CARFAC encourages including resale rights in Canada’s new copywright law

Excerpts from Droit de suite – Les artistes veulent profiter de la revente de leurs oeuvres, Le Devoir (23 November 2011)
(Translation by ELAN)

The Canadian Artists’ Representation/Front des artistes canadiens (CARFAC) is taking advantage of the month of November, rich in sales at auction, to once again encourage the Harper government to integrate resale rights in its new copyright law. Resale rights would permit artists to receive 5% of the resale price on successive sales of their artworks at auction houses and commercial galleries.
(…)
CARFAC estimates that auction sales of Canadian artworks netted $18.7 M for Heffel and Sotheby’s in November 2010. Royalties of 5% would have permitted living artists to collect $106 095. By comparison, auction houses impose a commission on both sellers and buyers, running anywhere from 10-25%  and 15-20% respectively, according to CARFAC.

In 1920, France was the first jurisdiction to introduce resale rights. Today more than 59 countries have enshrined resale rights in their laws, including the members of the European Union.

Continue reading this article at
http://www.ledevoir.com/culture/actualites-culturelles/336721/droit-de-suite-les-artistes-veulent-profiter-de-la-revente-de-leurs-oeuvres

Read CARFAC’s press release on the issue at
http://www.carfac.ca/2011/11/artists-to-miss-out-on-resale-right-payments-at-three-upcoming-auctions/

TORO Magazine curious about Montreal’s bilingual music industry: Excerpts from interview with M pour Montréal founder Sébastien Nasra

This article out of Toronto’s TORO Magazine has some interesting tidbits that underline a current trend towards an increasingly nuanced curiosity about Montreal ‘tel quel’… (Geoff)

Excerpts from TORO goes to Montreal (TORO Magazine, Nov. 16, 2011):

“This year TORO will be covering the sixth annual M for Montreal festival, an industry conference and music showcase series bridging the gap between Francophone indie rock and pop and Anglophone/international artists, including Active Child, M83, The Barr Brothers, and more.

That gap has narrowed in the past several years; Malajube and Cœur de pirate have achieved crossover success while retaining their native language, and Montreal has become known not only as a breeding ground for buzz bands, but a true Canadian centre for music culture and business.

Jason Bajada profile raises subtle questions of Canada-Quebec differences

Jason Bajada, The Sound Your Life Makes

There’s a quietly surprising profile of Jason Bajada cycling through Western papers today.

The article comes as Bajada launches a new album, The Sound Your Life Makes. But it is worth singling out for the subtlety with which Postmedia’s John P. McLaughlin handles Quebec culture and the fact of English-speaking artists for whom Canada is something of a mystery, but Quebec is home.

It has appeared under several titles:

• Quebec singer sees difference, Times Colonist (Victoria)
• Bajada bridges musical divide – Montreal-born singer contemplates the mysteries of love and Canada, Edmonton Journal
• Bajada leaves comforts of home, Calgary Herald
• Jason Bajada, ‘Down with the Protest, The Province (Vancouver)
• The sound Jason Bajada’s life makes, Montreal Gazette

CBC: Does the Canadian government invest enough in arts and culture funding?: Q interview with James Moore

• Click here to read the complete article in its original context (CBC.ca)
• Click here to listen to the interview (CBC audio stream)

James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages,

(Source: CBC.ca) Heritage Minister James Moore paid a visit to Q Tuesday morning to discuss arts funding and defend recent decisions by the Conservative government to deny grants to certain organizations.

A well-spoken Moore spoke with host Jian Ghomeshi for just over half an hour – slightly longer than scheduled – and touched on the current cultural climate in Canada.

“Culture in Canada is so widespread, so diverse, so impressive … One of the things we do best in Canada is intellectual property, that’s to say arts, culture, movies, television,” he raved.

The interview later turned to indie theatre festival SummerWorks, who lost federal funding, in part some speculate because of its decision to put on a play about a Toronto 18 member.

Moore said the decision was not in response to the controversy generated by that particular play but rather that money had gone to other worthy organizations.

He invited SummerWorks to apply next year.

Moore went on to address the CBC’s funding, saying that while there will be no privatization of the public broadcaster anytime soon, he expects all corporations to trim costs.

