Replies: 37 Comments
on Monday, March 24th, salmarino@salmarinoart.com">Sal Marino said
Norm Magnusson is a Fraud!
Until his recent pompous claims, Norm Magnusson has not shown or been able to provide proof of his pirated title, a title which belongs to "Sal Marino, Founder of the Funism Art Movement". Although he is attempting to steal the title from its rightful creator, his calous actions are inept in that thre is no documented proof of his claims that can be substantiated through any scientific time-line applications, which would predate Funism's birth. I call on all fellow artists to help in discrediting Magnusson's adolescent efforts by posting this information and the truth behind Funism, on every possible forum throughout the internet. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Together we can stop all imposters and return to our stated mission.
on Friday, March 21st, walt said
Nick, here is a letter from Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner of the Illustrators Partnership concerning an upcoming bill working its way through both houses of Congress in the U.S.. At this moment we do not have copies of either bill. Brad Holland testified before Congress previously on another failed attempt at getting what we assume to be a very similar bill through.
I would strongly encourage all visual artists to read up on this bill. If it passes in the form we fear it will not only affect artists in the U.S. but unfortunately it could have an impact felt around the world.
www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185
on Tuesday, March 18th, Nicholas Forrest said
I would just like to suggest to any artists that they join their countries copyright collection society. Copyright collection societies are usually free to join (usuallly take percentage of collected fees though) and will usually provide legal and copyright advice and will collect fees on your behalf.
Nicholas Forrest
on Monday, March 17th, walt said
Actually Matt I think software has accessed the resale royalty market. Hence the term pirated software. It's why you have to register when re-loading software on your hard drive. If you read your contract you are paying so much for so many copies. Theoretically, after that, they will come after you. And they could come after you if don't pay up after buying a used computer full of software as well. When my college gives away their used computers they come completely stripped of all software for that reason.
on Sunday, March 16th, Matt D. said
Wow Harry. I looks like your Caps Lock button broke halfway through your rant!
But seriously, I'm not sure a resale royalty system could ever work. Would works already on the market be grandfathered in? Would there be a arbitrary date that everything sold after would be covered by the royalty system? I think the biggest problem with resale royalty is that it doesn't exist in the U.S. for anything else. It would be hard to come up with good reasons why art should be the only exception.
And let's say a resale royalty system was put in place. That could open up a whole can of worms. Why shouldn't CDs or clothing be included in the resale royalty system?
on Sunday, March 16th, walt said
Harry, you're right...that's how it works today. But congress has been trying to write a new orphan works bill that will have disasterous results.
on Sunday, March 16th, Harry said
HI FOLKS
NO NEW LAWS need to be passed by CONGRESS-
an Artist need only put an 0 with a c in the middle of the O THATS CALLED A COPYRIGHT AND just put that symbol next to your name on the ART and thats it- nothing else needs to be done
AND IF AN "APPRORIATION ARTIST" OR A COMPANY OR CORPORATION uses your Art - ads, covers billboards etc and it makes A LOT OF MONEY you can sue and MAKE LOTS OF MONEY INCLUDING LAWYER FEES from the thief or thieves !
ANDY WARHOL WAS SUED BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER WHOSE PHOTOS HE APPROPRIATED FOR HIS JFK AND JACKIE SILKSCREEN PAINTINGS----
AND OTHER ARTISTS HAVE SUED AND WON LAW SUITS --
AGAINST "APPROPRIATION ARTISTS" and CORPORATIONS-
WALT DISNEY CORPORATION SENDS OUT A "WARNING" LETTER TO ANYONE USING A DISNEY CHARACTER WITHOUT PERMISSION-----CEASE AND DESIST !
