Claims made over your copyright...

[Araich]

I increasingly see claims made by exhibition organisers over copyright material. That is, the reproduction of images of your work.

Here are 2 examples from current applications for outdoor exhibitions in Sydney:

The first: The artist agrees that by entering this competition they give [organisation name], the sole exclusive right, without the payment of a licence fee, to reproduce images of the sculpture to be exhibited provided by the artist for pre-selection and any images of the work in the exhibition for any commercial purposes including the exhibition catalogue or for any merchandise product, including but not limited to a book, photographic essay for sale, publicity, advertising, exhibition or archival purposes in any manner connected with the exhibition or its sponsors.

The second: By signing the entry form, entrants give Management of the [organisation name] exclusive right to reproduce images of submitted work for any purpose, including but not limited to: the exhibition brochure; website promotion of the event; promotional material for future exhibitions.

I'd like to see what members consider the implications of these, and also request that the similar clause in (or not in) your local exhibitions be posted for comparison.

[Araich]

Some comparisons (also Australia):

National Sculpture Prize: Artists agree to allow images of their works that are selected for the National Sculpture Prize and Exhibition to be reproduced on the National Gallery of Australia and Macquarie Bank websites and in the exhibition catalogue. Works may also be reproduced in any media for non-commercial purposes, including publicity, advertising, review and research from the date of notification of selection until the close of the exhibition. Any subsequent reproductions will be negotiated with the artist.

McClelland Sculpture Survey & Award: The artist must hold copyright of the work and agree to allow fair and reasonable use of images of the work for reasons of publicity/promotion and for publication.

The Helen Lempriere National Sculpture Prize: Copyright – applicants shall allow images of their work and extracts from the biographical statement provided, to be reproduced for use in the catalogue, publicity and associated publications.

[jwebb]

I like the "fair and reasonable" phrase in the latter. Of course, lawyers would dislike it because it's subject to anybody's interpretation. All of the previous ones, though, seem intended to allow the Show People to screw the Artists at will. If the intent is not to be "fair and reasonable" it can only be to allow unfair and unreasonable. The big problem, as aluded to earlier in these threads, is that it's impractical for an artist to argue very much with the people who run these Shows. It is a symbiotic, parasitic relationship, at best. Workers of the World.....Unite!.....oh, never mind.

[jwebb]

Actually, the second to the last one seems fair and reasonable, also. Only the first two suck.

[JAZ]

I'd like to see what members consider the implications of these, and also request that the similar clause in (or not in) your local exhibitions be posted for comparison.[/QUOTE]

I'm involved with the Somerby's Landing Sculpture Park and we are in the midst of upgrading the paperwork for the upcoming show. our Call for Artists is at www.firehouse.org. go to Art Gallery, then the link is down the page a bit. I wanted to copy it to paste it here, but I'm at my studio with this million year old computer and it can't read the .pdf file, so you'll have to go to it yourself. If you want to suggest any changes to our policies, I'd love to hear them. I'm also extrapolating from different loan agreements to propose one for our artists that will protect them and us better than the PierWalk one did.
I've learned a lot from that we need to keep the stipend you earned experience. Believe it or not, it's not over yet. On January 31st I finally got the loan agreement from the venue where Strobus, my sculpture, is now. It says that the $2,000 stipend should go to an entity I've never even heard of - not even the one specified on Pierwalk's freshly updated site. Where does the money go? But the Sculpture garden where it is now also said that the agreement would not be valid until both PierWalk and I signed it. If PierWalk had done their job properly this summer I would have just let it go. But I don't feel they did. I did considerably more work than they did to promote my sculpture. So, I didn't stop looking for advice when I posted the question here at the beginning of January. While there is not much hope, artists shouldn't just assume that they can't do anything at all about unfair practices.
For instance, if someone with Araich's reputation was accepted into Sculpture by the Sea and said to the organizers, "I'm pleased to be in the show and I'm satisfied with everything in the loan agreement except this one small section where it says that.... (as in that you get to profit any way you see fit from my hard work). Would they say, sorry, you can't be in the show? That would be a response that a reporter would love to hear about, though that would be extreme. But really, is it worth being in a show that would treat you like that? We are providing a service to the venues that exhibit our work and to the public and the basic fair treatment for a service provider isn't too much to expect.
This is how children's book contracts go. At least in the past. They itemize every single conceivable component of both party's rights. It takes pages and pages. If the author sees something he/she finds troubling (for example a percentage for a certain thing, or a certain clause), you call the editor and discuss it. Usually, you can cross that part out, initial it, sign the document and send it back. Or if the change is more substantial the editor has an new one drafted. Obviously you can't ask for the moon, but I know a guy who asked for more money on his very first book and got it. That's unusual because he had no track record. The point is that negotiation is possible to a certain extent.
I agree that the first two are fine because you want the venue to advertise how great your work looks in their nice park, on their website, in the magazines, wherever. They are providing you with free and usually very good advertising. But when it comes to making tee shirts and mugs with your art on it, those are subsidiary rights and should be shared with and agreed to by you the artist. Maybe they think they're doing you a favor, but you need control over how your stuff is used and you need to be paid something for it. Once the contract or loan agreement is signed you have to stick with the terms you agreed to.
Years ago I used to illustrate for children's books and magazines. They had good contracts. Two days ago I received a letter stating that one magazine publisher wanted to reprint two of my old illustrations in a new songbook. They wanted to know if I could send them the art again and they would pay half of what I originally got in the first place. There will be a written agreement, they will get the art for less than comissioning new art and I will be paid again for its use. That's fair in my view. Everyone is covered. You don't want stumble someday on reproductions of one of your sculptures on mousepads in some tacky store, right?
We have to be aware of what we sign and don't sign if it isn't fair to all parties involved.
If the somerby's Landing Sculpture Park loan agreement is of interest I could post the rough draft to be sure it covers everything fairly. All comments welcome.
By the way, there is a chapter of Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts (sometimes slightly different name in some cities) in just about every major city in the USA. Maybe that's true elsewhere, too. They specialize in helping artists who are being taken advangtage of.

[ALH]

Yes we are being ripped off and yes sometimes we have no power to change that. The biggest issue here is the creeping normalization of the copyright/moral rights waivers. Simply put, if the art institutions automatically ask for the waiver in every dealing with artists then copyright law no longer exists for us.

Check out collectives, which collect fees on your behalf and advocate on this issue.

CARCC [Canadian] www.carcc.ca
SODART [Quebec]
DACS [the U.K.]
ARS [the U.S]
SOMAAP [Mexico]
ADAGP [France]
BILD-KUNST [Germany]
RAO [Russia]
SIAE [Italy]
VI$COPY [New Zealand and Australia]

I hope this helps; it's a big topic.