Rocket Talk: Can Sunday Subway Service Start Sooner?
Newsstand: November 19, 2009
Gender Studies Coming to a High School Near You
Please Insert Station and Try Again
The Art of Not Knowing
Top: Erica Gosich Rose painting a legal mural. Bottom: a photo by May Karp of that finished mural, for sale at StreetSpeaks. Photos courtesy of Simon Cole.
Though it probably wasn't her intention, photographer May Karp could not have picked a better way to demonstrate just how messy it can get when street art and commercial art collide.
Her exhibit at the Moore Gallery, StreetSpeaks, featured photographs Karp had taken of legal street art and graffiti from a number of places around the world, including Toronto. Though costs of prints of the work exhibited drifted into the thousands, Karp provided no compensation or credit to the artists behind the work she photographed, nor did she seek or gain permission from them. But as she must have known as a fan of the genre for some thirty years, street artists almost always work fast, and it took less than a week for some of them to force Karp to end StreetSpeaks altogether.
Simon Cole of the Show & Tell Gallery was one of those responsible for getting Karp's show shuttered. "I think it is great that [Karp] appreciates graffiti and documents it," he says, "but I do have an issue with her selling the photos and not giving any sort of recognition or compensation to the artists who created the work." Cole, who commented about the show when we first wrote about it on Torontoist, sent a cease and desist letter to the Moore Gallery last week on behalf of nine artists. As he sees it, Karp and the gallery are profiting off of work that others have created for nothing; she is "breaking the law and exploiting these artists"; "she is selling someone else's work."
While some post-modern art does wholly and intentionally appropriate the work of others (see Richard Prince), May Karp seems to think of StreetSpeaks as more of an archival project than anything else. It was her intention, she announced in a press release, to "preserve these amazing works from the outdoor elements, from the white-wash brigades, even from other artists who paint over them. It is now possible for artists who follow the principles of good art to come in from the outside and show their work on gallery walls." Or, at least, have their work shown for them.
Karp's lawyer, Andrew Bernstein, notes that the process Karp went through to make and mount the prints cost her hundreds of dollars, but allows each one to last at least seventy years. "This was intended to honour this art and these artists, and it was intended to preserve this art, which can be erased, painted over, whitewashed, all sorts of things," says Bernstein. "She thought she was preserving it and honouring it."
But for Cole and the artists whose work appeared in the exhibit, StreetSpeaks is appropriation, not preservation. As Allan Ryan told the Post, "I should be honoured, but also compensated if you're going to charge that kind of a fee for this work....I went in and saw all this stuff and it's a blatant rip off of everybody's work. Just a straight shot of somebody's graffiti that she's blown up into these huge posters." Bernstein says that the lack of credit, at least, wasn't intended: Karp was unable to interpret the "symbols" and "underground signatures" on the pieces and simply had no idea who the artists behind them were, though she "did offer...to give credit to anyone who came forward and identified themselves as a creator." But as the wait-and-see approach to dealing with potential copyright infringement claims often works, artists who discovered their work for sale wanted not just credit, but money. As Cole puts it, "Someone could have bought these artists' entire catalog for the price of one of those prints [that] the Moore gallery is selling."
Bernstein is guarded about what defense Karp could have in court if any kind of suit goes forward, but offered one example: the "provision in the [copyright] act for fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review." But a quick glance at Canada's copyright act reveals that even if you accept that photographs of street art without comment or context count as criticism or review—we think that in some cases they might, and Wooster might agree—fair dealing requires naming the source of the work and crediting its creator. (A similar clause applies to news reporting, which is why CityTV got in trouble for running photographs of an attempted burglary without crediting the photographer, Joel Charlebois.)
It is undeniable that Karp's stated goal of the exhibit—to, as Bernstein put it, "bring this art form to the gallery-going public who may not appreciate it, who may not see it in its native environment"—is admirable, even if it does totally recontextualize "street" art. But even if you accept Bernstein's claim that Karp "wasn't in it for the money, not even a little bit"; that "she wasn't trying to rip anyone off"; and that, as Karp put it in a press release announcing the closure, she was "deeply saddened" and "heartbroken" by having to close up shop, it's difficult to argue the underlying point, Cole's whole reason for taking action: that Karp was selling prints of someone else's work.
