I was struck by two impressions when I stopped by Island Treasures Art Gallery in Kailua for a first-hand look at the stained glass of a hula dancer that's at the center of a legal dispute between the gallery and photographer Kim Taylor Reece.

The first was that the glass portrait, "Nohe," by Hawaiian artist Marylee Leialoha Colucci, is an appealing work of art that deserves to be seen.

The second was that there is no legitimate legal case here that belongs in federal court. While Colucci's dancer is in the same common hula pose and in a similar traditional costume as the dancer in Reece's earlier photograph, "Makanani," there are more differences than similarities.

Reece's excellent black-and-white photo details the beauty of the dancer and her moves with minimal background. Colucci's colorful and highly textured stained glass is about context— placing a less-detailed dancer and the hula itself in their Hawaiian environment of sand, sea and mountain.

As one who deals in intellectual property — though I use the term loosely in the case of my work — I can understand Reece's sensitivity.

But it's difficult to envision him prevailing at trial given the centuries-old artistic tradition of different artists often working in different media rendering different interpretations of similar objects. Does a painter who does a still-life of an apple own the rights to the apple?

U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright said as much last month when he denied Reece's request for an injunction to bar the gallery from displaying Colucci's work, ruling that Reece "has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or the possibility of irreparable harm."

Reece didn't take the hint, however, and seems intent on going forward with his lawsuit.

The case is drawing interest because it has cultural implications that go far beyond mundane issues of trademarks and copyright infringements. Reece insists he's not trying to copyright the hula, but that's not how others are seeing it.

Most Native Hawaiians and many non-Hawaiians feel it is simply wrong for a non-Hawaiian who trades on the Hawaiian culture to claim ownership rights that restrict Native Hawaiians from interpreting their own culture.

University of Hawai'i researchers found out how dicey these cultural sensibilities can be when they had to back down from efforts to obtain a patent on taro.

At least the UH scientists were seeking ownership on new strains of taro they had developed themselves; Reece's photo, while a beautiful image, didn't really bring anything new to the hula.

There doesn't seem to be any win for Reece in a case that is only serving to antagonize generous people whose culture he borrowed to express his art.

It wouldn't take much reciprocal generosity for him to recognize that Colucci's hula dancer is a distinct work of art in its own right and worthy of display.

I know a little about stained glass from the interest of a family member and I appreciated how she got a lot out of a limited medium with clean and well-planned solder lines, as well as careful choices of colors and textures in the glass she used to represent the sand, ocean and mountain.

As I admired Colucci's stained glass, I thought of a local school's Christmas program I attended last month in which the teachers and staff delighted the audience by ending the show with a kneeling hula they'd practiced.

They must have hit a pose similar to the 'ike motion depicted by Reece and Colucci at least a half-dozen times, and I wondered if the parents and students snapping pictures with their digital cameras needed copyright releases from Kim Taylor Reece.

David Shapiro, a veteran Hawai'i journalist, can be reached by e-mail at dave@volcanicash.net. Read his daily blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com.