OTHERWISE DOES NOT MAKE SENSE FOR A CORPORATION TO SPEND MILLIONS to DESIGN AND CREATE A LOGO LIKE :
IBM CBS, NBC, MICROSOFT, GM etc .
on Saturday, March 15th, Ellen said
Sorry I joined this so late. Copyright is invaluable for the artist. I have taken several workshops with Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts in Manhattan. These were all-day "boot camps" to make artists aware of the laws, contracts & grey areas relating to copyright. The fee for the day was about $75: well worth it. VLA is a sliding-scale organization devoted to helping individuals from all of the asts. At Art Expo there are also occasional seminars relating to copyright and IP issues that I've joined. I found that talking to representatives of the US Copyright Office was helpful on several occasions. I think that it is important for artists to know their rights in terms of IP so I've done "web reading" as well. RE orphaned works: the only benefit to the artist if no royalities are generated is recognition--that is if the work and the artist can be put together.
on Friday, March 14th, walt said
One of the issues rarely discussed is the idea that artists might lobby to get such a resale royalty implemented only to have any number of other products follow suit. For instance, in these days when art is what you say it is, why shouldn't Ford, Chrysler, GM or any other kind of producer rethink its product...suppose instead of a machine Ford decided to market its automobiles as "Moving Art". Why wouldn't they also begin asking for resale royalties, especially on those classic vehicles that do in fact rise in value over time? There is of course quite a few 'collectible' markets which would follow suit.
Yes, such a bill would need some very careful crafting...and as I mentioned before let us remember that congress will not remember you and I. They will only remember those super citizens, those paper entities who have already got so much power as to affect everything around us. Any such law would be written primarily to support corporate ownership first. And what works for corporations does not always function for the rest of us.
on Friday, March 14th, Nicholas Forrest said
A resale royalty is a fantastic concept but there is the potential for a resale royalty to cause problems for artists if implemented incorrectly. A can of worms indeed...
Nicholas Forrest
artmarketblog.com
on Friday, March 14th, Mark said
Walt, I am not hitching to that wagon yet. In fact I have been against the idea (resale commissions) for some time, but now and again one must thinks of things, for it or against it. As copyright infringment, I think the laws we have may be enough, maybe not, I do not know, but I always worry when they say we need more laws when there are often to many laws already that are not enforced. it only confuses the situation generaly.
on Friday, March 14th, jose said
Nick, just found out I registered with the SPA here Portugal way back in 96 and that I haven't registered new works since then. I also found out that fine-artists are the lowest of the lowly within the SPA, there is very little they can do for us apart from providing free legal aid if we discover that a work has been unduly used - that is a plus. Whereas musicians, writers/poets also get a monthly 'allowance' proportionate to what they have registered on the basis of state regulamentation on how much music should be aired or statistics from publishing houses. The way of the fine-artist truly is a solitary one. Thanks for a great blog.
on Thursday, March 13th, walt said
Mark,
The verdict is out for me on whether we should ever require a 'royalty' on resale of original work. I've been for it in the past. But I'm beginning to rethink the whole idea. I do not want to have to pay a resale royalty to Ford every time I buy a used car. The whole reason I buy used cars is cause they are cheaper than new cars. The difference between used cars and used art is of course that quite often used art increases in value. And it is this increase artists feel they should partake in. We feel cheated because others make money from the fruit of our labor.
I am easily persuaded in that direction by my own greed. However copyright law does not include such thinking...at least not in the U.S..
An original is simply the artifact version of the intellectual property. Congress might argue that there are other props the artist can use to increase their income from that work that has begun to gain in value...reproductions, original prints (not the same thing as reproductions) and other licensing plans can cash in on increasing value and popularity during the artist's life time. Derivative variations on the theme, books of the artists work and life, t-shirts, mugs and ear rings, etc., etc., ad infinitum. We, they might say, simply have to be smart enough to access the potential.
Meanwhile many argue that an 'artists tax' on resale value of artwork might make sales harder to come by, record keeping will become complex...for instance who keeps track of successive sales and sends the money on back to the artists? Of course we never assume we'll have to police our own work...that's simply not what we do...we make art and never touch the earth. That person who is the middle man should also be paid for their services. So lets say a 10% royalty to the artist is reasonable. Does the artist,the gallery or the buyer pay the record keeping liason out of that percentage or is the record keepers percentage added to the total price of the resale say another 2% of total? Now have we raised the price of that work another 12% or are we simply taking 12% from the previous total? Is that before the gallery commission or after? So does the gallery take 12% less? (do you think they'll ever allow that to happen?) It really is a tangle. And the more I really consider the concept the less I like it as it simply creates another layer of middle men making money from my hard labors (I can't even support myself yet others make money off my failures.)or another layer of transaction in which someone can hide secret negotiations and hidden profits.