When Bernstein mentions artist's rights, though, he means those of his client—specifically, Karp's "right to express herself as an artist." But when we asked him if Karp's rights to express herself didn't seem to be at odds with the rights of the street artists whose work she had photographed and was selling, Bernstein only echoed that the copyright act is full of tensions, and that, again, Karp never intended to do wrong.
Bernstein hopes that litigation won't go ahead, that the controversy ended when StreetSpeaks did. Cole has other plans: he's planning to head to the Moore Gallery this week to "discuss compensation for the artists whose work sold and ask for a public apology," and has organized a fundraiser on the evening of September 25 at Charlie's Gallery (112 Harbord Street) to bring attention to the cause, to sell prints, to auction original pieces of some of the artists whose work was photographed for StreetSpeaks—and to cover forthcoming legal fees.
Photo of the interior of Moore Gallery by Pat Young.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Andrew Bernstein just sent me an e-mail to note that the Copyright Act "only requires the author of a work to be mentioned if it is 'given in the source,'" which I suppose would depend on what qualifies as "given in the source" (most street art isn't intended to be anonymous, even if the creators don't print their legal names below it).
"most street art isn't intended to be anonymous"
Really, David?! You can't be serious about that.
"preserve these amazing works from the outdoor elements, from the white-wash brigades, even from other artists who paint over them."
As admirable as that is, those are the risks these artists accept when they throw up a piece. Nobody puts up a wheatpaste, stencil, sticker, or mural expecting them to last years, let alone decades. So who is she preserving the art for? There's nothing stopping the artists from painting on boards or other surfaces that can/will be preserved, if that's what they wanted above all, so it would seem she wants to help put "authentic street art" in the homes of the upper middle class, for profit, more than she wants to simply archive the stuff (there are dozens of sites that do it for free).
"It is now possible for artists who follow the principles of good art to come in from the outside and show their work on gallery walls."
Then it's not street art, it's gallery art. She makes it sound like they should be grateful to be in a gallery instead of out in the streets (where they were created).
Karp was unable to interpret the "symbols" and "underground signatures" on the pieces and simply had no idea who the artists behind them were,
She didn't try hard enough then. Any graffiti forum should have been able to decrypt most if not all of the tags, and point her to contact info for most of the artists, regardless of the country/city she saw the pieces. I'd like to know what, if anything, she did to figure out who the artists are, and where she put out notice that any stepping forward would be given credit. What does she think "documenting" involves, if not finding out and recording just such information?
Karp's "right to express herself as an artist."
Photography is an art, but this is archival. What artistic contribution did she make? From what I see above all she did was her best to get the angle and colours accurate.
Just to be clear, do you mean the cost of making them was in the thousands or that's what she was charging?
Regardless, charging thousands of dollars for repros of someone else's work, without asking permission... I can't see many people sympathizing with that, whether the graffiti was legal or not.
I also find the motive suspect: "bring this art form to the gallery-going public who may not appreciate it, who may not see it in its native environment" Really? Who goes to these gallery shows who wouldn't see street art even on the way to the gallery? Give me a break.
The Moore Gallery is lucky this didn't happen. Follow-up post here.
Wow. Rek, what's going on there? Are they defacing reproductions of street art, or are those original pieces inspired by street art styles?
Legal graffiti is sold. Illegal graffiti is given away. If graffiti artists want to retain any controls over their work, they should paint on something other than buildings in the public view.
I would instead call into question a graffiti artist's integrity if they take offense to anyone photographing, exhibiting and selling photographs of their work.
There is an art world and it exists in galleries. I don't think that's a naive point of view.
As an example, EGR is easily identifiable and far from anonymous (shows up in top 5 Google results- http://www.egrart.com/- you don't even need a graf forum- and those are her initials, after all). She makes her living painting murals, illustrating, bringing her own art into galleries, and selling photographic reproductions of her work. I can't imagine why another artist and professed fan of street art would think she was adding something to EGR's career by selling uncompensated photos of her work. It sounds like a strangely condescending brand of fandom.
pigasus - There is an art world on the streets too; it's naïve to think if it's free for everyone to see, it's free for anyone to sell as their own.
