Daubism: Copyright law and artistic works

An artistic controversy over a group of landscape painters called the Daubists provided impetus for copyright law reform in Australia in the early 1990's. In the first exhibition of Daubism in 1991 driller Jet Armstrong painted a crop circle over a painting of the Olgas by Charles Bannon - an artist, print-maker, and the father of the State Premier at the time, John Bannon. He called the resulting work, Crop Circles on a Bannon Landscape. Armstrong also inserted an inverted crucifix over a painting of the Flinders Ranges by Bannon, and renamed the work The Crop Circle Conspiracy Landscape. In response, Bannon took legal action against Armstrong in the Federal Court of Australia on the grounds of false attribution and defamation. He won an interlocutory injunction against Armstrong and the gallery, but then reached a settlement with the Daubists. An anonymous buyer purchased the work for $650 on the condition that it was returned to the painter. In his fight against the Daubists, Bannon received help and support from the National Association for the Visual Arts (NAVA). This professional group used the controversy to campaign for the reform of copyright law - in particular, the need for a moral rights regime. The artistic controversy over the Daubists was a catalyst for the introduction of the Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Act 2000 (Cth) in Australia. It offers an illuminating case study of the operation of copyright law in the visual arts.

For the Creative Spirits Out There: BioéthiqueOnline Inaugurates a Publication Venue for Creative and Artistic Works in Bioethics / Pour les esprits créatifs émergents: BioéthiqueOnline inaugure une section spéciale pour les travaux créatifs et artistiques en matière de bioéthique

Éditoral / Editorial

The valley of the dolls: Brand protection and artistic parody

In the case of Mattel Inc v Walking Mountain Productions, the toy doll manufacturer Mattel sought to prohibit a Utah photographer called Thomas Forsythe from producing and selling a series of 78 photographs entitled "Food Chain Barbie". The work had strong social and political overtones. The artist said that he chose to parody Barbie in his photographs because he wanted to challenge the beauty myth and the objectification of women. He observed: "Barbie is the most enduring of those products that feed on the insecurities of our beauty and perfection-obsessed consumer culture." The company Mattel argued that the photographs infringed its copyrights, trade marks, and trade dress. It was concerned that the artistic works would erode the brand of Barbie by wrongfully sexualising its blonde paragon of womanhood. However, Lew J of the Central District Court of California granted summary judgment for the photographer. The Court of Appeals upheld this verdict. Pregerson J held that the use of the manufacturer's copyrighted doll in parodic photographs constituted a fair use of copyright works. His Honour held that the use of manufacturer's "Barbie" mark and trade dress did not amount to trade mark infringement or dilution. This article provides a case commentary upon the Court of Appeals decision in Mattel Inc v Walking Mountain Productions, and its wider ramifications for the treatment of artistic parody under copyright law and trade mark law. It contends that the decision highlights the need for reform in Australian jurisprudence and legislation in respect of artistic parody.

Copyright issues on the protection of architectural works and designs

Architects and engineers depend on copyright law to protect their original works. Copyright protection is automatic once a tangible medium of expression in any form of an innovative material, conforming the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, is created. In terms of architectural works, they are protected as literary works (design drawings and plans) and as artistic works (the building or model of the building). The case law on the concept of “originality” however discloses that it may be difficult for certain artistic works of architecture to achieve copyright protection. Although copyright law provides automatic protection to all original architectural plans, the limitation is that it only protects the expression of ideas but not the ideas themselves. The purpose of this research is to explore how effective the UK’s copyright law regime is for protecting the rights and interests of architects in their works. In addition, the United States system of copyright law will be analysed to determine whether it provides more effective protection for architects and engineers with regard to architectural works. The key objective in carrying out this comparison is to compare and contrast the extent to which the two systems protect the rights and interests of architects against copyright infringement. This comparative analysis concludes by considering the possibility of copyright law reform in the UK.

Who owns the copyright of architectural works and designs?

Copyright protects the rights and interests of authors on their original works of authorship such as literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works including architectural works and designs. It is automatic once a tangible medium of expression in any form of an innovative material, which conforms the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988), is created. This includes the building, the architectural plans and drawings. There is no official copyright registry, no requirements on any fees need to be paid and they can be published or unpublished materials. Copyrights owners have the rights to control the reproduction, display, publication, and even derivation of the design. However, there are limitations on the rights of the copyright owners concerning copyrights infringements. Infringement of copyright is an unauthorised violation of the exclusive rights of the copyright author. Architects and engineers depend on copyright law to protect their works and design. Copyrights are protected on the arrangements of spaces and elements as well as the overall form of the architectural design. However, it does not cover the design of functional elements and standard features. Although copyright law provides automatic protection to all original architectural plans, the limitation is that copyright only protects the expression of ideas but not the ideas themselves. It can be argued that architectural drawings and design, including models are recognised categories of artistic works which are protected under the copyright law. This research investigates to what extent copyrights protect the rights and interests of the designers on architectural works and design.

