copyright issue with TV show

[Stripeysuitcase]

Hi everyone,

I need help regarding a copyright issue and what rights I can insist on. I've changed a couple of points to try and avoid anything too identifying. Sorry it's a bit long but quite a bit of relevant information to include.

I created a sculpture as a self-employed artist for an organisation. I automatically hold the copyright as the creator (as I was not employed, it does not lie with the organisation). I don't have my contract anymore as it was 10 years ago, but I have seem my friend's who undertook the same role that year, which clearly states copyright lies with the artist and credit is needed for any publication of the work.

A well known TV programme contacted the organisation to restore (and in the process, recreate) my artwork for their show. Replicating the work in its entirety, with high accuracy, is their key concept. I was not involved in this process, misled by the organisation when I was asked for photos of me originally creating the sculpture, and deliberately excluded from this process, At the time I was being paid by the organisation to repair other sculptures. There is the arguement that I may have been paid to repair this so represents a financial loss. I have been told by the producers that they signed a contract with the organisation giving them the rights, but I expect this is invalid as they don't have those rights. Whilst I am annoyed at the organisation, they are volunteer run. Whilst they have been incompetent here and they have form for not crediting artists, I don't want to bring this up with them.

I found out about this at the public reveal of the sculpture. It was a complete surprise. I was present and it was also filmed for the show. Despite knowing I was there, I was not included. I believe the photos of me creating the piece were passed on to the producers in advance, and they were told at least a week before the reveal. I was told by the organisation that they were sworn to secrecy so couldn't tell me about it. On approaching the TV producers about credit they said they would tag me in social media after airing. I insisted on a quick interview. When I followed up they then tried to say that their legal team believed I didn't have copyright as I was employed (incorrect).

They have since told me that they are including 'a short piece attributing me as the creator' but can't guarantee what will be actually shown. We discussed a couple of options including the interview at the reveal but they were very rude to me when I expressed my discomfort at them stating that they couldn't guarantee anything would be included. As such I haven't seen what they have planned to include so can't agree to it. I feel pressurised to accept something I'm not happy with, and I am concerned that they will leave it out or make it unnoticable.

To defend this would cost me far more money than I have. I am concerned that they are going to do what they like and just say 'sue us'. Also, as it's artwork, not a product, the money I would have 'lost' from them infringing on my copyright wouldn't be worth pursuing legally (I would have been paid around £1000 to fix the piece myself, and I was originally commissioned around £2000). However, the show will commercially gain from my work at a much higher sum. In addition, this could gain me significant commercial interest and following through socials and for future commissions. I am aware of moral rights and that they could be worried about me going to the press with it.

I want the TV company to credit the work in a way that I agree with and I have told them they don't have my permission to use the work otherwise. They are still proceeding with filming and have told me that the edit is nearly finished. They are not forthcoming with communication and I feel incredibly dismissed and unfairly treated. Without this piece of work, and my permission to use it, they wouldn't have this section of their show. I expect they have invested a lot into getting to this point.

I want to know where I stand with insisting on having a say in how the credit is presented, being involved in this process, and also around royalties. What is the likelihood that they will just make the show anyway? Do I have to be happy with them just mentioning my name as I wouldn't have given permission for just that?

Thanks very much!

Speak to a specialist art copyright lawyer. Have you got an legal assistance under your PII or any associations you might belong to?

Caveat: I'm not an expert, but I do have family and close friends who are in the creative industries, including a couple of professional artists.

As far as I understand it, the entity (in this case, the production company) who wants to use (feature / recreate / whatever) an original work has to take reasonable steps to find out who owns the copyright of that work. The production company did in fact do that, didn't they? They contacted the Organisation and asked them, and were told that the Organisation owned the coyright, and signed an agreement for the work to be recreated and featured in the programme.

Therefore, I don't think your beef is with the programme production company at all. It is with the Organisation who erroneously gave them that information and signed over rights to an artwork for which they didn't own the copyright.

The tv company has said that they will ensure that you have asserted your rights to be credited as the original artist, and there's not a lot else you can expect from them really. I don't think you can chase them for recompense other than what they have already offered.

