From Flickr to Facebook to YouTube students engage both still and moving digital images and negotiate different permissions and database resources every day. In this research project we sought to develop guidelines around how to approach the use of digital images– and answered some of the questions that students ask everyday: What can you download from YouTube? Is everything on Flickr available to use? Can I cut this image up and call it my own? What happens if I upload my project to Facebook?
Our goal was not to theorise or make general assumptions but to take an in depth look at a range of scenarios, and ask ‘how do we understand copyright?’, ‘what kinds of ‘truths’ do we tell ourselves in order to engage with contemporary media?’ and, ‘what fits within the legal and ethical boundaries of fair dealing?’ In the case studies we did not assume conclusions, rather we filtered possible answers back and forward through the open question “can I use this?”
We discovered in the course of the project that the first step in understanding copyright was that legally many of its concerns are about forms of property. Who owns the rights to an image becomes complicated when that image is digital. As soon as the digital image is understood in this way it is possible to understand why image rights are hotly contested in international frameworks. Legal approaches to the digital image have been spearheaded by desires to control not only the circulation of the image but the technologies which enable the use of media. This is an increasingly complex area that ties up image rights into complex reinterpretations of historic copyright frameworks and overlapping licensing regimes.
The protections and rules developed for copyright in text do not easily equate or translate to images nor to uses of the digital image. This led us to look at the boundaries of physical and digital space. The rules of physical space have been unsuccessfuly transposed into digital spaces and things move in different ways. We looked at real law in virtual worlds and noted the inequities particularly in the area of non-commercial and amateur art practices. We also looked at tensions which exist between western style copyright and existing structures of traditional knowledge which it often overlays without acknowledgement.
Our study included a survey of teacher responses to the scenarios. While we could draw no strong conclusions from these, as a body of responses we were able to see that most teachers acknowledged the complexity of the subject in that there were very few straight answers. In addition the variety of responses illustrated that while there is a body of knowledge at law on this subject the general or common knowledge that exists is widely varied and sometimes at variance with the law.
We looked at many scenarios holistically from legal, art and ethical perspectives. Simultaneous considerations of these aspects was necessary when making decisions around many of the issues. The role of the digital image in the age of copyright has implications for the way in which art teaching is delivered in schools at all levels. Currently the messages we are receiving loud and clear from Corporate and Law sources is that we can look at appropriation art historically from a pre-sampling period in time as historical artefacts. The irony is that some of this content which is now vigorously protected was at another time produced by animators and musicians in the not too distant past when they made use of others’ content (freely as in without permission) and became rich off a rich public domain before they lobbied seriously to close the gate to new-comers under copyright term extensions and the erosion of Fair Dealings.
Have we entered into a medieval era when code, contract and copyright in effect act to censor artists’ voices? Siva Vaidhyanathan’s summation of the four surrenders we make in the copyright minefields have been quoted many times. He says lobbying by corporate interests have rigged our copyright law to the extent that we surrender balance to control, public interest to private interest, and nation-state to multilateral NGOs as global multimedia companies step in and step on our copyright permitted acts. Finally, he says, we surrender contemporary and past culture to technology.
What started as a practical enquiry into various classroom challenges has brought us to realise that the greater picture surrounding this research project is the sustainability of an area of contemporary art practice, free speech and freedom of expression. In effect we question the future of what our society will look like when some forms of art have been completely denigrated by corporate interests via their lobbied for legal channels in what we might increasingly view as a form of visual eugenics. Susan Bielstein’s parting comments in her book, Permissions, also questions this. She asks what the cost and value to society is of the current state of anxiety and ignorance which abound in the hyperbolic growth of the all consuming permissions culture as an economic model. She considers the current situation as a precursor to dystopia.
If we are to be responsible teachers and practitioners of art in digital age, we need to take into account the risks that are now inherent in any engagement with images and educate ourselves in the best and safest ways to navigate this field. This project is one attempt amongst many to do this.
