The Thief, The Fence And The Receiver Of Stolen Goods.
Friday, March 14, 2008
by Christian Nerf
Is it legal for an artist to use a pop track as part of their work? Is it legal for an artist to make a replica of an everyday product? Is it legal for an artist to re-edit Hollywood films? Is it legal for an artist to mimic another artist’s work? Strictly speaking, unless authorized, all of these acts are illegal and if the victims are so inclined they have the law on their side.
To the detriment of some we artists can and do all of the above. Then you, the collector, is offered our work by a gallery. Why should you think twice about acquiring it?
Artists, contrary to popular belief, are not outside the law and you are implicating yourself in our antisocial behaviour by endorsing it. Perhaps even viewing the work implicates you. Maybe artists that utilize appropriation as part of their praxis should be shut out, told off and reminded that freedom of expression is not a right but a privilege in today’s controlled world.
As the collector you aid and abet the thief, inspire the thief to continue and in some cases you are the very reason the work is being produced. I suggest next time you buy a contemporary artwork from a gallery you demand a 666-page legal document indemnifying you from any future legal action.
Nike has stolen Robin Rhodes’ work and BMW has stolen Gerhard Marx’s work but god forbid just anyone can write Fan Fiction. Even that, as it is derivative, is illegal.
Unfortunately for us visual artists Ms Justice is blind. Hold thumbs she doesn’t drag Damien Hirst out of his bed and stone him, whilst his weeping son Connor tries to take the blame for inspiring the 20-foot enlargement of a Science Set figure. Or tell Candice Breitz, Kathryn Smith and Elaine Sturtevant to fuck off and come back when they have something Original to offer. Oh and shut down ArtHeat while she is at it.
Koons lost a case in 1989 with the defence of fair use and parody but won another 7 years later based on the fair use defence. There are many cases you can Google. Question is do you want to be caught up in this area fraught with danger?
It is not only financial damages that the prosecutors will come after. Your freedom may be at stake, in the 90’s new laws were set up in America shifting certain copyright infringements into the felony bracket. If the neoconservatives have their way these draconian laws will be applied to us all soon enough.
One could argue that it is parody, fair use and not for financial gain. But this doesn’t wash in the eyes of the law or the corporations that take offence and when we are all part of the United States and their gavel falls so shall we; artists, gallerists and collectors. If the world continues on its current path we are all at risk of attending a new global art fair: Entartete Kunst ||.
Christian Nerf is an artist, public investigator and reprobate.
Is it legal for an artist to use a pop track as part of their work? Is it legal for an artist to make a replica of an everyday product? Is it legal for an artist to re-edit Hollywood films? Is it legal for an artist to mimic another artist’s work? Strictly speaking, unless authorized, all of these acts are illegal and if the victims are so inclined they have the law on their side.
To the detriment of some we artists can and do all of the above. Then you, the collector, is offered our work by a gallery. Why should you think twice about acquiring it?
Artists, contrary to popular belief, are not outside the law and you are implicating yourself in our antisocial behaviour by endorsing it. Perhaps even viewing the work implicates you. Maybe artists that utilize appropriation as part of their praxis should be shut out, told off and reminded that freedom of expression is not a right but a privilege in today’s controlled world.
As the collector you aid and abet the thief, inspire the thief to continue and in some cases you are the very reason the work is being produced. I suggest next time you buy a contemporary artwork from a gallery you demand a 666-page legal document indemnifying you from any future legal action.
Nike has stolen Robin Rhodes’ work and BMW has stolen Gerhard Marx’s work but god forbid just anyone can write Fan Fiction. Even that, as it is derivative, is illegal.
Unfortunately for us visual artists Ms Justice is blind. Hold thumbs she doesn’t drag Damien Hirst out of his bed and stone him, whilst his weeping son Connor tries to take the blame for inspiring the 20-foot enlargement of a Science Set figure. Or tell Candice Breitz, Kathryn Smith and Elaine Sturtevant to fuck off and come back when they have something Original to offer. Oh and shut down ArtHeat while she is at it.
Koons lost a case in 1989 with the defence of fair use and parody but won another 7 years later based on the fair use defence. There are many cases you can Google. Question is do you want to be caught up in this area fraught with danger?
It is not only financial damages that the prosecutors will come after. Your freedom may be at stake, in the 90’s new laws were set up in America shifting certain copyright infringements into the felony bracket. If the neoconservatives have their way these draconian laws will be applied to us all soon enough.
One could argue that it is parody, fair use and not for financial gain. But this doesn’t wash in the eyes of the law or the corporations that take offence and when we are all part of the United States and their gavel falls so shall we; artists, gallerists and collectors. If the world continues on its current path we are all at risk of attending a new global art fair: Entartete Kunst ||.
Christian Nerf is an artist, public investigator and reprobate.
Labels: Joburg art fair
posted by Robert Sloon at 12:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home