Julianna Yau’s blog

A little over a week ago, a friend suggested that I watch Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, pitching it as a pet project of Joss Whedon’s. Deciding to watch it was a struggle for me, with pros and cons all over the place. In retrospect, I probably over-thought the decision:

• Although I’m not a fan of the premise (or particularly interested in the storyline) of Buffy, I must grudgingly admit that I did find the writing to be witty in the few episodes I’ve been made to watch.
• I hate loathe musicals, but Neil Patrick Harris’s insane level of coolness promised to negate that.
• My primary operating system is OpenSUSE, but I kept Windows so I could still access things that aren’t available for Linux.

So, out of curiosity and boredom, I decided to pay the mere $6 for 43 minutes of entertainment, and it was worth it. Harris plays Dr. Horrible wonderfully, and it was nice to be able to enjoy Whedon’s writing without the supernatural (yes, I somewhat hypocritically make allowances for the world of superheros and supervillans).

The only horrible part was that the show is only [currently and legitimately] available in Apple’s DRM-protected m4v format. This means the $6 is more of a long-term rental fee than an outright purchase. Considering the price of a DVD or a rental from a brick-and-mortar store, it’s not a bad rate…but still leaves a bitter aftertaste.

Contrary to what some might think, I’m not a supporter of DRM. Although I support the right to use it as part of a business model, I don’t think it’s a good idea. I have yet to finish reading Wired Shut, but the chapter “Speed Bump” poses a solid argument against using architectural and technological measures to correct for social behaviour.

My personal opinion is that the use of Technical Protection Measures by individual creators in an attempt to protect their work is misguided and will be more detrimental (in terms of cost and promotional opportunities) than they are lead to believe. What is needed aren’t more barriers to the enjoyment of creative works, but educating people on the real cost of production and the value of a work. The situation, although more ignored, is more clear-cut for visual and media artists, who usually work alone or in small groups.

In the traditional model used by many visual artists, they bear the cost of creating their work and generate income from a variety of sources, including (but not limited to) grants (which are, in Canada, taxable income), teaching, exhibition fees (paid by galleries when the work is for display and not sale), second and third jobs, and the occassional sale. When work is sold through a gallery, the gallery typically takes 50% of the sale price to cover their overhead (rent, staff salaries, etc). In Canada, there is no legislated resale right which would help boost the income of artists when their growing careers increase the value of past work in the resale market.

When I run this information past my non-artist friends, they’re often shocked, particularly at the fact that a gallery gets a commission which is much higher than commissions in other industries. Suddenly, being an artist isn’t so glamorous, and “sticking it to the man” isn’t so chic.

Toronto, Ontario, June 26, 2008 – There is little visionary thinking behind Bill C-61 – An Act to Amend the Copyright Act of Canada in regards to the visual and media arts. The federal government will latch on to the fact that they have updated the rights of photographers so that they now align with other creators – CARFAC Ontario had actually suggested that this update be broadened to include printmakers and portrait artists.

“So much attention was paid to the needs of visual and media artists in the platform document that was collectively assembled by the Creators Copyright Coalition yet there is so little in this current bill that addresses those concerns,” said Julianna Yau, CARFAC Ontario Board Secretary.

As an example, jurisdictions like the State of California are embracing the resale right or “droit de suite” which gives visual and media artists a right to a percentage of the sale price that is paid to an artist when one of their works is resold by a gallery or other purchaser. North America has generally lagged behind the European Union which in 2001 issued a directive requiring member states to institute the “droit de suite” right in their copyright policies. In the United Kingdom alone the Designers and Artists Copyright Society (DACS) has collected £5.2 million (approximately $12million) in resale royalties for over 1500 artists since February 2006.

It is also disappointing that wording around the Exhibition Right was not strengthened to oblige publicly funded exhibitors to pay visual and media artists for all uses of their work. This is the sort of revision that will likely be allowable during the upcoming consultative

For more information about Bill C-61 visit:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/h_rp01153e.html

For more information about the Creators Copyright Coalition’s Platform on the Revision of Copyright visit:
http://www.creatorscopyright.ca/documents/platform-jan08.html

CARFAC Ontario is the association of professional visual and media artists in Ontario. We have worked for 40 years to promote the material and moral welfare and rights of visual artists, including legal, economic, and physical health. We believe that artists, like professionals in other fields, should be paid for their work and share equitably in profits from their art practice. The work of CARFAC Ontario is to develop policies, publications and services that assist artists, galleries, curators, art patrons and anyone with an interest in creating a society that supports visual and media
artists. Working, professional visual and media artists actively govern CARFAC Ontario. As artists, we understand the needs of artists and have developed services and programs to assist artists at every stage of their careers.

- 30 -

Yesterday, though one of the many mailing lists to which I’m subscribed, I received a call for submissions of a new graphic design for a band. The payoff? An “engraved/autographed iPod” from the band and the possibility of the design being used for the band’s merch.

I wondered to myself: is that really worth it?

CARCC’s fees for images used in merchandise is “15% of the retail price of the entire production run, payable in advance”. That’s a far cry from the cost of an iPod, even if it’s engraved or autographed, and even if the band was paying the suggested retail price for the iPod.

Then, of course, I had to ask myself: do these types of contests really any impacts to professional artists?

After some thought, I decided that they are probably likely to attract the same type of professional artist who would submit work to a contest with a submission/entry fee. Although it is entirely possible for the band to receive entries of a high calibre, they are also selecting against the many artists who are not willing to work in exchange for an iPod and some free publicity.

But are contests like these and Penguin’s cover contest a real threat to the group of artists who would have otherwise have been commissioned to create that work? Are these marketing gimmicks, or are people starting to test the waters for this being a more standard alternative to hiring artists to do that work? At this point, it’s difficult to tell…but this is definitely worth watching.