Art at Risk: copyright, fair dealing and art in a digital age is a collaborative research report of a project undertaken by Dr. Susan Ballard and Pam McKinlay at the Dunedin School of Art, Otago Polytechnic 2009-2010. It was funded by Ako Aotearoa Southern Regional Hub, the Dunedin School of Art and Otago Polytechnic Research Committee.
http://www.otagopolytechnic.ac.nz/schools-departments/art/research-search/academic-projects/art-at-risk.html
Friday, December 3, 2010
"Art at Risk: copyright, fair dealings and art in a digital age "
From Flickr to Facebook to YouTube students engage both still and moving digital images and negotiate different permissions and database resources every day. In this research project we sought to develop guidelines around how to approach the use of digital images– and answered some of the questions that students ask everyday: What can you download from YouTube? Is everything on Flickr available to use? Can I cut this image up and call it my own? What happens if I upload my project to Facebook?
Our goal was not to theorise or make general assumptions but to take an in depth look at a range of scenarios, and ask ‘how do we understand copyright?’, ‘what kinds of ‘truths’ do we tell ourselves in order to engage with contemporary media?’ and, ‘what fits within the legal and ethical boundaries of fair dealing?’ In the case studies we did not assume conclusions, rather we filtered possible answers back and forward through the open question “can I use this?”
What started as a practical enquiry into various classroom challenges eventually brought us to realise that the greater picture surrounding this research project is the sustainability of an area of contemporary art practice, free speech and freedom of expression. In effect we question the future of what our society will look like when some forms of art have been completely denigrated by corporate interests via their lobbied for legal channels in what we might increasingly view as a form of visual eugenics. What will the cost to society be of the current state of anxiety and ignorance which abound in the hyperbolic growth of the all consuming permissions culture as an economic model.
Art at Risk: copyright, fair dealings and art in a digital age is a collaborative research report of a project undertaken by Dr. Susan Ballard and Pam McKinlay at the Dunedin School of Art, Otago Polytechnic 2009-2010. It was funded by Ako Aotearoa Southern Regional Hub, the Dunedin School of Art and Otago Polytechnic Research Committee.
http://www.otagopolytechnic.ac.nz/schools-departments/art/research-search/academic-projects/art-at-risk.html
Our goal was not to theorise or make general assumptions but to take an in depth look at a range of scenarios, and ask ‘how do we understand copyright?’, ‘what kinds of ‘truths’ do we tell ourselves in order to engage with contemporary media?’ and, ‘what fits within the legal and ethical boundaries of fair dealing?’ In the case studies we did not assume conclusions, rather we filtered possible answers back and forward through the open question “can I use this?”
What started as a practical enquiry into various classroom challenges eventually brought us to realise that the greater picture surrounding this research project is the sustainability of an area of contemporary art practice, free speech and freedom of expression. In effect we question the future of what our society will look like when some forms of art have been completely denigrated by corporate interests via their lobbied for legal channels in what we might increasingly view as a form of visual eugenics. What will the cost to society be of the current state of anxiety and ignorance which abound in the hyperbolic growth of the all consuming permissions culture as an economic model.
Art at Risk: copyright, fair dealings and art in a digital age is a collaborative research report of a project undertaken by Dr. Susan Ballard and Pam McKinlay at the Dunedin School of Art, Otago Polytechnic 2009-2010. It was funded by Ako Aotearoa Southern Regional Hub, the Dunedin School of Art and Otago Polytechnic Research Committee.
http://www.otagopolytechnic.ac.nz/schools-departments/art/research-search/academic-projects/art-at-risk.html
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Art Law Symposium
This symposium, the first on this topic in New Zealand, was organised by Peter Stupples and sponsored by the Faculty of Law, University of Otago and The Dunedin School of Art, Otago Polytechnic.
