Hi Tim,

Your explanation is helpful, the difference between our two country's 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 it; 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 -- and even enforced by law. And the fact that the law exists 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


In a message dated 9/26/05 12:44:21 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:


>>> [log in to unmask] 09/24/05 4:20 PM >>>
>snip<
according to it's Copyright Act (RSC 1985, c.C-42, as amended) of 1988, which applies to
artists' works that were created after June 8, 1988, artists have what are
called "Exhibition Rights." The exhibition right entitles artists to receive
payment when their work is exhibited in a "public exhibition" other than for sale
or hire (maps and charts are excluded). Canada is one of very few countries
that have incorporated this right into their Copyright Act.
>snip<

Mr. McCollum is quite correct that Canada is advanced in its legislation protecting intellectual property rights; however, I believe he may be mis-interpreting the Exhibition Rights as spelled out in our Copyright Act.  Under the Act, exhibition rights are regarded as the similar to copyright.  The copyright holder of a written work (the author of the work, unless copyright has been assigned to another party) has say over who, when, and under what circumstances his/her work may be copied, even if an individual or institution has purchased a copy of the work.  By the same token, the holder of exhibition rights of an artwork (the artist, unless the exhibition rights have been assigned to another party) has say over who, when and under what circumstances his/her work may be publicly displayed, even if an individual or institution has purchased the work (providing the work was created after June 8, 1988, the date when exhibit rights came under the protection of the Copyright Act).  Just as an author can grant permission to copy without requiring monetary compensation, so too can an artist grant permission to exhibit without requiring monetary compensation; the point is to ensure the artist's intellectual property rights are protected, not to ensure the artist receives cash payment.  In fact, to ensure museums and art galleries are not beholden to paying fees to exhibit works they own, in the first article Mr. McCollum cites (http://www.museums.ca/Cma1/WhatsNew/Advocacy/2004/carfaccmafees.htm ) the Canadian Museums Association (CMA) re-iterates its position that public institutions should secure exhibition rights in artworks at the time they are acquired.

As for the exhibit fee structure proposed by CARFAC, the amounts are indeed stunning--so much so that many public institutions will not be able to afford them.  Yet, this (from what I know) has had little impact on the thriving Canadian arts scene.  It appears that even with the protections on exhibit rights under Canadian law, many artists are choosing to allow Canadian institutions to exhibit without fee; presumably, "good lighting, neatly printed labels, a resume boost, and a generous invitation to their own exhibition's opening reception," along with other benefits of exhibiting, DOES qualify as due compensation.

Speaking from my own experience of trying to secure copyright for use of certain photographs in exhibitions, when the fee required was more than I could pay, I went elsewhere for a similar photo that was affordable; my exhibit suffered a bit, and the copyright holder of the images I wanted received no compensation or recognition--struck me as a lose-lose situation.  I'd have to regard exhibit fees in exactly the same light.

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]




=======================
Allan McCollum
63 Greene Street, No. 308
New York, NY 10012
U.S.A.
(212) 431-0212
Email:
[log in to unmask]
Website:
http://home.att.net/~allanmcnyc
 ========================================================= 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).