Julianna Yau’s blog

A question which has been chasing me for a while is “Why are you interested in copyright?”. This question has been met with much humming, hawing and unsatisfactory gibberish from me. I suspect that I have been trying to answer the question too literally, and I’m never quite sure what kind of information is being sought by it. Do people want to know why I find copyright to be a fascinating academic pursuit? Or do they want to know my position on copyright as a stakeholder? Or is the information I provide to them up to me?

Perhaps one of the main issues is I find it difficult to explain my fascination with copyright law, or law in general… or why I my hobbies involve not scrapbooking but copyright legislation. Perhaps it’s something as simple as my enjoyment of a complex intellectual puzzle. After all, copyright involves law, philosophy, business models, creative output, and now politics and technological advancement. Explaining my delight in such a delicious piece of intellectual candy is a feat unto itself, and I know that “copyright is complex and I like that” isn’t the revelatory response which will satisfy myself or my inquirer.

Trying to provide a succinct and articulate summary of my position on copyright… what I want copyright law to do for me as a creator and a reader/listener/viewer is difficult, but I suspect more possible. The challenge with this is my multiple-role as an individual creator, an enjoyer of other creative works, a supporter of technological advancement (who believes tools are what we make of them) and an active member of various artists’ groups which represent a myriad of artists working with different media, business models and concepts on what copyright should and shouldn’t do for them.

Before we can do anything, what I think we need (and what I want) is to get some agreement on what needs to be done. One may think that’s an obvious first step, but it feels like we’ve gone around in circles before stopping to do that. The blog and events like CopyCamp have been good for facilitating these discussions, but it’s always difficult to get all of the stakeholders involved. Even some of those who are big stakeholders and have strong opinions may not always be involved, whether it be a scheduling conflict or a discomfort with the core group which manifests through social connections.

I strongly believe in two things:
1. Everyone’s needs can be met (particularly creators’ reuse of other creators’ work).
2. The only way that can happen is to be open to everything being a possible target for change.

Too often, we allow ourselves to limit our view on what can be changed. One of the roadblocks we constantly hit is how difficult it is to get clearance/licensing of a work to be appropriated (or simply included in a larger work, e.g. a song in a movie). This single difficulty is the cause of many creators feeling that they should not be required to compensate other creators for use of their work. Typically (but not always), creators who creatively reuse works do not have a philosophical problem with crediting, by name and/or with money, the creator (sic; specifically and not always the right holder) whose work they are reusing. So rather than deciding that what needs to change is the infrastructure (or lack thereof) for clearance/licensing of a work, they simply look at changing the scope and intent of copyright law. This type of tunnel-vision is wholly perplexing to me, even knowing that the ideal solution is not always entirely possible. Should we not be starting with the most ideal solution and making the necessary adjustments to it for practical reasons, rather than starting with an imperfect proposal which is riddled with compromises?

Today was Day 1 of CopyCamp 2008. It was mostly a reception/meet-and-greet for us to get to know each other. Misha did a great job of mixing up the crowd, but many of us (including myself) ended up gravitating to people we knew afterwards. In my defence, there were some people (several from Ottawa, like Russell McOrmond, April Britski and Janice Seline) who I see very rarely, and others (like Sam Trosow and Chris Moore) with whom I’ve had mostly online conversations.

Tomorrow, I will try to post my raw notes during CopyCamp. Wireless Toronto has setup a network for us at OISE, so I should be online as long as I can balance being an unintentional wallflower to get to an outlet and not maxing out my battery.

I haven’t been blogging much recently because I’ve got too much going on with my art practice. Not only have I recently finished a sculpture and uploaded about a million pictures of it, but I also sold another sculpture, am moving my studio to an artist co-op and am participating in a studio open house.

Tomorrow is Day 1 of CopyCamp, and I will also be attending the Technology In The Arts Conference next week. I’ll be blogging those events, but probably not much else this month. I’ll leave current events to Michael Geist and the folks over at Digital Copyright Canada.

Ang Lee joins the chorus against the potential for censorship being created by C-10.

This came through my Facebook inbox yesterday, but I’m horrendously behind on blogging and reading blogs, so it’s already hit the major media outlets. It’s good to know they came to their senses!

---

A process that has taken nearly four years may be coming to an end. On Monday, April 21, Federal Judge Richard J. Arcara ruled to dismiss the indictment against University at Buffalo Professor of Visual Studies Dr. Steven Kurtz.