Art and Law have long intercepted each other in human history. Images belong to groups and cultures where they act as symbols of authority, religious sentiment or marks of identification. The way they are used and by whom are often fraught with disputes over rights. Within each culture these disputes of use are couched in different forms and contexts - custom, oral heritage, documented history, case proceedings, the established instruments of legal authority.
In the twenty-first century rights over images are pulled two ways - towards the freedom of globalised appropriation and towards the restrictions imposed by copyright to protect the rights and incomes of originators and owners of property. This symposium drew together speakers from throughout New Zealand and Australia to look at historical examples and contemporary issues. For more information about the symposium see here.
Art and Law have long intercepted each other in human history. Images belong to groups and cultures where they act as symbols of authority, religious sentiment or marks of identification. The way they are used and by whom are often fraught with disputes over rights. Within each culture these disputes of use are couched in different forms and contexts - custom, oral heritage, documented history, case proceedings, the established instruments of legal authority.
In the twenty-first century rights over images are pulled two ways - towards the freedom of globalised appropriation and towards the restrictions imposed by copyright to protect the rights and incomes of originators and owners of property. This symposium drew together speakers from throughout New Zealand and Australia to look at historical examples and contemporary issues. For more information about the symposium see here.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Sustainability of Art Practice
The World Commission on Environment and Development has defined sustainable development as "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
Sustainability is commonly assumed to relate to environmental or ecological concerns. How does sustainability of art practice fit within this definition? The Arts Council of England believes that great art inspires us, bringing us together and teaching us about ourselves and the world around us. It has been a cornerstone of Art to be concerned with cultural and economic as well as environmental subjects and thus the notion of sustainability now encompasses the more common ecological as well as a wider cultural one.
Artistic sustainability adopts a critical position to the following: Environmental and ecological responsibility, Educational sustainability, Technological sustainability – technology as a medium, Technology and communities, Economical viability and stability, Cultural infrastructure and communication.
Environmental and ecological responsibility.
This grew out of ecological movements which notably in the 1970s found expression in things such as land art. In practical terms this has meant artists walking the talk. This follows the logical justifications of reducing, reusing, recycling and using non-toxic alternatives as a means to protect natural resources for the future and it has gained increasingly widespread attention. There are also other challenges affecting art aside from the practicalities of "greening" art practice. One might say that art has always seen itself as having an ethical imperative to continually raise awareness of issues. In the late twentieth century onwards this has included hot environmental topics such as Global warming and bio-engineering of the food chain. Art has a need and in turn is needed to examine contemporary and historical worldviews or social realities and the (global) physical environment around us.
Educational sustainability
Artists and students push at the boundaries of the seen and known world and delve into their imagination to reveal new possibilities and ways of voicing these. Artists find their voice through their art and this needs to be recognised. This is a form of free speech or freedom of expression and it needs to be safeguarded in the same way as academics view their academic freedom. Cross-disciplinary research is an example of a sustainable approach which contributes to a better and more holistic understanding of the world and the issues it is facing. Collaborative approaches offer new ways of exploring and expressing ideas in Art and contributes to the growing body of knowledge and discussion in the public sphere.
Technological sustainability – technology as a medium
Isolation can lead to duplication of resources and fragmentation of outcomes. Anyone involved in using digital mediums to create art is well aware of the swathe that new “progress” cuts through older technologies. The advances in technological hardware and software leaves in its wake a jumble of obsolescence and incompatibility of disparate digital technologies. This has the potential of leaving digital works locked up, as if in a lump of concrete. If they cannot be accessed and thereby unlocked, the information and data within remain as useless digital-cubits and the artist's vision un-rendered.
