Artists To National Gallery Of Canada: 'Pay Us Again And Again And Again!'

from the entitlement-culture dept

Mon, Dec 7th 2009 7:22am — Mike Masnick

Rose M. Welch writes in to point to the latest example of entitlement culture gone wrong. Apparently, two groups representing artists in Canada, The Canadian Artists' Representation, known as CARFAC, and the Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Quebec (RAAV), have filed a complaint against the National Gallery in Canada. The National Gallery already pays artists an exhibition fee to display their art. But, CARFAC and RAAV think that the National Gallery needs to pay them multiple times for the same artworks, because the Gallery also uses some of the artwork it displays in brochures, catalogs and other offerings. Of course, you would think that artists would be thrilled to be displayed in the National Gallery, to get that recognition and promotion, and the ability to declare their artwork "as seen in the National Gallery," which you would think would certainly boost what they can charge. But, apparently, that's not enough. At some point, it makes you wonder if the National Gallery shouldn't just focus on artists who aren't members of these organizations, so they can work with artists who actually appreciate being in The National Gallery of Canada.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: artists, canada, copyright, national gallery
Companies: carfac, national gallery of canada, raav

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Seshan (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 7:40am

What the hell is happen to the world these days, greedy bastards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 7:40am

Silly Little Collection Groups .....
"At some point, it makes you wonder if the National Gallery shouldn't just focus on artists who aren't members of these organizations, so they can work with artists who actually appreciate being in The National Gallery of Canada."

Actually this is already happening in the music industry. Australia's restaraunts and bars are coming together to create CC, and non Collection Group affiliated playlists. This side stepping the collection agencies should start creeping into over areas. As the fee's go up and more people choose free alternatives these sorts of collection agencies will begin failing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 7:41am

When buying 2nd hand art you should remember to ask "Show me the CARFAC!!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 7:51am

What about the poor, starving carpenters
Shouldn't the architects who designed the building keep getting paid? They should be paid each time a tourist photographs the exterior or interior of the building.

And what about the carpenters? The guy that installed the front door should get paid every time someone walks through it.

What we need is a collection society that keeps track of which workers (they prefer to be called "Artists of the Practical) worked on every piece of every building. Every time that part of a building is used, they get paid. Now, keeping detailed records like that is impossible, so for simplicity we will just charge all buildings an annual fee. It is hard to track down the individual workers (even though that is the collection society's job according to its charter) so they will only pay the top 200 workers, and keep the rest for themselves.

/scarcasm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Buzz Saw (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 8:37am

ugggggh
Artists are the greediest people around. And no, they are not entitled to a paycheck. They have a right to TRY to make money; they do not have rights to go around and extract money from everyone WHO ALREADY BOUGHT THE ART. I hate that argument the most: "Well, this is how I make my money. I have to make money *somehow*."

I'm going to start greeting people on the street and then hand them an invoice for the positive emotions they felt. I have to make money *somehow*, and it's not fair that they continue to be happy from me being nice to them only once.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hegemon13, 7 Dec 2009 @ 8:50am

Re: What about the poor, starving carpenters
"Shouldn't the architects who designed the building keep getting paid? They should be paid each time a tourist photographs the exterior or interior of the building."

Are you kidding? Photographs are a copyright violation! Sue those architectural pirates!

No, they should be paid every time anyone LOOKS at the building. After all, that's where the music and movie industries are headed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 8:51am

Important to notice that the National Gallery doesn't buy the works, it effectively rents them by paying a fee for display. Other uses of the works aren't included in that fee.

How hard is it to understand?

This one is higher on Moral Outrage, and fairly high on the ignorance scale.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Luci, 7 Dec 2009 @ 8:55am

Re: ugggggh
Couldn't they then submit to you an invoice for 'stealing' their happy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robb Topolski (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 9:10am

Sheeesh...
Pretty soon we'll be paying painters and sculptors like we pay musicians: they get money anytime someone looks at it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 9:22am

Re:
Yes - but those other uses are entirely in connection with the display and mostly an effort to promote the artists/works involved. Your comment epitomises exactly the greedy attitude that we are complaining about - the desire to salami slice every activity and charge again for every slice.
To any reasonable person renting something for display obviously includes promotional literature, catalogues etc since it is clearly stupid pointless to have an exhibition without publicity and a catalogue so that visitors can find their way around.

It is only a warped mind that would regard these activities as separate enough to imply a further charge.

Next time the gallery should ask the artists individually to waive the right to an extra fee - and omit those that refuse from the catalogue so no one can find their work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yogi, 7 Dec 2009 @ 9:42am

The MAFIAA logic
Strictly speaking, every time a visitor stops to look at one of their works of art in the museum display, the artists should get paid.

Basically, looking at a painting is no different than hearing/playing a song on the radio - it's a public performance, only in a visual medium.

Amazing that the artists are only now beginning to realize this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fogbugzd (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 10:03am

Re: The MAFIAA logic
>>Basically, looking at a painting is no different than hearing/playing a song on the radio - it's a public performance, only in a visual medium.

There is a HUGE difference. The painting is a scarce good, in fact one of a kind in most cases. The original painting is in one spot, and people have to go there to see the original. The painting was purchased at some point, and that is when the author got paid (I am talking about most cases, apparently the National Gallery has a different arrangement). Music, on the other hand is an infinite good. If someone steals the painting the original owner looses it. If someone steals a copy of the song, the owner still has access to the song.

