In part one of our look at copyright in the art world, we discovered – shock horror – that Damien Hirst didn’t catch his own shark, lasso his own steer or sit up all night setting diamonds into his own blingin’ skull. In this second part, Arts Hub talks to visual artist Neil Taylor of Campbell Works about the copyright implications of the project ‘On Trust’ – and tracks down two of the unsung heroes of the art world, who work anonymously for some of the world’s most famous artists.
When Arts Hub visited Campbell Works in North London last May, Neil Taylor, his partner Harriet Murray and curator Claire Nicholls were putting the finishing touches to the exhibition ‘On Trust’ in their Stoke Newington gallery.
The project came about when five individual artists were invited to submit in writing an individual brief for Neil, Harriet and Claire to execute.
On the whole, the commissioned artists were pleased with the interpretation and execution of their ideas – although Neil and his colleagues had not appreciated how anxious some were about the project: some of the participants were also “quite keen” to claim ownership over parts of it.
Neil says the purpose of the project was to create a forum in which the artists could trust each other’s relationships – but that the issue of copyright has not really been resolved. Campbell Works feels, however, that the project involved all eight contributors, hence the title ‘On Trust’.
Neil says the copyright was most likely formed between the gallery and the curator, with the contributing artists having copyright over their ideas in the written briefs.
Although – as we learned in part one – copyright can only be assigned to another in writing, Campbell Works actually saw the project as a communal bowl, which all the collaborators “could stand around and share”.
Other artists may not be so generous in sharing their work, however. What Campbell Works set out to explore appears to be the reverse of what happens when an artist is commissioned anonymously by another and works for a fee in anonymity, apparently handing over all rights to the commissioning artist.
Artist X – who undertakes sculptural commissions – regularly works anonymously at the top end of the art market.
Artist X’s opinion of “ghosting” is that it is an acceptable practice – and whether they are acknowledged or not should be up to the artist: “Mythmaking is, after all, a legitimate creative strategy.”
Artist X also points out that, without the artist or a gallery paying for the work to be created, much of it would not exist – “although whether the world is a better place for that is debatable”.
Artist X is usually subcontracted by a company working for the originating artist, many of whom will undertake the moulding, casting or finishing of the piece themselves, requiring certain specialists to work on specific areas only.
Artists who commission others anonymously are also usually very careful not to use the same people to prevent over-association and ensure no individual has too much input.
However, the “art enabling world” is a relatively small one, says Artist X –
if an artist employs others via a company, those companies may subcontract the work to the same artists previously employed directly by the commissioning artist.
Artist X has never seen a written contract and always works under the terms of a verbal gentleman’s agreement – but feels quite happy to surrender ownership of the piece because “all artworks arise to some extent out of a co-operative network of individuals”.
The brief may be presented as “a vague explanation” or a thumbnail sketch or maquette, which the artist may want “more or less” accurately enlarged: often, a leading artist’s maquette will have been made by others.
Artist X refers to this as the “democratisation of creativity”:
“Anyone can be an artist as long as they can pay someone to sculpt their ideas for them. Occasionally, the contractor may work on the piece themselves or get another sculptor to modify or finish it, if necessary. Sometimes the artist will work on the piece, once it has arrived at a certain stage,” says Artist X.
So does there need to be a definition of “an artist” before copyright can be assigned?
Leading media lawyer Mark Stephens of Finers, Stephens, Innocent says that the acquisition of copyright has nothing to do with being an artist: it is to do with whether the work of an individual “qualifies for protection as an artistic work”. (See part one of our copyright feature.)
And Neil Taylor adds that many leading artists actually function as a brand and copyright is assigned to that brand.
Artist X says that some copyright arrangements in the art world “would never be tolerated in the music business”. Begging the question why artists agree to work anonymously for others, knowing they will never receive any credit.
Artist Y – another unsung hero of the art world – has their own career aside from ghost work, but is less happy about ghosting:
“There is a part of you that’s proud that you made it, but when people are looking at it and making comments about it, it’s just two faced – for the art world and for the artist who is standing there getting the glory…knowing full well that the person stood next to them made it.”
Artist Y believes the reason why the practice continues is simple – money – and adds that it is just an accepted way of doing things.
“Everybody knows about it and it’s always been done like that.”
However, Artist Y also accepts there are some artists “who do not have any ideas of their own” and so are happy to do ghost work and have the accompanying association.
So, does copyright actually stifle creativity and prevent artists taking collaborative risks?
Neil Taylor says that, in practice, most artists do not take any notice of it and “are not hindered by worrying about copyright.”
Neil explains, however, that one thing an artist is protective over is their technique.
“People are always looking for new processes and artwork is very process-led at the moment,” he says.
“There are a lot of new materials coming out all the time and people are looking for the latest new materials: for example, the latest way of bending the latest piece of plastic. But if you create something using that, of course someone is going to be copying you the next week because that’s how we all learn to do things. Art is for sharing.”
The thing that riles artists who work anonymously, says Artist Y, is that their skills are being bought in on the cheap and then sold at a high price.
The daily studio rate for ghost artists is between £200 and £400. So does copyright only become important when art begins to make serious money?
“There are thousands of students coming out every year and everyone wants to get involved,” says Artist Y. “But there is a kind of exploitation going on. It’s a capitalist system. It’s the way it works.”
Artist X, however – who exhibits annually under their own name – is happier about taking the money and no credit.
“I am usually quite happy to surrender ownership of the work. Some of the ideas I am asked to illustrate three dimensionally are specious at best and I am usually grateful not to be personally associated with them.
“I do like to think that the quality of the modelling and finish can occasionally elevate a less than profound concept to a level it might not otherwise attain in a less refined presentation. I sometimes think it is a shame that the artist is acclaimed because of this rather than in spite of it.”
So the desire to own copyright appears to rely on two factors: money and the quality of the work that results.
“At the end of the day,” says Neil Taylor, “It’s all arguable in court.”
And not surprisingly, we end where we began – with the lawyers.
So, if you want someone to catch a shark for you, just make sure you get it in writing.
Read part one of Angela’s story on copyright here.
Sources:
campbellworks.org
fsilaw.com
wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hirst-Shark.jpg
whitecube.com
saatchi-gallery.co.uk/virtual-tour-windows.htm
opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm
artquest.org.uk/artlaw/copyright/29491.htm
