Photographing art

I’ve never understood why artists get so uptight when someone photographs their art. It always makes me shake my head when I go to a concert or show and the artist prohibits photography. Are you really worried, Mr. Artist, that a simple photograph could compare to actually attending your show? Is your act truly that boring? If a photo of you onstage is so much of a threat to you, why are you in business? What are your fans getting for their $50 tickets? I’ve never seen Bruce Springsteen live, but I can’t imagine a photo could take the place of the three-hour experience he provides. I ran into a similar attitude at Carnegie Hall.

I felt the same way when I walked among the stalls at Artsplosure last weekend. A few artists that had put up signs restricting photography, so obviously I had to photograph them. Now I know these folks put a lot of work into their art and they’re justifiably proud of it, but when they display it openly in a public place on a public street there’s nothing to keep it from being photographed. And why should they fear this? I couldn’t possibly reproduce this man’s sculpture from a photograph, nor could a photograph ever capture the essence of a three-dimensional work of art like sculpture.

At least Mr. Mosquera said please on his sign. The one at this next booth takes the cake.

Here’s its text:

NO PHOTOGRAPHY

NO PHOTOS, NO VIDEO OF ARTWORK WITHOUT ATTENDANT’S PERMISSION

ATTEMPTING TO PHOTOGRAPH ARTWORK WITHOUT ATTENDANT’S PERMISSION :

1) SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY TO ENGAGE IN COPYRIGHT PIRACY AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION;

2) SHALL CONSTITUTE PERMISSION TO SURRENDER THE IMAGE/S BY REVIEW AND DELETION, BY EXPOSING FILM, OR BY SURRENDERING THE CAMERA;

3) SHALL CONSTITUTE PERMISSION TO PROVIDE IDENTIFICATION TO ATTENDANT.

DOES NOT APPLY TO EVENT STAFF, SECURITY, OR TO CREDENTIALED NEWS MEDIA ON ASSIGNMENT.

Sign courtesy of ARTandJUNK.com art show artists’ anti-piracy services. Distribute freely. ARTandJUNK.com disclaims liability from use of the sign.

This was apparently once posted to a site called ARTandJUNK.com, which justified it with this (note this is the justification of the creator of the sign, someone at ARTandJUNK.com, not the artist who stupidly posted the sign):

WHAT IS THIS FOR?

THE PROBLEM

Artists: has it happened to you? You’re exhibiting at an art fair, someone snaps a photo of your artwork and hurries away without talking to you and without taking a business card –so obviously no interest in actually buying your wares later. Not from the press either; they would have collected your name and contact information. What just happened? Often enough, it is a random act, but with increasing frequency –ESPECIALLY AT TOP NATIONAL SHOWS– your designs are being photographed for use by a factory for later mass production.

Mostly overseas, these factories have the capability to design their own work or to surf the web for inspiration, but they don’t have a direct feel on the pulse of what is selling this season in major markets. Well, that’s where (likely unknowingly) you come in. Artists who have been juried into a top art fair and who can afford to pay the $200-$700 fee to set up a tent outdoors ~must~ be selling enough of their designs to be a financial success at least to some degree. These are the designs that the copyright-pirate factories want to replicate for mass-production.

Many artists have been driven out of business by such underhanded activity. “I know a fellow who spent over $20,000 on lawyers and court costs fighting those guys….he’s out of business now,” said a long-time traveling artist exhibiting in Portsmouth, VA in 2007. At the 2007 Boardwalk show in Virginia Beach, VA, a potter said, “I can go into any Pier One sort of store and find artwork by artists I know, except it wasn’t made by those artists –it is factory made….one of my original designs got stolen too; I don’t make it anymore.” Lead-tainted toys, “knockoff” designer goods, poisonous pet food, questionable pills, and counterfeit watches aren’t the only tainted goods coming out of China’s sweatshops.

COPYRIGHT-PIRATE METHODS OBSERVED

Digital cameras, cel-cams, and video cameras are the usual tools –the better to email the results back to China, Taiwan, or Mexico. Art fairs most likely to be pirated are outdoor shows in major market areas without a fixed point-of-entry (beachside art shows, urban parks, and other sites where public access from multiple directions is easy). Fenced shows where visitor bags are screened are less likely targets. Indoor shows with restricted access (bag checks and limited entry points) are least likely. Indoor shows with unregulated access however (mall shows for instance) are more like the beach and public park shows in their vulnerability.

Anyone credentialed as event staff is certainly photographing only for event documentary or promotional purposes. A civilian who actually asks permission to snap a photo is often not considered suspicious. Someone talking on a cel phone about your work and then snapping a cel-cam photo might even be getting their distant partner’s approval for a purchase. Obviously one must be judicious when deciding whether or not to object to the photography.

Suspicious activity includes anyone not-credentialed as event staff photographing your artwork –especially if never stopping to ask permission, never taking business cards, or not talking with artists. Not-getting artist contact info is a giveaway that the person does not mean to buy your artwork (sure it could be an odd personal hobby, but it smells like pirate-photography). A family group uninterested in images of family members or in the local scenery –just focusing on artwork products only– is suspicious; the technique has been used before. Some pirate-photographers will snap every tent (except of course the food vendors and the info tents) while others paid by media-specific factories will only shoot the paintings and flat media –or perhaps only ceramics, only glass, or only jewelry.

Legitimate news media photographers would at least get your name (unless taking a wide-shot of the overall crowd rather than photographing artwork on exhibit). One suspicious man was observed wearing a newspaper-logo golf shirt and a generic photo ID card neckbadge at a 2007 costal Virginia art fair. An artist’s spouse (who happens to work in the news media) recognized the ID as non-standard and also had seen similar shirts available as premiums for newspaper subscribers. When questioned, the “news” photographer admitted that he was not working for the news and shortly afterward hastily excused himself from the venue. Until then, the photographer was often greeted with smiles, waves, and peace-signs from unsuspecting artists who were perhaps pleased that they’d be in for some “publicity”. Maybe not the sort of publicity they expected.