Technology and communities
Digital platforms and content are also viewed as immaterial assets (information commodities) that are capable of connecting to and playing a part in the real world. This both impacts on the conditions for creating art and provides the subject matter for critical reflection. The sustainability of art has to be considered in the context of our global information society of which it is a contributing factor. Sustainability is considered when looking at relationships within these networks. The future viability of networks will allow for sharing of content and also participation and collaboration as part of the social and cultural response. Another definition of sustainability is that the basis of truth lies in connectedness. It needs to be emphasized that cultural, economic and socio-political contexts shift in meaning in different societies so sustainability can only be understood as it relates to a specific community. Connectedness is also the rationale used by mobile technologies that ideally provide new platforms for communication. The same technologies are behind increased security and surveillance measures and some of the questions currently being raised are critically exploring the issues surrounding privacy and identity that emerge from tensions between security and the perception of erosion of civil liberties.
Economical viability and stability
Tizianna Terranova's ideas of complex relationships of net users and user produced content come into play when we address the economics of Web 2.0. We add to this notions of current economic models of art (and the art market), where art is seen as an art object and digital art as commodified content. Many aspects of intellectual property and copyright were developed along economic constraints, particularly for distribution where a work of intellectual production is seen as having little intrinsic value until it assumes a form that allows it to circulate through a marketplace. In this model the artist might be viewed as wage-labour which ignores the aesthetic values and other creative impetuses involved in art creation and communication. Artists are also viewed in other terms, proposed by Maurizio Lazarato, as a source of "immaterial labour" where control of their work may lose out to capitalist commodification and controls of the wider medium (of the internet).
Cultural infrastructure and communication
This includes social and community networks and the future cohesion of these. One of the variables is technology as discussed above. Increasingly in the 21st century connectedness through communication networks involves technology. As networks spread their tendrils into far flung reaches it becomes vital for their sustainability to be using a common language both in code and for the communication of shared content.
Use of visual elements can enhance cross-geographical and cultural possibilities of understanding (being also mindful that many traditional forms are rooted in ideas that are seated in relationships and histories and lore within their originating communities). One way of finding commonalities is using real world examples from the society's culture which are visually prevalent around us as facts of our modern environments. In a discussion paper on creative uses by The Australian Attorney General's office, they discuss the use of many copyrighted and trademarked materials as "non-substitutable". These were discussed as productive and not only reproductive elements in transformative uses such as parody and satire and are the thinking behind the legislative amendments to the Australian Copyright Law in 2006.
For art to address the sustainability of culture it also needs to probe into the sustainability of resistance when faced with entrenched corporate practices and intellectual property laws which refuse acknowledgment of even the bare basics of visual literacy. Artists need to be able to address the economic models of corporations and market capitalism in the information society. This includes questioning the processes of commodification and the factors behind them and to be able to reflect these accurately in the known world. Sometimes art practice needs to make use of non-substitutable elements which make up the visual noise that saturates our contemporary aesthetic environment as a language tool and reflective model.
Artists should be free to explore the boundaries of their imagination and its intersections with copyright, privacy, free speech, fair dealings. In art history and theory students have learnt about the historical and contemporary contexts for art works and practice, including appropriation art. In the 21st century a permission culture has erupted which threatens new interpreations of existing cultural icons with painful legal exorcism.
Cultural sustainability in all its dimensions is of paramount importance. This includes support for the visual arts; the freedom to critique society in all its registers and the drive towards resilience. Dr Strangelove reminds us that "society stagnates when meanings are treated as private property". Artists need to map choices in a world in which art has few protections and is actively attacked through many forms of bureaucracy, ranging from take-downs to censorship, indifference and cosmetic measures which do not address the fundamental dangers confronting cultural sustainability.
Sustainability is commonly assumed to relate to environmental or ecological concerns. How does sustainability of art practice fit within this definition? The Arts Council of England believes that great art inspires us, bringing us together and teaching us about ourselves and the world around us. It has been a cornerstone of Art to be concerned with cultural and economic as well as environmental subjects and thus the notion of sustainability now encompasses the more common ecological as well as a wider cultural one.
Artistic sustainability adopts a critical position to the following: Environmental and ecological responsibility, Educational sustainability, Technological sustainability – technology as a medium, Technology and communities, Economical viability and stability, Cultural infrastructure and communication.
