Hi Allen:
I'm not sure which "Canadian system" you might be referring to in the statement; "under the Canadian system the artists' unique contributions are recognized to have a certain monetary value, and the artists have a right to be paid for them." Certainly, no such recognition is enshrined in the Canadian legal system as represented by the Copyright Act and its provisions for the protection of exhibit rights (this is where I felt you might be mis-interpreting the laws of Canada). Those provisions only allow for the holder of exhibit rights to determine when, how, and under what circumstances a work may be publicly displayed--there is no discussion in the Copyright Act relating to the receipt of payment for allowing the exhibition of a work. Rather, the exhibit rights exist to ensure a work is not displayed in a "Top 100-Most Hideous Uses of Chartreuse" type exhibit, or (less facetiously), in a show that would represent the work with political or social overtones that the artist did not intend and does not agree with, thus compromising the artist's intellectual property rights.
(As an aside, there was a big news item related to this issue a few years ago when a national right-wing political candidate played a popular tune by a well-known Canadian band at a political rally--without troubling to secure performance rights. The band was outraged at having their music and by extension, themselves tied in with this politician's campaign. The band rightly condemned the campaign and asserted their intellectual property rights in the Canadian press--I don't know what role this one incident played in the campaign, but certainly the political did not fair well in the polls after that....)
I am unfamiliar with any example (anywhere, but in Canada in particular) of legally enforced payment when an artist has not requested payment--I can't imagine which of our laws that could come under. As noted above, the Copyright Act carries no provisions requiring payment for waiving of exhibition rights, and any agreement between an artist and a public venue "for a purpose other than sale or hire" would be handled under Contract Law--but here a contract would have to specifically include a promise of payment in order to be enforceable to secure payment.
For the record, I do agree with your assertion that people ought to be fairly compensated for the work they do, and that a monetary value can be applied to the work artists contribute to producing exhibitions. However, I disagree that cash payment is/should be a required form of compensation for an artist exhibiting works at a public institution, or that the absence of a cash payment somehow implies disrespect towards the artist. I applaud the efforts of those museums and galleries that have the means to offer payment to artists. However, if it should become the norm, and artists come to expect/require payment for participating in exhibitions, then I expect there will be a drastic decline in the number of contemporary art shows at a great many museums/galleries that will find themselves no longer able to afford to produce those exhibits. I can't see how that will benefit either the museum or the artistic communities.
Cheers,
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim McShane, Assistant--Cultural History
Medicine Hat Museum and Art Gallery
1302 Bomford Crescent S.W.
Medicine Hat, AB T1A 5E6
Tel: (403) 502-8587
[log in to unmask]
>>> [log in to unmask] 09/26/05 11:37 AM >>>
Hi Tim,
Your explanation is helpful, the difference between our two countrys'
conceptions of artists' rights is made very clear. I not sure what it is that you
think I might be misinterpreting?
What seems important here is that the under the Canadian system the artists'
unique contributions are recognized to have a certain monetary value, and the
artists have a right to be paid for them; if an artist should choose to forego
payment, that's the artist's choice, just as it would be here with a
songwriter or playwright, etc. -- but the right is still there.
As you describe in your own practice, the right is respected. As I understand
it, payment is often even enforced by law when the individual artist neglects
to ask for it. And the fact that the law exists at all certainly sets a tone,
and communicates a community belief that artists' contributions have tangible
value. In the U.S., not only are artists seldom paid for exhibitions, the
question is usually never even considered worth thinking about -- as is indicated
by some of the responses in this thread.
Our arts institutions often receive funds from the government -- or, at the
very least, tax advantages -- and it seems to me that when a government gives
money to an arts institution it is an indication that the public expects
artists to receive support; yet the institution administrators here generally think
helping the visual artists "build their resume" and receive "recognition" is
all the support they deserve -- while nearly everyone else involved is paid!
Allan
Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the
addressee and may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged
material. Any unauthorized review, distribution or other use of or
the taking of any action in reliance upon this information is
prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender
and delete or destroy this message and any copies
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
