Visual Art Copyright
Derek offers a fine topic for discussion on the subject of copyright for the visual arts.
Two Canadian organizations (SODRAC and CARCC) have formed to press 'pay per use' fees for artwork representations. Artists who become members of either organization presumably pay fees or a percentage of licensing revenue in exchange for the invoicing activities.
Derek reports...
I think there's room for legislation here if none exists to cover this area. Part of the artist's gripe is they don't see any money from the secondary market place. Here's a for-profit example: art auction houses publish catalogues to promote the sale of an artist's without paying the artist for the right to publish. I wonder how many artists reserve the coyright of derivitive art images during its initial sale?
My own Gallery Crawl and Art Slob internet sites serve as non-profit examples:
Gallery Crawl is an art community photojournalism service. I photograph the art gallery openings in order to draw art collectors to the art shows and increase sales. So, Gallery Crawl is, in essence, a Primary Art Market catalogue for which the artist and art dealer may profit. Where possible, I get verbal agreement to photograph the art reception from the artist or gallery representative acting on behalf of the artist. It costs me money to operate this community service.
Art Slob is much less ethical and perhaps illegal. I use photographs for which I have no copyright in this blog in order to provide illustration for my musings. Rarely do I attribute the artist. Mostly, it's because it would take up too much of my time to investigate it. Very rarely do I seek out permission. Even if the artist's name is available, I'm just plain too lazy to type it in. My vows to change this practice have failed so far. For some reason, my logic is that internet images exist in a 'commons' for public use. Once, a german photographer e-mailed me (in German) complaining about something and so I simply deleted the post. If someone takes the trouble to contact me, I'll take the image down - no problem. I just find the lack of images in blog posts to be generally boring, too wordy.
Any thoughts?
Two Canadian organizations (SODRAC and CARCC) have formed to press 'pay per use' fees for artwork representations. Artists who become members of either organization presumably pay fees or a percentage of licensing revenue in exchange for the invoicing activities.
Derek reports...
According to the radio, it appears that these groups are asserting rights to works of art that are not currently in Canadian law but are laws in other parts of the world. Therefore, they seem to be attempting to get monetary gain from something that they have no current law to back up, but are relying on the ignorance of people who just assume what they are saying is, in fact, the truth, and will pay up.That's a better summary than I could do. This is a very interesting topic. I'd be interested to hear people's opinion on this.
I think there's room for legislation here if none exists to cover this area. Part of the artist's gripe is they don't see any money from the secondary market place. Here's a for-profit example: art auction houses publish catalogues to promote the sale of an artist's without paying the artist for the right to publish. I wonder how many artists reserve the coyright of derivitive art images during its initial sale?
My own Gallery Crawl and Art Slob internet sites serve as non-profit examples:
Gallery Crawl is an art community photojournalism service. I photograph the art gallery openings in order to draw art collectors to the art shows and increase sales. So, Gallery Crawl is, in essence, a Primary Art Market catalogue for which the artist and art dealer may profit. Where possible, I get verbal agreement to photograph the art reception from the artist or gallery representative acting on behalf of the artist. It costs me money to operate this community service.
Art Slob is much less ethical and perhaps illegal. I use photographs for which I have no copyright in this blog in order to provide illustration for my musings. Rarely do I attribute the artist. Mostly, it's because it would take up too much of my time to investigate it. Very rarely do I seek out permission. Even if the artist's name is available, I'm just plain too lazy to type it in. My vows to change this practice have failed so far. For some reason, my logic is that internet images exist in a 'commons' for public use. Once, a german photographer e-mailed me (in German) complaining about something and so I simply deleted the post. If someone takes the trouble to contact me, I'll take the image down - no problem. I just find the lack of images in blog posts to be generally boring, too wordy.
Any thoughts?
posted by Bill Pocock at 6:38:00 a.m.
3 Comments:
What's the relevant CCA passage, ars longa?
If you would be so kind?
Your comment 'it appears that these groups are asserting rights to works of art that are not currently in Canadian law but are laws in other parts of the world. Therefore, they seem to be attempting to get monetary gain from something that they have no current law to back up, but are relying on the ignorance of people who just assume what they are saying is, in fact, the truth, and will pay up.' is wrong.
The CCA is the 'law' that backs up SODRAC'S mandate. It states that someone who wishes to use (reproduce, broadcast, etc.) an artistic work must contact the artist or his representative to obtain authorization to do so. It also states that the artist also has the right to request monetary compensation such such a use. SODRAC, being a non-profit copyright society, manages these uses and does invoice them accordingly. However, it does not charge a fee to its members. It collects the royalties, keeps a SMALL percentage for administrative fees and then distributes the balance to the artist or his right owners. It's a society that is run by artists for artists.
I've made some inquiries and it appears that they ave a wide variety of tariffs... everything from reproduction done by non-profit societies and museums to tariffs for general use.
These auction house not only reproduce the works in catalogues to profit frm the sale of the original works, they charge the seller of the original work a fee to have the reproduction in the catalogue that it then sells. Hmmm... Sounds very profitable to me.
Canada may not have the 'droit de suite' in Canada. But it does have the CCA which clearly states that all users wishing to reproduce artistic works must contact the artist. The auction houses do not do so. They are not promoting the artist. They are looking to line their own pockets on the hard work of the artist.
In regards to your use of works in your blogs, as an artist, I can understand that it can promote an interest in my artistic works. However, if you don't take the time to contact the artist or even mention their name, how are you promoting them?
If someone were to reproduce part of your writings, wouldn't you want them to contact you and get your permission? What if your texts go against your 'moral rights' (another part of the CCA...
Ars Longa
Thanks for the additional, Ars.
I'd love to read the CCA passages and 'tariff' research supporting your position. The CCA passages I've quoted in my follow up post, 'Visual Copyright: Part Duh?', seems to tell a different story as far as my understanding goes. I really would like to have some more clarity on this as I enjoy the topic.
Art Slob appropriates uncredited images for use on the blog within the context of a creative act. It's a sorta electronic serial collage. It's...my art. My reasoning is in 'Visual Copyright: Part Duh?'.
As for other people using my images and text, I feel that's kinda the purpose of a blog. Art Slob has a Creative Commons deal for content posted here. That's just a formal way of saying 'Take it!'.
Send me some of your art, Ars, and I'll post it on Art Slob!
Post a Comment
<< Home