Features > January 18, 2003

Illegal Art

Freedom of expression in the corporate age.

By Jessica Clark

Could we get sued? That was my first reaction when I read a recent New York Times report on Illegal Art: Freedom of Expression in the Corporate Age, the art exhibit coming to the In These Times offices. Law professor Edward Samuels claims that “half the exhibition is in violation” of copyright law. Paul McCartney’s spokesman, meanwhile, suggests that the show’s organizers are akin to media pirates. I could already envision the cease-and-desist letters, the harassment, the headaches … in a word, I was chilled.

Organized by Stay Free! magazine, the show opened in New York in November; it examines visual, video and audio art that lives on the fringes of intellectual property law. The legal battles surrounding these pieces—the “degenerate art” of our times—illuminate current struggles in copyright, trademark and patent regulation. Bringing these works of art together for the public to see and hear serves an important educational purpose—one that’s protected under “fair use” provisions in the law.

The scare tactics against fair use are central to the dynamics that Illegal Art explores. Artists who dare to “sample” images, sounds and words from the torrent of what passes for our public life, and who dare to re-present them in critical contexts without paying exorbitant licensing fees, are labeled “thieves” or “pirates.” The symbols and characters that permeate Americans’ mental environment are presented to us as trusted friends, but when commentators dare to engage with these friends directly, they revert to the status of “property.”

Stay Free! and In These Times share a concern about the encroachment of corporate ideas, interests and images on everyday life. Carrie McLaren, editor and publisher of Stay Free! and curator of the Illegal Art exhibit, puts it this way: “The stakes in the copyright wars are enormous, for the content industries and for their critics. … The U.S. doesn’t manufacture things anymore; it manufactures brands, images and perceptions—that’s where the money is. So for those of us in the trenches, guaranteeing open access to cultural material isn’t going to be easy.”

The growth of copyright controls reflects a general trend toward privatizing resources that were once open for all to use. Regulation of the physical commons—from lakes and rivers to the electromagnetic spectrum—against the abuse of private power is needed for the public good. But in the world of ideas and content, our “creative commons” need less regulation, not more.

The aggressive expansion of intellectual property control threatens researchers’ ability to “quote” digitized materials, archivists’ efforts to preserve works whose owners can’t be identified, scientists’ vital tradition of exchanging valuable findings, and innovators’ chances to build on the creativity of their peers. Combining, appropriating and reinterpreting has long been accepted as legitimate practice in all the arts, from Shakespeare to Picasso—both of whom would be sued many times over if they lived and worked today.

The works in the Illegal Art show are canaries in the coal mine of our public culture. Should they expire under the pressures of copyright expansion or be given space to breathe?

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  thanks for the article! 
  

  Posted by kurt enzinger on Jan 20, 2003 at 3:18 AM

  This also impacts on intellectual freedom for art historians and curators because they have no access to images they need to make their points in papers and on line. So it is really a kind of censorship of visual culture (as well as other kinds of culture). Social control at the most basic levels is what we are seeing. We owe this to the corporations and the people they buy in government. What this means is that only certain people can find a forum for their ideas in the mainstream and media. This is selective censorship. So it is just a matter of who pulls whose strings. 
  

  Posted by S. Langer on Jan 23, 2003 at 10:12 AM

  The laws that allows someone who snaps a winning photo to get all credit and money within a 28 year window, is within reason. However, as the laws of ‘76 and ‘98 encrotch on public domain laws, artists whose world view was largely formed via periodical images mid 70’s, are greatly impacted. Legally, they are not allowed to borry from the visual language of their youth within their lifetime. These laws are causing freedom of expression AND speech to be violated in favor of corporate control. The surreal collagists of the 1930’s were criminals in Nazi Germany - except the propaganda collagist Hitler hired. The surreal collagists of 2000’s are potential criminals in corporate America - unless working within corporate jurisdiction. I believe that even the Beatles most famous album cover “Sgt.Pepper’s..” would be considered illegal in todays world and tied up in the courts.  David Star

  Posted by David Star on Jan 23, 2003 at 6:09 PM

  The problem here comes from the allowence of personal rights to corporations. This is an illegal practice and any company that does not serve the puplic interest should have its charter revoked. For more on this go to: reclaimdemocracy.org
  

  Posted by Dirk Trenholm on Jan 26, 2003 at 11:39 AM

  Yes, copyright extension over everything is an important issue of our times, and one that often goes unnoticed. Thank you for your timely article. 
  

  Posted by Spyros Marchetos on Feb 5, 2003 at 6:23 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 9 posts.

Member Login

Also by Jessica Clark

• The New Cartographers
  What does it mean to map everything all the time?
• iPower to the People
  The perils and promise of point-and-click politics
• Blogs Up, Hacks Down
  The appearance of seven Democratic presidential contenders at the YearlyKos convention demonstrated that the Kossacks and fellow A-listers--along with what the Liberal Blog Advertising Network calls their 3 million daily readers--are now ensconced as political players
• Chasing the Green Pound in London
  Forget "I am not a plastic bag" campaign, Spitalfield's Market is where to find London's genuine eco-friendly fashion
• Boomsday: Bankrupt Satire
  
• Bisexual Healing