Massey Commission 2.0: Is it time to hit refresh on Canada’s ‘Magna Carta of arts and culture’?

This Magazine‘s Hilary Beaumont posted an excellent editorial today, rewinding 67 years to the Massey Commission report, the very origin of Canada’s cultural policies.

A great read for culture-lovers and skeptics alike, Beaumont reminds why Canada originally chose to fund culture and asks whether it is time for a Massey Commission for the 21st century — one which can lay the groundwork for the next 67 years of cultural policy.

In light of recent debates in English and French media (see here, here, here, and here), it is important to re-examine our understanding of why funding culture is good policy.

Below, we’ve pulled some salient excerpts. Still, do take a moment to read the complete article on www.this.org/…/massey-commission. Or if you’re feeling particularly motivated, dive directly into the original 1951 Massey Commission report.

How to save arts and culture in Canada: a Massey Commission 2.0
by Hilary Beaumont for This Magazine

(…)

Jeff Melanson, currently co-CEO the National Ballet School, and soon to be president of The Banff Centre, made a provocative suggestion at a talk in late May hosted by the Literary Review of Canada: a new Massey Commission.

Canada’s “Magna Carta of arts and culture,” as the commission’s report was nicknamed, was released in 1951. The detailed document gave advice on the state of Canada’s arts, sciences, humanities, and media based on three premises:

1. Canadians should know as much as possible about their country’s culture, history and traditions
2. We have a national interest to encourage institutions that add to the richness of Canadian life
3. Federal agencies that promote these ends should be supported

(…)

Rewind 67 years. Canada was nearing the end of the Second World War, a key part of which was fought using propaganda. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia needed to keep their populations confused and complacent; the U.S. and Canada wanted their citizens to buy liberty bonds and join the army. Information and creative expression were deployed against the masses.

Before the war, Canada’s government had no real investment in the arts. The turning point came when arts groups began calling on their government to support culture as a way of protecting democracy.

As a negative argument, stifling creativity is censorship’s equal. As a positive argument, the arts play a role in driving democracy through freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. (Thank you section 2(b) of the Charter.) Citizens who think critically and express their ideas creatively are a basic part of any healthy democracy — they hold government accountable.

(…)

Today many of the report’s recommendations are dated. (…) But technology is far from the report’s only concern. As Tom Perlmutter, chair of the National Film Board of Canada, told the Toronto Star:

“What we need now is not one particular policy patchwork fix but the new Massey-Levesque for the 21st century. We need to rethink the fundamental conceptual framework that can give rise to the cultural policies that will serve us for the next 60 years.”

Whether it is updated or started again from scratch, this not-yet-conceived report should be the brainchild of Canadian artists. They should review those ever-important premises about promoting the historical and cultural richness of our country. They should reassess how creative minds are using technology. They should research how Canada’s cultural policies compare to those abroad. And, most importantly, they must underline the fundamental reason that Canadians support the arts financially: the health and vibrancy of our democracy.

Remembering Montreal Rock scene of the ’60s with members of The Rabble and The Haunted

Excerpts from A rare trip home rouses Rabble memories for John Pimm by Bernard Perusse for The Gazette.

The Rabble and the Haunted were Montreal’s two coolest anglo bands in the second half of the 1960s. If the Haunted were closer to the raw, blues-based sound and bad-boy image of the Yardbirds or the early Rolling Stones, the Rabble were farther out in terms of both music and look. They were, more or less, our answer to Frank Zappa’s Mothers of Invention. Oddly enough, though, frontman Pimm and lead guitarist Mike Harris wrote some of the catchiest hooks this side of the Beatles.

[...] “A lot of the stuff that happened here was encapsulated here,” Pimm said. “We heard about the Staccatos from Ottawa and the Ugly Ducklings from Toronto, but they never heard of us. It just didn’t work both ways. Even so, Quebec was a neat place to be. The audiences were great and they welcomed original stuff. They were excited about the music. But you were kind of trapped in Quebec unless you really started to travel around and get promoted somewhere else. A lot of memories stayed in Quebec. Good memories. A lot of great bands came out of here, but it just didn’t really have a chance somehow.

