Serial Copyright Thief Serves Major Retailers

You've probably never heard of Cody Foster & Co. That doesn't matter, though, because if you're an independent artist, designer or illustrator, there's a good chance Cody Foster has heard of you. In fact, the company may already be selling works based upon your designs to retail clients such as Nordstrom, Madewell, Anthropologie, Terrain, and Fab.com. And, legally, there might not be a thing that anyone can do about it.


Read the whole article here.

Good News about Our Disgusting National Gallery

I am disgusted in our National Gallery. The gallery you might expect to be our nation’s strongest advocate for the rights of visual artists is opposed to fair treatment of Canadian visual creators to the extent that they have fought our advocates all the way to the Supreme Court. This is not our government fighting us; this is the leadership of the National Gallery.

Canadian Artists Representation/le Front des artistes Canadiens [CARFAC] and le Regroupment des artists en arts visuals du Quebec [RAAV] are the two organizations that have been working with Canadian public galleries to secure fair and reasonable exhibition fees for the artists the galleries show—these are galleries that do not sell work, often charge admission and exist only to show visual art.

In 1980, along with other nations, Canada signed a declaration of commitment to improve the financial situation of artists. Our government then passed The Status of the Artist Act (SAA) that allows professional arts organizations (CARFAC and RAAV for us) to negotiate collective agreements with federal institutions to cover things such as artists’ fees and working conditions.

Then, in 1988, our government added the exhibition rights to the Copyright Act giving artists the right to expect payment when their work is, “presented at a public exhibition, for a purpose other than sale or hire.” Consequently, the fair payment of artists’ exhibition fees has become standard professional practice in Canada.

CARFAC and RAAV began negotiations with the National Gallery in 2004. Discussions progressed for two years and then, in 2007, the Gallery ceased negotiations. They based their decision to conclude negotiations and oppose the fair payment of artist exhibition on a refusal to recognize CARFAC’s and RAAV’s right to negotiate for Canadian visual artists. They believe that there is a conflict between the objectives of the Copyright Act and the Status of the Artist Act. 

In 2008, CARFAC filed a complaint with the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal (CAPPRT—sorry for all these acronyms). It is the body that oversees the SAA. That action led to unsuccessful mediation sessions that lasted for over a year. Finally, in 2012, the Tribunal found the Gallery guilty of bargaining in bad faith. The Gallery then asked for a judicial review in the Federal Court of Appeal and the Tribunal decision was overturned on a split vote of two to one.

Here’s what CARFAC has to say about the decision:

In essence, the National Gallery believes that the Copyright Act, which protects the rights of individual artists, trumps the Status of the Arts Act, which allows artists to organize collectively. They believe that because CARFAC and RAAV do not have copyright assignments from all individual Canadian artists, we do not have the right to negotiate minimum fees for their work. 

The CARFAC explanation (above) successfully explains the legal basis of the National Gallery of Canada’s opposition to the payment of artists’ exhibition fees. But why, you might ask, is Canada’s foremost exhibition hall for visual artists so opposed to fair treatment of the artists they exploit to earn their visitor admission fees? (General admission is $12; seniors & students admission tickets cost $10; youth admissions are $6.)

The split decision is why CARFAC and RAAV appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada to fight for our rights. I believe the Court may shame the Gallery in their ruling but to win CARFAC and RAAV need your help. Please visit the carfac.ca to donate specifying that your donation is to help fight the Supreme Court case against the National Gallery.

Image from the blog "I Am Laura." Link. 

Art museums are changing their policies about the taking photographs of their collections.

But the ubiquity of digital cameras, along with the irrepressible urge to take pictures, has led many museums to revise their policies in recent years. American institutions such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Art Institute of Chicago, the National Gallery of Art, the Indianapolis Museum of Art, and the Getty Museum—to name a few—all allow photography in some or all of their permanent-collection spaces.

“You are fighting an uphill battle if you restrict,” says Nina Simon, director of the Santa Cruz Museum of Art & History and author of The Participatory Museum. “Even in the most locked-down spaces, people will still take pictures and you’ll still find a million of these images online. So why not support it in an open way that’s constructive and embraces the public?”

 For contemporary artists, however, this change in policy presents a problem, as the article goes on to discuss:

The biggest hurdle to wide-open photo policies is the issue of copyright. Museums often do not hold the copyrights to the works they display, which creates legal problems when visitors start snapping away. According to Julie Ahrens, a lawyer who specializes in issues of copyright and fair use at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University, a photograph of an artwork could be considered a “derivative work,” which is “potentially a violation of the copyright holder.”

Read the full article at ArtNews.com here.

Roy Lichenstein: Copyright Violator (?)

Roy Lichtenstein is one of the world’s most celebrated artists. His paintings are worth millions, and even those with little knowledge of or interest in art will instantly recognise prints such as Whaam! and Drowning Girl.

 But the trouble with Lichtenstein’s work, says Rian Hughes, is that most - if not all of it - is appropriated from comic book artists without credit or compensation.  

So why has this been allowed to continue for so long? Hughes believes it’s symptomatic of a widespread snobbery towards commercial art. “If you unearthed a rare song and sampled it, people would take great delight in pointing out the source material. Yet in the art world, the source material – particularly when it is created by commercial instead of fine artists – is often treated as if it is some kind of cultural clip art – “low” art that fine artists will elevate to “high” art,” he says. “[W]hat we’re really hoping to do [with Image Duplicator] is encourage people to celebrate good art regardless of where it came from,” he says.

Read more here.