You need to take it up with the Organisation itself, I'm afraid.

Hi, I've spoken to a copyright lawyer and the advice they have given me is that it would cost too much money to defend. I am extremely upset about it - this is my livelihood and the industry is notorious for not giving artists fair credit.

The other difficult situation is that it has already happened in such as in the piece has been restored and presented to the public (albeit not yet to millions of people). My name was never mentioned here. So my copyright has already been breached, and I have not been credited fairly, and I haven't even had an apology about that. They did this without my permission and they are continuing without my permission.

The show are being very clever in not replying properly to my emails, promising things over the phone and then not following through. There is a lot of 'we can't guarantee what will be in the final cut and approved'. I have asked to sign something in writing in terms of what I want in exchange for them using my artwork and essentially gaining the credit for working on it and restoring it, but they have ignored this. I have also asked for an understanding around royalties given they are financially benefitting from copying my work, but this seems complex. They have also ignored this.

The complex situation is I will be frowned upon if I negatively impact the organisation for which I made the piece (think a public art gallery).

So the 'win' for me is to be treated fairly and respectfully, and for me to be appropriately recognised so that their use of the artwork gives me benefit. This would mean to me something that I can celebrate and share for example on socials, and use to build my following and reputation.

It feels extremely unjust too that people have made lots of money from replicating my artwork and have also commented on how difficult it was for a large team of people to do. Yeah, I know, I made it singlehandedly🙄

Thanks for this input. My issue here is that they were made aware of the correct owner of the copyright, but are now proceeding to produce the show despite knowing that I am unhappy with how they are treating the credit. Whilst copyright has already been infringed by them recreating and publicly showing the piece, they are continuing to infringe on the copyright by carrying on with the edit now that this has been corrected.

In other words, the creation and broadcast of the TV programme is happening after they have have now ascertained the correct owner, and I have expressely said that I do not give permission for them to use the artwork if they do not credit me in a way that I see fit. This also includes a discussion around royalties. As they are not working with me and are being evasive, they cannot say that they have my permission to feature my artwork on the show.

My understanding is that copyright is something that you seek permission for, not something that you can just do and stick a credit on and that's OK.

I feel very stuck here and completely fobbed off. I really expected them to work with me on this and they are just being really difficult.

I think I want to know whether I can basically tell them that they can't continue without my permission and whether they have to respect that. I feel like I want to stand up for my group of artists who work very hard for little recognition. They will be making thousands from this and whilst I don't want to benefit personally I want to ensure that artists are properly respected.

Would this low cost mediation service provided by the Intellectual Property Office be of value to you @Stripeysuitcase?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/intellectual-property-mediation

Thanks, I did see the mediation option. I think the other side would have to agree to it. I think I am really struggling to understand what I can and should enforce here.

They are a massive, massive firm with their own law department. I wouldn't have a snowflake's chance in hell and I think they know this.

I feel so deflated about something that should be really great; my artwork ion national television. But the way it has been done is so disrespectful, they can't even be bothered to reply to my emails or work positively with me. They are SO defensive.

to restore (and in the process, recreate) my artwork for their show. Replicating the work in its entirety, with high accuracy, is their key concept

I don't understand - did they restore/reassemble the artwork or reproduce it?

Is the production company an independent TV production company? Who is broadcasting the programme? You might have more luck flagging the copyright infringement with the broadcaster, especially if it's BBC or ITV.

What do you want the outcome to be? If they've copied the artwork, I don't envisage much more than a verbal credit ("This week we're at xxx organisation, restoring/recreating a sculpture by the artist Stripeysuitcase") and a one-off payment. I don't know what payment would be appropriate - maybe £500, given the fact you might have been prepared to do the work itself for £1,000?

Have they repaired or recreated the original artwork? i.e. are there now two of these pieces, yours and the recreation? It's very unclear from your descriptions.

It would seem that if you don't have the money to fight it, there is nothing you can do. I assume a cease and desist letter was ignored? My other half is an artist and Channel 4 have knicked his work multiple times. They always obey a cease and desist though.

