LARK Books recently put out a call for entries for an upcoming book about using found materials to be published in their popular 500 series.

The book to be titled, 500 Found-Object Works, is scheduled for release in Fall 2010. I waited until after the postmark deadline of March 15, 2009 to avoid affecting the number of entries to the book, but there was a very disturbing proviso in the call for entries. It said,
"Due to trademark considerations, very few works featuring
recognizable brand names or logos will be accepted."

I and perhaps many others could infer from this comment that if you sent work with recognizable trademarked logos or brand names that you would likely be rejected and would not be included in the book. That is what prompted this thought. Where is Andy Warhol when you need him?

Andy Warhol made himself famous by using the iconic Campbell's soup can label for his signature image. His Brillo boxes are another example. Didn't Andy Warhol's precedent clearly demonstrate acceptable Fair Use examples of using trademarks and brand names in art? Apparently, we are taking big steps backward instead of forward.

It is disturbing that a publisher has self censored all art or craft that depicts trademark and copyrighted images, especially a book about found materials, before the images of work were even submitted. This is despite the long history of Fair Use and the world famous precedent established over forty years ago by Warhol.

Yes, the doctrine of Fair Use has some specific requirements to be applicable. Yes, I understand that the book publisher needs to be concerned about copyright infringement when they publish a very popular book. But it sounds like the lawyers are running the company instead of the editors and curators. Freedom of speech is a highly valued privilege of the United States which just got silently stepped on.

Lark Books could have issued a set of Fair Use guidelines to help artists understand the law and let artists know that submitted work would be subjected to Fair Use considerations. Then after prospective work is selected but prior to publishing, the lawyers could veto infringing work, if any. That is one way it could be handled.

There must be other alternatives. But it seems like paranoia and excessive fear have narrowed our lives more than we might realize.

Now I wonder how the book can possibly be as powerful or as interesting when this "don't even try" censorship has been stated in advance to all potential artists and makers.

I use found materials all the time and feel very comfortable working within the Fair Use doctrine. What are the rules governing Fair Use? Read ASK Harriete Fair Use Guidelines in a recent post and look for other posts about copyright law and Fair Use on ASK Harriete

Best Regards,
Harriete

www.harriete-estel-berman.info

Views: 119

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

When I first read the Lark proviso it made me cringe a bit. While none of my work currently uses any brand names or logos I felt for the people who's work does--And that's a lot of people! I wonder how many artists just didn't submit because of the statement.

Surely Lark Books could have determine fair use BEFORE publishing the book instead of including a proviso that, when it comes down to it, is basically just telling artists that use logos and brand names in their work not to submit.

Even so, fair use is opened to too much interpretation, and legal threats are the norm these days, that I can't really fault Lark too much. Lawyers are expensive and they cost the same whether one is in the right or not. Of course a few law suits might create "buzz" for the publication of the book and if any legal threats ever made it to court and Lark won they could hopefully recoup legal costs + some. But in this law suit crazy world and weak economic environment who would want to take the risk?

Fair use as discussed here reminds me of the mickey mouse gas mask by Bill Barminski who created the mask in part as a statement against self-censorship by the media. You can see it here, along with other "illegal art" The funny thing about the mask is Disney had already made a Mickey Mouse gas mask in 1942, a version I like even better. You can see that here.
Fear breeds repression. Repression breeds self-censorship. Self-censorship breeds fear. The cycle feeds on itself. Now shut up, go back to your studio and do what your told. Make something pretty.
Just as a follow up...

The book has been canceled do to lack of entries.

Did the proviso play a part?

I think so. I think it killed the book.

Too bad. I would have loved such a book...
I agree, I think the proviso "killed the book."
Harriete
We think we should band together here on Crafthaus and do our own exhibition called "Brand New Art" that shows how artists reinterpret, incorporate, co-op, transform and otherwise utilize brands and logos in their art.
I think Lark Books should try again.
There was another way to approach this that could have survived legal scrutiny.
we can do both.

RSS

Latest Activity

Aleksandra Vali posted a status
"2023 Fortezza da Basso, Florence, Italy"
Sep 19, 2023
Aleksandra Vali and Letitia Pintilie are now friends
Sep 19, 2023
Catherine Marche liked Rebecca Skeels's discussion streamlining our pages
Feb 3, 2021
Jonathan Leo Brown posted a status
"An art deco inspired ocean liner container with multiple containers."
Nov 9, 2020

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Brigitte Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service