two plagiarism claims stir up sa art - what is a document camera

At last week's FNB Joburg art fair, the sensational painting depicted as Nazi Nelson Mandela did not make international headlines, but rather a completely different work.
Senior South African photographer Graeme Williams told City News, when he met a new version of his most famous photo, how did he Browse the gallery's famous Africans on the VIP opening night of the Joburg art fair
American concept artist Hank Willis Thomas is called solemn in the space of the Goodman Gallery.
Williams said he never allowed Thomas to use his work and accused him of copying it.
This week, Thomas defended his work in an interview with City News.
This is not the first time a controversial job has been held at a trade fair.
Last year, the work of room galleries and project displays-especially Ubuzwe 1 at Sikhumbuzo Makandula-also led to copyright infringement and exploitation by visual and graffiti artist Buntu Fihla
The City Press spoke with the artist and solicited legal advice from copyright experts on the two cases.
Case 1: Williams spoke on the phone to the City Press about the "sloppy plagiarism" he encountered, and Thomas "slightly modified part of the image and tried to make it his own.
On 1990, a few months after Nelson Mandela was released from prison, he took the picture in tokocha, where he was holding a rally.
This photo captures a shift in power as black children walk around the police in armored vehicles imitating ducks.
Williams said he immediately asked Goodman to remove the work from the wall-one of the many Thomas works to rebuild the South African Photographic Archives, including several photos of Peter magbain.
He said the gallery did so until the next day and later sent him an apology.
The gallery did not respond to questions from the city media, instead, let's get in touch with Thomas and send us credits at the Art Fair, which recognizes the creators of Thomas's original work of "transformation.
These credits are not on the work, but in a separate document.
Credit is not a license in any case.
Williams said no.
One asked to use his image, which he sold for about r15000.
Goodman sold Gravitas for more than ten million rand.
Thomas's argument is that the work is a full change to the original and therefore does not require permission, and that argument is denied by the fact that the whitened police can see it with a camera flash, glasses, Thomas showed color photos with black and white photos, which is the most important change.
"We understand what this picture is about, all the nuances," Williams said . ".
"We really don't need people from the US to push for alternative reading.
"He said he was pleased to use this image for academic purposes free of charge and to earn relatively little from the job of selling and licensing.
Williams wrote on his Facebook page a call he received from Thomas: "The artist called me last night and suggested a solution to" this problem,
He gave me his "work of art" and proposed that I put it at home for a year, and then we would reconnect to discuss the "issue" further ".
Probably it will take me a year to fully understand the depth of his creative input and the complexity of the changes he has made to my image.
I refused.
He told City News that he felt Thomas came from "an arrogant place" and that he was arrogant.
He said he asked Thomas to ruin the work he wouldn't do and then told him that he "hired a lawyer, but I wouldn't be happy with it even if I won the case.
I don't want to be a poster boy for embezzlement and plagiarism.
"What Thomas said on a phone call in the United States on Friday, Thomas told City News that the only part he would refute Williams's account was that he reportedly said he had" hired a lawyer ".
"I mean, lawyers always turn this into a black and white issue when there's actually a lot of gray areas.
I thought [Williams]
Very friendly and thoughtful.
I apologize for aggravating his crime.
I will obey him even if we disagree.
I told him I wouldn't spoil it, but he can, he can burn it, he can sell it, but he should grab it and see how he feels a year later.
I offered to ship it to his gallery.
Thomas's work is often a commentary on the mix-and-match culture and capitalist exploitation of black identity.
When asked why he had never sought permission from Williams, he said, "It's not a new question, and it's been raised when I realize it's his question.
I work in archives all over the world and in this case I mainly work with [Bailey]History of AfricaArchives.
According to the principle of fair use, American copyright law gives greater consideration to the so-called free use, and Thomas believes, "I have made enough changes to it to make a new work.
If he does not agree, it is the gray area.
Also did I think of other gray areas like the photographer always getting permission for the object they were shooting?
Why can't I use people's images in public activities at a time of changing history?
Who can claim ownership of the characters in the image?
