[yaahl]

Originally Posted by pigheaded

Don't worry piggy, there's a planned cleaning stations for later today. Are you voluntolding?

[yaahl]

Originally Posted by Zeke

I was inviting you guys to MY domicile.

I can't bring the cuban cigars then.

Originally Posted by yaahl

Don't worry piggy, there's a planned cleaning stations for later today. Are you voluntolding?

Not me. Last time I volunteered for anything I had to get married.

[timmy tiger]

Originally Posted by pigheaded

Not me. Last time I volunteered for anything I had to get married.

Had to? Oh pighead you naughty boy.

[Grits & Beans]

party at zeke's....snoop and dre are already there fa shizzle my nizzle




(((offended by the cowboys and indians reference in the beginning of the clip? who cares?!)))

Originally Posted by timmy tiger

Had to? Oh pighead you naughty boy.

Mama and I just celebrated 24! baby turns 24 in March. God, I feel old.

[timmy tiger]

Originally Posted by pigheaded

Mama and I just celebrated 24! baby turns 24 in March. God, I feel old.

You are old.HAHAHAHA

I've been divorced for almost 3 years now and was married for 22 years and my son turns 24 years old 7 days after the 3rd anniversary of my divorce. Yeah, i'm old too.HAHAHAHAHA

[Keely]

Originally Posted by yaahl

Provenance is not exclusive to antiques. Artists produce certificates of provenance when they sell their work. It is a record of who has had ownership of the piece and lends itself to the originality of the work. Artists who use students or apprentice in their studio set out in their certs of Provenance that they either worked on the piece themselves or they list off who also worked on it. Along with certs of Provenance, are gallery labels and show documentation.

Provenience is the precise location where an artifact or archaeological sample was recovered archaeologically.

When I sell a painting, I file a copyright registration, complete a cert of provenance, a gallery history, photographs of the work, any insurance information and a complete list of where the piece has been shown. I also make sure the buyer is aware of licensing restrictions, reproduction restrictions and conservation requirements. My paintings are not antiques ..well not yet anyway...lol

I hope to be able to see some of your paintings

I agree that it will be easier in the future to start setting a provenance now, but Wikpedia discribes it as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance

Provenance, from the French provenir, "to come from", refers to the chronology of the ownership or location of an historical object.[1] The term was originally mostly used for works of art, but is now used in similar senses in a wide range of fields, including science and computing. Typical uses may cover any artifact found in archaeology, any object in paleontology, certain documents (such as manuscripts), or copies of printed books. In most fields, the primary purpose of provenance is to confirm or gather evidence as to the time, place, and—when appropriate—the person responsible for the creation, production, or discovery of the object. This will typically be accomplished by tracing the whole history of the object up to the present. Comparative techniques, expert opinions, and the results of scientific tests may also be used to these ends, but establishing provenance is essentially a matter of documentation.

In archaeology (particularly North American archaeology and anthropological archaeology throughout the world), the term provenience is used somewhat similarly to "provenance". Archaeological researchers use provenience to refer to the three-dimensional location of an artifact or feature within an archaeological site,[2] as opposed to provenance, which includes an artifact's complete documented history.

Provenance issues regarding works of art and cultural artifacts is a largely taboo subject within the museum discipline

[Keely]

Originally Posted by pigheaded

Mama and I just celebrated 24! baby turns 24 in March. God, I feel old.

I am older

[Keely]

Originally Posted by yaahl

I guess what I'm seeing in the IACA is a lack of protection for the actual artist as opposed to the consumer protection it offers.

I've seen both sides of the debate where one faction claims it's to stop non-natives from making a buck on the back of native artisans and crafters. I agree with the notion that something is necessary to stop the mass production of "Indian" trinkets that are made in China and I'd love to see those little brown dolls vanish at the airport gift shops as much as anyone. The other faction sets out that the act is all about protecting them from being ripped off by non-natives by those nons getting a piece of the market pie when they think it all belongs to them.

When you really look at the IACA, it's teeth are more towards the consumer protection rather than the artist and personally, I think that it's another piece of legislation that serves no one but the non-native tourist/consumer.

I'm going to hazard a guess and assume most folks here have heard of if not seen the works of Haida artist, Bill Reid. Think about this, way back in our dark days of being in the total control of Indian Affairs, band membership was defined by a plethora of categories set out by Indian Affairs. One category was the enfranchisement of Indian women who married a non-status Indian man. Essentially, it made instant white woman of Indian women based on who they married.

Back when Bill Reid was born, according to Indian Affairs, his mother, Haida, married a non-status Scottish man and therefore would be considered a non Indian by Indian Affairs. Now the Haida people would have always considered Bill to be Haida because everything comes through the mother but his parents didn't tell him anything about his Haida roots until he was a teen. During Bill's more prolific time period as a Haida artist he was according to Indian Affairs, legally not an Indian. He wouldn't have his legal status restored until 1985 when Bill C31 was enacted. International collectors might have found this troubling as the Act is retroactive to the 1930s.