Environmental and ecological responsibility.
This grew out of ecological movements which notably in the 1970s found expression in things such as land art. In practical terms this has meant artists walking the talk. This follows the logical justifications of reducing, reusing, recycling and using non-toxic alternatives as a means to protect natural resources for the future and it has gained increasingly widespread attention. There are also other challenges affecting art aside from the practicalities of "greening" art practice. One might say that art has always seen itself as having an ethical imperative to continually raise awareness of issues. In the late twentieth century onwards this has included hot environmental topics such as Global warming and bio-engineering of the food chain. Art has a need and in turn is needed to examine contemporary and historical worldviews or social realities and the (global) physical environment around us.
Educational sustainability
Artists and students push at the boundaries of the seen and known world and delve into their imagination to reveal new possibilities and ways of voicing these. Artists find their voice through their art and this needs to be recognised. This is a form of free speech or freedom of expression and it needs to be safeguarded in the same way as academics view their academic freedom. Cross-disciplinary research is an example of a sustainable approach which contributes to a better and more holistic understanding of the world and the issues it is facing. Collaborative approaches offer new ways of exploring and expressing ideas in Art and contributes to the growing body of knowledge and discussion in the public sphere.
Technological sustainability – technology as a medium
Isolation can lead to duplication of resources and fragmentation of outcomes. Anyone involved in using digital mediums to create art is well aware of the swathe that new “progress” cuts through older technologies. The advances in technological hardware and software leaves in its wake a jumble of obsolescence and incompatibility of disparate digital technologies. This has the potential of leaving digital works locked up, as if in a lump of concrete. If they cannot be accessed and thereby unlocked, the information and data within remain as useless digital-cubits and the artist's vision un-rendered.
Technology and communities
Digital platforms and content are also viewed as immaterial assets (information commodities) that are capable of connecting to and playing a part in the real world. This both impacts on the conditions for creating art and provides the subject matter for critical reflection. The sustainability of art has to be considered in the context of our global information society of which it is a contributing factor. Sustainability is considered when looking at relationships within these networks. The future viability of networks will allow for sharing of content and also participation and collaboration as part of the social and cultural response. Another definition of sustainability is that the basis of truth lies in connectedness. It needs to be emphasized that cultural, economic and socio-political contexts shift in meaning in different societies so sustainability can only be understood as it relates to a specific community. Connectedness is also the rationale used by mobile technologies that ideally provide new platforms for communication. The same technologies are behind increased security and surveillance measures and some of the questions currently being raised are critically exploring the issues surrounding privacy and identity that emerge from tensions between security and the perception of erosion of civil liberties.
Economical viability and stability
Tizianna Terranova's ideas of complex relationships of net users and user produced content come into play when we address the economics of Web 2.0. We add to this notions of current economic models of art (and the art market), where art is seen as an art object and digital art as commodified content. Many aspects of intellectual property and copyright were developed along economic constraints, particularly for distribution where a work of intellectual production is seen as having little intrinsic value until it assumes a form that allows it to circulate through a marketplace. In this model the artist might be viewed as wage-labour which ignores the aesthetic values and other creative impetuses involved in art creation and communication. Artists are also viewed in other terms, proposed by Maurizio Lazarato, as a source of "immaterial labour" where control of their work may lose out to capitalist commodification and controls of the wider medium (of the internet).
Cultural infrastructure and communication
This includes social and community networks and the future cohesion of these. One of the variables is technology as discussed above. Increasingly in the 21st century connectedness through communication networks involves technology. As networks spread their tendrils into far flung reaches it becomes vital for their sustainability to be using a common language both in code and for the communication of shared content.
