in a specific native style and being passed off as native-made. And even then it appears to be primarily a question of marketing, not production. When I was in college (post-1990, so post- Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990), I took a course in Navajo weaving as a balance to my heavier double-major coursework in science and foreign language. Navajo tribal rules at that time (as they were presented to us students) were that you couldn't teach their weaving unless you had been trained directly by a Navajo, but that there was nothing wrong with making your own Navajo-style weavings for your own use as long as you didn't try to sell them or otherwise pass them off as authentic. It seems to me that the same sensible approach would apply to model building. 

 

Can you provide further insights into your belief that native designs or imagery can't be legally used in any context at all?

 

[David Rice]

59 minutes ago, Cathead said:

David, I was under the impression that such restrictions only applied to sales and implied provenance, as described on this Department of the Interior site:

 

 

The wording here seems to clearly refer to arts and crafts for sale that are representing themselves as Indian-made, rather than broader artistic themes that simply incorporate Indian imagery as a natural part of the art. For example, under your description, a historical painter couldn't include any imagery of Indian jewelry, basketry, or clothing if they are not themselves native; same for a museum diorama builder; and that hardly seems to be the legal situation. To me, it seems that a representative scale model of a vessel of native design is quite different from a model actually built or carved in a specific native style and being passed off as native-made. And even then it appears to be primarily a question of marketing, not production. When I was in college (post-1990, so post- Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990), I took a course in Navajo weaving as a balance to my heavier double-major coursework in science and foreign language. Navajo tribal rules at that time (as they were presented to us students) were that you couldn't teach their weaving unless you had been trained directly by a Navajo, but that there was nothing wrong with making your own Navajo-style weavings for your own use as long as you didn't try to sell them or otherwise pass them off as authentic. It seems to me that the same sensible approach would apply to model building. 

 

Can you provide further insights into your belief that native designs or imagery can't be legally used in any context at all?

 

If a S.E. Alaska Native creates the art, they can then sell it to the public. However, most Tlingit and Haida Art is "patent" .  I could not re-produce that art for myself, display or for resale. I know. I got in trouble a number of years ago. I took a picture/video of a Native Canoe like the ones pictured above. It ended up in the public on television. I needed Tribal and Artist permission to do so. Which I did not have. It's complicated. It's best to stay away from such situations.

 

I am going to add something to help explain how complicated things are.  I live where there are hundreds of Bald Eagles. I can have 5-6 Bald Eagles sitting in a tree located in my small back yard at any one time. If a Eagle feather falls to the ground on my property I am not allowed to touch or pick it up. However, my granddaughter, who is whiter than most people, green eyed with blond hair, yet certified as 1/4 Alaska Native can pick up that feather, and bring it into my house. Then give it to our cat as a cat toy. Native American Law is very confusing.

Edited September 11, 2023 by David Rice
Added content.

[Jaager]

2 hours ago, David Rice said:

I am considering another wood kit. Larger scale. But which one?

Blue Jacket has a selection of small craft at a larger scale.

Model Expo has the Shipwright trio as well as several in Midwest line.

Wye River Models  has a series of Bay water craft - even if they are from Maryland.

 

It reads like IACA is one of those situations where the spirit of the law should be honored,  but an absolute adherence gets into a world of the absurd.  What you do in your home and keep to yourself is of no concern to anyone but yourself.  Just because the authors of the law were witless dullards ....  In any case,  if you make your grand daughter your co-author, your should be OK.

[Cathead]

David, with respect, I think you're overstating the situation. Tribal laws can certainly vary, and I don't know what Tlingit and Haida Nation policy is specifically, but there's no blanket national prohibition on photographing or otherwise reproducing native arts and crafts. For example, the Navajo Nation requires permits for commercial photography (anything that will be sold or otherwise distributed commercially) but welcomes personal photography as part of their essential tourism industry. Such photography should always be done respectfully, and ideally with personal permission, but there's no Federal law outright forbidding it. I'd guess that you got in trouble, not necessarily for taking the photo/video, but for letting it be placed on TV, because that became a commercial use situation.

