权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Who Owns the Orphans? Traditional and Digital Property in Visual Art

孤儿归谁所有？

基本信息

批准号：
AH/H015329/1
负责人：
Uma Suthersanen
金额：
$ 15.39万
依托单位：
Queen Mary University of London
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2010
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2010 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FH015329%2F1
关键词：
Who Owns Orphans Traditional Digital

项目摘要

The project investigates the regulation of non-attributable or abandoned visual art (orphan works), as expressed by traditional and digital media, within the context of legal, business and customary practices. Intellectual property and cultural laws govern the manner in which society and governments accord cultural and business value and recognition to 'authors and owners' of recorded and non-recorded visual art. While the legal notion of authorship dictates business practice, there is no coherent legal landscape in relation to traditional cultural expressions which have no 'author'. Indeed, there has been little policy assessment of whether the current legal regulation of ownership of visual art, especially cultural expressions, reflects the beliefs and practices of two important communities which hold substantial vested interests in visual arts. The first group is the indigenous and ethnic community who view visual art as part of their traditional cultural expressions. Traditional cultural expressions encompass a wide variety of values, traditions, beliefs, knowledge, forms of artistic expressions, and products that originate from indigenous and other communities throughout the world. Such expressions usually take the form of expressions by action, or visual expressions, verbal expressions or musical expressions. Over the past few years, ethnicity trends combined with today's digital culture have prompted a significant increase in both the commercial and non-commercial exploitation and branding of traditional cultural expressions. Traditional images or objects are increasingly being used to brand products, people, communities, corporations, and disciplines. Examples include indigenous art being copied onto carpets, T-shirts and greeting cards, indigenous images being registered as trade marks and used commercially, and traditional designs being worn as tattoos by celebrities. These practices raise issues of ownership, authorisation and exploitation. Moreover, indigenous and ethnic groups not only cultivate and preserve traditional knowledge but also create traditional but contemporary art by constantly recreating, reinterpreting and adapting earlier forms of expressions, in response to their environment and their interaction with nature and their history. These contemporary expressions are regarded by indigenous and ethnic communities as identifying and reflecting their values, traditions and beliefs, and thus as being owned by them and falling within a shared sense of communal responsibility, identity, and custodianship, which conflicts with Western property theories that tend to focus on the individual. This focus on the individual, however, is paradoxical. On the one hand, Western courts employ copyright and human rights laws to ban artists from parodying images of existing art works as such practices 'denature the ethic of the work', and denigrate the integrity of the author of the original work. The second group is represented by the visual art industry who view visual art as a finished business commodity to be distributed and traded in the art and cultural market. The valuation, exploitation and sharing of profits of the visual art is highly dependent on the provenance, authorship and/or ownership of the work. Digitisation of a work adds a further dimension as it increases the exposure and the earning capacity of a work, and ensures global access to humanity's rich culture. There are several initiatives by museums, libraries and archives to create such digital collections. However, if the work is classified legally as having no author, business policy often dictates the removal of images from public access, exhibitions and on-line digital libraries in order to minimise the administrative, legal and financial liability of these institutions. This area of non-attributable or abandoned works of visual art i.e. 'orphan works", will be the focus of the research.

该项目调查在法律的、商业和习惯做法的背景下，对传统和数字媒体所表达的不可归属或被遗弃的视觉艺术（孤儿作品）的监管。知识产权和文化法制约着社会和政府赋予记录和非记录视觉艺术的“作者和所有者"文化和商业价值及认可的方式。虽然作者身份的法律的概念支配着商业惯例，但在没有”作者“的传统文化表现形式方面没有连贯的法律的格局。事实上，对于当前对视觉艺术（尤其是文化表现形式）所有权的法律的规定是否反映了在视觉艺术中拥有巨大既得利益的两个重要社区的信仰和实践，几乎没有政策评估。第一个群体是土著和少数民族社区，他们将视觉艺术视为其传统文化表现形式的一部分。传统文化表现形式包括各种价值观、传统、信仰、知识、艺术表现形式以及源自世界各地土著社区和其他社区的产品。这种表达通常采取动作表达、视觉表达、言语表达或音乐表达等形式。在过去几年中，族裔趋势与当今的数字文化相结合，促使对传统文化表现形式的商业和非商业利用和品牌化显著增加。传统的图像或物体越来越多地被用于品牌产品，人，社区，公司和学科。例如，土著艺术被复制到地毯、T恤衫和贺卡上，土著图像被注册为商标并用于商业用途，传统图案被名人作为纹身。这些做法引起了所有权、授权和剥削问题。此外，土著和族裔群体不仅培养和保存传统知识，而且还创造传统但又是当代的艺术，根据其环境及其与自然和历史的相互作用，不断地重新创造、重新解释和改编早期的表现形式。土著社区和族裔社区认为，这些当代表达方式确定并反映了他们的价值观、传统和信仰，因此是他们所拥有的，属于共同的社区责任感、认同感和监护权，这与倾向于注重个人的西方财产理论相冲突。然而，这种对个人的关注是矛盾的。一方面，西方法院运用版权法和人权法禁止艺术家戏仿现有艺术作品的形象，因为这种做法“改变了作品的道德”，诋毁了原作品作者的完整性。第二类是视觉艺术产业，他们将视觉艺术视为一种成品商品，在艺术和文化市场上进行分销和交易。视觉艺术的估价、开发和利润分享在很大程度上取决于作品的出处、作者和/或所有权。作品的数字化又增加了一个层面，因为它增加了作品的曝光率和收入能力，并确保全球都能接触到人类丰富的文化。博物馆、图书馆和档案馆采取了一些举措来创建这种数字收藏。然而，如果作品在法律上被归类为没有作者，商业政策通常会规定从公共访问、展览和在线数字图书馆中删除图像，以尽量减少这些机构的行政、法律的和财务责任。这一领域的非归属或被遗弃的视觉艺术作品，即“孤儿作品”，将是研究的重点。