Use of visual elements can enhance cross-geographical and cultural possibilities of understanding (being also mindful that many traditional forms are rooted in ideas that are seated in relationships and histories and lore within their originating communities). One way of finding commonalities is using real world examples from the society's culture which are visually prevalent around us as facts of our modern environments. In a discussion paper on creative uses by The Australian Attorney General's office, they discuss the use of many copyrighted and trademarked materials as "non-substitutable". These were discussed as productive and not only reproductive elements in transformative uses such as parody and satire and are the thinking behind the legislative amendments to the Australian Copyright Law in 2006.
For art to address the sustainability of culture it also needs to probe into the sustainability of resistance when faced with entrenched corporate practices and intellectual property laws which refuse acknowledgment of even the bare basics of visual literacy. Artists need to be able to address the economic models of corporations and market capitalism in the information society. This includes questioning the processes of commodification and the factors behind them and to be able to reflect these accurately in the known world. Sometimes art practice needs to make use of non-substitutable elements which make up the visual noise that saturates our contemporary aesthetic environment as a language tool and reflective model.
Artists should be free to explore the boundaries of their imagination and its intersections with copyright, privacy, free speech, fair dealings. In art history and theory students have learnt about the historical and contemporary contexts for art works and practice, including appropriation art. In the 21st century a permission culture has erupted which threatens new interpreations of existing cultural icons with painful legal exorcism.
Cultural sustainability in all its dimensions is of paramount importance. This includes support for the visual arts; the freedom to critique society in all its registers and the drive towards resilience. Dr Strangelove reminds us that "society stagnates when meanings are treated as private property". Artists need to map choices in a world in which art has few protections and is actively attacked through many forms of bureaucracy, ranging from take-downs to censorship, indifference and cosmetic measures which do not address the fundamental dangers confronting cultural sustainability.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Radio NZ on ACTA
This afternoon I chanced to tune in to an interview with Adrian Johns, author of Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenburg to Gates, on Simon Morton's This Way Up.
In recent times I can recall programmes on copyright, open software, patents and indigenous knowledge(s) on Morning with Kim Hill, This way Up, Insight, Arts on Sunday and interviews with renowned international experts such such as Lawrence Lessig, Richard Stallman and Jane Ginzberg, as well as industry and legal experts from closer to home such as Mark Harris and David Niven.
Thank you Radio NZ for timely programming which provides insight and background into these issues. Many of these programmes and interviews are available as podcasts from the Radio NZ website. Give them a day or two to make the Adrian Johns interview available.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/home
In recent times I can recall programmes on copyright, open software, patents and indigenous knowledge(s) on Morning with Kim Hill, This way Up, Insight, Arts on Sunday and interviews with renowned international experts such such as Lawrence Lessig, Richard Stallman and Jane Ginzberg, as well as industry and legal experts from closer to home such as Mark Harris and David Niven.
Thank you Radio NZ for timely programming which provides insight and background into these issues. Many of these programmes and interviews are available as podcasts from the Radio NZ website. Give them a day or two to make the Adrian Johns interview available.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/home
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
post-PublicACTA
Thanks to InternetNZ for organising and hosting the Public ACTA meeting in Wellington at the weekend and thanks to keynote speakers Michael Geist (from Canada) and Kim Weatherall (from Australia) and the New Zealand panel for giving up their time to frame the background and parameters of the discussion sessions that followed.
The meeting's outcome was a Declaration and Petition to treaty negotiators
http://publicacta.org.nz/wellington-declaration/. The New Zealand round of talks are scheduled to take place shortly. I was cynically expecting an announcement on April 26 which is World Intellectual Property Day, but it appears this is not going to be the last round after all.
For those who missed the meeting there are video links to the keynote and panel talks at the above link.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand License.
The meeting's outcome was a Declaration and Petition to treaty negotiators
http://publicacta.org.nz/wellington-declaration/. The New Zealand round of talks are scheduled to take place shortly. I was cynically expecting an announcement on April 26 which is World Intellectual Property Day, but it appears this is not going to be the last round after all.