In June 2004, Professor Kurtz was charged with two counts of mail fraud and two counts of wire fraud stemming from an exchange of $256 worth of harmless bacteria with Dr. Robert Ferrell, Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health.

Dr. Kurtz planned to use the bacteria in an educational art exhibit about biotechnology with his award-winning art and theater collective, Critical Art Ensemble.

Professor Kurtz’ lawyer, Paul Cambria, said that his client was “pleased and relieved that this ordeal may be coming to an end.”

The prosecution has the right to appeal this dismissal. How the prosecution will proceed is unknown at this time. If an appeal were undertaken the case would move to the New York Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City.

Lucia Sommer, Coordinator of the CAE Defense Fund, which raises funds for Kurtz’ legal defense, said, “We are all grateful that after reviewing this case, Judge Arcara took appropriate action.” She added that “this decision is further testament to our original statements that Dr. Kurtz is completely innocent and never should have been charged in the first place.”

BACKGROUND ON DR. STEVEN KURTZ AND CRITICAL ART ENSEMBLE

Critical Art Ensemble (which Kurtz co-founded in 1987 with Steven Barnes) has won numerous awards for its bio-art, including the prestigious 2007 Andy Warhol Foundation Wynn Kramarsky Freedom of Artistic Expression Grant, honoring more than two decades of distinguished work. The group has been commissioned to exhibit and perform in many of the world’s cultural institutions—including the London Museum of Natural History; The ICA, London; the Whitney Museum and the New Museum in NYC; the Corcoran Museum of Art in Washington, DC; Schirn Kunsthalle, Frankfurt; Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris; der Volksbüne, Berlin; ZKM, Karlsruhe; El Matadero, Madrid; Museum of Contemporary Art, Helsinki; Museo de Arte Carrilo Gil, Mexico City and many more.

For more information about the case, please visit: caedefensefund.org

CopyCamp is a place to meet people making art and making waves, an opportunity to discover how the Internet can work for artists and fans, and a chance to debate the value(s) of copyright with some of the key players. It is an event in which participants drive the programming, and debates are genuine round-tables. There are no observers: everyone has something to offer and is expected to contribute.

Volunteers are invited to take part in this event by being available to assist with various different activities during this two day event. r Areas in need of support include: assisting with room set up & strike (ie: moving chairs/tables, tech support set up etc), with the registration desk, with note taking during discussions/sessions, with photography, assisting participants and participating in the wiki/blog on the website.

Volunteering at this event will be of particular interest to those interested in internet, and copyright issues.

Location: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) 252 Bloor Street West, (St. George Subway Station). Dates: April 29 and 30, 2008 Time: from noon on Tuesday to 7:00/8:00 p.m. on Wednesday

If you are interested…we encourage you to contact:
Angela Rebeiro – Volunteer coordinator
Email address: iggy@sympatico.ca/ Cell: 416-899-9477

I haven’t been blogging much because I’ve been spending extra time on finishing a sculpture and taking care of the administrative tasks that go with it (primarily documentation). Here are some things which have been happening while I’ve barricaded myself into my studio:

• Verner calls for film, TV industry’s help to draft C-10 guidelines
• CBC provides a summary of the C-10 issue
• George Jonas from the Truro Daily News asks “Art Subsidies–Why do we need them?”
• Utah Gov. Jon Hunstman Jr. looks into the Spiral Jetty issue
• The government is increasing the Ministry of Culture’s funding by $63 million over the next four years (search for “The Entertainment and Creative Cluster” within the document)
• Geist puts the National Gallery of Canada under his copyright-microscope

Today, I was informed that the Orphaned Works bill in the US has been resurrected. One of the problematic aspects of the bill is its assumptions that any unregistered work can be considered orphaned. This is a huge change to the way copyright currently works, and is a chilling proposed solution to the problem of locating a copyright holder (which I mentioned yesterday).

Some things to consider:

1. Currently, all works in the US (like in Canada) are automatically copyrighted to the creator. No registration is required. This greatly reduces the financial and administrative burden of some creators, and increases the financial and administrative burden of creators who appropriate/creatively reuse work. It also increases the financial and administrative burden of any other party who wants to use a copyrighted work in a context outside of fair use.
2. The Orphaned Works bill proposes that works which are not registered will be considered orphaned, and therefore not be protected by copyright or moral rights. This will allow greater access to works outside of the context of fair use, but swing the financial and administrative burden to the creators.
3. The cost of copyright registration in the US is currently $45 per work. For me to register the copyright in the US (if I were working from the US) for my modest collection of 27 sculpture would cost $1,215. For some, this could be seen as part of the cost of producing work and/or securing their ability to further generate income from their work. However, this would be impossible for artists who generate any amount of income based on a low overhead.
4. Registration of copyright in the US requires the submission of a copy of the work. This is not the case in Canada (and, oddly, Canada’s registration fee is substantially higher at $65 per work for most types of work).