Aesthetic tensions : evaluating outcomes for practice-led research and industry

This paper explores principles of contemporary aesthetics to suggest a basis for determining qualitative outcomes of artistic works in two contexts: the arts industry and the academy setting of practice-led research. Commonly articulated measures of quality—creativity and innovation—are questioned as mere rhetoric if not framed in specific ways in the two discrete settings. The paper also interrogates generally held assumptions that a longer time to develop work and greater periods of self-reflexivity will produce higher calibre artistic outcomes. The unease produced by apparent differences in qualitative outcomes between art works created in an industry setting and those created through practice-led research is analysed through three interconnected framing devices: intention, contextual parameters and criteria for evaluation, in conjunction with the relationships between the art work, the artist and the audience/viewer/listener. Common and differentiated criteria in the two contexts are explored, leading to the conclusion that innovation is more likely to be revealed in the end product in an industry context whereas in practice-led research it may be in the methodological processes of creating the work. While identifying and acknowledging that the two contexts encourage and produce distinctive qualitative artistic outcomes, both of value to the arts and the academy, the paper recommends ways in which closer formal liaison between industry artists and practice-led artists and supervisors might occur in order to ensure ongoing mutual influence and relevance.

Country of Origin and Internet Publication : Applying the Berne Convention in the Digital Age

Historically, determining the country of origin of a published work presented few challenges, because works were generally published physically – whether in print or otherwise – in a distinct location or few locations. However, publishing opportunities presented by new technologies mean that we now live in a world of simultaneous publication – works that are first published online are published simultaneously to every country in world in which there is Internet connectivity. While this is certainly advantageous for the dissemination and impact of information and creative works, it creates potential complications under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (“Berne Convention”), an international intellectual property agreement to which most countries in the world now subscribe. Under the Berne Convention’s national treatment provisions, rights accorded to foreign copyright works may not be subject to any formality, such as registration requirements (although member countries are free to impose formalities in relation to domestic copyright works). In Kernel Records Oy v. Timothy Mosley p/k/a Timbaland, et al. however, the Florida Southern District Court of the United States ruled that first publication of a work on the Internet via an Australian website constituted “simultaneous publication all over the world,” and therefore rendered the work a “United States work” under the definition in section 101 of the U.S. Copyright Act, subjecting the work to registration formality under section 411. This ruling is in sharp contrast with an earlier decision delivered by the Delaware District Court in Håkan Moberg v. 33T LLC, et al. which arrived at an opposite conclusion. The conflicting rulings of the U.S. courts reveal the problems posed by new forms of publishing online and demonstrate a compelling need for further harmonization between the Berne Convention, domestic laws and the practical realities of digital publishing. In this article, we argue that even if a work first published online can be considered to be simultaneously published all over the world it does not follow that any country can assert itself as the “country of origin” of the work for the purpose of imposing domestic copyright formalities. More specifically, we argue that the meaning of “United States work” under the U.S. Copyright Act should be interpreted in line with the presumption against extraterritorial application of domestic law to limit its application to only those works with a real and substantial connection to the United States. There are gaps in the Berne Convention’s articulation of “country of origin” which provide scope for judicial interpretation, at a national level, of the most pragmatic way forward in reconciling the goals of the Berne Convention with the practical requirements of domestic law. We believe that the uncertainties arising under the Berne Convention created by new forms of online publishing can be resolved at a national level by the sensible application of principles of statutory interpretation by the courts. While at the international level we may need a clearer consensus on what amounts to “simultaneous publication” in the digital age, state practice may mean that we do not yet need to explore textual changes to the Berne Convention.

Closing the gap between copyright and designs : an age of enlightnement or state of confusion?

