Australian contemporary art and the blindness of copyright law : a neo-romantic view

This paper explores the blindness of copyright to Australian contemporary art. Firstly, by reviewing the historical development of the term `artistic work' found in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and its meaning in contemporary case law. Then, by examining what a definition of art might be through empirical research with artists and a review of current artistic practices in Australia. It concludes with a model for reform of the definition of `artistic work' that is based on a neo-romantic authorship approach to copyright. Historically, `art copyright' was a true artist's right advocated by artists, unlike literary copyright, which was advocated by publishers. During the 19th century, art copyright accommodated artistic practices, particularly when it moved from, a law about facsimile, mechanical reproduction technologies to a law about works of art. It took an expansive, authorship approach to a broad range of artistic expression. However, legislative reform through the 20th century confined the definition of `artistic work' to 19th century art techniques and objects by using exhaustive terminology in copyright law. This undermined the legal value of the intellectual processes undertaken by artists in the creation of artistic material. The review of the case law shows judicial determinations, among different categories of `artistic work', are inconsistent. There are some indications that judicial applications of aesthetic judgements continue to cloud the legal concept of art, notwithstanding a policy that asserted that aesthetic determinations were to be avoided. Together, this means that copyright law now operates to exclude much contemporary art. The research with artists suggests a more fluid, open, inclusive model of art copyright that both returns the focus of copyright back to the author, and avoids aesthetic judgements. The artists outlined at least four objectives that could be achieved by reform to the category of `artistic work' and associated terms `material form' and `originality'. Artists seek recognition and status through copyright law. Artists require some control over copying their work particularly where the copying is for commercial purposes. Artists seek the right to be acknowledged as authors of a work of art, and to control the integrity of the work. Thus, a broader view of art than that currently adopted in Australian copyright law is required to accommodate contemporary art practices. Consequently, a unique model is proposed that retains the concept of `artistic work' on historical grounds but also because it preserves status for artists. It provides an open, technology-neutral system for the assessment of art, devoid of aesthetic assessments through the use of guidelines, which are based on the research with artists to assist with determinations of what is `artistic'. The following revised legislative definition of `artistic work' is proposed: artistic work includes a painting, sculpture, drawing, print, photograph, work of architecture, work of craftsmanship or other work of art but does not include a circuit layout within the meaning of the Circuits Layouts Act 1989