Thomas talks about the work of the digital age, where images like Williams can be spread on the Internet without permission.
"I'm trying to do a piece that you can only see in person," he told City News . ".
He said he did not like to be named, and he tried to do something new with historical imagery.
He said he is also facing a rebound in the United States, but that has led to a broader dialogue.
"My job is about ideas and stories.
He must take the money and take the image. I won't copy it.
Lawyer Brian Wimpey, as legal experts say: "Although Thomas sees the job as new or transformative, it's obviously Williams's job, whether it's the police or not.
This is a very simple thing.
The fact that Thomas's work has been sufficiently modified to warrant being called a new work has nothing to do with copyright infringement.
A new work itself may attract copyright protection, but at the same time it may also infringe on another copyrighted work, which is what Thomas does by incorporating Williams's work.
Copyright infringement includes "adaptation" of the original work ".
Williams can prevent Thomas from further promoting his work and threaten him to compensate for the loss if the South African court has jurisdiction.
When asked that the work was made in the United States and may find itself trying in the United States, Wimpey said: "Reasonable use in the United States is a very difficult concept to solve, especially from the perspective of South Africa.
At least for the moment, the exception to our fair use is very limited.
In the United States, reasonable use will take into account factors, including whether the "new" work is beneficial to business interests, whether it is transformative, and so on.
One case I know of dealing with art works is Blanche and quince, But Quince absorbed a part of the image from the collage and completely changed its perspective.
Willis may find it difficult to argue about "fair use" because he has publicly copied at least half of the images.
Having said that, the word "transformation" is difficult to determine: The question is whether this adaptation "changes the original expression with a new expression, meaning, or information ".
This means anyone's guess that since American law is strongly based on precedents set in previous cases, a lot of research is needed to determine whether the copy is "deformed ".
Copyright expert Graeme Gilfillan: "In American law, this will be tried when the work is made in the United States, and precedent can be provided to prove that this is a copyright violation, but it will be a long and expensive process.
Owen Dean, chair of intellectual property at the University of Stellenbosch, Professor Anton mostrt: "Thomas's derivative works infringe copyright and the copyright owner acts illegally.
The "author" Williams of the original work is the copyright owner present in it unless they transfer the copyright to another person in writing.
Williams has the exclusive right to reproduce or authorize the reproduction of the work or any of its substantive parts and to distribute them.
In this case, the derivative works are equivalent to copying most of the copyrighted works without authorization.
Case 2: Fihla vs MakandulaBuntu Fihla replaced by the label of Bief37, known for a series of work, in particular his comments on Ciskei former bantustan
Fihla works at the memorial site in Bantustan, at Ntaba kaNdoda point in Buffalo, where Fihla paints a blue crane on the flag of Ciskei debeaked.
The unmarked mural is called the lips of Inyeke kaSebe/Sebe, referring to the first leader of Ciskei, Lennox Sebe.
Sikhumbuzo Makandula, in the stable of the independent gallery, is a student at Rhodes University, in his thesis work, he recorded the work of his own blue crane and another Ivory ring called Ukufa kukuqhuywa, impilo kuzenzela in Fihla's mural.
New photos of Makandula are now commercially available.
At the art fair, the works were clearly considered "graffiti works by Buntu Fihla", but Fihla did not receive royalties and said he had never allowed Makandula to use them in this way
Is this the fact that there is no mark of public art that affects copyright cases?
Room Gallery said to communicate via email, Room owner Maria Fidel regulos consulted with markandulla in response to questions from City Press.
We asked how the gallery responded to Makandula's claim that it was unfairly or illegally using Fihla's intellectual property to profit from it?
Regueros replied: "From my point of view, terms such as 'unfair, 'or 'illegal,' put the whole question in a negative perspective, omitting the context of each artist's practice, suggesting that there is no interaction between the two.
Also, this issue shows that Makandula does not recognize the elements of his interaction with Fihla.
"I would like to start by pointing out that Makandula's work called Ubuzwe has been studied, developed and produced as part of an academic effort, and finally held a postgraduate exhibition at Rhodes University in 2016.