On the other hand what if the resale value is less than the original value...do we, the artist, then pay the seller the difference since they lost money on their investment? Yikes! Hadn't thought of that. I'm sure that someone else has thought of it...some lawyer.
Mark, don't hitch your wagon to that star too soon. Knowing congress and how they think it will not be the artist who prospers from such a law if it is ever passed. It will be some big corporate entity...it is easier for congressmen to remember names like IBM, Getty, Corbis and Microsoft than it is to imagine several million unknown artists who for them simply do not exist. I promise the above will make way more than you or I from such a law because congress knows who they are.
Nick, that's all I'm gonna say since you suggest you'll discuss this issue later.
on Thursday, March 13th, Mark said
There is no doubt that the internet has opened up a can worms when it comes to intellectual property, or even physical property. This same internet allows one to be seen, read or heard by thousands of people who would not be able to do so without the internet, so it has opened up great potential. There is a fine line between protection and monetary censorship. We need better protection there is no question. Just what and how I am not smart enough to know. Tightening up copyright laws, creating new ones (I always concerned when talk of 'new laws' come into play as they often do nothing to help but just make the ones creating the new laws look good and as if they are doing something), even making it so re-sales of origional work must pay the artist in some way are all good ideas, but it must happen with cool heads so as not to tighten the artistic world to the point where it does more harm then good. But it must start some where, some mistakes will be made along the way, but if nothing is done nothing happens for the good. What we can do here in the USA is to look into the issue then do what we can to get things in motion for change and better protection.
on Thursday, March 13th, Harry said
APPROPRIATION ARTISTS HAVE BEEN SUED BY ORIGINAL ARTISTS that they appropriated from and lost in court BIG TIME- ONE example was a photographer in the California sued an artist for appropriation of one of his photos and won.
on Thursday, March 13th, walt said
Harry, Nick explained orphaned works very nicely..."a[n] orphan work is basically an artwork whose copyright owner cannot be located meaning that the image can be used without permission." Without permission means essentially as if it were in the public domain. This sets a precident which others might try to use later effectively nullifying ones copyright.
The U.S. Congress has already tried once to reform orphaned works so as to loosen the requirements for seeking the appropriate owner. They were shouted down by a number of organizations representing artists and artists rights. But they are about to try again.
Nick mentioned that defining to what extent a potential user should go to locate the orphaned works owner is a complex and important issue. In essence we as artists should prefer that if the owner cannot be located then the work should not be used at all. It is better that a collecting society (like ASCAP or BMI for songwriters) or the Illustrators Partnership or ASMP collect the fees for all orphaned works which would then be used to lobby for and pay back artists in general.
While those who don't create themselves but use others work prefer never to have to pay for anything. They prefer to see intellectual property as free as the air or dirt. Until they get control over it then they will charge us all the maximum value.
Congress is being lobbied by several groups including librarians, publishers and stock art companies all of whom have reason to prefer not to pay copyright fees. Frankly I think librarians are the least of our worries. They are just afraid that they will have to pay fees for using images in books to advertise the fact that their libraries have those books. Most of us would not attempt to squeeze fees from such a market. But publishing companies and stock art companies are not humans but paper entities that have no compassion or humanity. They see themselves as the center of the universe.
on Wednesday, March 12th, Harry said
COPYING OR COPYWRIGHT?
HOLLYWOOD WRITERS AND TV STUDIOS WERE ON THE VERGE OF COLLAPSE BECAUSE THE WRITERS DEMANDED RIGHTFULLY SO---- ROYALTIES on their CREATIVE WRITING which the studios refused to do - thereby creating a STRIKE THAT LASTED 3 MONTHS in HOLLYWOOD
ABSOLUTE ARTS has a TERRIFIC STATISTICS SYSTEM IN PLACE- any artist can see which work of theirs is POPULAR and what country and city viewers are loging on from--
BUT--
PROBLEM WITH THE INTERNET IS:
ANYONE CAN DOWNLOAD AN IMAGE FROM ANYWHERE!
I HAVE HAD inquiries about my erotic drawings from countries where the do not allow nudes to be seen ever ! yet i have had inquiries from IRAQ, IRAN EGYPE, ISRAEL, ETC.