Perhaps the National Gallery of Canada has a different arrangement. If they are renting the work, then the artist should simply take them back if they are not happy with the arrangement. If there is a contract term that has not expired, then they have to live with the terms of the contract until it expires, after which they should take it back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AC, 7 Dec 2009 @ 10:25am

They should call themselves the Canadian Representative Artists Proletariate. The name says it all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
joker, 7 Dec 2009 @ 10:56am

Re:
LOL! That WAS FUNNY!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 11:03am

Re:
So, they should pay a fee to display them, but if they want advertise what is on display, they should pay another fee.

Got it. Go back to your cave now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc, 7 Dec 2009 @ 11:42am

Those artists are such worthless people. They spend their entire lives pissing paint on a canvas and thinking they're something special so the world owes them for their mastery. (Jackson Pollock vividly comes to mind, with his "paintings" being worth millions upon millions)

Where's the little guy working every day of his life in the shop down the road? He works 100 times as hard as those bastards and probably makes 100 times less.

So, no. They shouldn't give them a penny. In fact, they should charge the artists for giving them a spot to exhibit in the gallery.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 11:43am

Re: ugggggh
Artists have been seen recently taking lessons from bankers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 11:45am

Re: Re:
suggest you go back to your cave as the gallary has the right to say up yours take your paintings away.!!!!!!!!!

LOSE OF PRESTIGE AND EXTRA CASH.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alex Hagen, 7 Dec 2009 @ 12:29pm

Echo chamber
Man, this place has turned into an echo chamber. It is perfectly reasonable to expect to be paid if your work is featured in promotional advertisements or posters, but we get post after post calling these artists "greedy" and "worthless people". It's sad that so many people with so little to offer criticize their betters so mean-spiritedly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 1:31pm

Re: Echo chamber
"It is perfectly reasonable to expect to be paid if your work is featured in promotional advertisements or posters, but we get post after post calling these artists "greedy" and "worthless people"."

Is it reasonable, though? If they do something ONCE they should get paid ONCE. If they sold those paintings, the paintings don't belong to them any more. Why do they think they are entitled to getting paid again and again?

"It's sad that so many people with so little to offer criticize their betters so mean-spiritedly."

BS. They aren't that special. Too full of themselves maybe.
And, if anything, they're a burden to anyone else who works to make a living.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 1:31pm

Re: Echo chamber
. It is perfectly reasonable to expect to be paid if your work is featured in promotional advertisements or posters,
No it isn't. You agreed to rent out your work to the gallery for a fee - that's the end of it.
It's like you send your video to "You've been framed" you get £250 if they use it once - but some videos get used much more for promoting the programmes - the people who made them don't get any more for it.
Every year some of our top students get their work featured in the local paper to promote the University. They are pleased by the publicity - they don't expect payment.

Also your comment "people with so little to offer criticize their betters so mean-spiritedly" is presumptious. It assumes that you can deduce someone's talents and capabilities from their opinions. How do you know that these commenters have "little to offer? Plainly you don't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 2:06pm

Re: Echo chamber
"It is perfectly reasonable to expect to be paid if your work is featured in promotional advertisements or posters,"

No.

If you allow your work to be featured in a gallery, the gallery shouldn't have to pay you AGAIN just to advertise what you are already allowing them to display. What do you want them to show in brochures? Giant black rectangles with a question mark in them and text that says "We have good art, but...we can't show it to you, so you'll just have to guess what we have!" ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 2:23pm

Re: Re: The MAFIAA logic
Yogi was explaining the 'logic' behind that sort of thinking, not stating Yogi's own position. Look at the subject of that comment, please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kyle clements (profile), 8 Dec 2009 @ 12:49am

an artists take on the matter...
While I don't agree with carfac on this issue, carfac is usually a great resource for artists. They explain laws that affect artists, keep us alerted to new laws being proposed, list events and grants, and offer case-bycase advice to artists. they have an office with several experts who you can just walk in and talk to, and they can be extremely helpful. They have helped me in the past, and it pisses me off to see them take a stance that is so wrong on this issue

A visual artwork has 2 components, the original object, and the image it contains. There is only one original object, and once it is sold, that's it, its gone, and the buyer now owns it. However, the image still belongs to the artist and they are free to do what they wish with that image.
That means that even though you have bought my painting, I am still free to print that image on t-shirts, books, posters, and coffee mugs. The buyer does now have the right to license the image. This is the law.
You own the object, I own the image.

If the National gallery is printing reproductions of artwork for advertising and promotion, that should fall within fair use. Any artist fighting against that would be an idiot; it's promotion, and they are paying for it. However, if the national gallery is printing postcards, posters, etc. and selling them for profit, they absolutely should be paying the artist for that right. unless the gallery has secured reproduction rights in the contract, selling reproductions for profit is infringement.

If they are fighting to be paid for having their work advertised, this is nothing but pure, short-sighted greed.
However, as a technicality, reproduction rights for the purpose of advertising and promotion must be included in the contract, if they are not, then carfac's actions, despite being dumb, are consistent with the law.

I like to be logically consistent where I can. Once anything is digital and online, it's free for everyone in the world, and any constraint is artificial and doomed to fail. So, most of what I do is CC-BY-NC. (Yes, the BY-NC is still an artificial restriction, but it's what im comfortable with)
This is why I have images of my painting on my website, but not my photographs. A painting can not be reproduced without losing a lot in the process, and I want people to download and share those images, it's more exposure for me, and that is exactly what I want. Using an infinite resource to promote a limited one.
A photograph, however, can be reproduced perfectly. For that reason, I don't post them (also, my photography is mainly commission work, where there would be little interest to anyone other than my client) I don't want them being copied, so I don't post them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2009 @ 7:56pm

I'll take just being displayed in the National Gallery over fleecing it any day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]