For those who missed the meeting there are video links to the keynote and panel talks at the above link.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand License.
pre -PublicACTA
This was going to be a place where I pulled my thoughts together prior to the meeting but the high spirits of multiple small children on holiday meant I scrambled to put my thinking cap on as I was on the plane to Wellington.
So where do you start if you want to know about ACTA? I first came across ACTA in Mark Harris's 2008 submission. http://acta.tracs.co.nz/tiki-index.php?page=Completed+Submission. However, in 2010 one need look no further than the blog of Canadian Michael Geist which has the essential background of the Treaty (leaks) and regular updates as to its progress around the world http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/blogsection/0/126/.
So why should I care? Why might you?
It just doesn't feel right in my bones Nany McPhee.
It seems to conflate and confuse the parameters of individual IP areas. These are infringed on and enforced differently. There needs to be a definition of counterfeiting and limitations on the scope of the treaty.
It seems to contain a creeping front of claims in favour of copyrights holders at the expense of permitted exceptions including Fair Dealings. Where is the space for private acts - the line between commercial and non-commercial seems wraith-like and intent is not taken into account.
It seems to dismiss with the wave of a super-power hand the efforts we have recently put into new amendments to our laws and sovereign processes – in particular the copyright and new technologies amendments. I wonder at the countries excluded from the talks and why and what implications this will have for current discussions going on at WIPO around Indigenous Knowledge, the impact on customary law and in this country the Treaty of Waitangi. It seems like a convenient side step of representation and democratic process. Those outside the ACTA treaty are disenfranchised but yet will ultimately be held accountable to its terms in future agreements. Michael Geist has referred to it as an "exclusive country club approach". In a nation more familiar with ball sports I would say they are poor sports who have picked up the ball and run off the pitch when a penalty didn't go their way.
I am wary of the proposed changes to access at digital borders. Physical borders are different to digital borders. Independent carriers are like the Post Office, they are not the police. Is the ACTA treaty attempting a form of enclosure along the lines of the inclosures acts in England.
And finally I am wary of the changes that might affect generic pharmaceuticals which are deemed okay in one country but "counterfiet" in others. This has potential for consequences on our health budget (in particular Pharmcac negotiations), personal health costs and changes to the landscape of public health care.
If it seems like there are a lot of "seems" it's because we just don't know. There are no formally released documents on which to base any real analysis. This in itself is of concern.
Three memories of things read and heard come to mind:
David Nimmer, a respected copyright scholar who attended the Geneva Convention (WIPO) called it an "international conference" for an "American problem" - in Alan Story's "An Alternative Primer on National and International Copyright Law in the Global South", CopySouth, 2009, p.62, f.214.( although I hasten to add that WIPO, not ACTA, would be a more appropriate forum here, as ACTA seems to deal primarily with intellectual properties.)
David Rothkopf, a Clinton administration official, wrote "it is in the economic interests of the US to ensure that if the world is moving to a common language, it is English, that if the world is moving towards a common telecommunications, safety and quality standards, they be American, that if the world is becoming linked by television, radio and music, the programming be American, that if common values are being developed, they be values with which Americans are comfortable". (From "In Praise of Cultural Imperialism", Foreign Policy, Summer, 1997, in Ibid, p.48, f.158.
A documentary where Brett Taylor interviewed Bruce Layman ( formerly of the Clinton Administration) who said that in the 1990s the US hatched a plan to trade the economy of things to an economy of ideas. This was a part of the WTO system which fast tracked the globalisation of labour and service industries. He continues "we met our part of the bargain but these other countries didn't meet theirs . . . after a decade of digital copyright it also has not been achieved . . . so I am thinking may be we should have forgotten IP rights internationally and gone for labour standards and the environment." To which Brett Taylor's voice over replies "But instead of pushing for Fair Trade policies, the US is trying to build an economy that can't be built". From RiP: a Remix Manifesto- Chapter 12 "Which Road to the Future?" (taken from my notes at the Film Festival - I haven't had time to go back and transcribe quotes perfectly from the movie).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand License.
