Dear Councillors and GM/CEO,
Over some time it has been drawn to my attention that in various contexts Council is in careless breach of the Australian Copyrights Act and in particular its Moral Rights provisions. Of course this is not the first occasion that I have drawn this matter to Council’s attention and you will recall me doing so in regard to Stephen Walker’s ‘Tasmanian Tableau’ in Civic Square – References [1]•[2]•[3]•[4] – albeit the outcome being embellished with bureaucratic marketing spin claiming ‘there is nothing to see here’.
To reiterate, moral rights legislation was enacted in Y2000 to protect the personal relationship between a creator and their work even if the creator no longer owns the work, or the copyright in the work. Moral rights concern the creator’s right to be properly attributed or credited, and the protection of their work from derogatory treatment.
Importantly, moral rights legislation protects the personal relationship between a creator and their work even if Council 'owns' the work and/or the copyright in the work. Moral rights concern the creator’s right to 'the intellectual properly' invested in a work and the legislation protects the creator's, the author's, work from derogatory treatment. This applies to all aspects of 'cultural production'. It applies equally to a poem, a letter, a shopping list, a sketch, a painting a civic monument, whatever.
Nonetheless, and despite the legislation, Council’s recalcitrance is now clear and evident. The situation is now as it was when Stephen Walker’s moral rights were bureaucratically compromised/overlooked and ultimately restored – albeit belatedly.
My only point in raising this matter again and now is that the City of Launceston has, as is often said in the courts, ‘the accused has form your Honour’, and it continues to be the case on the evidence – and increasingly apparently.
When I’ve raised this matter in the past my concerns have been dismissed as a ‘trifling issue’, ‘vexatious’ , 'of no moment', whatever.
If newspapers were to be dismissing claims/feedback to do with such breaches, as Council does and has, the ructions in the public arena would be, as they should be, resonating loudly all the way to the courthouse if left to a litigious outcome.
Albeit paraphrased, in the past both yourself as Mayor, and the GM/CEO as GM, have assured me that ‘Council is fully compliant with the law’ in regard to this matter. Does that assertion actually stack up?
Sadly, the ‘evidence on the ground’ seems to contradict that ‘deemed assertion’ that may well be reliant upon SECTION 62/2 of Tasmania’s Local Govt. Act for the latitude assumed and applied.
So what evidence?
1. In Council publications photographs of people are typically used in a ‘marketing context’ without acknowledgement of the author and seemingly without the person’s permission. In some instances it might be argued that the practice is exploitative.
2. In the Council’s YOUtube Video ‘The 1929 Launceston floods’ its lack of ‘author acknowledgement’ is clear to see and currently 23,236 viewers have witnessed that since its launch.
3. In the Municipality of Launceston there are examples of ‘public artworks’ that lack acknowledgement whereas 21st C technology offers relatively cheap, simple and effective strategies that runs counter to the assertion that it is ‘too hard or too expensive to do’. Moreover these strategies have wider applications relative to ‘marketing’ in the city in broad context.
4. In Council’s ‘social media marketing’ acknowledgement is serially and surreally avoided – LINK to a most recent example.
5. In regard to Council commissioning Thylacine ‘sculptures/installation’ for the Brisbane St. Mall the ‘author’ was/is not acknowledged and it is an open question in regard to them being respectfully engaged in adjustment to their placement and reconfiguration and any ongoing acknowledgement – thus their authorship may well be sullied given Council’s apparent ‘mindset’ in regard to this matter.
6. In regard to Council Commissioning ‘Artists’ to paint ‘Traffic Signal Boxes’ at street lights – LINKS [1]•[2] [3] – the missing elements are; Council lack of acknowledgement in regard to authorship; and Council’s apparent granting of permission to compromise the integrity of the authors' work – or its permission by its omission in failing to require alternative action. Compounding the 'ethical issues' is the claim that the artists in Launceston are rewarded with 'exposure and warm and fuzzy feelings' but this remains an open question.
Given this backgrounding it is highly likely that other ‘exemplars of dissident behaviours’ can/will be found in regard to this issue. What appears to be evident is the City of Launceston predisposition to 'colonise' cultural production towards neutralising people's intellectual and cultural property.
As David Morrison tells us, “the standard we walk past is the standard we accept”. As much as I anticipate that your response to my raising this issue is ever likely to be ‘dismissive’, as it has been previously, I just cannot concede to the assertion of ‘triviality’, given the provisions of the copyright law.
By way of example, looking at ‘the pandemic and governance’, and in Sydney especially so, the consequences of ‘looking away’, and even at this very moment, can be seen to have had serious consequences – even here albeit there is an apparent disinclination to look.
Likewise, in regard to the dismissive attitude applied to the ‘Stephen Walker Tableau’, that situation ultimately cost ratepayers over $60K plus extra apparently and I witnessed $40K plus of that being expended one Sunday in Civic Square as you will no doubt recall. So, the cost is always carried by someone other than the perpetrator when it comes to Local Governance.
What way forward? .
Unlike in the past I no longer see any benefit at all in looking away until the seriousness of the situation is realised. Moreover, I’m more convinced than ever that ‘LAUNCESTON COUNCIL’ has become delinquent and to the point where intervention is required given the potential consequences and losses being born by authors et al.
Therefore I submit:
1. That Council proactively seek ‘expert advice’ either from within its own ranks or say via Arts Law, to conduct an investigation relative to Council’s compliance with copyright legislation.
2. That Council itself undertakes a proactive in-house assessment and review of its ‘compliance and performance’ relative to copyright law and moral rights provisions in respect to it ‘marketing and publishing’.
3. That Council consults with Hobart City Council in regard to the acknowledgement of ‘cultural producers’ and the integrity of their work in ‘public spaces’ as demonstrated by that council’s standards and performance relative to ‘Traffic Signal Boxes’.
4. That Council seek early ‘expert advice’ from Arts Tasmania relative author’s ‘moral rights’ and that operations protocols relative to ‘art in public spaces’ administered and facilitated by Arts Tasmania on behalf of the Tasmanian Govt.
5. That Council establish compliance protocols in regard to honouring its 'moral rights obligations' across all council operations, including the Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery, that meet community expectations and aspirations in accord with its legislative obligations under copyright law.
6. That Council establish a meaningful community feedback process in regard to how ‘Council’s operational standards’ meet community expectations and aspirations in accord with its legislative obligations under copyright law.
Given that Council’s current mode of operation in regard to moral rights, on the evidence available, is seriously flawed and apparently the flaws have become deeply embedded in standard operational protocols. Given this, it will no doubt take some time to respond to matters raised here. Nonetheless, I would appreciate a response by August 6 after which date I will take further advice following Council’s response – or its non-response as has been my previous experience.
Yours sincerely, Ray Norman
Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
eMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsites:http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine
“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept” David Morrison
https://raynormanadvocate.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment