The transfer of copyright

For each column in the rechtReeKs series, the Arts Union chooses an appropriate image made by one of its member artists that has no relation to the issues in the article. This time work by Margot KleinTiessink, Kaleidoscope, 95X70cm

You know that story of the artist whose installation was shown for three days at a festival but had to hand over all his rights to the organization? That one went. And how!

This is a light installation that was exhibited at a major three-day music festival. Its creator is an artist with whom I have a fine working relationship. We have regular contact to spar about questions, agreements and how to approach them. He emailed me the contract asking if this arrangement was wise and if I thought something could be done about it.

In a transfer, the copyright passes to another

The transfer of copyright and license are topics that have not been extensively discussed until now. What exactly is the difference?

This is actually quite clear. In a transfer, the copyright passes to someone else. After that, you lose the copyright. If you want to use your own work, permission must be sought from the person who got the copyright. Even though you are the creator and variations are possible in this. This is quite far-reaching. Therefore, a transfer must always be in writing, mét signature, be agreed upon

With a license, you keep the copyright yourself and give someone permission for a particular use. The beauty of a license is that all kinds of conditions can be attached to it. You can make them as limited or extensive as you want. And that provides opportunities to convert a proposed transfer into a license. Consider specific conditions about the duration or manner of use.

With a license, you keep the copyright yourself

The creator of the light installation contacted the client to discuss what was intended. What exactly did he want to use the work for? In this case, it was only for exhibition during that one festival. The installation was to be shown on all three festival days. This use does not require the transfer of copyright at all. Indeed, it ignores any reasonableness. After all, it would mean that the organization could have used and even sold the work indefinitely. Or, on the contrary, could have kept it in the closet forever without showing it anymore. And that for a usage fee. That, of course, does not do justice to the situation.

When the artist explained that a transfer is not at all necessary for this kind of use, and proposed a licensing agreement that would allow the organization to exhibit the work as it wished, hands were quickly tied. Especially when they also agreed to remove from the contract those rather excessive provisions about full liability of the artist and penalties for breach of confidentiality. Surely that works together a lot more pleasantly and equally.