The arena of intellectual property encompasses streams that often interrelate and overlap in protecting different aspects of intellectual property. Australian commentators suggest that ‘one of the most troublesome areas in the entire field of intellectual property has been the relationship between copyright protection for artistic works under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and protection for registered designs under the Designs Act 1906 (Cth).’ [McKeough, J., Stewart, A., & Griffith, P. (2004). Intellectual property in Australia (3rd ed.). Chatswood, NSW: Butterworths.] [Ricketson, S., Richardson, M., & Davison, M. (2009). Intellectual property: Cases, materials and commentary (4th ed.). Chatswood, NSW: LexisNexis Butterworths.] This overlap has caused much confusion for both creators of artistic works and industrial designs, as there is an uncertainty of whether protection against infringement is afforded under the Copyright Act 1988 (Cth) or whether the Designs Act 2003 (Cth) will apply. In Australia, there is limited precedent that examines the crossover between copyright and designs. Essentially, the cases that have tested this issue remain unclear as to whether a design applied industrially will invoke copyright protection. The cases demonstrate that there is an inconsistency in this area despite the aims of the new provisions of the Designs Act 2003 (Cth) to close the loopholes between copyright and designs. This paper will discuss and evaluate the relationship between copyright protection for artistic works and protection for registered designs with respect to the Designs Act 2003 (Cth).

Crystal palaces: Copyright law and public architecture

This paper investigates copyright law and public architecture in the context of cultural institutions of Australia. Part 1 examines the case of the Sydney Opera House to illustrate the past position of architects in respect of copyright law. It goes onto consider the framework laid down by the Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Act 2000 (Cth) to resolve copyright disputes over moral rights and architecture. Part 2 considers the argument over the proposed renovations to the National Gallery of Australia between Dr Brian Kennedy and the original architect Colin Madigan. Part 3 finally deals with the allegations that Ashton Raggatt McDougall, the architects of the National Museum of Australia, plagiarised the designs of Daniel Libeskind for the Jewish Berlin Museum.

The culture wars of climate change

Of late, there has been a growth in cultural expression about climate change – with the rise of climate fiction (‘cli-fi’); art and photography responding to changes in nature; musical anthems about climate change; plays and dramas about climate change; and environmental documentaries, and climate cinema. Drawing comparisons to past controversies over cultural funding, this paper considers the cultural wars over climate change. This article considers a number of cultural fields. Margaret Atwood made an important creative and critical contribution to the debate over climate change. The work examines Ian McEwan's novel, Solar, a tragi-comedy about authorship, invention, intellectual property, and climate science. After writing a history of Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have experimented with fiction – as well as history. This article focuses upon artistic works about climate change. It analyses James Balog’s work with the Extreme Ice Survey, which involved photography of glaciers under retreat in a warming world. The work was turned into a documentary called Chasing Ice. It also considers the artistic project of 350.org 'to transform the human rights and environmental issues connected to climate change into powerful art that gets people to stop, think and act.' The paper examines musical storytelling in respect of climate change. The paper explores dramatic works about climate change including Steve Waters' The Contingency Plan, Stephen Emmott's Ten Billion, and Andrew Bovell's When the Rain Stops Falling and Hannie Rayson’s Extinction. The paper also examines the role of documentary film-making. It also considers the cinematographic film, Beasts of the Southern Wild. Such a survey will enable a consideration of the larger question of whether creative art about climate change matters; and whether it is deserving of public funding.

Bloomsday: Copyright estates and cultural festivals

Copyright estates have been unduly empowered by the extension of the term of copyright protection in Europe, the United States, Australia and elsewhere. The Estate of the Irish novelist, James Joyce, has been particularly aggressive in policing his revived copyrights. The "keepers of the flame" have relied upon threats of legal action to discourage the production of derivative works based upon the canonical texts of the novelist. The Estate has also jealously guarded the reputation of the author by vetoing the use of his work in various scholarly productions. Most radically of all, the grandson Stephen Joyce threatened to take legal action to prevent the staging of "Rejoyce Dublin 2004", a festival celebrating the centenary of Bloomsday. In response, the Irish Parliament rushed through emergency legislation, entitled the Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Act 2004 (Ireland) to safeguard the celebrations. The legislation clarified that a person could place literary and artistic works on public exhibition, without breaching the copyright vested in such cultural texts. Arguably, though, the ad hoc legislation passed by the Irish Parliament is inadequate. The Estate of James Joyce remains free to exercise its suite of economic and moral rights to control the use and adaptation of works of the Irish novelist. It is contended that copyright law needs to be revised to promote the interests of libraries and other cultural institutions. Most notably, the defence of fair dealing should be expanded to allow for the transformative use of copyright works, particularly in respect of adaptations and derived works. There should be greater scope for compulsory licensing and crown acquisition of revived copyrights.

