Re: [-empyre-] COPYRIGHT Demistified ( PART 2)

["Melinda Rackham" <melinda@unsw.edu.au>]

> Because not many admnistrators are familiar in
> detail with the Copyright Act, it is often the case that
> not paying artists their entitlements is argued with
> the line that " it is in the artist interest, because the
> work gets promoted".

in the early days of net.art (mid 90's) i went online precisely because i
wanted to circumvent the whole gallery /museum system, have instant access
to an audience, and work in a medium where i wasnt censored with image and
text (cause i was doing work on online porn with explicit sexual images and
content) like i would have been in a public exhibition space.

when the whole organised net.art exhibiting thing started, artists werent
paid at all for being in shows.. the retoric was its was only a link.. the
internet should be free .. its the gift economy, etc etc, and i guess its
been a long road from there to now museums commissioning and purchasing
work, however  most netartists still get badly (or not at all) paid for
thier  work.. and how many commisssions, prizes, grants etc are ther  in the
world -certainly  not enough to sustain a productive working life for more
than a few. HOWEVER everyone else in the art /museum /publication food chain
gets paid to promote, produce, curate, write about  net.art except the
artist themselves...

still today well funded instutions around the world, often use online
artist content for their shows and pay artist appallingly eg sometimes
between $US25 to $US100 per show, while installation artists, even painters,
are flown on location, accomodated and paid fees for the "physical" work. -
last year i told a festival in europe that i wouldnt constent to my online
work being included in thier show unless they paid me a fee. net.artists who
were coming to the festival were offered a weeks festival pass, food and
accomodation. because i was in australia and didnt want to spend $US1000 to
fly  there,  i was supposed to be happy just to be shown. I negotiated and
they agreed to pay the fee, however i still havent recieved it 8 months
later.

also for years i didnt realise that i should be paid for the publishing of
my screenshots.- i always had a distaste for the word Copyrite, etc,
thinking that Open Source and copy left where the answer to everything , and
i still think they are great, however im starting to see what my rights are
in the rest of the world.. not just the enclosed art world. eg since ive
been aware that when art magazines publish screenshots from my work i should
be paid a fee, and stipulate it, ive  had several  art publications refuse
to do this.. saying either they wont publish any images or   begging me to
waive fees, stating they  they "dont have the funds to pay artists for
images".. however when ive had the same screenshots published in wider
ranging journals and books ie outside the art world,  they have no
hestitation to pay copyrite fees for images.. its seems to be standard
straightforward business practice.

 im wondering why things are so bad in the arts indsutry..do we still
operate on the romantic principle that artists shoudl struggle and live in
poverty to make great art, only getting "valued" after they are dead when
realtives or business associates benifit from thier repoduction rights. this
situation is specifically  inequitable in online practice, where net.artists
support  a whole indsutry by donating thier services. i need to know what my
rights are regarding my online work and have access to legal
representation - its not a hobby i do at the weekends - a sunday afternoon
net.artist - this is what i do in life .

melinda


>
> Remember, an arts organisation is not set up to
> be doing artists favours. Their job, as a cultural
> institution, is to develop cultural and artistic
> content, develop audiences and contribute to the
> evolution of culture. Without artists there will be no
> need for art organisations. Your relationship with
> any cultural institution or arts organisation must
> remain purely professional.