wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: Discussion with ZKM's lawyer and next steps
bruce_hemming 2008-Jun-01 07:07:00
I have just returned from a weeks location shooting where I had inadequate email access
and have just properly read all of the correspondence on the ZKM issue. Going through all
of the last weeks posts to properly inform myself of the situation was a depressing
experience.
As I was contacted directly by Petra Kaiser I am taking that to indicate that my work has
definitely been used and must now consider what action I need to take. Obviously I am
very grateful for the efforts of the other group members who have given substance to and
gathered evidence of the violation of our rights - and particularly to Yuv who has started
a negotiation process.
I do however have some concerns of my own which don't appear to have been much
discussed - you must forgive me if I am overlooking others comments but I have only had
one read through of the correspondence and will need to go over it again several times to
become fully conversant with the content.
In particular, it appears to me that the WWP as a coherent arts concept has been damaged
by the actions of ZKM. Others have posted re problems where consent had been given for
usage only in the context of the WWP and I have read at least one post where a member
will no longer participate. This suggests to me that there is a strong case for punitive
damages far exceeding the "commercial value" of the rights misappropriated. This would
acknowledge the damage to the WWP and act as a deterrent to others in the future who
might contemplate similar theft of copyright work via the web. The discussion has mainly
focused on the violation of the rights of the individual but we must not forget that the
integrity of the concept of the WWP has been attacked and exploited.
In response to those pointing out that ZKM is a not for profit organization I would suggest
that you consider the following - here in the UK, and I don't doubt all over the world,
educational, arts and similar publicly funded organizations are increasingly active in the
commercial world where they enjoy an advantage over normal businesses with whom they
compete due to the resources made available to them and "free" ie student, labour that
they employ. Globorama might be an educational non profit display at the moment but
who can say what commercial application it might be turned to in the future? In that case
we may well have supplied the content for a proof of concept without receiving any
financial reward for our participation in their success.
I am absolutely appalled at the arrogance and actions of the directors of ZKM who have
damaged the WWP which has a greater value and artistic integrity than their "delivery"
system and is typical of many so called arts institutions.
I know that by suggesting a greater financial penalty be applied you will feel that this is
stirring the pot at the wrong time Yuv and if I had been able to comment earlier in the
exchanges I would have -
So it goes.
Regards
Bruce
--- In #removed#, Yuval Levy <yahoo06@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I had a positive discussion with Prof. Dr. Rupert Vogel, Bartsch +
> Partner, a lawyer for the ZKM. <http://www.bartsch-partner.com/de/24/>
>
> Monday he will get back to me with a time frame.
>
> We established a working relationship. I believe he is making his client
> aware of how serious the situation is, and ZKM is willing to engage
> constructive negotiation. We decided to de-escalate and start
> negotiating, as laid out at
> <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wwp/message/9713>
>
> They have received my cease-and-desist and that of others, and they are
> complying. That's why they have removed material from the web. He
> assured me they have no intention to offend us, and he will confirm in
> writing that ZKM is abiding by our request to stop using our artwork.
>
> Please: stop mailing ZKM - they got the message and any further mailing
> is just likely to generate further confusion. The preference would be to
> channel communication through us.
>
> We developed mutual understanding: he listened to me and how upset I am
> to see my artwork used without prior permission; out of context; defaced
> and stripped of components such as sprites and text. I listened to his
> perspective, particularly about ?52 of the German "Urheberrecht" which
> according to him grants an exception to institutes like ZKM to use
> material that is otherwise protected. I told him I will discuss these
> with our legal counsel. We agreed to focus on what we may have in
> common, leaving our differences aside.
>
> He understood that I was speaking for myself and that my word is not
> legally binding for any of you; that the WWP is just a virtual
> exhibition space and that all rights to the works are retained by the
> respective artists. I understood his limits for negotiation,
> particularly that ZKM may offer a compensation that feels like an
> apology, but it won't be a formal apology because such a formal apology
> can be used to press charges against them in court.
>
> We agreed to continue the contact, build mutual understanding and
> de-escalate further. We both want to avoid going to court, and we both
> feel that a negotiated solution is within reach. I am aware it will take
> some time, and he offered to push the issue so that it won't take too long.
>
> He will transmit to his client what I listed as my priorities, in this
> order:
> 1. respect of the artist and its artwork integrity - legal and moral
> 2. increase of public awareness for the respect of author's copyright
> 3. respectful, positive promotion of our artwork
> 4. some sort of financial compensation as recognition of the value of
> our artwork
>
> Monday he will talk with ZKM and we will know a time frame within which
> they will work out an initial offer. He suggested that it will happen
> within weeks.
>
> He recognized that I am speaking for myself, not for the whole group,
> which means that once such an offer is on the table, it will be just the
> start of the process.
>
>
> NEXT STEPS
>
> So far for the first contact.
>
> When they will present an offer, we will need time to discuss it. Each
> and every one of you retains her/his right to:
> - accept the offer
> - ask for a revision of the offer (if you feel that it's on the right
> way but not enough)
> - reject the offer (if you feel that the divide is too wide to be bridged)
>
> Please: no quick reaction. We just started a process, and it will be a
> difficult one.
>
> One difficulty is that they are effectively dealing with 900+
> individuals and not with an entity. Making 900+ individual offers would
> be a mess, it is almost impossible that all agree.
>
> Hence it is likely that the offer will be directed at individuals, will
> contain a token financial amount and in exchange of that token financial
> amount the individual will agree that ZKM owns her/him nothing for
> events that happened prior to agreement day.
>
> More value can be created with provision for a group. Hence the offer
> will most likely have provisions that apply only if enough artists sign up.
>
> Let's wait and see what they come up with. Please don't do anything that
> can't be reversed. Give the negotiations that just started a chance.
>
> Yuv
>