Julianna Yau’s blog

Press release:

SEIZED
Critical Art Ensemble
Institute for Applied Autonomy

June 7 to July 19, 2008
Opening Reception: Saturday, June 7, 8–11pm
Admission is FREE

Hallwalls Contemporary Arts Center
341 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14202

Hallwalls Contemporary Arts Center is pleased to announce the exhibition SEIZED by Critical Art Ensemble (CAE) and the Institute for Applied Autonomy (IAA). The exhibition premieres Saturday, June 7, 2008 from 8–11pm and the opening reception is free and open to the public. The exhibition will remain on view through July 18, 2008. Gallery hours are Tuesday through Friday, 11am to 6pm and Saturday, 1–4pm.

Following the four year long ordeal of CAE founding member and University at Buffalo Art Professor Steve Kurtz—accused by the Justice Department of “bio-terrorism” and later indicted on charges of mail fraud for procuring harmless bacterial cultures for use in an educational art project—SEIZED presents the artworks behind this case which has attracted worldwide attention and propelled an international arts community to rally to Kurtz’s support and on behalf of freedom of speech.

SEIZED will center itself upon the works and materials seized by federal authorities, in particular the multi-media project Marching Plague, which was commissioned by the UK-based art-science initiative, The Arts Catalyst, and produced in consultation with scientists from the Harvard-Sussex Program on Chemical and Biological Weapons Armament and Arms Limitation. The project is comprised of an installation, performance, film, and book dedicated to demystifying issues surrounding germ warfare programs and the cost of their development to global public health.

Additionally, project documentation and ephemera from the three other CAE projects confiscated by authorities will be on display. These works—Free Range Grain, Molecular Invasion, and GenTerra—utilize the framework of science and research to inspire informed dialogue about questions and concerns surrounding the new biotechnologies.

SEIZED will also exhibit the physical artifacts of the 2004 FBI investigation of Steve Kurtz. Items seized from Kurtz’s home will be documented in photographs depicting the negative spaces remaining following their seizure: missing computers, books, notes, props from art performances, lab equipment, and an unfinished manuscript. In a curious—and unintentionally performative—gesture, the gaps left by seized items are filled in by the volumes of trash left behind in Kurtz’s home by federal investigators: hundreds of empty drink bottles, pizza boxes, Hazmat suits, and other assorted refuse, all of which will be on exhibit alongside CAE artworks.

The resulting exhibition will offer a strange amalgam—part survey of CAE’s recent body of artwork, and part exploration of an attempted “bioterrorism” investigation.

http://hallwalls.org/visual_shows/2008/show_seized.html
http://www.critical-art.net
http://www.caedefensefund.org
http://www.appliedautonomy.com

Hallwalls Contemporary Arts Center
341 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14202
716.854.1694 www.hallwalls.org

I wasn’t actually planning on attending Elsie Orenstein’s presentation on Copyright Law, Technology and Cultural Management, but I was tired and didn’t think I could handle any new information. It was also nice to get a feel for what type of information other artists and arts administrators were getting on the topic of copyright, and what their concerns were.

I took a bunch of photos, but they didn’t turn out very well because Elsie saturated the slides with info. She covered a lot of ground in an hour and a half, and I may have been the only one who wasn’t overwhelmed because of my prior knowledge of most of what she covered.

Here are my notes (~ indicates my thoughts):

“On the verge of Canadian copyright reform: A primer on copyright and the internet for artists and arts managers”

-What is the internet from an artist’s perspective?
potential worldwide audience
-source of research
-communicate exchange ideas w/in internet community
-platform for new forms of creative expression
-avoid censorship

Means of recognition/promotion
-own website/3rd party website
-brand image
-peer reviews
-self-publication option

Flickr and Rebekka Guoleifsdottir
-developed photo technique to create images that look good in thumbnail form
-got commissions thru Flickr exposure

Terry Fallis
-turned down by publishers and agents
-published 1 chapter at a time as a free, downloadable poadcast on own site, iTunes and podiobooks.om
-won Leacock award

Sources of income
-website sales of artist works
-third party wesite sales
-commissions from ads
-commissions for work
-royalties from collectives

US Hollywood Writers’ Strike – WGA 2008-2011 Settlement
-about uncertainty
-writers only getting flat-fee for downloadable version of their scripts
-now getting % of gross revenue
-studios can stream for free during 7 day window on all streamed content

What is the internet from a copyright lawyer’s perspective
-help client achieve their goals and avoid liability
-difficult because of how quickly technology is changing
-her view that current laws are inadequate
-courts are intervening with both good and bad decisions

-work gets distributed instantaneously
-how to control distribution
-how to get paid

-view by certain rights holder –> invitation to copy if it’s uploaded (“feels like free”!); particularly with younger users
-collective bargaining societies
~same type of info from most other overview sessions on copyright
-implied license –> courts consider whether certain uses are implied due to conduct

Perfect 10 v. Google – Sex, copyright & the internet
-market for thumbnail
-even thought the whole photo was displayed once clicked on by the mouse because Google only ‘framed’ content provided by a link to someone else’s server and Google itself did not make copies on its server”
-removal of content on demand (a reoccurring problem with Google, except the courts give Google leeway because they will remove content on demand)

-Canadian copyright law not based on common law
-legislators kept adding new things to the framework of old legislation
-fair use seen as user right in the US
-fair dealing in Canada finally seen that way

-WIPO, Berne
-how much fair use/fair dealing allowed
-DMCA (shhhhh)

-music industry setting prescience for other media
-p2p not quite illegal in Canada (???)

