Watertown’s feckless Republican Senator Neal Tapio is still too busy playing prairie Trump to come up with any bills of his own this Session. But he is co-sponsoring a measure that would outlaw a lovely painting celebrating South Dakota’s heritage at Watertown High School:
This large painting, created by F (or is that a J?) Bruhn in 1989, appears to celebrate South Dakota’s centennial by recreating the South Dakota State Seal. While Bruhn worked a remarkable amount of detail into this painting, the painting runs afoul of House Bill 1102, a measure that bans “Any replica, facsimile, or reproduction of the state seal” that fails to represent “the full and complete seal….” Bruhn’s painting does satisfy the most pressing criterion that Tapio, Watertown Reps. Hugh Bartels and Nancy York, and 95 other sponsors of HB 1102 would write into law, that the representation include the state’s church-state-mingling motto, “Under God the People Rule,” but it surely insults Tapio’s sensibilities and deviates from existing seal statute by placing that motto at the bottom, below the horsies.
If I put on my Tapio hat (listen to the tinfoil crinkle snugly around my ears), I can easily conclude Bruhn was an early infiltrator waging war on the Christian fabric of America by denigrating the Christian God of our motto with the Middle Eastern insult of trampling our motto beneath the farmer’s and horsies’ feet.
The horsies are brown, and the farmer has a black hat and black boots, per statute. But HB 1102’s “full and complete” phrase would also require a red shirt on the farmer.
The painting completely omits the “herd of rust-colored cattle” who “graze in front of a field of yellow-brown corn.”
Neither the smelting furnace nor the steamboat emit the grey smoke that statute demands spiral upward into our “sky-blue and cloudless sky.”
Obviously HB 1102 cannot demand the ex post facto arrest of Bruhn. But the vague language of HB 1102 seems to say the mere existence of this incomplete representation of the state seal would violate the new law. Upon investigating this incomplete representation, the Secretary of State would have to issue a cease-and-desist letter—in this case, we must assume, to the Watertown School Board, which sanctions this grievous display of disrespect to our sacred seal.
I hear through the Legislative grapevine that prime sponsor Rep. Sue Peterson (R-13/Sioux Falls) is working on an amendment to protect artistic or satirical renditions of the seal. We can only hope that she manages to craft clearer, more constitutional language than she did on her first try. But Watertown constituents may wish to quiz Senator Tapio and Reps. Bartels and York at the next crackerbarrel (next Saturday, January 27, Lake Area, 9 a.m.) as to why they signed onto legislation that would have made this nice bit of Watertown High School art and history illegal.
It’s comforting knowing that some morons sent to Pierre have nothing more to do than offend the First Amendment. And for this, they think they deserve a pay raise?
The few legitimate legislative public servants ought to clean house by running these fools out of town or shove them in a fourth floor closet.
Koch bros probably want the motto changed to recognize their influence over wingnut lege.
Florence Bruhn was a Watertown artist who also has a street bearing her name. She is a treasure and true patriot.
She made the world a better place.
Apparently, “Under the Seal, Doritos Rule.”
Maybe like this….
https://www.facebook.com/bob.newland?hc_ref=ARQxuezS1RDIyOMHNrVGGHIOw49aD4TwqwqPpzWcp4VtigGYPVcPBsbBQNSSofgx_IY&fref=nf
Under big government the people drool.
Cory, you are just too funny! I know it’s a cliche but you just can’t make this stuff up!! This is a lovely painting by Bruhn and it’s a better one than the smog filled existing one. This is just utter craziness and embarrassing that South Dakotans have to put up with this foolishness every year in the Legislature.
Check out Newland’s version of the Great Seal.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154929778391230&set=a.430718001229.232494.729066229&type=3&theater¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic¬if_id=1516473554554072
The signature initial is an F, for the late Florence Bruhn, a brilliant lady, who almost single handedly led the arts program in Watertown schools for half of the twentieth century.
Her legacy has already been insulted, and assaulted by erasing her imprint on the Watertown homecoming legend by politically correct idiots.
If Tapio and his pinhead populists make any attempt to remove or alter this piece of art, I will make every effort to travel back to my Alma Mater, and physically restrain them, if necessary, from doing so.
I do not understand what has happened to my home state and town since I left, but Tapio and Noem, and the rest, make me ashamed to admit my heritage there.
Lovely, Bob. I’ll see you in the re-education camps.
Florence Braun! I wondered if there was a connection—turns out the author of the old homecoming myth also painted this HB-1102-violating image!
Looking at the bill it’s just an amendment that adds the description of the state seal and sets into place actions the Secretary of State is to take if there is a violation. Basically, it’s completing and defining further what the state seal is and how it is protected. House Keeping!!