The Pirate Bazaar: The Social Life of Copyright Law

This thesis provides a cultural history of Australian copyright law and related artistic controversies. It examines a number of disputes over authorship, collaboration, and appropriation across a variety of cultural fields. It considers legal controversies over the plagiarism of texts, the defacing of paintings, the sampling of musical works, the ownership of plays, the co-operation between film-makers, the sharing of MP3 files on the Internet, and the appropriation of Indigenous culture. Such narratives and stories relate to a broad range of works and subject matter that are protected by copyright law. This study offers an archive of oral histories and narratives of artistic creators about copyright law. It is founded upon interviews with creative artists and activists who have been involved in copyright litigation and policy disputes. This dialogical research provides an insight into the material and social effects of copyright law. This thesis concludes that copyright law is not just a ‘creature of statute’, but it is also a social and imaginative construct. In the lived experience of the law, questions of aesthetics and ethics are extremely important. Industry agreements are quite influential. Contracts play an important part in the operation of copyright law. The media profile of personalities involved in litigation and policy debates is pertinent. This thesis claims that copyright law can be explained by a mix of social factors such as ethical standards, legal regulations, market forces, and computer code. It can also be understood in terms of the personal stories and narratives that people tell about litigation and copyright law reform. Table of Contents Prologue 1 Introduction A Creature of Statute: Copyright Law and Legal Formalism 6 Chapter One The Demidenko Affair: Copyright Law and Literary Works 33 Chapter Two Daubism: Copyright Law and Artistic Works 67 Chapter Three The ABCs of Anarchism: Copyright Law and Musical Works 105 Chapter Four Heretic: Copyright Law and Dramatic Works 146 Chapter Five Shine: Copyright Law and Film 186 Chapter Six Napster: Infinite Digital Jukebox or Pirate Bazaar? Copyright Law and Digital Works 232 Chapter Seven Bangarra Dance Theatre: Copyright Law and Indigenous Culture 275 Chapter Eight The Cathedral and the Bazaar: The Future of Copyright Law 319

A Submission to the Inquiry into the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008 (Cth)

A right of resale, or droit de suite (a right to follow), is a legislative instrument under intellectual property law, which enables artists to receive a percentage of the sale price whenever artistic works are resold. A French legal scholar, Albert Vaunois, first articulated the need for a 'droit de suite' in connection with fine art back in 1893. The French Government introduced a scheme to protect the right of resale in 1920, after controversy over artists living in poverty, while public auction houses were profiting from the resale of their artistic creations. In the United States, there has been less support for a right of resale amongst legislatures. After lobbying from artists such as the king of pop art, Robert Rauschenberg, the state of California passed the Resale Royalties Act in 1977. At a Federal level, the United States Congress has shown some reluctance in providing national recognition for a right of resale in the United States. A number of other European countries have established a right of resale. In 2001, the European Council adopted the Artists' Resale directive and recognised that the 'artist's resale right forms an integral part of copyright and is an essential prerogative for authors.' In 2006, the United Kingdom promulgated regulations, giving effect to a right of resale in that jurisdiction. However, a number of Latin American and African countries have established a right of resale. The New Zealand Parliament has debated a bill on a right of resale.

Albert Namatjira: copyright estates and traditional knowledge

Albert Namatjira was Australia's first Indigenous professional artist. He adapted Western-style painting to express his cultural knowledge of the Arrernte country, for which he was a traditional custodian. In his lifetime, Albert Namatjira achieved great acclaim for his exceptional ability as an artist. However, after his untimely death, he was ignored by the mainstream Australian art world, because of the aesthetic prejudices and social policies of the time. A recent exhibition entitled Seeing the Centre: The art of Albert Namatjira (1902-1959) curated by Alison French has sought to redress this neglect, and provide a retrospective of his work. The exhibition has brought to light that the copyright in the artistic works of Albert Namatjira has not been passed onto his family descendants. In June 1957, Namatjira entered into a copyright agreement with John Brackenreg, the owner of a publishing company by the name of Legend Press, and the associated Artarmon Galleries in Sydney. It was agreed that Legend Press would pay royalties to Namatjira for the sole right to reproduce all of his paintings. Following Namatjira's death in 1959, the administration of his estate passed to the Public Trustee for the Northern Territory Government. The Public Trustee of the Northern Territory Government authorised the sale of Namatjira's copyright to Legend Press in 1983, thereby ending the ability of the descendents of Namatjira to benefit from on-going income from the reproduction of his works. Senator Aden Ridgeway of the Democrats has called on the Federal Government to enter into discussions with the Northern Territory Government to buy back the copyright in Albert Namatjira's works. He argued that exclusive control of the use and reproduction of his works should be restored to his descendants, as well as the receipt of all financial benefits that result from the use and reproduction of his works under copyright protection. The Senator said: 'By doing this, we will all be rewarded, because finally, belatedly, we will be showing Albert Namatjira the reverence that he has always deserved. We will be protecting his legacy for future generations'.