Re: [-empyre-] Re: copyright

[Deanne|CG2 <deanne@crankygirl.com>]

Bit late off the mark here re: getting paid/copyright etc, but I was away.

I've read with great interest all these thoughts and wondering about
paradigms etc.

First, it makes me realise I've been quite naive in my outlook on net
art re: participating/submitting to shows!  The idea of getting paid
would be like a bonus, not an expectation.  Also, I've previously sent
off a copy of my site on a cd-rom (which was not returned) and kind of
had to let go of the idea of possession [the gallery agreed to wipe it
off their hard-drive, but who knows?]  So, now I have two more things to
worry about before applying for a show. :)

Next, I think there is a comparison to be made to the artist-run centres
culture which exists quite strongly here (Canada).  
A friend/artist/curator I know once explained it to me like this.
There is a 'founder-culture' mentality operating in the artist-run
centre scene.
In the beginning, there were all these artists (youthful and full of
energy) who were hoping to create new paradigm, show works that were not
then (70's I guess) shown in the institutions of art, and generally push
the boundaries quite a bit.  These centres operated on a volunteer basis
(lots of youthful energy) ie: no one was paid. Then pretty much over the
years they have become part of the institution, you could say.  Where
staff (curators, administrators etc) are paid (albeit not very much in
some cases) and artists are paid standard fees. Which of course is great thing!

The idea of the founder-culture mentality is where a centre still has
the original members on the board and they might be reluctant to pay the
staff (or increase the salary) because they put in their blood, sweat
and tears and aren't coming from the same point of view.  ie: artists
should volunteer to make the centre run.

I see it as a catch 22 that the artists themselves inadvertently
promote. Because of course volunteers are greatly needed and appreciated
for these types of spaces to run well.  But the people who run them are
artists and  need to be paid.  The more you volunteer, the less obvious
it is that people should be paid.  The more you pay, the less people
want to volunteer.  The more you volunteer, the more you burn out....

But eventually, everyone agress that all the artists should be paid and
funding should be in place for this to happen.  

So all this text (sorry about the length) to say that maybe we're in a
kind of founder-culture mentality here with net art.  

Artists should be paid, but it hasn't yet entered the consciousness of
everyone that that is the case.  (As I said at the start, I've been so
far happy, in fact  delighted to have a web-piece shown period, no
thoughts to $$)

And it's also a catch 22.  ie: on the flip side, appropriation is a
central element to many net art projects and that's a slippery slope to
try to track the copyright et al.  And then how  could I retain my goals
of subversion of the "dominant" (hate that word but what else to use)
web culture if I demanded paymment for links?

Sigh. more worries.
Really enjoyed all the posts. Many thanks
Cheers
Deanne

==============================
Deanne Achong
deanne@crankygirl.com
http://www.crankygirl.com/archive