“Part of it may be that English Canada wasn’t that interested in this province,” Pimm continued. “Maybe they were a little lost about the two languages going on.” Although the Rabble recorded in English, he pointed out, much of the group’s audience was francophone.

[...] “Way before the Rabble, I wanted to be a professional musician. I didn’t give a damn about stardom or notoriety or being invited to a party because I was in this band. So I moved to Toronto, where there were a lot more choices at the time.”

Read the complete original article on www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/…/

On SunTV and Margie Gillis, BackoftheBook.ca

Context: A video of Sun Media’s Krista Erickson browbeating dance legend Margie Gillis went viral last week. For posts about the ensuing debate, click here and here. For posts on a similar debate in the French media last month, see here, here and here.

 —–

On SunTV and Margie Gillis (excerpts), by Louis Laberge-Côté

Canadian dancer Louis Laberge-Côté, currently a teacher at Nationaltheatre Manheim in Germany, offered this assessment.

[...] And by the way, culture sector workers (including artists) are taxpayers just like any other worker in Canada, something Miss Erickson seems to easily forget.

[...] Each time an artist like Margie Gillis receives a grant, Canadians are hired: dancers, actors, musicians, composers, rehearsal directors, lighting/costume/set designers, photographers, administrative and marketing staff, to name a few. Rehearsal and performing space are rented. Eventually, posters, flyers, ads and programs are designed, printed and distributed. Many audience members go to a restaurant before or after the performance traveling by car, taxi, or public transportation. Previews and reviews are written in newspapers and magazines. Tourists come to a city or decide to stay longer to see a specific show or exhibition. Touring artists fly and travel all around the world on commercial airlines. The list goes on and on.

[...] Looking at it proportionally, it is easy to see that cultural funding doesn’t represent that much money in the big picture. In fact, wanting to cut these amounts to help the economy is somewhat similar to wanting to cut the toenails of an obese man, just so he could lose some weight. Somewhat ridiculous, don’t you think? Especially since by comparing these numbers with the ones from the Conference Board, we can also see that this “small” collective investment is actually quite a profitable one; the Conference Board estimates that in 2007, the expenses related to culture on all levels of government together (federal, provincial and local) reached $7.9 billion. This $7.9 billion generated $84.6 globally, something we all benefit from, and not only the “cultural elites” as Miss Erickson likes to believe.

[...] But let’s use a more contemporary example; Cirque du Soleil started from nothing and is now worth around $2 billion. In the early ‘80s, the founders were a few unknown artists living in Baie-Saint-Paul with no rehearsal space. I am pretty sure Miss Erickson would have gladly described them as “walk like an Egyptian” “artsy fartsy” “cultural elites”, to use more of the colourful language she enjoys so much. But luckily, Guy Laliberté didn’t meet with Miss Erickson when he needed public support. He met with Québec Premier René Lévesque who took the time to listen. Thanks to a politician who had faith in culture, this little circus with no audience at the time became a highly successful international enterprise. But this didn’t happen in one day. It took many years of research, development, and trial and error which were at first not profitable.

[...] In fact, many artistic movements and creators were at first not appreciated by their contemporaries. For the longest time, jazz music had a very limited audience. Artists such as Van Gogh and Stravinsky, whose work is greatly appreciated nowadays, had very difficult beginnings. Many of the things we can enjoy today as “normal entertainment” would have been completely misunderstood just a hundred years ago. And that’s normal, as this is how humanity evolves. Should we stop artistic evolution just because it requires effort and personal exploration to fully appreciate it, especially knowing that this pattern (avant-garde works not being mainstream) has existed for centuries? Obviously no.

And of course, this pattern also exists in other fields. Take science for example. There is practical science which has clear direct function. And there is leading-edge research, which doesn’t necessarily have immediate results. But leading-edge research is the reason why diabetes treatments, X-rays and supersonic planes exist today. I don’t understand why artists are being publicly described as spoiled elitists when the government also supports the pharmaceutical industry, high-caliber sports or higher education. Everything is financed by the state. And everybody benefits from it. When an athlete competes on an international level, we’re all winners. When an artist like Margie Gillis presents her work internationally, the effect is the same. [...]

