Derwent Fine Art Prize 2014 - Ineligible Drawing Wins Rootage Prize?

I have got 2 beliefs nearly fine art competitions.

The outset is that if you lot lay your come across an fine art contest alongside a meaning coin prize, together with so you lot are putting your sew together for critique. I so experience able to comment on artwork inwards major fine art competitions inwards a way which I powerfulness non for normal opened upwards exhibitions.
The minute is that the run entered should hold out master together with the creative soul should hold out able to assert copyright over their artwork. In other words the run should non hold out a derivative image.

Put simply - I have got no fourth dimension for people who re-create other people's photographs. There are far besides many bright artists who create splendid master images to bother alongside those who re-create the images selected together with executed past times others.

This eve I am really piteous that the Derwent Art Prize 2014 has been won past times somebody who has

copied a photograph taken past times some other person.
[update] submitted a run which was NOT completed inwards the in conclusion 3 years (based on the bear witness from his website)
both of the inwards a higher house homecoming it ineligible for the contest according to the rules of competition

I am peculiarly piteous because

the contest got off to a really bully start in conclusion yr alongside a genuinely master drawing inwards pencil winning the Derwent Art Prize 2013; and
there is some really outstanding run inwards this year's exhibition at the Mall Galleries - which I shall review tomorrow, when I volition also highlight the other prizewinners.

Copyright together with Originality

Below is the correspondence I had alongside the organisers, Parker Harris, subsequently an creative soul contacted me alongside data nearly ane of the drawings which had been selected.

This is my electronic mail dated 30th July 2014.

Dear Derwent Art Prize

An prototype which appears on your gallery for all industrial plant submitted inwards the Derwent Art Prize contest appears to hold out breaching copyright together with has been reported to me.

I'm somewhat good known inside the online fine art community for highlighting breaches of copyright inwards relation to competitions hence people tend to tell me rather than the organisers. This really frequently happens because the soul raising the query is also an entrant inwards the same competition.

I highlight images which breach contest rules just because it's so unfair to other entrants when images are selected which are either non master and/or breach copyright. My role is to encourage people to read the rules together with to acquire what they tin together with cannot exercise - together with that sometimes includes the selection panel when they appear to hold out ignorant of the rules of the contest they are judging.

I'm absolutely non inwards the job organisation of creating whatever embarrassment for contest organisers. My preference is to inquire the contest organisers for their comments outset - alongside honour to exercise of a copyright prototype - earlier commenting on my blog. I'd also add together that the nature of the response tends to influence whether and/or how I comment.

Please would you lot comment on the eligibility of:

this prototype http://www.derwent-artprize.com/looted-mine-1945-vermeer-artist’s-studio

this prototype http://www.derwent-artprize.com/looted-salt-mine-1945-manet-winter-garden

the 2 photographs which have got been copied past times Brian Fay are included equally business office of the publicity fabric released past times the Monument Men Foundation. Click the link to publicity fabric on this page together with you lot volition reckon the master http://www.monumentsmenfoundation.org/contact-us. (The images are also available on a number of other sites including the BBC together with Pinterest Boards which have got highlighted these publicity photos)

Does Brian Fay have got permission of the United States Government and/or the Board of Trustees of the Monuments Men Foundation to re-create together with reproduce these official photographs?

Is the Derwent Art Prize maxim it's OK to

copy photographs which are soundless inside copyright that are flora on the internet?

make copies of industrial plant despite the fact that the Derwent Art Prize rules arrive clear that copies of industrial plant are ineligible?

What exercise you lot advise to exercise nearly these selected images?

If the Derwent Art Prize prefers non to comment, delight depository fiscal establishment complaint I volition hold out commenting on the similarity of images which are inwards land sentiment on the Internet together with reviewing these inside the context of the contest rules.

I'd also add together that, inwards my experience, these matters are really rarely spotted past times solely ane person.

Regards
Katherine Tyrrell

Below is the reply I received from the contest organisers, also dated 30th July 2014.

Dear Katherine

Thank you lot for the email. This is something nosotros had previously spotted together with looked into. The master photograph images are really all inside the populace domain, so are non protected past times copyright equally are most images taken or created past times the United States regime together with they have got been used on many websites equally such (see screenshot below).

As the prototype is non protected past times copyright, together with is non a re-create of an artwork but an prototype of a narrative, the run does non breach whatever of the rules or guidelines together with nosotros are delighted to have got it inwards the exhibition.