Karp must have known that selling this work was poking at a hornet's nest. Selling it at cost (of framing, printing, etc) would still have inevitably raised ire but I assume Karp and the gallery are selling the images to make a profit.
I wonder if any attempt was made to decipher the "underground signatures" at all. As Jill points out above it's not rocket science, Gosich Rose at least can be found in seconds.
As for the theory that artists putting up work with no expectation of profiting from it are abandoning that work... there are two completely different issues there that are by no means mutually exclusive.
I guess the question is if you put your artwork on (or deface, depending on your POV) someone's property without their permission, do you give up your copyright protection for that work?
Somehow I doubt it, since companies that illegally poster or put up illegal billboards probably don't lose their copyrights to those works. But it would be pretty funny if they did.
Once you create it, it's copyrighted. Proving creator status would be trivial for street artists with established styles and identities and, as above, signatures and portfolios.
What about a photograph of a really interesting building or a statue, shot in an artistic manner and sold? Right now above my computer I have a blown-up photo of a newsstand after the anthrax attacks (kinda morbid I know), and the photographer sure didn't clear it with the NY Post or the Daily News.
It's isn't quite cut-and-dried. Here's one comment on the situation.
I have to give props to the photographer for making money off this stuff, but I think anyone who would buy photographs of street art for their living room is, in legal terminology, a dorkus majorcus.
what would they say if i went to the gallery and took pictures of the photographs of street art.
now what if i started selling those pictures of photographs for profit and did not offer compensation to the photographer, or the original artist of whose work was photographed int the first place... ...they would probably cry foul
all legal and copyright stuff aside, i find the photographers lack of respect disgusting!
oh, also, the first photo (the one of the artist working) has her tag in the bottom right of the work "EGR"
the photograph in the gallery conveniently is missing the original artists tag... ...such a lack of respect makes me sad
IANAL: In the States, this would be legal for public domain images:
I think that Canada has a similar law.Since these are copyrighted, it's not legal.
"what would they say if i went to the gallery and took pictures of the photographs of street art."
I actually did that and was told by the gallery assistant that there were no pictures allowed to be taken of this exhibit. Hypocrite much?
"the photograph in the gallery conveniently is missing the original artists tag... ...such a lack of respect makes me sad"
Please note the completed mural also has the artists WEBSITE on it.
It's amusing to see someone trying to monetize specific graf pieces like this - it's one thing to publish a collection of graf work (many of these have been published, presumably bringing profit to the authors and their publishers, not compensating the original artists, many of whom might not want to be found regardless)... It's another thing altogether to take one person's work and present it more or less unaltered or interpreted...
The graf artists might be opening a can of worms here. If they decide that their original art is worth something by saying that a photographer shouldn't be able to profit by selling photographs of it without compensating them, then shouldn't the property owners whose 'canvas' they appropriate for their pieces be compensated as well? Of course they should.
This is the challenge of graffiti - it has value in the moment but then it disappears. If no one records it is gone forever once it is covered over by another piece or the property owner whitewashes it. The photographer who captures that piece is preserving it and creating a new kind of value. Does the photographer have a responsibility to the graffiti artist, who may never have intended their work to have that kind of posterity? This is where the interpretive argument comes in - is a photograph of a graffiti piece a new work of art?
May Karp had by her counting about 60 peices for sale. 3 we're the larger and more expensive peices ($2800) and the rest we're on for ($1500)
If you do the Math that is over $90,000
Personally I had about $7500 worth of photos displayed on the wall. It cost me time and money to create this work for the enjoyment of the public.
Overwhelmingly the artwork on display are of high quality murals and not "Defacement."
These artists went out and made the city look better on their own dime.
May Karp strolled along with and snapped a few shots and tried to turn that into a major profit.
So she spent alot of money to have a printer produce this work, and then the Gallery took a considerable finicial risk in hanging the show.
Everyone at the Gallery will be paid for their time in this matter, so will the building the Gallery exists in.
May Karp paid for her camera equipment, production, tranportation and hanging fees.
Everyone along the whole journey of these pictures was paid.
Except the artists.
Don't you think they should be the first on the list.
Also most of the work that has been presented has been painted over. As far as the property owner he only "owns" the physical art.