“L’art est le ferment du nouveau capitalisme/Art is the yeast of new capitalism…”: HEC prof responds to Elgrably-Levy questioning of public investment in the arts

In today’s Devoir, we find another interesting response to Nathalie Elgrably-Levy’s columns denouncing public patronage of the arts and  the validity of economic impact numbers to quantify the value of public investments.

Jean-Jacques Stréliski (associate professor at the École des hautes études commerciales de Montréal)  plumbs the depth of Elgrably-Levy’s positions by talking to professionals in economics, creative economy and communications:

L’inacceptable raisonnement
(Scroll down for translation)  Source: www.ledevoir.com

(…)Pour Pierre Ballofet, professeur agrégé et responsable pédagogique du DESS en communication marketing, «il faudrait dire un mot sur la pensée “économiste”, et non économique, qui sous-tend le raisonnement de la chroniqueuse. En fait, c’est une pensée inerte qui émane surtout d’une pure spéculation intellectuelle. Partir de quelques principes présentés comme lois ou vérités premières, puis se laisser dériver au fil d’un raisonnement qui relève du sophisme conduit à la barbarie ou au ridicule, ce qui est plutôt le cas ici»

«Les cyniques, disait Oscar Wilde, sont ceux qui connaissent le prix de tout et la valeur de rien.»

Il existe d’autres modes de décision que ceux des marchés dans nos sociétés. Les choix de politiques faites en matière de culture, comme de santé ou d’éducation sont de cet ordre.

«Après tout, conclut-il, le terme économie ne désigne-t-il pas, dans son étymologie, la règle de la maison? Comprendre ceci, c’est aussi comprendre que tout ne peut se réduire à cette dimension. Aucun économiste sérieux ne l’affirmerait au demeurant. Il ne s’agit donc pas tant d’argumenter sur le caractère “rentable” ou non de la culture. Le domaine culturel comporte certaines dimensions économiques, le réduire à celles-ci est non seulement réducteur, mais conduit à des non-sens tout à fait étrangers à une discipline économique bien comprise.»

(…)Il nous faut aller là où le propos de Mme Elgrably-Lévy ne s’est jamais rendu: au centre du savoir et de la connaissance de la nouvelle économie, dite économie créative, celle qui, précisément, hybride la créativité des artistes aux innovations technologiques de l’heure, pour créer des entreprises et des managements de type nouveau et fécond.

(…)Laurent Simon, quant à lui, conclut que «le monde qui vient fait peur aux traditionalistes, car ses modèles sont moins maîtrisables que l’analyse d’une économie centrée sur les schémas classiques de production et de rendement». Et, se référant à son tour à l’étude d’un autre réputé chercheur français, Pierre-Michel Menger, Portrait de l’artiste en travailleur, il affirme que «l’art est le ferment du nouveau capitalisme»(…)
Continuez votre lecture sur www.ledevoir.com 

—

Unacceptable reasoning
(Excerpts, translated)

(…)For Pierre Ballofet, professor and head of pedagogy in the communication and marketing program, “a few words must be said about ‘economist’ as opposed to economic thinking, because this underpins the columnist’s thinking. In fact, this thinking is stale and derives from purely intellectual speculation. To begin from the few principles presented as if they were law or primal truths and then follow a thread of reasoning based on sophistry leads to barbarism or silliness. The latter is more likely the case here.”

“As Oscar Wilde said, ‘What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.’”

In our society, realms of decisions exist beyond those of the market.  Political choices related to culture, like choices on matters of health and eduction, are of this nature.

“After all,” Ballofet concludes, “doesn’t the etymology of the word economy derive from management of the home? To comprehend this, is to also understand that not everything reduces to that single dimension. Moreover, no serious economist would argue as much. It is not a question of debating the ‘profitability’ of culture. The cultural domain does comprise some economic facets, but to limit it to that alone is not only reductive but leads to nonsensical conclusions completely foreign to any accepted economic discipline.”

(…)We need to go where Ms Elgrably-Levy has not gone: to the centre of knowledge and an understanding of the new economy, a.k.a. the creative economy, the one that hybridizes artistic creativity and cutting-edge technological innovation to create new and fecund businesses and management models.