Best wishes,
Rachael
Rachael Chesterman
Project Manager
Parker Harris Partnership

I decided to hold back together with reckon what happened alongside honour to the drawing inwards enquiry together with would solely highlight the issues raised if the run won a prize - equally indeed it has done.

The missive of the alphabet from Parker Harris clarifies the province of affairs on copyright together with I convey that explanation.

INADMISSIBLE WORKS
Work that does non fit within the Conditions of Entry volition non hold out admissible together with volition non hold out considered for exhibition. The next are also inadmissible:

Copies of works

Derwent Art Prize - Conditions of Entry

However I completely disagree alongside the interpretation which suggests the run is non a re-create together with suggests it is "an prototype of a narrative".

I don't shout upwards that detail declaration ever having held sway inwards whatever of the courts which have got dealt alongside issues of what constitutes a copy.

In fact I googled "an prototype of a narrative" together with came upwards alongside exactly ane final result on Google - which happened to hold out a commentary on Jane Austen's 'Persuasion'!

So what nosotros have got hither is a notion - "an prototype of a narrative" - which does non be inwards whatever shape on the Internet.

So what exactly is "an prototype of a narrative"? Your justice is equally belike equally adept equally mine!

More to the point, if asked whether it was "a copy" or an "an image of a narrative", I am also pretty certain what most people would say! You tin brand that determination yourself if you lot sentiment the 2 images below - the drawing together with the photograph - plus you lot tin also add together your comments below. Maybe ane of you lot volition hold out able to explicate "an prototype of a narrative" together with why this is non "a copy".

In this case, I am really much of the sentiment that the winning entry copies both (1) a photograph together with (2) an master run of art. Neither may hold out soundless inwards copyright - all the same this does non negate the fact that this is a copy - and, equally such, in my view

this prizewinning entry is inadmissible,
should non have got been selected for exhibition and
should non have got won whatever prize.

I have got no thought whether the judges were made aware that the artwork had copied a photograph before, during or subsequently the judging process. I spoke alongside the Chair of the judges this eve earlier the prize giving together with it was clear she was aware it was based on a photograph.

This is the artwork which won the £5,000 First Prize

Looted Salt Mine 1945 Manet inwards the Winter Garden (pencil on paper)
by Brian Fay

This is the photograph which was copied.

Manet inwards Mine - photograph from the Monuments Men Foundation

You brand your heed upwards whether you lot think this is

fair to all the artists who entered the contest together with paid their entry fees inwards adept faith (i.e. that all the rules would hold out applied consistently to all the entries)
fair to all the artists whose run was selected for the exhibition
fair to the sponsors who (I'm guessing) obviously desire a contest which maintains high standards together with is non brought into disrepute inwards whatever way.

UPDATE: Date of artwork

One of the artists, whose run was selected for the exhibition, has written to me together with provided some additional together with really relevant information.

This is a screenshot of the same drawing on the artist's website (click to reckon same size equally website). You volition depository fiscal establishment complaint that:

the notation at the bottom clearly states that this run was completed inwards 2010.
the engagement of completion ALSO renders it ineligible for selection for the exhibition together with a prize.

The drawing on the artist's website is dated 2010

Note: The (undated) Terms together with Conditions of Entry - published inwards Feb - state the following

All entered run must have got been completed inside the in conclusion 3 years.

It's mutual for other fine art competitions to stipulate something along the lines of "All artwork consummate earlier [specific date] is ineligible for entry". It's commonly 2 or 3 years prior to the deadline. (The same engagement physical care for is usually applied to whatever historic menstruum qualification for the artist).

There is no engagement inwards these damage together with weather condition other than equally stated above.

However if nosotros extrapolate, based on normal convention, a stateent which did stipulate a engagement for industrial plant needing to hold out completed inwards the in conclusion 3 years, prior to the deadline, would state "all industrial plant must have got been completed AFTER ninth June 2011".

That clearly renders this prizewinning artwork inadmissible on ANOTHER dominion of this fine art competition.

UPDATE: What should hap next?

Given the compounding constituent related to the engagement of the artwork - equally exhibited on the artist's ain website - I experience the organisers have got no pick but to consult alongside Derwent equally to the best way forward.

Competition organisers must patently rely on an artist's assertion that they comply alongside all the rules of the competition. The quid pro quo is that if it emerges that the creative soul has NOT complied alongside all the rules of the competition, together with so he or she must convey that in that place may good hold out consequences.