QUESTION: ARE THE VIEWERS DOWNLOADING MY EROTIC DRAWING IMAGES AND SELLING THEM IN THESE COUNTRIES - I WILL NEVER KNOW--
TOP EROTIC PHOTOGRAPHERS HAVE TAKEN TO STAMPING ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE PHOTOS "SAMPLE" SO NO VIEWER CAN DOWNLOAD AND SELL THEIR WORK WITHOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHERS KNOWLEDGE!
on Wednesday, March 12th, Harry said
hi folks
can anyone tell me what an ORPHANED WORK IS??
HAVE NO IDEA-looked all over the comments- no luck
what is an ORPHANED WORK?
on Wednesday, March 12th, Harry said
hI Nicolas Forrest
WELCOME TO AMERICA HOMe of "Appropriatism" where artists of the 80's and 90's "appropriated" other artists work to use in their work- where people under the age of 30 "stole" music from musicians , record companies with IPODS and MP3 players and said it was their RIGHT as AMERICANS TO STEAL MUSIC! MUSICIANS TIME EFFORTS AND TALENTS MEAN NOTHING !
THIS ISM CAME FROM FRANCE, the philosophy of "DECONSTRUCTIONISM" essentially saying there is NO RIGHT OR WRONG-- GOOD OR BAD- EVERYTHING IS EQUAL AND EVERYONE IS EQUAL.
on Wednesday, March 12th, walt said
And although one might think that having ones work plastered all over the internet would make one easy to find it also aids those who would like to use work without paying for it. Unless there is a large watermark (rendering the image unusable and more often than not unreadable) reposting said work without recognition can cause the work to disappear into the orphan well.
on Wednesday, March 12th, Nicholas Forrest said
Dear Jose,
This is the big problem with orphaned works. Who decides at what point an artwork can be considered to be "orphaned" and how much searching for the copyright owner is enough.
Nicholas Forrest
artmarketblog.com
on Wednesday, March 12th, jose said
Nicholas, maybe this 'orphaned work' is registered somewhere nobody has remembered to look for. is there some sort of sharing of information between companies providing this kind of service?
on Wednesday, March 12th, Brad Michael Moore said
It seems that publishing one's own works in a number of places on the Internet would help in keeping others from saying your works are orphaned - when they are searchable by name of artist, and name of artwork - and profile info is published with your works. I hate thieves.
Tell me this. There is a private art network for artists, collectors, and curators where you can exhibit your portfolio the same as here (#artmesh). However, you can also show the works of other artists - artists whose works you own - as in the original hangs on your home or office wall. This artist collection's folder will carry copyright insignia with the original artist name, profile, and place of address, links etc. In one way the art owner is developing a wider public profile for the artist in their collection - but, they are not selling the image, or offering it in any other way. Does not this benefit the artist - or is it braking the spirit of the artist copyright or the artist/buyer relationship if it is not providing income for anyone - but possibly the artist for potential future sales to a widened public - gained by the exposure of their work in this way? It is curious to me - when you think of the idea of a museum printing works of living artists in it's own collection - is this different? Often galleries and museum use images without any profile info at all - or next to none. Is the art owner helping the artists they collect, or, is there something inherently wrong in this practice of public relations for artists in your collection?
on Tuesday, March 11th, walt said
Thanks Nick. That explains it quite nicely. And if the legal definition of an orphaned work is too liberal,favoring the one wishing to use the work rather than the owner, then it makes it very easy to infringe and get away with it. Once that work has been legally infringed a precedent is established virtually (there's that word again) doing away with the owners rights.
on Tuesday, March 11th, Nicholas Forrest said
Orphan works are a huge problem. For those of you who don't know, a orphan work is basically an artwork whose copyright owner cannot be located meaning that the image can be used without permission. The problem is that deciding whether a work is an orphan work or not is extremely difficult and some would say almost impossible.
Nicholas Forrest
artmarketblog.com
on Tuesday, March 11th, walt said
Jose, there is another round of attempts to make copyrighted material more accessable to those who do not create anything with an orphan works bill here in the States. It is complex, Nick can probably explain just how complex these issues can get, but ultimately if worded wrong it could ruin any claim against infringers making copyrights virtually nonfunctional.