So where do you start if you want to know about ACTA? I first came across ACTA in Mark Harris's 2008 submission. http://acta.tracs.co.nz/tiki-index.php?page=Completed+Submission. However, in 2010 one need look no further than the blog of Canadian Michael Geist which has the essential background of the Treaty (leaks) and regular updates as to its progress around the world http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/blogsection/0/126/.
So why should I care? Why might you?
It just doesn't feel right in my bones Nany McPhee.
It seems to conflate and confuse the parameters of individual IP areas. These are infringed on and enforced differently. There needs to be a definition of counterfeiting and limitations on the scope of the treaty.
It seems to contain a creeping front of claims in favour of copyrights holders at the expense of permitted exceptions including Fair Dealings. Where is the space for private acts - the line between commercial and non-commercial seems wraith-like and intent is not taken into account.
It seems to dismiss with the wave of a super-power hand the efforts we have recently put into new amendments to our laws and sovereign processes – in particular the copyright and new technologies amendments. I wonder at the countries excluded from the talks and why and what implications this will have for current discussions going on at WIPO around Indigenous Knowledge, the impact on customary law and in this country the Treaty of Waitangi. It seems like a convenient side step of representation and democratic process. Those outside the ACTA treaty are disenfranchised but yet will ultimately be held accountable to its terms in future agreements. Michael Geist has referred to it as an "exclusive country club approach". In a nation more familiar with ball sports I would say they are poor sports who have picked up the ball and run off the pitch when a penalty didn't go their way.
I am wary of the proposed changes to access at digital borders. Physical borders are different to digital borders. Independent carriers are like the Post Office, they are not the police. Is the ACTA treaty attempting a form of enclosure along the lines of the inclosures acts in England.
And finally I am wary of the changes that might affect generic pharmaceuticals which are deemed okay in one country but "counterfiet" in others. This has potential for consequences on our health budget (in particular Pharmcac negotiations), personal health costs and changes to the landscape of public health care.
If it seems like there are a lot of "seems" it's because we just don't know. There are no formally released documents on which to base any real analysis. This in itself is of concern.
Three memories of things read and heard come to mind:
David Nimmer, a respected copyright scholar who attended the Geneva Convention (WIPO) called it an "international conference" for an "American problem" - in Alan Story's "An Alternative Primer on National and International Copyright Law in the Global South", CopySouth, 2009, p.62, f.214.( although I hasten to add that WIPO, not ACTA, would be a more appropriate forum here, as ACTA seems to deal primarily with intellectual properties.)
David Rothkopf, a Clinton administration official, wrote "it is in the economic interests of the US to ensure that if the world is moving to a common language, it is English, that if the world is moving towards a common telecommunications, safety and quality standards, they be American, that if the world is becoming linked by television, radio and music, the programming be American, that if common values are being developed, they be values with which Americans are comfortable". (From "In Praise of Cultural Imperialism", Foreign Policy, Summer, 1997, in Ibid, p.48, f.158.
A documentary where Brett Taylor interviewed Bruce Layman ( formerly of the Clinton Administration) who said that in the 1990s the US hatched a plan to trade the economy of things to an economy of ideas. This was a part of the WTO system which fast tracked the globalisation of labour and service industries. He continues "we met our part of the bargain but these other countries didn't meet theirs . . . after a decade of digital copyright it also has not been achieved . . . so I am thinking may be we should have forgotten IP rights internationally and gone for labour standards and the environment." To which Brett Taylor's voice over replies "But instead of pushing for Fair Trade policies, the US is trying to build an economy that can't be built". From RiP: a Remix Manifesto- Chapter 12 "Which Road to the Future?" (taken from my notes at the Film Festival - I haven't had time to go back and transcribe quotes perfectly from the movie).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand License.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