A quick search on Google shows that this is has been a concern in the US for some time. As Mark Simon noted, this is also happening in Europe (although I am having a difficult time tracking down information about that, amidst all the US content).

Locating the creator of a work is certainly an issue, but these proposed changes are not the solution… primarily because the solution shouldn’t create a whole host of problems for those who used to be protected.

Last Sunday, I was at the Copy Cats panel discussion hosted by Trinity Square Video in Toronto. The panel featured Johanna Householder, Jonathan Culp, Laura J. Murray and Jonathan Sommer. The discussion was very well attended (standing-room only for late-comers!), and the panelists provided a mixture of personal experience and legal background on appropriation in video art.

Johanna talked about the importance of appropriation as an artistic practise, noting that most artists who creatively reuse works do so because they love the original work. Jonathan C. later echoed this sentiment, and talked about the fact that he appropriates pop culture in his work because he is surrounded by it and is informed by it. Jonathan C. said that he was “scrounging from pop culture”, whereas Johanna mentioned the likeness of readymades and appropriation.

One of the points Johanna mentioned is one which has come up time and time again: the need to distinguish between artists’ use of art and non-artists’ use of art. I think there is general consensus that non-artists’ use of art (e.g. a company using a painting in their advertisements) needs to come with proper financial renumeration. Artists’ use of other artists’ work is more of a grey area, and from what I’ve been hearing, the problem isn’t that the artist who is practising appropriation doesn’t want to either pay for the use of the work or credit the other artist. The problem with being able to credit the original artist is that tracking down artists is often a daunting task, and the problem with paying the copyright owner is that it is difficult to license the material (particularly if it’s corporately owned).

Johnathan C. asked why we treat quoting/critiquing differently in print and other visual media (e.g. video). I think this is an excellent question, but it lands itself perfectly in the good ‘ol grey zone because the ratio of quoted to original work is much different in an artistically created critique than a textual one. Although there are textual equivalents to the type of work resulting in appropriation which often happens in film, I think it happens much less frequently (I may be wrong, though…I’m not as in tune with this as I’d like to be).

Johnathan S. provided us with a crash-course on copyright, and I was surprised by how few artists were already aware of the details of copyright law and how it applies to them. It always distresses me when I’m reminded of artists focusing so disproportionately more on their creative practise than on the more mundane things like copyright, finances and other administrative tasks.

Some of the information Johnathan S. shared which were new to me are:

• although the constitution is supposed to be the primary legal document, in practise, constitution doesn’t trump copyright act
• being able to articulate what was done when appropriating is wholly important if you ever go to court
• courts have identified that copyright is not a natural right

Laura gave the audience an overview of what has been happening with copyright in the political realm recently. Again, much of this was not news to me because of how closely I’ve been following copyright in the past few years. She then outlined what she thought were some changes we would want to see in the Copyright Act, rather than all the things we don’t want to see:

• broadening of fair dealing; movement toward fair use... more general statements about what is covered ~~> wouldn’t that leave the door open for the law being created purely based on case law?
• CCH –> clearer explanations of how fair dealing works
• attribution –> knowing where something comes from; add condition that attribution is done where possible
• set schedule to pay for use of work if copyright owner not found (to be paid if later found)
• penalty for copyright misuse

I wonder whether the movement toward fair use would actually accomplish what we want. It seems it may be a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other.

In the instance of attribution only being done where possible, the “where possible” clause may cause many heated debates of what that really means. Finding the original creator of a work has been an issue which is increasingly appeared in discussions of copyright. What I and others are starting to see is the need and possibility of a searchable database of art—something which new technologies is making more realistic.

The overall feeling I got from Copy Cats was that the same discussions are being recycled. This may not necessarily be a bad thing, considering there is so much education/awareness work yet to be done on appropriation and copyright in general. But it seems like those of us who are in the thick of things have gotten to the point where we need to start finding and creating solutions, rather than simply complaining about the problems.

The Globe & Mail provides an update on the star-studded backlash on C-10.