(…) Laurent Simon, for his part, concludes that “we’re moving into a world that frightens traditionalists, because its models are less easily analysed than the classical production and yield matrix.” And, referring to Portrait de l’artiste en travailleur (Portrait of the artist as a labourer) by Pierre-Michel Menger another respected French researcher, Simon affirms that “Art is the yeast of new capitalism…”

Read the complete article in its original language on www.ledevoir.com
Read Google Translate’s treatment here: translate.google.com

For further context, read Nathalie Elgrably-Levy’s columns:

• Non au mécénat public (i.e. No to Public Arts Patronage, Google Translate version here)
• L’art de tromper (i.e. The Art of Deception, Google Translate version here)

Or, read our Sampler of print and online responses here (includes translated excerpts with links to Google Translate versions too).

L’art de tromper/The Art of Deception: Journal de MTL columnists continues debate on on validity of public investment in the arts

Picking up on last week’s denouncement of public patronage for the arts, today Nathalie Elgrably-Levy’s questions the validity of citing economic impact numbers to justify public investment in the arts:

NATHALIE ELGRABLY-LEVY

Mon dernier texte dénonçant le mécénat public a visiblement déplu à plusieurs artistes. L’indispensable débat sur les dépenses publiques est alimenté. Mission accomplie !

Pour défendre les largesses de l’État à leur égard, les artistes ont été nombreux à invoquer l’étude du Conference Board affirmant que le milieu culturel génère des retombées économiques de 85 G$ annuellement. Selon eux, ce chiffre serait suffisant pour clore la polémique. Erreur !

La méthode de calcul à la base des études de retombées économiques est loin de constituer une preuve «scientifique» irréfutable. En vérité, cette méthode est la risée des économistes. Non seulement n’est-elle pas enseignée dans les cours d’économie, mais elle est dénoncée comme étant une fraude intellectuelle.

La raison est simple (…)

Continuez votre lecture

—

My last text denouncing public arts patronage has clearly perturbed many artists. This has provoked an indispensable debate on public spending. Mission accomplished!

To defend the government’s largesse to their benefit, numerous artists have cited a Conference Board study that affirms the cultural milieu generates an economic impact of $85 billion annually. They believe this number is enough to close the argument. Error!

Economic impact studies are based on a calculation method that offers far less that an irrefutable ‘scientific’ proof. In truth, for economists this method is a laughing stock. Not only is it not taught in economics courses, it is denounced as an intellectual fraud.

The reason is simple (…)

Continue reading this week’s column here: L’art de tromper (i.e. The Art of Deception, Google Translate version here)
Read the original editorial here: Non au mécénat public (i.e. No to Public Arts Patronage, Google Translate version here)

Read our sampling of print and online responses here.
(Includes translated excerpts and links to admittedly atrocious Google Translate versions).

(Update I & II) Non au mécénat public: Journal de Montréal columnist sparks debate about public funding of culture

In the wake of last week’s election, a Journal de Montréal columnist penned an editorial  titled Non au mécénat public (No to public arts patronage) questioning the public interest of funding for the arts.

A number of interesting responses have cropped up online and in other papers since.

If you haven’t been following this debate, we’ve collected a few highlight links for you. Below you will find excerpts from the original editorial, plus a sampling of responses from Nathalie Petrowski (La Presse), Simon Jodoin (Voir, Bang Bang Blogue), and one of many to appear on Facebook.

We’ve including links to the original articles and to Google Translations to help those for whom written French is a challenge, but with this caveat: Automated translations are abominable and are often a challenge to understand in themselves.

——————————————–

Nathalie Elgrably-Lévy

Original Editorial
Non au mécénat public, Nathalie Elgrably-Levy (Journal de Montréal, 5 mai)

“Je serai franche, au risque d’être politiquement incorrecte. Il n’existe que deux raisons pour lesquelles un artiste vit dans la misère. La première est que son talent n’est peut-être pas en demande. La deuxième est qu’il est peut-être tout simplement dépourvu de talent. Dans un cas comme dans l’autre, le public n’est pas disposé à consacrer son argent à l’achat du produit culturel.” (Original article)

—

No to public arts patronage: “I’ll be honest, at the risk of not being politically correct. There can only be two reasons why an artist lives in poverty. Either their talent is not in demand, or they are simply devoid of talent. In both cases, the public is not in a position to devote our money to purchasing their cultural product.” (Google Translate version)