Friday, April 09, 2010

WaPo is seeking works by local artists

"Jessica Dawson is hitting the studios to uncover Washington talent.
It's all part of Real Art D.C., the Washington Post's exciting new platform for contemporary art in the Washington region. There's also a related competition open to all area artists.

What is Real Art D.C.? An online virtual gallery of works by local artists that will allow Post readers to discover and connect with Washington's newest talents. Artists themselves will post their own work -- and so will dealers and teachers on their behalf -- and anyone can click through and see the spectrum of local creativity."
Read all about this interesting new venture by the WaPo here.

As part of the effort, Dawson will select "a new artist-finalist every few weeks and visit the artist's studio, reporting about what she finds on the Real Art D.C. site."

I like it!

Here is where you upload your images to be considered.

Before you do that, I recommend that you read the Terms and Conditions and pay very careful attention to rule number 8 which states:
8. Submitted Entry Materials will be posted on, and may be included in both print and online features and promotions. In addition, by entering you grant Sponsor a license to publish, reproduce, use, transfer, and otherwise display your Entry Materials in any medium and for any purpose in Sponsor's sole discretion.
I'm having a little trouble digesting that condition, which essentially all but gives the copyright of the image to the Washington Post and I am not sure why the WaPo would want to "use" the artists' entry in "any medium and for any purpose", unless they're planning to put some images on T-shirts and sell them at the next Crafty Bastards fair (not a book though, as rule 20 clarifies).

I want you readers to comment on that condition (number 8) and let me know what you think.


Rosetta DeBerardinis said...

Lenny, I find this recital too broad regarding the use of the work. And, there is also language which says it has the right to "transfer" its use. Sounds like, this a copyright assignment without compensation. No where does it state that the artist retains any rights to the work!

The Right Reverend James W. Bailey said...

"I'm shocked, shocked that there's gambling going on here."

No, actually I'm not.

So, the Washington Post wants to help local artists by making a grab for key copyrights of their works. Wow. I wonder if the big time artists reviewed by Blake Gopnik in Sunday's Arts & Style section get such a sweet copyright deal when their works are reproduced.

"Thank you, Mr. Hirst, for the opportunity to review your show. We now own all rights to your Diamond Skull."

No, somehow I don't think the lawyers representing the Art Star Superclass would let that deal fly.

Isn't the Washington Post the same damn newspaper that tried to sell access to key policy makers to lobbyists through that wonderful scheme called the 'Salon Plan'?

Yeah. I think is was:

This policy is hysterical. I've already written a letter to the editor, as well as a separate letter to the WaPo's Ombudsman.

Of course, I suppose I loose my copyright to those letters as well, if they are published.

Anne Cherubim said... first i thought, or rather, i hoped this was someone doing a quick cut and paste of some standard terms and conditions...but whose standard terms and was all sounding great 'til that part. kinda like the "new and improved Facebook", 'til people started reading their revised terms. remember that?

Anne Marchand said...

One of my readers brought this to my attention. There's also a clause which particiapants are subject to in the User Agreement and Privacy Policy which states that you are giving them an exclusive license. I'm waiting to hear back from the editors for clarification on the low res images that are submitted via the web.

User Discussion and Submission Guidelines - Read # 7.

"For any content that you submit, you give us permission to use such content. You hereby grant to Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC a royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, exclusive, and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, incorporate into other works, distribute, perform, display, and otherwise exploit such content, in whole or in part in any form, media or technology now known or later developed."

Michele Norris said...

he online gallery seems like a great idea and provides wonderful incentive for the artist to post. However, I was concerned.
Here is an example of the fine print on another online gallery: "By posting any Content to the public areas of the Website, you hereby grant to the non-exclusive, fully paid, worldwide license to use, publicly perform and display such Content on the Website. This license will terminate at the time you remove such Content from the Website."
The key points to note are the license is granted for use on the website only. Also, the license is terminated as soon as you take your work down. This seems adequate and fair.
As artists we are eager to share our work with our communities, but not that eager.

Elyse Harrison said...

Aside for the appropriate concerns regarding licensing terms, another annoying thing about this to me is that they used the word "newest" talent. What about "talent" period?
I also can't say I have much respect for popular opinion polls. Magazines and newspapers are hooked on the top ten list way too often.

Anonymous said...

As of this morning (Monday Apr 12) there are over 500 images submitted... so people aren't really caring about giving up their copyright...

Anonymous said...

so...the post did not make any changes to this based on comments and common sense. etc.???

Anonymous said...

also, as of today there are over 1000 submitted. did any of you guys submit images?

Lenny said...


As far as I know... zero changes... but then again that's nothing new for the Post... they print one viewpoint on their pages about changes and openness and other talk the talk, but inside they're galvanized, anti-union, and walled in... not easy to get them to "listen" to a dissenting viewpoint.