There is a large group of people who are not creative who would love to get their hands on other peoples stuff copyright free from so called artists to publishers, filmakers, websites...anyone who can get some mileage off of free content. And as Nick suggests the very thought of having to pay an artist for the use of their intellectual property goes against the grain of certain business models. These are models we should be protesting. I mentioned some of this debate in my last two blogs.
It all begins with a working definition of plagiarism and infringement. And one has to have a clear understanding of what can and what can't be copyrighted. Most business people never make the effort to understand the law since they have very little connection to its uses and purpose. And that goes for artists as well.
on Tuesday, March 11th, jose said
... and what i pay a fee for is precisely such a sort of artist's guild, but frankly it is not effective, more like what Walt says... it catalogues images so that i can claim that they're mine. i have a strong feeling that if push comes to shove as in Alberto Sughi's case with the japanese fellow i'd be left unprotected or expected to pay an extra fee for services rendered. shall be interested to discover how things work in Oz.
on Monday, March 10th, Nicholas Forrest said
I am currently involved in the implementation of resale royalties in Australia so I have a very lengthy opinion on this which will have to wait until my next absolute arts post.
Nicholas Forrest
artmarketblog.com
on Monday, March 10th, marjan said
Nick, aha and oh and cool! Now it makes sense.;)
on Monday, March 10th, walt said
Nick, but you forgot to mention that the licensing organization is in Australia. Why not tell us more about the Aussies copyright structure. I don't think we have anything quite similar to what you do in the states do we? Essentially there is no one to police copyrights other than the owner or privately hired legal services or in a few cases private organizations like guilds, unions or collecting societies. All the government does is catalog images in the Library of Congress and try disputes in the courts.
on Monday, March 10th, Nicholas Forrest said
Marjan,
The reason that they come to me is because I am affiliated with a government designated copyright licensing organisation.
Nicholas Forrest
artmarketblog.com
on Monday, March 10th, marjan said
Nick, I've got a question. Why do they come and see you and not a solicitor? The rest of the info is all available on the web anyway. I don't get it.
on Monday, March 10th, walt said
I don't have aproblem allowing a gallery to use an image of a work they are selling without fee. However, there are many times in which the image may not be used without fee...reprints in magazines after intitial copyright was agreed upon. Reproduction on the web without fee pisses me off. Especially if it is by a large wealthy corporation or publishing company.
As far as secondary sales Mark, it is not part of the law in the U.S. at this time as far as I recall. And there are a number of arguments that buzz around the issue. On the one hand Ford doesn't get paid a second fee when you buy a used one. On the other hand Microsoft does not allow you to resell its software without someone being charged a fee for useage. Somewhere in between these two positions is where this idea gets lost. As I understand it at this time the actual artifact is nothing more than a copy of the intellectual property. It is the intellectual property we have the rights to. The new buyer cannot reproduce the image from the artifact without paying fees for instance. But they can resell the artifact without charge. Much like you can resell your record collection without having to pay ASCAP or BMI any fees. However if you re-record all your collection onto CD's and sell the CD's you are liable to prosecution.
on Monday, March 10th, jose said
Sadly it is pretty much as you paint it, Nick. I sometimes ask myself if it is worth paying the fees I have to pay every time I register a batch of new images with an outfit that does what the one you work for does round these parts. The whole thing just seems pointless. I've become pretty much like an ostrich these days, I just put my head in the sand and hope for the best.
on Monday, March 10th, matt said
Hmm. What about derivative work? I suppose that could open up a can of worms for some. Anyone out there every do this?
on Monday, March 10th, marjan said
If a gallery or museum is that pathetically desperate, there is no reason to have anything to do with them.
on Monday, March 10th, Mark said
Nicholas,
I am with you on this one. I see tho you did not mention royalties on secondary sales, where if a painting is sold by the new owner (not artist) that a fee or royalty must be paid to the artist. Your take on that.
One of the many and varied jobs that I undertake within the art world is as a visual arts copyright consultant for a membership based copyright organisation. This position involves; advising artist's on their rights, advising clients on their responsibilities, issuing copyright licences and investigating possible infringements. 