Copyright-pirate photographers often appear as a team. One partner can partly screen the boothkeeper’s view of the cameraholder and can also look ahead for possible trouble while the photographer’s eye is busy with the viewfinder. Also, having a partner makes for easier intimidation if the (usually lone) boothkeeper decides to confront.

Use of family and children has been observed. The practice harkens back to the documented cases of itinerant pickpockets in Europe who train their children in the techniques. The kids steal until caught, then a parent (observing from a distance) suddenly appears on-scene and roughly scolds the child while promising the duped tourist that severe punishment awaits at home (of course, it actually doesn’t). In the unlikely even that police are summoned, the child is too young for any substantive official response. At a top US oceanside art fair, exhibitors saw a phalanx of stern adults (perhaps mom, dad, and an uncle) striding along right outside artists’ tents –effectively wedging other viewers out of the way of the approaching camera. Following closely were three children –one holding a video camera and the others seeming to keep watch. Another adult brought up the rear. It would have been strange “family vacation” footage: no beach, no seagulls, no family –just a rolling close-up on the hot products at the popular art fair.

Reluctance –especially angry reluctance– to delete images taken without your permission is the biggest red flag of all. A typical innocent civilian will just meekly comply. Pirate-photographers often haughtily claim First Amendment privileges, say that this is public property, suddenly “forget” how their own camera’s delete function works, or just challenge you to “make me” delete them.

TYPICAL RESPONSES

Beginners often do nothing. Well, it’s easy –and what’s to lose if a foreign factory mass-produces your work? Those with more experience and with higher market value however often bristle at the thought.

For the most part, notifying event organizers is pointless. They’re busy. They don’t know the problem exists. Those who do know have a vested interest in denial: keeps their job easier, keeps them out of possible legal snags (what IF your design WERE someday actually courtroom-proven to be stolen and maybe the show knew about the problem and failed to do anything about it: possible liability –better to “have no idea”).

Notifying event volunteers is especially vexing. Older volunteers will likely say they know nothing about today’s computer gadgets. Young volunteers will be too busy using today’s computer gadgets to want to deal with your interruption –they want to get back to texting their friends and downloading more i-music. Either way, your volunteer will either say, “uh I don’t think we can do anything about that” or, “I don’t know about that –let me find (whatever name) and ask.” If this next person is found, the cycle repeats –or the next person will refer you to an event organizer. From there, see the part above about event-organizers. Pointless. Maybe save such comments for written follow-up after the show.

SUGGESTED RESPONSES

Print out some of the signs which are available at the top of this page. There is no charge for exhibiting artists or for art fair staff to print and use the signs. Make more for your exhibitor-neighbors at the show or for exhibitors who ask about the posted signs. You certainly could print a few extras to give to the organizers to post at the show entry points (odds are they’ll decline, but it is worth a try).

Don’t roll over if a suspected pirate-photographer cites the First Amendment or public places. It may indeed be a temporarily-closed city street or public beach border you’re showing on, but almost always the “public” land is temporarily rented by private-sector show organizers (or at least by a municipal sub-department) and THEIR rules apply during the show. (Like notice how show visitors had to pay $6 to walk in to the art fair? Not usually a toll-street, is it? The show’s rules apply while the show is renting the public land.) Further, YOU are renting the 10×10 boothspace from the show organizers; to the extent that you post and apply them, some of YOUR rules apply to your space. You post a “no photography” sign with reasonable conditions, and many jurisdictions will support your no-photography assertions.

Organize. Talk up the issue with your exhibitor neighbors. Those who are already aware and concerned will likely appreciate an extra set of eyes watching their goods (and vice versa) when in need of a break or just whenever throughout the show. Those who were previously-uninformed might appreciate the tip. Informed exhibitors can approach suspicious photographers together. Until event-organizers actually do get serious about artists’ rights, unity (at least among neighbors) makes for a much better defense.

Practice mentally. Confrontation is stressful. Train for it. Remember, it isn’t like you’re going to lose a sale. Those photographing every tent and taking no business cards for later follow-up contact just aren’t there to buy your art. What will you say? Will you even distract yourself with whatever verbal objections a pirate-photographer throws at you to save himself –or will you first see that the images of your items are deleted and then discuss legal fine points afterward –if you feel like it? Would you grasp the camera strap? Would you say that you’ll need to see the images of your artwork deleted; you can read this sign if you like, but the pictures have to go? Will you get into a verbal power struggle? After all, a real pirate-photographer will NEVER say “oh yes quite right, I actually AM getting paid a hundred bucks to get pictures I can e-mail to a factory.” Not going to happen. They’ll say it is a personal hobby, they’ll cite freedom of expression, they’ll fuss, they won’t admit a thing. Actual innocent civilians will usually comply straight away.

Its your call.

Either way, without a “no photography” sign, you’d likely have less of a basis to argue. Print it, share it, inform, organize, and be vigilant.

What galls me is this line from above:

Don’t roll over if a suspected pirate-photographer cites the First Amendment or public places.

Hey, dumbshit, the same First Amendment which gives you the right to create whatever art you create also gives me the right to photograph it in a public place. You advocate taking away my First Amendment right while you still enjoy yours? I think you don’t understand how rights work.

Now, if some artists are getting their work ripped off I sympathize with them. However, they should direct their anger towards those ripping them off, not the general public who visit their booths. Treat your customers like criminals and they won’t be your customers for long.