Archivists,

As archivists and librarians we are increasingly having to understand
the arcana of the copyright and trademark laws. There is an exhibit
that might be interesting to you all that illustrates some of the
issues that we are coming across in the digital realms.

I helped instigate this exhibit of illegal art by asking "what are we
missing because of these new copyright laws?"

The opening of the pictoral exhibit in San Francisco is tomorrow night
(wednesday) at fort mason; then thursday there is a
artist-and-lawyers panel with larry lessig about recent use of
trademark and copyright law to sue artists; then there are music
performances and film and video showings through the rest of the month.

http://www.illegal-art.org has much the music, pictoral art, and
videos available for viewing.

I hope you find this interesting.

-brewster


Contact:
Steve Pon, SFMOMA Artists Gallery
415.441.4777,
Ray Beldner, artist and San Francisco exhibition organizer
415.297.2319,


The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Artists Gallery will host the
traveling exhibition Illegal Art: Freedom of Expression in the
Corporate Age from July 2 through July 25, 2003. An opening reception
will take place at the SFMOMA Artists Gallery on Wednesday, July 2,
from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Gallery hours are Tuesdays through Saturdays
11:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Illegal Art: Freedom of Expression in the Corporate Age was conceived
by Carrie McLaren of Stay Free! Magazine in New York; the San Francisco
presentation is organized by artist Ray Beldner. Illegal Art presents
roughly 50 works in diverse media that push the legal fringes of
intellectual property in our corporate age, raising such questions as:
Should artists be allowed to use copyrighted materials? Where do the
First Amendment and intellectual property law collide? What is art’s
future if the current copyright laws are allowed to stand?

The practice and concept of “freedom of expression” is a timely topic;
recently tightened copyright laws—and resulting litigation—increasingly
discourage cultural commentary through art. Edward Samuels, a New York
Law School professor and author of The Illustrated Story of Copyright,
estimates that at least half the Illegal Art exhibition is in violation
of current copyright laws, and, indeed, some of the featured artists
have appeared in court.

Artists with works in the exhibition include Bill Barminski, Ray
Beldner*, Enrique Chagoya, Heidi Cody, Michael Hernandez De Luna,
Packard Jennings*, Aric Obrosey, Clare Rojas*, Tom Sachs, Diana
Thorneycroft, and Andrew Jeffrey Wright*, among others. (* denotes
artists based in the Bay Area)

Illegal Art opened in November 2002 in New York City and subsequently
traveled to Chicago, Washington, D.C., Boston and Philadelphia. The
exhibition has received favorable critical attention from such media
outlets as the Chicago Tribune, International Herald Tribune, Wired,
National Public Radio, and The New York Times, among others. Illegal
Art is sponsored by Stay Free! magazine.
A number of related events will take place during the run of this
exhibition. Complete, up-to-date information on these events is
available at www.illegal-art.org.

Opening Reception
What: Reception featuring “appropriation-based music” from DJs Wobbly
and Mr. Meridies
When: Wednesday, July 2, 5:30–7:30 p.m.
Where: SFMOMA Artists Gallery, Fort Mason Center, Building A, San
Francisco
Admission: Free


Panel Discussion
When: Thursday, July 3, 6–8 p.m.
Where: San Francisco Art Institute Lecture Hall, 800 Chestnut Street,
San Francisco
Moderator: Marcia Tanner, art writer and independent curator
Participants: Lawrence Lessig, Stanford Law Professor; Carrie McLaren,
exhibition curator and editor, Stay Free! magazine; Kembrew McLeod,
artist and professor of communications studies, University of Iowa;
Rick Prelinger, Prelinger Archives, Simon Frankel, intellectual
property attorney
Admission: Requested $5 donation at the door; seating is limited


Film/Video Screenings
What: Four different programs of short film and video works that
incorporate found footage, unauthorized music, or shots of copyrighted
or trademarked material.
When: Wednesday July 23, 2 p.m., 4 p.m., 6 p.m., 8 p.m. and 10 p.m.
Thursday, July 24, 6 p.m., 8 p.m. and 10 p.m.
Where: Roxie Cinema, 3117 16th Street (near Valencia), San Francisco
Admission: $8 general; $4 seniors and children; tickets available at
the door