Actually, Patricia, HB 1102 doesn’t add a description: the complete description already exists in SDCL 1-6-2. The actions prescribed ban the painting in Watertown HS and prohibit anyone from creating a similar incomplete facsimile of that symbol.
HB 1102 is akin to outlawing all of the palette flags I see in folks’ yards. People paint palettes red, white, and blue all the time, but they leave off some of the 13 stripes and 50 stars due to space or stylistic concerns. Shall we make it illegal to create anything resembling a U.S. flag that leaves off any design element, for whatever reason? Shall we actually fine people and put them in jail for creating such incomplete representations?
Cory, as for the flag pallets, that is ify. U.S. Code 36 sets into place certain rules as to how the U.S. flag is to be respected. Section (I) states; the flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on any articles such as cushions or handkerchief’s and the like, printed on paper napkins or boxes or anything designed for temporary use and discard. However, there are no penalties for misuse only desecration, and we have all seen flag napkins and paper plates. In fact, you can find flag pretty much everything these days. Its a matter of respect, which obviously is missing in our society and without penalties what can we do? (j) says in part that; the flag represents a living country and itself considered a living thing.
Should the South Dakota flag and state seal be granted any less respect?
As for the Watertown High School painting, I suggest that it is protected since it is a commemorative representation of the state seal. South Dakota became a state in 1889 and this painting was done in 1989.
According to the Secretary of States page, it says that the state seal is not public domain. Permission must be granted by the Secretary of State, the Custodian of the Seal, for its use. This was enacted by the legislature to protect the image of the state seal and to ensure its tasteful and respectful display.
Do we know if Florence Bruhn sought permission? No. And we probably won’t ever know that. It is tastefully and respectfully displayed.
It wasn’t until 1986, then Governor Bill Janklow commissioned to have an official state seal painted. So again, I suggest that the Watertown High School painting is protected. We do not know how long it took to have a completed representation of our state seal.
I support HB 1102, and consider it to be completing existing law, setting into place protective measures from this day forward.
But as we know, Patricia, the Flag Code is “guidance, not mandates.” The Flag Code includes no criminal penalties for First Amendment activities. HB 1102 includes criminal penalties for First Amendment activities and will not survive judicial scrutiny in its current form.
Is hanging a painting over vending machines really a tasteful and respectful display?
I understand the the painter, were she still alive, could not be prosecuted ex post facto. However, I don’t see the exception HB 1102 offers for the continued existence of incomplete representations. The fact that the Watertown painting is “commemorative” does not excuse it from being “full and complete.” HB 1102 does not grant the Secretary any leeway to offer grace for old incomplete representations.
“Public domain”—can the state constitution and state law create documents and artworks that are not public domain?
As for the U.S. flag…you just repeated what I said. The painting at H20-Town, is tasteful & respectful, it was done without any misrepresentations or additions, but in a fashion of what was available as the state seal at the time. The existing State seal was commissioned by Governor Janklow, and enacted into law as the official seal. The location of the painting may not be considered tasteful, but the art in itself is.
Judicially, prior to any use of the state seal, one must seek permission from the Secretary of State. Even State Legislators know this and do so before ordering stationary, business cards, etc. The penalty is a class I misdemeanor, which is one year or less. If someone doesn’t want the penalty, simply pick up the phone and call the Secretary of State.
My interpretation of “public domain” is that there is a patent, its copyrighted or it is intellectual property of the state, is protected from ‘common usage’ and subject to ‘fair use’ rights.
To answer your question; ” can the state constitution and state law create documents and artworks that are not public domain?” The state constitution and state law do not “create” the State Legislators are the “creators” of law and provisions of the State Constitution. The State Legislators have the power to enact law, which include protections and penalties.
The government has intellectual property? Are we not the state? Can the state copyright its flag and charge for its use? Could it charge a fee to use the motto?
The state of South Dakota does have intellectual property, property that holds a trademark or a copy right. For example; License plates.
Of course we are state, we are people united together, under a formed government, with departments, agencies, executive, legislative and judicial powers.
Can a state copyright its flag?? Thought this was about the State seal? I am not aware of any state that holds a copyright on its flag, however; I believe California did copyright the bear on it’s flag.
State law prevents anyone from charging a fee for use of the state seal. ( see below)
1-6-3.2. Sale of seal facsimile, commemorative medallion design or bullion piece design without authorization prohibited–Violation as misdemeanor. No person may sell or offer for sale a replica or facsimile of the official seal of the State of South Dakota, adopted and described in §§ 1-6-1 and 1-6-2, or the state commemorative medallion design or the state bullion piece design adopted by the commissioner of administration without the specific authorization from the commissioner of the Bureau of Administration. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Yes, Patricia, HB 1102 addresses the seal, not the flag (although our flag includes our seal, meaning the bill would apply to flags), but you know me: I analyze and learn by analogy. Flags and seals are both symbols, visual representations of the state. Can the government really copyright a symbol that represents and belongs to all of the people?