@zzplea and @DogInATent sorry, I am trying to be ambiguous so I don't inadvertently identify them and be seen to be slagging them off.

Imagine someone got some public funding and commissioned artists to create some work for public display. 10 years later, that artwork is mostly destroyed in storage and only a little bit is left. The organisation is having an bit anniversary and wants to do a public presentation of historic works. They commission the original artists to repair some of their pieces. At the same time, a TV company takes some small remnants of one of the pieces which was mostly destroyed, uses photographs from when it was made and images taken in the exhibition, and recreates it instead of the original artist doing It. The aim is to make it as true as possible to the original. The original artist isn't told about it or included, and the original commissioners are made to feel by the TV programme that they can't tell the artist about it. It is then revealed to the public in the celebration, but the original artist isn't even mentioned. The recreation/repair/restoration of the piece by various experts is used to create a TV show for the BBC. Now the TV show knows who is the original creator who has copyright, they still don't try to credit appropriately and try to fob them of. They also tell them that it's up to the BBC. The artist gets upset and annoyed and tells the TV programme that they don't agree to them showing their recreated artwork without fair credit. The artist also knows that the TV programme is making a lot of money from their artwork, yet they are receiving nothing. They would like some of the profit to benefit public arts. The artist tries to come to an agreement with the show and suggests ways they would like to be credited but they are told that they can't promise anything, and are threatened with big lawyers. They make empty promises and don't communicate with the artist, but proceed to create and edit their TV show. They tell the artist that they'll do a short section with a photo and their name, but won't say what this will look like, and the artist isn't happy with this.

@zzplea I've tried to contact the BBC but all I get told is to go through their complaints department, which will also involve the company.

I really really don't want this to be a horrible big fight. I just want to be respected and listened to and have fair credit. They could interview me or ask me how I'd like to be credited but they are just taking a photo from the internet and sticking my name on. This is within a largely narrated and people-based show so there is absolutely room to include me properly. They just don't want to do it because it doesn't fit with their original narrative and it makes it harder for them. That however is not an acceptable reason to abuse someone's legal rights.

The TV company are fairly safe legally, here. If you sued them, they’d counter-sue the Organisation for misrepresenting who owned the copyright.

What type of credit are you asking for? Links to things? The whole initial interview being shown?

Obviously you’ve changed details; but on the face of it, I can see why you want to be appropriately credited as the works wouldn’t have existed without you - but I can also see that the focus of the program is on the restoration of historic works; and you don’t really fit into that. It’d be odd to have an interview with you and not with the other people who made originals, for example.

It’s going to be complicated by you not having your original contract, either.

Have you tried asking for the rights to publicise the program yourself? To have the interview clip as “exclusive” content yourself, if you want it? You could still agree the rights to make a big deal out of this and promote it yourself.

We cross-posted, but my legal experience makes me fairly certain that there is no way you can fight this any further without involving the Organisation. It’s not possible.

The root cause of the issue is them misrepresenting who held the copyright.

I agree with a PP that you need to send a formal cease and desist letter to them and the BBC (or whoever the actual broadcaster is). It sounds like you have enough knowledge to put this together yourself.

Do you have any sort of social media following? If you do, I would tell them that unless you get an agreement with them that you are happy with then you will share the situation on social media ahead of the broadcast.

Isn't the issue that you don't have your contract? With this if you hold the copyright it would be simple to send an c and d letter.

Without this though is presume it was difficult- I've done a lot of projects (in the thousands) for companies as self employed/freelance and the rights have always been transferred to the company that it was made for.

Probably a different type of art but I've never known the creator keep the rights.

Contact Canvass Art Law and see if they will give you a free 15 min session. Ask if they do discounted rates for low income artists.

Are you a member of any arts unions or have insurance such as a-n The Artists Information Company? If not definitely join!

The people that commissioned the work should have the paperwork and the onus is on them to prove they have copyright.

To answer a few questions, the historic nature of the work isn't important. Often things are restored that are personal items.

