Visual Copyright: Part, duh?
I've been informed that I should first read the Canadian Copyright Act (CCA) before quoting sources who report conjecture on the legality of copyright for visual art creations.Here's some relevant CCA passages...
“artistic work” includes paintings, drawings, maps, charts, plans, photographs, engravings, sculptures, works of artistic craftsmanship, architectural works, and compilations of artistic works;
3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, “copyright”, in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, to perform the work or any substantial part thereof in public or, if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof, and includes the sole right
(g) to present at a public exhibition, for a purpose other than sale or hire, an artistic work created after June 7, 1988, other than a map, chart or plan,I interpret 1, 3 (1)(g) to mean that artists do not have the sole right to reproduce artistic works for the purpose of sale. Thus, auction houses may have the legal right to reproduce catalogue images to aide in the sale of such artistic works.
It's a mad practice, anyway. Artists should be grateful, in my opinion, that auction houses provide a secondary marketplace for their work. A rising tide lifts all boats, yes? Auction houses promote the means for raising the price for an artist's work over time. Having a liquid market for an artist's work increases values as such an investment may later be resold - at a profit. Why don't artists "stop complaining and start selling" some of their own art into a market which auction houses help provide?
Wouldn't it be funny if the auction houses stopped selling works by 'copyright'-enforcing artists (or their estates)? What would happen to the artists' market value then?
posted by Bill Pocock at 6:41:00 p.m.
7 Comments:
That was essentially exactly what I told you earlier, in a comment you deleted.
Dildo.
Mike
Who the hell is mad Mike, and why is he devoting so much time and effort trying to wail on you?
Mad Mike is scaring me.
Daddy, make the bad man go away...
Ever heard of free speech? I merely stumbled across this site by accident.
Okay, best to leave y'all in your controlled, slightly effeminate "cool" scene.
Good luck.
Mike
Bill:
Thanks for doing the legwork on copyright. I see you took Ars Longa's advice from the previous post and have answered the question. I had always understood that copyright did not apply to catalogues because it was a form of "self-promotion".
Essentially, what the visual artists want are royalties on their work, like musicians. As you have pointed out, Canadian law does not currently support that claim. Therefore, what these artist's groups are attempting is nothing more than a form of extortion. It all boils down to greed.
Derek
Derek,
Thank you for addressing this central topic in the visual arts today.
The finance analogy which comes to mind is a corporation's issuance of shares. Corporations issue shares through underwriters to shareholders in the Primary Market. After the initial sale, shareholders may then resell the shares through brokers to new shareholders in the Secondary Market.
Corporation and artists do not receive any direct revenue from sales in the Secondary Market. However, artists (and corporations) do indirectly benefit from Secondary Market sales (through public auction) in the following ways:
1) It establishes a market price for the artist's work. These prices are recorded for research purposes (think Antiques Roadshow) by experts and individual collectors. This serves to legitimate the artist as a valued investment when compared to the uncertainty of art gallery stated prices. It confirms that the artist is in demand.
2) Subsequent auction sales of the artist's work note upward or downward valuations of the artist's work in the Secondary Market. This provides a sales history of the artist's work in the Secondary Market which sets the stage for long-term reinvestment in the artist for generations.
3) Public auction is the ultimate arena for the visual artist. If your artwork sells for $1,000,000 at auction, you're a success, baby.
4) Investing collectors are much more likely to buy an artist's work if it's selling well at auction as they know they can sell - or 'liquidate' - the artwork into a market willing to buy it at a profit.
Most importantly...
5) Artists (or their estates) can increase the asking price for initial offerings of their work into the Primary Market because their prices have been solidly confirmed and increased in the Secondary Market.
Just my opinion.
Bill:
What you have said exactly. Works in the secondary market should not adhere to copyright but they should, if they are in demand, serve to drive up prices in the primary market.
What these jokers appear to be attempting is to gain dividends from the primary market which is, at worst, an attempt to glean funds from a dried up artistic well, or at best to drive up, artificially, the price of current wroks.
I repeat, these groups seems to be a collective of extortion artists.
Derek
D,
I like your 'dividends' point as it expands my thinking on the art economy.
Art Dividends.
How has it come about that the traditional final sale of a work of art has transformed into thinking that subsequent representations in all forms and intents will provide a neverending income stream for the creator? I'll make a jump and say I think the artist (or estate) deep down wants a 'piece of the action' for every subesequent sale of the art - whether a catalogue photo is presented or not. I think it's a careerist, pop superstar mentality: "I'm gonna make an image that is so colossal that I'll be on the gravy train for life!" attitude - which sucks. Can you imagine paying rights on ancient drawings or sculpture which has fed us throughout the ages? It's madness!
No, serious artists do not concern themselves with such things. When the creation is sent out into the world, it begins a life of its own, in my view. Make your money where you can, then create more and more.
Enough rant.
Post a Comment
<< Home