The Right to Copy the work and the Physical artwork are 2 different things.
part of me agrees that it's wrong
part of me thinks that it's karma
The rest of me laughs at anyone that would pay such insane (thousands?) amount of money to have 'photographs' of graffiti that they could otherwise get for hundreds of dollars by the artists themselves.
There are cases where work you create is not automatically your own. If you create it at work, at your employer's premises or using their materials, for example.
Maybe the property owners own the copyright for unauthorized work?
the photograph in the gallery conveniently is missing the original artists tag... ...such a lack of respect makes me sad"
What about the big ass EGR in red and white that's in the background above the characters?
Skippy - If the photographer purposefully chooses a particular angle, lighting situation, moment in time, composition, framing, etc, they are making an artistic contribution. If they are getting it straight on, it's archival. Either way is legal, but I take issue with calling archival photos original art. Selling them is another matter...
There are a handful of public buildings and statues (even the Eiffel Tower) which have had their public appearance copyrighted, but those are the exceptions in an age of increased money-grubbing in the domain of IP (imaginary property).
bigdaddyhame - There are dozens of books documenting street art from around the world, but they give credit where it's due (all the books I have, and have seen, do) and often include bios of the artists. (They also credit the individual photographers.) I think that falls within standard fair dealing/fair use usage.
spacejack - No. When you create something and your employer automatically owns it, it's because you signed a contract to that effect.
Gaulder - Evidently she couldn't figure out what that meant.
T-Rek - To clarify/nitpick.. as I understand it, the image of the Eiffel Tower isn't copyrighted. It is the light display that has been installed on the Eiffel Tower (and only visible at certain times) that is a copyrighted public art installation.
http://www.antville.org/static/pigasus/images/mural.jpg
Heh. Is free speech/creative expression becoming nothing more than intellectual property that now demands a price tag? You either have one or the other, you make that decision when you make the artwork with no going back.
Doesn't this situation specifically discuss cases of legal street art? It's noted in the caption as well as in the article.
Sure, but has the idea of legal street art actually been flushed out, or is it just a bunch of "magic rules" that are loosely defined on a community level?
dear pigasus. it's unfortunate that your sheltered view on what is legitimate art does not fit into the reality of the world we live in. should all public works of art require a disclaimer and be unprotected from abuse and misrepresentation for the profit of those other than the creator?
also. it must be very hard for may to decipher the symbols and codes FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE PAINTING RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER AND PUTTING THEIR PHONE NUMBERS AND WEB SIGHTS ON THEIR MURALS.
i'll be over to copyright your home this evening pigasus. with art*
*my poops
I believe the pictured legal walls in toronto were arranged by Style In Progress for ReSurface, by obtaining permission from each of the businesses that owns the walls, and the correct city permits for a public event. They also work with the police to try to make the legality is clear on all sides. (Sometimes this doesn't go smoothly, even with all the prep work and paperwork.) So those walls are not legal to paint on at any time, they were legal in the context of that event. SIP would have been aware of each artist participating, and would have assigned each artist a workspace, and I think, provided some of the paint through sponsorship connections. They are essentially commissioned murals.
Torontothegreat made a good point. For those prices, you could buy several pieces of original art or commission a brand new mural for yourself from the original artist.
Just don't commission it for your own wall in Toronto, or the deputy mayor might send goons over to paint over it.
@28: By "legal", I was thinking, you know, "law" -- not so much "magic." Jill's explanation fits what I had in mind.
terlet - I think you missed the point of pigasus' photoshopping.
I'm curious: does knowledge of the photographer's age (76, as mentioned in the Post article) cause anyone to re-evaluate their thoughts regarding her defense?
Ah, I am so bummed I missed this!
But as a fan of both graffiti and social justice, I am a bit torn between the two. I am glad someone has good morals.
wilshire - No. Maybe if she was 20 we could say she was youthfully naïve about the whole thing, but 76? She should know better by 40 decades' worth.
wilshire - no. her 30 years of "advocacy" for street art should have lead to a much better understanding of and respect for its creators. Her media releases seem to reflect at least some understanding or appreciation for the originators of graf and their motives, but not of the local creators of the contemporary pieces that made up her exhibition.
Facebook event page for the fundraiser this Thursday.
http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php#/event.php?eid=24015567167