@smashburgers as I was self employed and didn't sign anything that gave away my rights I still own the copyright by default. The contract would be a nice to have, and I do have the standard contract from that year, but all it does is cement my legal rights.

I don't want to send a c&d letter, I don't want the organisation to be impacted. I just want to be shown what the credit is and agree to it, or ask for it to be changed within reason if I am not. I am in email contact with them now as they're just withholding all the information and using TV jargon.

@YouveGotAFastCar I appreciate that the organisation made a mistake. But how does that excuse the TV company from now acting legally? Why are they being really difficult about the credit? I don't understand why it is such a problem for them. My understanding is that if they believed that there was no reason to legally credit then they wouldn't even bother.

I am struggling with this particularly because I do have anxiety and not knowing how I going to be portrayed on national television is really hard. I have a strong sense of right and wrong and I just feel like they're trying to get rid of me. It also feels very upsetting that if it was done correctly then this could be massive for me. Artistic credit and fair treatment isn't something I should have to fight for and be made to feel like I'm being unreasonable.

Also, why would a TV company that has invested thousands into a piece of film put this at risk instead of being law abiding and just just low level helpful and pleasant to the person who made the thing upon which the programme is based?? I do not understand.

They are pushing me to send a c&d and that would be crap for everyone.

Are there any Big Names involved in the TV show?

From the practical point of view:

• you were paid for the original piece
• the original piece has been in storage for some time
• the original piece is substantially destroyed and as such no longer exists
• the show is acknowledging it's a recreation, but you suspect they're downplaying your role as the original artist

I presume you're still working as an artist and looking for new commissions?

So, depending on jurisdiction, I think the focus might need to change.

Your IP is in the original piece. If another sculptor has copied that piece then they have infringed your IP. The museum/gallery or TV producers might have induced them to breach your IP and the TV producer might have incorrectly been given a licence by the gallery but if you own the IP then that won't stand.

I'm not sure your focus should solely be on being given some unsatisfactory credit by the TV programme as redress for the harm.

It's difficult to be certain as you've been ambiguous to try and be discreet. You might want to try harder to establish your IP as that will determine your next steps and you might end up out of pocket if the gallery can show the work was created in the course of employment and some rights assigned to them instead. If you don't have the documentation, do you know any of the other artists from back in the day you could ask instead to see if they have the contracts for the engagement? If not, depending on jurisdiction, you might submit a subject access request?

Good luck.

Once you're sure of your ground then you can decide if the threat of legal action is the best first approach or whether it's better to dust off your website and social media then launch a sadface press story before broadcast for publicity then consider legal action after broadcast.

This is my profession, so yes I rely on commissions. A lot of that is through word of mouth and publicity, which is why having other people hugely benefit from recreating my artwork and them being credited and celebrated for this in national television is very hard for me to take lying down. They will be showing other artists working on the pieces and talking about how much skill is needed and that really stings.

I have a copy of the contract from that year, from another artist, which quotes that the artist retains the copyright. In copyright law, copyright for artistic works automatically lies with the creator unless they are in employment (see definition of an employee, e.g. there was no PAYE). Self employed people retain the rights, unless I sign something forgoing those automatic rights. They cannot produce anything showing I was employed and I can prove my IP rights with tax returns and invoices and the copy of the other contract.

Are there Big Names involved in presenting the show?

I think what I want to do is, in the absence of them being nice at this point, threaten legal action or a cease and desist or publicising it unless they 1. Show me the credit so that I can agree it 2. Discuss fair royalties and 3. Help publicise the credit seeing as this was it done appropriately (had I been included at the first case then I would have featured in the programme).

I expect the outcome lies in whether they just know they can squish me (they have the biggest lawyers available) and know that I won't act against them, or whether they believe that I will send a C&D (they will lose a substantial amount of money but will they then counter sue the organisation for their lost earnings?), or whether going to the media with it will actually benefit me and calling my bluff on that.

I am really proud of what I make, I am saying sculpture to make it ambiguous but it's a really personal and specialised form of artwork that is often publicly funded. So I don't want a private TV company just taking the benefit for all of the hard work and public funding.