From the beginning, the artist included the elements of Fihla in some of Makandula's works.
The original intention of the work is never commercial.
During this time, I was told that the interaction between artists began.
"From my point of view, the use of public art and its interaction play a considerable role in the debate around intellectual property rights.
"The position of artists and room galleries and projects is that the overall work called Ubuzwe, composed of 29 works, is studied and produced by Makandula, which in turn serves as a secondary element in the three works of art, interact with the public murals displayed by Fihla in public places during execution.
"Makandula made money from selling his work and admitted that the mural of Fihla contained the applicable elements.
As far as I know, Fihla never asked for royalties from Makandula. . .
I believe that the discussion about royalties is between artists because it involves the creative process of everyone. . .
As far as I know, the discussion about royalties has never been raised by Fihla, but rather focuses purely on crediting the murals and their authors against the background of subtitles.
She sent an email to Fihla from Makandula, showing that Fihla had made contact on these issues and said "Discussions are underway between artists.
FIHLA also communicated with the city Media via email this week, and Fihla wrote: "The interaction between the two of us does not rule out unfair treatment.
It is misleading to exclude what happens in this "interaction.
I am asking to stop copying any photos that show my work immediately.
I even stressed to Makandula that my emphasis on crediting my work should not make him think that I agree with its reproduction, which only applies anywhere before the work appears.
Said I was considered a blatant lie from the beginning.
As I have said many times, makandura did not credit me for my work at Rhodes University.
Fihla said he is willing to participate in the project of another artist and he likes to work together.
"There is no doubt that I know that Makandula knows my work before developing his work.
A former lecturer at Rhodes University gave a lecture on my work at the Ciskei Memorial.
Ma candulla was in the lecture.
He knew I was an artist.
He knew how to contact me but he chose not to contact and didn't start believing me until the room gallery received an alert.
Makandula contacted me only after I informed him of a lecturer at Rhodes University that my work was occupied.
After that he replied to my email but be sure to blame me for not replying to the email he never sent.
He then sent me his catalogue with a brief mention of me and my art.
This is the cornerstone of the series, the same art.
He added: "It is also important that I document my work in film and photography and sell photography.
If a performance artist performed a work at the Bree taxi rank, would this give another artist the right to perform the same work?
I mean, was it performed in public?
Regarding the marking issue, Fihla wrote: "I did not mark the work that was in question because I felt it would compromise the final composition of the photo.
I often sign on my work, but I deliberately missed the signature/tag for this particular series because I signed each print with an authorization certificate.
Lawyer Brian Wimpey, said by legal experts: "copyright of works of art does not belong in the public domain unless the artist specifically does this: execution or non-execution of his copyright is the exclusive right of the artist.
Makandula may have the right to reproduce Fihla's thesis works in accordance with certain exceptions in the Copyright Act, but absolutely not to sell them at any price.
For the purposes of the act, "the copyright of the work of art gives the owner exclusive rights (author)
Engaged in or authorized to engage in any of the following acts within the Republic: copying the work in any way or form;
If the work has not yet been published, the work is published;
"Makandula adapted the original work without consent.
When asked if Fihla's work was not labeled, Wimpey replied: "The artist does not need to sign or label his work to obtain copyright.
Copyright expert Graeme Gilfillan: "South Africa does not have the freedom of the panorama law, so these works are made public and he does not label them as claiming ownership.
Credit Fihla may be a moral problem, but the foundation of Fihla here is very unstable in law.
Owen Dean, chair of intellectual property at the University of Stellenbosch, Professor Anton Mostert: "derivative works by Makandula infringe copyright and copyright owners act illegally.
The "author" Fihla of the original work is the copyright owner in which it exists (
Unless he has written copyright)
Fihla has the exclusive right to reproduce or authorize the reproduction of his work or any of its substantive parts and to distribute these copies.
In this case, the derivative works are equivalent to copying most of the copyrighted works without authorization.
"* The story has been updated after ROOM Gallery noted that Makundula's work was not actually sold at FNB Joburg art fair 2018.
We apologize for this mistake.