 

As for the eagle feathers, that's not rooted in tribal law, but conservation law. Possession of any feathers from native North American birds is illegal, a rule rooted in conservation efforts to stop the harvest and trade in feathers that was decimating bird populations. There is an exception for Native Americans in cases where specific feathers (like those of the Bald Eagle) have cultural/spiritual value, but the basic law has nothing to do with tribal rights.

[David Rice]

15 minutes ago, Cathead said:

David, with respect, I think you're overstating the situation. Tribal laws can certainly vary, and I don't know what Tlingit and Haida Nation policy is specifically, but there's no blanket national prohibition on photographing or otherwise reproducing native arts and crafts. For example, the Navajo Nation requires permits for commercial photography (anything that will be sold or otherwise distributed commercially) but welcomes personal photography as part of their essential tourism industry. Such photography should always be done respectfully, and ideally with personal permission, but there's no Federal law outright forbidding it. I'd guess that you got in trouble, not necessarily for taking the photo/video, but for letting it be placed on TV, because that became a commercial use situation.

 

As for the eagle feathers, that's not rooted in tribal law, but conservation law. Possession of any feathers from native North American birds is illegal, a rule rooted in conservation efforts to stop the harvest and trade in feathers that was decimating bird populations. There is an exception for Native Americans in cases where specific feathers (like those of the Bald Eagle) have cultural/spiritual value, but the basic law has nothing to do with tribal rights.

Yes, 25-30 years ago I should have gotten Tribal Permission for a Tlingit Canoe video. I was unaware at the time. Even though I do not meet the Blood Quantum, I have always been accepted as part of the group. In the summer, I am darker in color than they are. Being mistaken many times for a Native American.  The "main conversation" is about the art work on the canoes and used other places. A non Tribal Member can not use the Tlingit/Haida art without permission. Not even on scale models. Most of it has been patent. As far as feather collection, I suggest that your argue (which is what you want to do) your position with a Tribal Attorney. This is not the place for such arguments. 

[Cathead]

David, it's not a question of wanting to argue, it's a question of making sure we provide accurate guidance to modelers. I think you're overstating the case by saying that no can can photograph or create artwork that includes any Native American imagery, and can muster more evidence for this, but will drop it, especially as it's off-topic for this discussion.

 

The last I'll say is that I'm very familiar with the legal situation regarding bird feathers as a long-time birder and conservationist. Here is a resource from the US Fish and Wildlife Service on feather possession law: https://www.fws.gov/lab/featheratlas/feathers-and-the-law.php#:~:text=The possession of feathers and,Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Again, the law was written (and is enforced) to protect bird populations. The tribal rights exemption is quite proper, but it's not inherently a question of tribal law. And it's not complicated: no ownership of bird feathers unless you qualify as Native American (if you don't know, you don't qualify) or unless you're a hunter in possession of a legal game species (like a duck).

 

[David Rice]

I would like to thank everyone who gave me constructive advice and provided alternatives based upon the subject of the thread. Others...........no comment.

[Bob Cleek]

6 hours ago, Roger Pellett said:

Mine is apparently a result of MGUS, an acronym fo Monoclonal Gammopothy of Undetermined Significance .  I have no idea what this means and apparently many Doctors don’t either.  It is supposedly an extra protein in my blood.  It’s presence can signal an enhanced chance of getting some really ugly blood diseases but it has been 19 years since they found it so we just continue to watch.  I do have a pair of carbon fiber devices that fit in my shoes and are strapped to the back of my legs to help with the Foot Drop that comes with the nephrology.  Unfortunately, as it has advanced it has ended sailing.

 

Roger

I suspect "MGUS" is a sub-diagnosis for the wider, but less frequently publicized, diagnosis, "HIIK," which stands for "Hell if I know." There's a lot of that going around. I fortunately do not have any significant "foot drop" (knock on wood,) but I did develop a pronounced "shuffle," mainly because my numb feet impaired my balance, a function I never realized they performed until the didn't.  My "foredeck ape" days are over also, but I long ago became unable to afford to keep up with the old yachtsman's rule of thumb that your boat should be as long in feet as your age in years anyway.

