Copyrighting the Art?

Before you read this entry, please scroll down and take a look at the Picasso on the right. Someone somewhere took a photo of that particular piece, acknowledged the artist, and posted it on the internet. In fact, take a few minutes to do an image search for other Picasso works or Rembrandt or Da Vinci. Take it another step and type in Mona Lisa image search. You will find hundreds of images ranging from photos of the original work to parodies and various analyses of the famous piece including how to instructions for exact reproduction. Da Vinci as arguably one of the most well-known artists/inventors in history is not receiving royalties from unbridled use of his art. Of course Da Vinci is gone, but his name, his art is viewed by thousands upon thousands each year. True, his works are considered public domain, yet it seems that public domain has increased the worth of the Mona Lisa, not diminished it.

Now let's contrast this with a recent sign I saw in a small hallway of a university in another city. Located in a sitting area near a water fountain and restrooms, with a pleasant balance of natural and fluorescent light, there were some small and rather nicely done oil paintings in simple, innocuous frames hanging innocently on the wall. Not being an artist nor even an expert in any sense, nevertheless, I have an unending curiosity about all things artistic, and felt compelled to move toward the art to assuage my questions as to their content and purpose. But unfortunately, as I drew closer, I was not drawn to the art as much as to the sign that stood between two small pieces. The sign stated that photography including cell phone cameras was forbidden due to copyright infringement.

Staring at the sign, thinking through it, I finally forced my eyes to study the actual art works and soon felt that familiar emotion of visual satisfaction with the craft of the artist mixed with some apathy at the subject matter--another beautiful but unoriginal naturalistic piece (please forgive my opinions on this subject. I love all art but am to the point where I prefer abstracts over realism). Wryly, I concluded that I would not have taken a photo regardless of the stated infringement. So another work of art hangs unseen except by passersby on their way to a needed stop, only to be interrupted by the reminder that it is not to be photographed. I wondered what it would be like to meet someone for the first time and have him punch me in the face rather than shake my hand! I realized the impact was not all that different.

What if the sign had said: Feel free to photograph the artworks and share with anyone. The artist would appreciate acknowledgment. How would this alter the product? What would happen? Would the mass sharing, internet postings, image copying, hurt the artist? What if someone took a picture and sold it as his own? What would be the result of such activity? Yes, maybe somebody would make some money using another person's creativity. Or perhaps somebody would use the photograph for another purpose such as a book jacket and reap the financial rewards, thus stealing from the creator. That possibility certainly does exist although seems most unlikely. How many artists have claimed Picasso as their own or musicians claimed Mozart or writers Dickens? Art is such a personal, singular expression that each work becomes as individual as a fingerprint.

Of course, there is the potential for the work to achieve notoriety regardless of its limited exposure thereby resulting in a significant purchase, giving the artist financial freedom enjoyed by very few. Maybe the hope of much trumps the likelihood of a little due to the free sharing of creative expression. Maybe the dream of wild riches is greater than the steady rewards of acknowledged excellence? Regardless of the reason, out of some misguided inflation or maybe self-protection or simply the "pot of gold," the artist or maybe the institution felt inclined to prevent the sharing of his creativity. Yet, while I would like to be wrong, it is likely that the works will enjoy a brief, artistic career on the wall in an obscure location, never to enjoy the fame and fortune that could happen if their magnificence were shared by everyone.

I propose we give attribution when deserved and allow the market to determine the value by allowing the expression of individual creativity.