However, inwards gild to hold the integrity of an fine art contest - together with travel on faith alongside all the entrants - both organisers together with judges must also hold out vigilant equally to compliance alongside all the rules of the contest together with address issues which arise earlier together with subsequently decisions have got been made nearly prizes.

There is precedent. In other opened upwards exhibitions together with fine art competitions, the consequences for an creative soul have got included the homecoming of the prize together with the repayment of the prize coin (if awarded). See

Art competitions together with copyright - the AWS Gold Medal debate 8 September 2008
Statement on AWS Gold Medal disceptation from President 22 September 2008
American Watercolor Society Gold Medal - the concluding verdict on Sheryl Luxenburg 3 March 2009

My personal sentiment is that the prize should hold out withdrawn. Or peradventure the creative soul volition exercise the decent thing together with withdraw his run from the contest together with non convey the prize?

Derwent together with hereafter competitions

Finally, tin I say I have got no wishing whatsoever to embarrass Derwent alongside this post.

I've ever been a huge supporter of Derwent together with all they exercise for pencil fine art - equally they good know. I had a discussion this eve alongside representatives of Derwent together with told them that I intended to write this post. They made it clear to me that piece they sponsor the contest they play no business office inwards how it is conducted.

I suggested to Derwent that they powerfulness wishing to insist on a yoke of changes for the rules of the Derwent Art Competition 2015 inwards gild to comply alongside the standards together with wording of other major fine art competitions.

These are:

all industrial plant must hold out the master run of the creative soul i.e. the artwork must non hold out copied together with the creative soul must hold out able to assert copyright (i.e. no copies together with no derivative industrial plant allowed)
all industrial plant must hold out framed.

[UPDATE xvi September 2014] To this I would at in ane trial add together 2 farther recommendations:

all damage together with weather condition must clearly state a specific engagement for the purposes of clarifying the historic menstruum of the run (e.g. all industrial plant completed prior to [date] are ineligible for the competition)
all publication or exhibition of a completed run prior to this engagement automatically renders it ineligible for the competition.

[UPDATE: I'm also witting that some people are confused equally to who exactly determined this run won outset prize. Derwent played no business office inwards the judging of the industrial plant or the accolade of the prizes. You tin reckon the names of the Judges together with uncovering out who they are inwards my weblog post The 2d Derwent Art Prize - Call for Entries]

Derivative run inwards United Kingdom of Great Britain together with Northern Ireland of Britain together with Northern Republic of Ireland copyright law

On the theme of derivative works, belike the most good known inwards recent years is the Shepherd Fairey instance re the Barrack Obama "Hope" poster.

More peculiarly inwards relation to the United Kingdom of Great Britain together with Northern Ireland of Britain together with Northern Republic of Ireland what follows is a summary of the seat inwards relation to derivative works. The next quotations come upwards from Copyright issues for derivative works fact sail from the United Kingdom of Great Britain together with Northern Ireland of Britain together with Northern Republic of Ireland Copyright Service.

What is a derivative work?
A derivative run is a run that is based on (derived from) some other work; for instance a icon based on a photograph, a collage, a musical run based on an existing slice or samples, a screenplay based on a book.
Making a derivative work

Permission.
Legally solely the copyright possessor has the correct to authorise adaptations together with reproductions of their run - this includes the making of a derivative work.
The copyright possessor is by together with large the creator of the master work, or it may hold out someone the creator has given copyright to (i.e. adjacent of kin).
Unless you lot are the copyright possessor of the master work, you lot volition belike demand the permission of the copyright possessor earlier making a derivative work.
Exceptions that exercise non require permission

If copyright has expired (under United Kingdom of Great Britain together with Northern Ireland of Britain together with Northern Republic of Ireland police clitoris this typically agency the writer died over seventy years ago), the run volition hold out inwards the populace domain, together with may hold out used equally a reason for a derivative run without permission.

Copyright inwards the derivative work
Provided it is significantly dissimilar to the master run the derivative run volition hold out dependent area to copyright inwards its ain right, together with you lot volition ain copyright to the novel content you lot have got created equally a final result of your actions. Bear inwards heed that to hold out dependent area to copyright the creation of the derivative run must itself hold out an master run of skill, labour together with judgement; tyke alterations that exercise non substantially alter the master would non qualify.

The primal words are "significantly different" - together with a alter of media does non satisfy this requirement.