Famous Protest Art Group In Bulgaria Paint Their Feelings About New EU Copyright Law On Gutenberg Statue

from the art-to-save-art dept

Wed, Sep 26th 2018 7:48pm — Timothy Geigner

The brave new path to a gatekeeper-manned, non-open internet the EU recently cut with its plainly atrocious new copyright directive was, were you to believe the general media coverage, cheered on by EU artists as a blow to Google and a boon to art because... well, nobody can actually explain that last part. And that's likely because the proposed new legislation, Article 11 and Article 13, essentially forces internet platforms to play total copyright cops or be liable for infringement while gutting the fair use type allowances that had previously been in place. Much of the European legislation that existed on the national level, and which served as the basis for this continental legislation, has done absolutely zero to provide artists or journalists any additional income. Instead, it's re-entrenched legacy gatekeepers and essentially created a legal prohibition on innovation. As the directive goes through its final stages for adoption by EU member states, the general coverage has repeated the line that artists and creators are cheering this on.

But, despite the media coverage, it isn't true that all of the artistic world is blind to exactly what was just done to the internet and the wider culture. Destructive Creation -- a collection of artists most famous for taking a monument in Europe to Soviet soldiers and painting them all as western superheroes and cultural icons -- has made its latest work an addition to a statue of Johannes Gutenberg.

“Let there be light”, reads the cover of the Bible held by the bronze hands of Johannes Gutenberg, inventor of the modern printing press, on the famous statue in Place Gutenberg in Strasbourg, France. Last weekend, however, the monument received a curious addition. A dazzling red sign reads CENSORED above a caption that reads “Art. 13”.

A member of Bulgarian art collective, Destructive Creation, which was behind the artistic action, defended the stunt.

“Under the proposed regulations, if Gutenberg was doing now what he was doing in the 15th century, he would be sued for using content that does not belong to him – the Bible, which he reprinted – and would have been censored,” the artist told BIRN.

And here is their work upon the statue.

As far as making points goes, slapping the law you believe will censor art on the bible being held by the man that brought mass printing to Europe certainly is on the nose. But the actual important factor in this is that this wasn't Silicon Valley tech shareholders that defaced the statue in the name of saving art and culture, but a group of artists. These are the exact people who, were you to listen to proponents of the new copyright law, would be on their knees thanking their gracious overlords. Instead, Destructive Creation knows exactly where this is all going to lead and it most certainly isn't going to be to an EU where artists have more opportunities to make, share, and sell their art. Instead, the law will chill permissive sharing by artists, not to mention individuals and companies that want to build new and innovative platforms to help art reach the public, all under the threat of massive liability that practically mandates platforms disallow user-generated content.

You know, what the internet has essentially always been until this EU bill has decided to kill it.

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: article 13, artists, censorship, copyright, destructive creation, eu, eu copyright directive

21 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

John Smith, 26 Sep 2018 @ 8:14pm

Rage on, Mikey. Section 230 is next. Google will follow. And when that happens, this pus-filled pustule of a pro-piracy site will be wiped off the face of the planet.

You thought you could harass me with your hacker lawyer friends. I warned you! You'll regret the day you insulted me, the great John Smith! Ooooooooh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2018 @ 9:01pm
  
  Re:
  I don't if he's serious anymore or if he simply decided to give up and have a psychotic break instead.
  
  Either way, he should know you don't use oh that way in a written medium as it has no impact without voice or facial expression. It also makes whatever is written alongside subject to far more interpretations than it otherwise would have.
  
  That being said, I'm choosing to interpret his words as lyrics.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2018 @ 5:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think of it as John Smith doing his best Yosemite Sam impression after getting outsmarted by Bugs Bunny. Fists clenched, face red, stamping the ground...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2018 @ 5:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Does Mike have a license to allow you to refer to Warner Bros valuable intellectual property on his site, as required by the proposed EU law?,
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gary (profile), 27 Sep 2018 @ 5:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And without CDA 230 - Mike would have to take that down. Before you posted it!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2018 @ 7:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Probably not, but then again I'm not the one who gets triggered by non-profit name drops of popular culture references.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2018 @ 9:10pm
  
  Re:
  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stephen T. Stone (profile), 26 Sep 2018 @ 10:18pm
  
  Re:
  Technically, the repeal of Section 230 would not “kill” the Techdirt blog proper. The comments section, on the other hand…
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 27 Sep 2018 @ 12:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Or put another way: 'Person online, using comment section of a site, argues for change that would remove their ability to speak in comment sections of that site and others.'
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- I.T. Guy, 27 Sep 2018 @ 4:30am
  
  Re:
  Ha ha ha. You're a pussy in real lie.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gary (profile), 26 Sep 2018 @ 8:15pm

Infinity minus 1
Lets see, since the bible was written by a deity, and despite what Nietzsche said, some would argue that it should *still* be under copyright - life of the author +70 years, right?

Unless the author is a corporation...

You can't just go around printing things without permission! What was Gutenberg thinking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2018 @ 9:04pm
  
  Re: Infinity minus 1
  Technically the bible was written by several people, that's part of why there is the distinction between the old and new testaments.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gary (profile), 27 Sep 2018 @ 6:03am
    
    Re: Re: Infinity minus 1
    Nope, just checked and several people told me their deity wrote it, and isn't dead. So the copyright is in dispute and no one can use it until the court case is settled.
    
    (Several cult-factions swear that every single word was written by their deity *thru* human intermediaries acting as transcriptionists not authors - thus the books is the literal, actual, word of an invisible being who currently may or may not be dead.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2018 @ 7:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Infinity minus 1
      Interesting, because there are so many discrepancies and contradictions within said book it is difficult to believe it was written by only one person as that person would then have multiple personalities. It is almost as if it were written by many who wanted to document all the stories told around the campfires .. and then it was rewritten, and then it was rewritten, and then it was rewritten, and then it was rewritten .....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gary (profile), 27 Sep 2018 @ 12:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Infinity minus 1
        Some sects of that cult are quite adamant about that being the literal truth. Even the story about fitting all the animals in the boat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2018 @ 3:23pm
  
  Re: Infinity minus 1
  It could have gone out of copyright in 1970 at the very latest if Nietzsche was right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2018 @ 7:31am

This new EU "law" will not provide the results they claim, rather it will force the artists underground or dark if you prefer and it will not silence their critics many of whom are artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turf Accountant, Berks, 27 Sep 2018 @ 1:23pm

Why is the first comment hidden?
It's obviously spoof.

But caused no less then 9 comments. Guess you fellows can't suss out a spoof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2018 @ 4:30pm
  
  Re: Why is the first comment hidden?
  "Obviously"? How?
  
  Even if it was a spoof, does it matter? Richard Bennett says that it's not the name that matters behind a comment, but the idea.
  
  That's why the government is behooved to repeal net neutrality under the recommendation of corpses.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2018 @ 4:16am
  
  Re: Why is the first comment hidden?
  [citation needed]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Châu, 28 Sep 2018 @ 1:22pm

Copyright Responsibility
Can platform demand payment from copyright owners or copyright tax money fund this work? I remember copyright owner have responsibility for manage their property/privilege/monopoly. Also people have right censor copyright work when use internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]