Series: Copyright Violations
- PT.1: Art & Artifice: Examining Copyright: Pirated Works
- PT. 2: Art and Artifice: Examining Copyright: Roundtable Discussion
- PT 3: Art and Artifice: Examining Copyright: Copyright and Fair Use
Without images, the Blogosphere would be an awfully boring place. But where do the images come from? Mostly, bloggers (guilty as charged) download graphics from other peoples’ sites or link to them. News moves so quickly that there’s often no time to ask permission. Luckily, the Fair Use statute provides us with some rights while protecting the artists at the same time. This series began with a recap of The Case of Colorful Illustrations 93°C, and it will conclude with a brief copyright primer. The following is a round table discussion I had electronically with a handful of the affected artists.
Jon Burgerman, Jeff Miracola, Luc Latulippe and MCA are all artists whose work was used in the pirated book. Steve Talkowski (aka Sketchbot) frequently posts work on his blog and Flickr pages, so I asked him also to weigh in on the issues of copyright in this digital age.
Toycyte: How did the theft of your artwork affect you personally?
Jeff Miracola: It seems many people forget about the human being behind the creation of movies, music and art when they decide to steal it. Creators, such as myself, rely on the income from the sale of their art to literally feed their families. I have three children. When someone steals my work, they are stealing from my children.
Jon Burgerman: I’d have preferred to be asked for my involvement first and to be in control of the images used in the book. But beyond that, it’s not very different from books of a similar ilk. Artists don’t get paid to be in books like this. Authors tend to copy and paste text from bios and other easily available material, and in some cases you don’t even receive a free copy. In that respect, I don’t feel I’ve lost out on earnings, etc. But as a principle, work should not be published without the authors’ express prior consent.
Luc Latulippe: As bad as it is, if Louis Vuitton and Rolex can’t stop knockoffs from being sold all over the world, I’m betting a bunch of independent artists haven’t got a chance in hell of seeing any justice. It’s been a good cause for discussion though, and a good reminder to be careful about what work we artists spread around online, and how we do it. I fear that as long as we’re “putting stuff out there” in any form, digital or not, some knuckleheads will try stealing it somehow.
Around the time of this discussion, posts on the much-maligned Orphan Works Act were making the rounds. The short attention span version is, if ever passed, the OWA would make any work of art not registered up-for-grabs. Artists understandably and universally oppose it. Luckily, it does not seem imminent. A very comprehensive evaluation, Six Misconceptions about the Orphan Works Act by Meredith L. Patterson, can be found here. I asked the panel this for devil’s advocate: If you don’t register every piece of your art (as proposed by the Orphan Works Act), what argument will a U.S. court have with a Chinese publishing company that insists it did its copyright research in China and found nothing?
MCA: As far as registering every piece before you post it online or show it in public, it doesn’t even seem possible: monetarily or time-wise. The Internet is a great thing, but also gives free reign to rip stuff off so much easier. With so many websites/blogs out there, you have a ‘ready-made’ book, pretty much. All the work is done for you.
Luc: It certainly would be totally nuts if they [government] went ahead with it [The Orphan Works Act]. Not only would it drain the resources of both time and money from all artists, but it would do the same exponentially for stock houses who own millions of images. They too would have to register everywhere, lest some stray works get nabbed by an individual or another stock house.
Sketchbot: When I was younger and reading books about creating comics or original art, I would always read about the practice of mailing yourself a copy of the original work or idea and refrain from opening the envelope, as the date stamp would be a sort of “proof of creation incept date.” I don’t know how feasible that is in the Internet age, as it’s rather easy to modify file dates, and even alter watermarked images in Photoshop. One would hope that there could be some sort of proof derived from when a site and content went public regarding original works.
I also asked the artists to reflect on this concept: Piracy has become a form of youth culture. Consumers no longer care if anyone gets paid for the entertainment they digest, so long as it’s instantly accessible.
Jon: This may be true, but that doesn’t make it acceptable. Those providing the entertainment should not be using works belonging to someone else for their own end without receiving their permission first.
MCA: Searching and downloading a song for free is so common these days. Do kids even realize they are basically ripping of the musician? It’s online, I can download it, what’s the problem? There are so many ways to go with this issue, but I do know if it was my blog and my years of doing interviews published as someone else [as in the case of Darren Di Lieto and Colorful Illustrations 93°C], I’d be pissed.
Sketchbot: This is bothersome, but a fact that we have to deal with. Especially with digital work (and I’m not even referring to music), how does one charge for digital work that can be easily duplicated and downloaded?
I read an interview with Matt Mason, the author of The Pirate’s Dilemna. He has some pro-piracy views, one of which I paraphrased and ran by the artists: Nigo took Nike’s Air Force One, ripped off the swoosh and released it with a star under the BAPE brand. BAPE is now a multi-million dollar company that Nike invests in. There’s no point in trying to sue someone if it brings more exposure to the original.
Jon: Exposure doesn’t pay the rent, and it also limits who-else might invest/commission work from you. So in some respects you could argue another project might not want to use your work as it’s now been associated with someone else. Exposure needs to be the right exposure at a reasonable compensation for the artist.
MCA:I know my work was included in that, but like you state, it does bring more exposure. Because the book still has the original interviews, people unaware of the issues with it still learn about the artists involved. Only the original author/writer is getting screwed. Does that make it right? No.
Luc: There’s no argument: exposure is exposure is exposure. Each situation will be different. But exposure in and of itself isn’t necessarily of any value either; it’s neither good nor bad. Each of us affected by this book will react accordingly, and then follow that up with either some action or inaction. Some might feel it’s a good thing to “be in a book, any book,” while others will feel it’s a good chance to sell some products…The best thing to take away from all this is a hard-learned lesson, unfortunately.
And the lesson continues! Read on for a brief primer on copyright and fair use.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I love this quote by Jon Burgerman: “Exposure doesn’t pay the rent.” I think that summarizes how I feel about this issue. If you use someone’s work, either provide compensation or ask for express permission.
That Orphan Works Act just seems ridiculous. For it to work, you’d have to register song clips, photographs, sketches, blog posts, etc. How would they regulate each and every registration? How would they implement violations? It does not make sense.
Great topic and great answers by the participants.