Music Performance: The Sound of Illegal Art I
What: Live “appropriation-based” electronic music and multimedia,
featuring RAJAV and two additional performers to be announced
When: Wednesday, July 9, 8 p.m.
Where: 21 Grand, 449B 23rd Street (between Broadway and Telegraph),
Oakland
Admission: Sliding scale donation of $5–$10 at the door


Music Performance: The Sound of Illegal Art II
What: Live “appropriation-based” electronic music and multimedia,
featuring Wetgate, Wobbly, Steev Hise, and Mr. Meridies
When: Wednesday, July 16, 8 p.m.
Where: A LOFT, 25A McLea Court (off 9th Street), San Francisco
Admission: Sliding scale donation of $5–$10 at the door

* * *
Further information on this exhibition and related events is available
at .

Representing more than a thousand West Coast artists, the SFMOMA
Artists Gallery offers a diverse selection of original artwork for sale
and rent. The SFMOMA Artists Gallery is located in Building A at Fort
Mason Center. Gallery hours are 11:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Tuesdays
through Saturdays.

# # #
Background for Illegal Art: Freedom of Expression in the Corporate Age

Copyright History
Congress’s original intent in drafting copyright law was to grant
exclusive rights for limited terms, linked to the life spans of
authors, so that authors could enjoy the fruits of their labor while
alive. Until 1978 copyrights generally lasted 28 years and could be
renewed for another 28. Publication without proper copyright notice
threw a work into the public domain.

After 1978 the United States “harmonized” its copyright laws with those
of most other countries, extending the term of copyright for new works
created by individuals to the span of author’s life plus 50 years, and
new works created by corporations to 75 years. Renewals for older works
became automatic in 1993. In 1998 the largely undebated Sonny Bono
Copyright Term Extension Act further “harmonized” American copyright
laws with those of our European trade partners, extending terms to life
plus 70 and 95 years, respectively.

Many called Sonny Bono’s law the “Mickey Mouse Act” of 1998 because the
impetus for the copyright extension came from the Disney corporation’s
fear of losing the rights to Mickey Mouse and other characters when
those copyrights expired in 2003. While protecting the intellectual
property of a few large corporations, these laws have had the effect of
keeping hundreds of thousands of other U.S. works out of the public
domain. In the Supreme Court case Eldred v. Ashcroft, an unsuccessful
constitutional challenge to the Sonny Bono Act, Justice Steven G.
Breyer estimated in his dissenting opinion that only 2 percent of the
works copyrighted between 1923 and 1942 continue to be commercially
exploited. The rest are inaccessible.

De Facto Censorship?
The laws governing intellectual property have grown so expansive in
recent years that borrowing from another artwork—as did jazz musicians
in the 1930s, Looney Tunes illustrators in the 1940s, and Pop artists
in the 1960s—can now land artists in court. Some experts argue that if
current copyright laws had been in effect in those days, whole genres
such as collage, hip-hop, and Pop Art might never have existed.

Many “appropriation” artists working today—rap artists, collagists,
sound artists, even documentary filmmakers—believe the copyright and
intellectual property laws have slowly tied up the material with which
they make their work. And although the concepts of fair use and parody
still protect most sampling and image appropriation in art, the threat
of lawsuits from corporations have effectively put a chill on the
artistic output of many artists. A simple “cease and desist” letter
from a multinational conglomerate, regardless of its shaky legal
standing, is often as effective as a lawsuit.

Corporate copyright holders have also pushed to limit the definition of
fair use and, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 2000
(DMCA), to prevent virtually all unpaid reproduction, performance,
distribution and collection of digitally based works. The DMCA
encourages copyright holders to build protection mechanisms into
technology and then criminalizes “circumvention” attempts to reengineer
the technology, however well intentioned (and necessary) they may be.

At its roots, the legal concept of copyright was intended to facilitate
the exchange of ideas, but through evolving legal restrictions, some
say it is now being used to stifle creativity. Certain law experts,
such as Stanford University professor Lawrence Lessig, have sided with
artists who believe that copyright laws are becoming “instruments of
censorship.” Without full or fair access to the images, ideas and
sounds that surround us, many wonder what effect copyright laws will
ultimately have on artists and the kinds of art that can be made in
this new century.