The existence of statute that prohibits commercializing the state seal actually supports my notion that the copyright belongs to all of us. That statute exists to prevent one party from enriching himself on something that belongs to everyone, as surely as we prohibit one person from draining Lake Herman and selling the water or breaking chips out of the Capitol and selling them out of souvenirs.
But consider Florence Bruhn’s painting. She wasn’t trying to make a buck (I assume she donated the painting and did not profit financially). She just wanted to make something that looked like a state seal. She didn’t break existing law, but she violated the rule that HB 1102 would create by making an incomplete facsimile of the seal. Why make the Watertown painting illegal?
I find these seal fetishists funny with all their puffery about “intellectual property.” Haven’t they heard of collage, cubism, or found object art? Been to an art show in the last 125 years? What about Andy Warhol’s Campbell’s soup cans and other statements about commercialization and packaging? The case against Larry Flynt settled the whole issue of parody. What if I paint my wall white, and claim that someone else stole my intellectual property by painting their wall white? I hope Shiery’s walls ain’t any color known before. Is Mount Rushmore “intellectual property?” That gets ripped off all the time on commercials, political cartoons, political ads. And Led Zep didn’t steal “Stairway to Heaven,” even though some of the guitar riffs seemed quite similar to another band’s work. Get off the idea that this anti-American bill involves intellectual property protection. It doesn’t.
People who waste time introducing bills like this need 12 whacks with a piece of oak door trim on the buttocks in front of a joint session of the legislatures before the bill can be heard. New measure for those of you inclined to initiate things. Do that. I bet it passes the people’s muster.
Copyrighted material; painting, sculptures and works of arts, etc. can receive varying degrees of protection. The scope of protection is generally limited to the original work and prevents from making exact replicas. For example; if I painted a picture of the sun and clouds and got a copyright, anyone else could paint a similar picture of the same scene but can not make a replica. Also, copyrighted material can not be made, used, distributed or sold without express consent.
Nobody really cares about duplicating the state seal. Only the overgodders who want to jam the motto down our maws. And make no mistake, Ms. Peterson is an overgodder.
I understand copyright, and it makes some sense in the private sector. I’m asking why the state gets to copyright the symbols of the state and charge control how citizens use those symbols.
Maybe the questions should be addressed to the original author of the bill. I’m rather curious as to what prompted this bill in the first place.
This conversation has been enjoyable for me, but I am always interested most in what led to legislation being created. Originally I supported this piece of legislation, but after this conversation I find I have more questions than answers and a curiosity as to why it was introduced to the legislature.
Outside of Watertown High School, which I will repeat is a commemorative painting, are there any other paintings of the state seal? Is this a “problem” that needs to be addressed? Has Watertown High School been contacted to inquire about the painting? Or…….I’m slipping off the edge of reason……is there a personal vendetta against Watertown High School and a coach/legislator misusing their powers?
You’re heading the right direction, Patricia. This issue doesn’t require a new law. HB 1102 creates more problems than it solves.
It’s pretty clear what led to the creation of HB 1102: legislators were grouchy that the women’s prison didn’t stitch “GOD” onto their special embroidered legislator shirts. Their faith will wither if the state doesn’t reinforce their Christian hosannas, so they decided there ought to be a law. And a bunch of legislators said, “Oh my goodness! We can’t have people thinking we voted against God!” and rushed to sign on as sponsors. This is self-serving campaign theater, not conscientious lawmaking.
I can’t believe I missed this post about Watertown.
Thanks for the link, Cory.
This is very funny from the little brother of one of my best friends in Watertown.
“Florence Bruhn’s legacy has already been insulted and assaulted by erasing her imprint on the Watertown homecoming legend by politically correct idiots. If Tapio and his pinhead populists make any attempt to remove or alter this piece of art, I will make every effort to travel back to my Alma Mater, and physically restrain them, if necessary, from doing so.”
:) I’m proud to have been involved mightily in removing the racist homecoming legend “KI-YI” from Watertown high school traditions.
Try and physically assault me, little Stevie and you’ll learn about adulthood from this politically correct idiot, quickly.
As I told the WHS school board, when they were considering this move.
“You can do the right thing, now or you can wait until national attention comes down on you like a lightning bolt. Do it with grace or some of you will lose their positions of influence and suffer severe public disgrace.”
Thanks again, Cory. My Lenten escape from social media, political blogs, and gambling begins Wednesday. Talk to y’all sometime next summer.