Rant 69: Copies & Fakes - where do artists stand?

Just thought I'd get the commenting ball rolling by admitting that the issue is wa-aa-ay more complex than my article lets on. Do any of those complexities spring to mind?

Copyright, copyright, copyright! A mixed bag of tricks if ever there was one. I agree with you Becky about this - to a point.

It is absolutely true that artists should be protected from fakes and forgerys, but in my experience they often have little recourse to challenge such things, if/when they happen. If anyone has any good resources on how to deal with an actual forgery/fakery situation I would really appreciate it if you could share it here.

But my thoughts related to copyright are less about forgeries and more about the burgeoning world of digital, particularly social media. Do most artists realise that when you put an image on Facebook you are allowing them to use it in anyway they wish, without consulting you about it? Does that matter?

How should we approach copyright in times of mass photo-sharing? Should artists protect their work so much that they also prevent the serendipitous occuring when people come across their work online? If a visitor wants to tweet about your exhibition, with a photo, should you be flattered or stop them, to protect your copyright? 

I know what I think about this but it'd be great to hear some other thoughts.

Yes, I'm interested in the world of social media too... In fact, one of the reasons I quit Facebook is that the company owns your images, content, status updates, and uses your data to construct ads.

When I tweet or blog about art I do my best to use exactly the same criteria as when I'm using an image for a review published in a print magazine, or for an art history conference. I will obtain permission and credit exactly as the artist wishes, or use images specifically posted under a creative commons license. If the licensing fee is too high, I just don't use the image. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't think it's ever that difficult to just ask permission.

But, from the artist's side, I can see the problem. Not everyone is as scrupulous as me when selecting images to share online. But, what interests me about this question is the fact that we feel under so much pressure these days to make everything about ourselves and our artwork available online - if we keeps things back, we not only feel mean, but also feel we're missing out on marketing opportunities. I would question that assumption. When I write about an exhibition, or select artists for the curatorial projects I'm beginning to develop, my decisions are almost always based upon an encounter with a real object, image, or video - for example, in a MFA show - or with a real person.

I'm interested in what artists hope to gain by spreading their images around the web in a mass photo-sharing kind of way. I understand the value of online portfolios (and yes, these need protection of some kind too), but if you want to be seriously written about, or build relationships with a curator who can help you get shows, the number of retweets your photo has gained has nothing to do with it.

I'm aware this is probably a conventional view, but it my world, it makes sense.

ps - DACS is brilliant for advice on actual forgeries/fakes and digital image rights and responsibilities.

I think you make interesting points, that I would like to counter. 

"Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't think it's ever that difficult to just ask permission."

In many cases this is true- a simple email or phone call will clear permission to use an image. However in other cases, particularly when dealing with more succesful artists the route to gaining permission can be torturous - in one example I recently dealt with I had to go through five seperate parties to clear permission for one image, and that involved a lot of altering of layout, credits and the text that accompanied the image. 

Why bother? Well in some cases you have to bother. If a gallery is promoting an exhibition of an artist they are showing they need to be able to use an image of that artist's work online.

"we feel under so much pressure these days to make everything about ourselves and our artwork available online - if we keeps things back, we not only feel mean, but also feel we're missing out on marketing opportunities. I would question that assumption. When I write about an exhibition, or select artists for the curatorial projects I'm beginning to develop, my decisions are almost always based upon an encounter with a real object, image, or video - for example, in a MFA show - or with a real person."

That is interesting and I am sure how many curators work, but I would disagree it is the only way to work. I have received many opportunities through my online presence and often this is the first contact curators have with artists. It helps to break out of geographical boundaries as well and can lead to a much broader set of opportunities, especially internationaly where meeting someone is unlikely to happen.

 "but if you want to be seriously written about, or build relationships with a curator who can help you get shows, the number of retweets your photo has gained has nothing to do with it."

I disagree with this - again I personally have built up some very important relationships through social media. It doesn't just boil down to retweets but they do help! I recently gave someone an opportunity solely based on a relationship built through twitter. I have equally gained opportunities and developed strong networks and contacts through this medium. Of course they really come into their own when you meet the people you are talking to, and see the work in the flesh, but these forms of communications break down barriers and allow artists to get their work seen by an audience hitherto would be unreachable. 

Would you only buy a CD off a musician you had seen live? 

I gave a talk on this subject at Culture Hack North last Saturday and said then that I worry the arts is thinking in the same way the music industry did 10 years ago. We are not addressing the way in which technology is changing our audiences, and we risk losing out in a big way if we don't start to adapt to an image led digital world.

Several points arise from this article. Firstly, I've lived and worked in China so I can speak directly to the "copied in China" issue. The general attitude towards copyright and intellectual property is cavalier at best. This applies across the board, not just to art but also to publishing, music, science, technology, everything. Complicating matters is the fact that many of the West's "authentic" products (including sculpture by contemporary artists who now frequently outsource their actual physical labour) are made in precisely the same factories that churn out "fakes". In many cases the only difference between a "fake" and a "real" Louis Vuitton handbag or piece of public sculpture is that one has the official designer label or mark of the artist, while the latter does not. In every other respect they are identical, and indeed sometimes made by the very same hands working for the very same companies.

One perhaps begins to understand why people in China and other factories of the developing world don't hold Western copyright in high regard- they see with their own eyes that the only difference in many cases between a £1,000 value and a £10 value is the label (= artist's signature) and the market's imprimatur- a market to which in most cases they do not have any meaningful access and never will.

As Lucy mentions, the music industry has also found that many people no longer see any reason why music they can get for little or no (apparent) cost should be paid for at all, and the industry itself is partly to blame for the development of this state of affairs because the industry has been burying its head in the sand, penalising and gouging customers who try to do the right thing by putting up prices, using punitive and restrictive rights management and worst of all failing to invest in and reward musicians, much less helping musicians find new ways to make a living from their work in the age of ubiquitous distribution and overflowing content.

Check out Dafen Painting Village, essentially a factory for paintings. I've been there and seen it for myself. They'll paint anything for you perfectly, including a Warhol or Dali. It's the art market shockingly literalised.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dafen,_Shenzen

PS: I'm not suggesting anything about the specific artist mentioned in the article or his work- I don't know where or in what manner his official, real work is made or under what circumstances his work came to be duplicated in this way.

Secondly, while I agree wholeheartedly that artists should know their legal and moral rights, and that they should exercise them where possible... it's not such a simple thing to challenge somebody you believe has stolen your work in some sense.

Myself and artists I know (plus many I don't know personally) have been plagiarised with breathtaking audacity and shamelessness either by other artists or more commonly by the advertising industry. In addition to being demoralising, this can do real damage to an artist's reputation but usually an artist does not have the mental fortitude, professional support or the financial clout to pursue such cases through the legal system, especially if their work is deemed by the art market to be of little financial value. Some artists have achieved a sort of victory by hitting ad agencies or gallerists in the only place they really care about, by raising the spectre of bad publicity.

I daresay Emin's case led to a jail sentence to a large extent because of the publcity involved, because it's Emin and because large sums of money were involved. British judges are well known for coming down as hard, or harder, on crimes involving entrenched property/wealth as opposed to crimes against the body, livlihood or wellbeing of an actual living human.

 We stand at the Top and no amount of blarney will ever change that.