-whether a “making available right” should replace the current “right to communicate to the public by telecommunication” and extend to neighbouring rights
-TPMs
-moral rights – accreditation can be removed easily in digital works

-ISP liability
-IP addresses reused and reassigned because not everyone online at the same time
-notice & takedown –> court system in Canada; can’t deal directly with ISP
–IP address goes to a computer, not a user
~~p2p vs websites for notice and takedown?

-copyright applies to original work
-courts divided on how to define “original”
–”not copied”, “creative spark”, requiring some “skill, judgement or labour”
-in US, assembly of facts is not copyright protected; in Canada, this is different …which means databases can be protected by copyright

~overview provided, similar to my mind map… but in list form

-Robertson v. Thompson (S.C.C. 2006 decision split 5 to 4)
-compilations
-freelance writers
-CD archive of articles
-database – text only; no ads or layout
-do these databases attract copyright?
-majority of S.C.C. –> databases were structured so that the articles were decontextualized to the point that their connection with the newspaper edition was lost, even though date and page numbers referenced the original paper editions; but felt the CD was not an infringement because it reproduced the article
-Class action –> felt the look & feel of the content should not e a consideration
-US case –> Tasini v New York Times

-Canada considers p2p activity fair usage (huh??)

-CC license mentioned
-time & format shifting, remixing

-not all fair dealing provisions extend to the internet because of the wording of the legislation
~> but what about the intent of the wording?

-UMG Recordings v. MP3.com – Court rejected a “public benefit” argument

-Geist quoted from April 22, 2008
“eviscerate the fair dealing exception in the digital world”

-Michael Snow!

-Galerie d’Art du Petit-Champlain v. Theberge

~registration seen as easier in Canada because no copies of work required, but it’s not actually useful for artists
~how would we know when the work was created if the author is not known?

-impact of Disney on copyright

-Canada has reversionary terms for copyright (copyright reverts to estate after 25 years)

-Geist on “National Gallery Looking for Profits in All the Wrong Places”
-photograph of work –> secondary copyright –> Patry
-artistic merit of photo vs archiving of work through photos

-who owns copyright of photo taken by “a gallery”
-damage to work – moral rights
–need for contract wording on this

-common practice for an archive to charge for the copy of the image plus a license to publish
-impacts what we can create because of access and afforability
-market value of image which has no additional artistic value
-work involved in creating the image
–fee for getting image (admin fee) vs copyright fees of image

-gallery in Quebec w/online gallery; no money for artists; even though artists waived fees, they were not allowed to go through with it because they violated artists rights

-performances and personal recording devices
-SOCAN
-illegal copies in theatre
-artists okay vs house policy
-who owns the performance versus who is the host?
-theatre’s liability
-SOCAN says hall is responsible for remitting revenue

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

Georgia Harper writes about the case involving Turnitin, a web service which allows educators to check papers for possible plagiarism. The case deals with not only issues of copyright and plagiarism, but also freedom of choice and the dangers of clickwrap agreements.

Donn Zaretsky points to an article by Nancy Wolff which outlines some of the idiosyncrasies of the application of copyright law to photographers. On the other hand, Georgia Harper writes about how natural it is for people to take pictures of public art.

RAAV has a press release on the ruling by the Quebec Court of Appeal in the case of Marc-André Jacques Fortier v. Gestion B. Brisson et Associés et Brian Brisson (also available in original French):

For the first time, a visual artist, Marc-André-Jacques Fortier, sculptor and member of RAAV, dared to push to the limit the defence of his rights with regard to a private gallery that neglected to sign contracts and keep appropriate accounts relative to the artist’s works. Defended by an experienced lawyer, J. L. Wolofsky, the artist was able to demonstrate definitively the effectiveness of the statute when it comes to the obligation for artists and private presenters to sign individual contracts.

Today, Crave finally picks up on the fact that DeviantArt exists, and somewhat questionably touts it as “a YouTube for artists”.

Although well-meaning, Ina Fried does not seem to be aware that:

• YouTube is used by artists (although YouTube, oddly, does not have a channel for artists who do not fall under the umbrella of Director), as are other popular websites for user-generated content, like Flickr
• artist-specific websites for content display, such as Saatchi Online and MyArtSpace also exist (although they haven’t been around as long as DeviantArt)

What I did get from Fried’s article was exposure to the Coton v. TVX Films case. This case was initiated last year when Lara Jade Coton found that a self-portrait she had taken when she was 14 was used on the cover of a porn flick called Body Magic. The self-portrait, unlike the growing collection of 14-year-olds’ self-portraits found on sites like MySpace, is sexy but is not sexually-explicit/erotic and doesn’t contain nudity.