[Bob Cleek]

In an attempt to drop an anchor to prevent further "thread drift," I suggest those interested in the impact of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 has on ship modeling read the applicable statutes and draw their own conclusions:

 

18 U.S. Code § 1159. Misrepresentation of Indian produced goods and products

(a) It is unlawful to offer or display for sale or sell any good, with or without a Government trademark, in a manner that falsely suggests it is Indian produced, an Indian product, or the product of a particular Indian or Indian tribe or Indian arts and crafts organization, resident within the United States. (Bold emphasis added.)

 

The essential element of this prohibited act is offering or displaying anything for sale in any way that falsely suggests it was made by an Indian.

 

The Indian Arts and Crafts Board enforces the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 that prohibits false advertising in the marketing of Indian arts or crafts. The Board also provides certified Indian-owned business listings, provides federally recognized tribes with business assistance, and operates several Indian Arts and Crafts museums. See: https://www.doi.gov/iacb/  The particular applications of the IACA are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations,Title 25, Chapter II, Part 309 (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-25/chapter-II/part-309) :

 

§ 309.1 How do the regulations in this part carry out the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990?

These regulations define the nature and Indian origin of products protected by the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C. 1159, 25 U.S.C. 305 et seq.) from false representations, and specify how the Indian Arts and Crafts Board will interpret certain conduct for enforcement purposes. The Act makes it unlawful to offer or display for sale or sell any good in a manner that falsely suggests it is Indian produced, an Indian product, or the product of a particular Indian, or Indian tribe, or Indian arts and crafts organization resident within the United States.

 

§ 309.9 When can non-Indians make and sell products in the style of Indian arts and crafts?

A non-Indian can make and sell products in the style of Indian art or craft products only if the non-Indian or other seller does not falsely suggest to consumers that the products have been made by an Indian.

[68 FR 35170, June 12, 2003] 

 

The IACA only addresses false advertising. It was enacted in large measure to prevent the practice of selling Asian knock-offs of Indian arts and crafts as real Indian handicrafts.

 

The IACA doesn't address nor attempt to enforce claimed rights to designs, patents, and trademarks which is the province of intellectual property law. For example, the Navajo Nation trademarked traditional Navajo weaving patterns and designs, as well as the brand "Navajo," as early as 1943. The Navajos' rights to those designs, patents, and trademarks properly registered under applicable laws are clear and enforceable. However, Indian intellectual property rights beyond formal patents, trademarks, and copyrights become much less clear. Questions arise as to the ownership of cultural rights claimed by an entire group of Indians. There are also religious rights protected by law which inure to various Indian tribes. Questions arise such as whether a non-Indian person can build an "Indian sweat lodge" for commercial purposes because it is an activity reserved to certain tribal spiritual traditions, or copy a sacred symbol, and so on.

 

Therefore, if one were to undertake to build a model of an Indian canoe with painted Indian symbols on it, and not display or offer it for sale misrepresenting that it was an Indian art or craft item, it doesn't appear they would be violating the IACA, but they could nevertheless be violating an  Indian intellectual property right in the reproduction of copyrighted Indian symbols on the canoe, no differently than they arguably would be violating Coca-Cola's trademark rights if they painted a Coca-Cola logo on the side of the model, or they might be violating an Indian cultural or religious practice right if the symbols were sacred to the involved Indian tribe. (The Urban Outfitters clothing company recently got themselves entangled in an expensive lawsuit when they made and sold underwear in Navajo weaving pattern prints. The Navajo were offended by the prospect of "skid marks" on their traditional patterns.) Similarly, all else being permissible, even the use of the name of a tribe to describe the type of canoe, e.g., "Tlinglit canoe" or "Haida canoe," could run afoul of the IACA without a prominent disclaimer that it was not made by an Indian (e.g., "Tlinglit type canoe" or "Haida style canoe" and labeled "Not Indian Made.") or violate a copyright if the tribe has registered its name as the Navajos did eighty years ago. However, I would imagine that if one politely contacted the applicable tribal council and respectfully requested written permission to reproduce a tribal design or symbol on a model canoe that was not being made for commercial purposes, they would probably get a welcome reception. That would be, after all, the polite thing to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Bob Cleek