TVX Films (sorry, I’m not linking to their website, but you can search for them easily enough) shoot themselves in the foot by (a) removing Coton’s copyright notice from the photo and (b) indicating on the back of the DVD case that “Everyone associated with this DVD is 18 or over”. Although Coton’s website currently indicates that she is 18, she was not 18 in the photo and TVX Films wouldn’t have much to support that they were able to validate her age without having been in contact with her.

With child exploitation and copyright infringement being such hot topics right now, TVX being a big, bad company in the porn industry and Coton being a beautiful and talented young artist, I don’t expect TVX Films to be able to get away with this one.

After quite a bit of work, I managed to get almost everything for my websites back to normal. The main thing which took longer than expected (and continues to be unresolved) is being able to use the Metaweblog API to get my Ma.gnolia bookmarks posted to this blog. I have since discovered that ModSecurity 2 does not play nice with Metaweblog API. This means, although I love Ma.gnolia’s blog posting feature, I will probably not be using it until there is a way for the Metaweblog API to work with ModSecurity active for everything except my xmlpc file.

My bookmarks continue to be available here, and individual feeds are available for the tags.

Here are the links I’ve wanted to post since my server upgrades:

• John Degen on the CMEC proposal
• Lawrence at Northworthy challenges the concept of “fair” copyright
• The Office of the Privacy Commissioner discusses potential privacy issues with the new enhanced driver’s licences (EDLs) available to eligible B.C. residents.
• William Patry argues that a photograph of an object is the depiction of the object rather than a derivative work.
• An article on the “art bug”. This seemed very familiar to me, and I had to check the date several times to ensure it was current. Why was it so familiar? This was something which was discussed at the Visual Arts Summit! Sadly, the article is now behind the pay wall…but is still free to read at your local library.
• More studies on art & culture. This one is from Kelly Hill, a presenter from the Visual Arts Summit
• Art News Blog: Urban Art Auction. The second half of the story covers an exciting collaboration between Banksy and DJ Danger Mouse.
• Counterfeit Chic: But New York Doesn’t ♥ Gucci
• The Art Law Blog notices a recent ruling in the Kurtz case (the one with the bio materials used in art).
• And Maurice Agis is charged with manslaughter because of a malfunction with his inflatable sculpture.

William Patry covers an interesting case in which a postal worker has pleaded guilty to copyright infringement, of all things, because he sold CDs and DVDs which BMG didn’t want to pay to have returned to them.

It reminds me of how books which aren’t sold have their covers returned to the publisher…which is why they carry the disclaimer: “If this book is sold to you without a cover, it is being illegally sold.” But what happens if the book cover is sent back, the book thrown into the recycling bin by the bookseller, then the book is salvaged by an entrepreneurial individual who resells it? It is obviously illegal for the original bookseller to both return the cover of the book and sell the actual book, but if it becomes one man’s trash and another’s treasure, is the latter breaking the law?

Let’s take this out of the heated context of copyright and look at it in terms of reselling goods.

If I discard a piece of lumber (for argument’s sake, let’s say I place it in a bin marked “unwanted crap”) and someone comes along and takes that discarded lumber and resells it, are they breaking any laws? Not that I know of. Should they be? I don’t think so.

Let’s say I sell lumber for a living, and decide to throw some lumber into a bin marked “unwanted crap”. If someone comes along, takes that discarded lumber and resells it, suddenly the situation becomes trickier. Because, in this imaginary world, I earn my income from the selling of lumber, I suddenly feel that I have lost potential income because the lumber which was once mine (but which I had discarded) has been sold by someone else. However, as a logical person, I would come to the conclusion that I have no right to the money made by that person because it was my choice to dispose that lumber into a bin marked “unwanted crap”. It was a bad business decision on my part, and the salvager was a much superior entrepreneur than I.

But, then, what happens when I’m not selling merely lumber, but poems etched in the lumber? The content of the poems are mine (assuming I’m not silly enough to infringe upon someone else’s copyright), but that copy of it no longer is mine when I have disposed of the lumber. Although I would still retain the moral rights to the poems on the lumber, I would not reasonably expect to still own the physical pieces of lumber. But what happens when that lumber is not sold merely as lumber, but as lumber with those particular poems etched into the lumber? Personally,  I don’t think it’s reasonable to claim that someone doesn’t have the right to resell the lumber if I have discharged them from my inventory.

So, in summary, I think that BMG made a bad business decision and is trying to compensate by waving the Copyright Act at someone who is smarter than them.

The Washington Post has a surprisingly balanced article which discusses cases of corporate copyright infringement. This is the under-reported flip-side to all of the cases where users are uploading/sharing corporately-owned intellectual/creative property. Big companies still have an advantage in these cases because they can blame interns and buy off negative press and law suits with what’s pocket change for them. IMO, the company is responsible for not properly educating their interns on copyright if those interns are being asked to harvest images for company use.

I’m adding this to my deconstruction of copyright later.

Thanks to Thomas Vander Wal for the link (via the Social Media group on Ma.gnolia)!