Can you imagine what the art world would have lost if Bill had been living in the US (as he could have - his father was an American citizen)? None of his work would ever have been considered native, let alone Haida. That's one of the reasons why I can't buy into the IACA completely. The other reason is that on the surface it looks like it protects Native artisans but if falls short of offering anything more than authenticating their work as Native.

I'm an advocate that if you're going to legislate something, then give the legislation teeth beyond the superficial. I'm a firm believer that as the copyright holder and Intellectual Property rights, visual artists really need to have those rights better protected. I also believe that there are still art dealers that are unscrupulous in the manner in which they procure their merchandise. Art dealers flocked to Cape Dorset and bought up soapstone carvings by the crate for a trivial amount and turned around and sold them for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to collectors. The Inuit never got a dime past what they were offered by the dealers. But they got smart and formed an Artist co-op in their communities to prevent members from being taken advantage by dealers.

IP rights for visual work has often been forgotten in the royalties debate. Musicians, performers, writers all get royalties when their works are sold and re-sold but visual artists (except in some jurisdictions like Cali) get nada. I wish the IACA would have included that provision for resale royalties. Why would those who see the act as a means to protect income, not seek future protection for additional income from re-sales. Provenance is included through the IACA, why not royalties?

Enforcement is something every legislative act has problems with. I guess the question is, why are they having problems enforcing it? If offenders are being identified, then what is causing the lack of prosecution? Is it that these offenders are being forewarned by being challenged in public and heading underground and the evidence disappears or is it that folks that know when there is an offender not calling the 1-800-snitch line to report them?

Think of it another way, if anyone knew that there was a welfare fraud living near them would they walk up to their door and tell them to stop? Or would they call their suspicions in to the appropriate authorities? Which is more likely to actually stop the offender from repeated behaviour?

anyway... my two elk teeth

The consumer must protect themselves, there will always be the person who will purchase a ring made in Taiwan because it is cheaper than one made by Begay, but it will never have the quaility of the Begay art nor will it gain in value... You cannot stop people from doing what they want... however, with the law, the ring from Taiwan cannot be sold as Indian made, or as Indian art, that is what the law is about.

The law is not as much about protecting a artist, it is to protect the art. I cannot go to China, mass produce toys, ship them to the US and claim they were made in the USA...

The law does not stop non Native people from making money, the law stops them from selling it is Indian made.

If people are whinning about this law now, cant wait to hear them whine when and if we can get the revisions made to the laws that we are currently seeking.

Not long ago, a woman claiming to be of the "Morning Star Tribe" was selling her beadwork as Indian made, I emailed her and informed her she was in violation of the IACA, to which she responded that she paid her membership dues and could do what she wanted.... yes, I did turn the issue over to the IACA board, within a week, the woman changed her website and stopped her claims of being a Indian artist from this false group she was with....

I support the law, I am willing to enforce it, and more and more, people are contacting us for advice on enforcing it in their areas.

[yaahl]

Originally Posted by pigheaded

Not me. Last time I volunteered for anything I had to get married.

Who said anything about volunteering? I said voluntolding.. ask your wife to explain it to you... lol

[yaahl]

Originally Posted by Keely

I hope to be able to see some of your paintings

I agree that it will be easier in the future to start setting a provenance now, but Wikpedia discribes it as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance

Provenance, from the French provenir, "to come from", refers to the chronology of the ownership or location of an historical object.[1] The term was originally mostly used for works of art, but is now used in similar senses in a wide range of fields, including science and computing. Typical uses may cover any artifact found in archaeology, any object in paleontology, certain documents (such as manuscripts), or copies of printed books. In most fields, the primary purpose of provenance is to confirm or gather evidence as to the time, place, and—when appropriate—the person responsible for the creation, production, or discovery of the object. This will typically be accomplished by tracing the whole history of the object up to the present. Comparative techniques, expert opinions, and the results of scientific tests may also be used to these ends, but establishing provenance is essentially a matter of documentation.

In archaeology (particularly North American archaeology and anthropological archaeology throughout the world), the term provenience is used somewhat similarly to "provenance". Archaeological researchers use provenience to refer to the three-dimensional location of an artifact or feature within an archaeological site,[2] as opposed to provenance, which includes an artifact's complete documented history.

Provenance issues regarding works of art and cultural artifacts is a largely taboo subject within the museum discipline

Keely, in the art world I work in, we produce certs of provenance. My gallery owners and my agent require it of me in my contracts as they do with all their other artists. The two museums that have my work also required it. It's not a matter of should we take measures to record the provenance of a piece, it's expected now up here in the Canadian art world, especially if one is an Aboriginal, Metis or Inuit artist.

However that said, in my spare time work I deal with museums, galleries and private collectors to repatriate artifacts and human remains to their original First Nation. Provenance and provenience are key documents in getting negotiations underway.

Perhaps you would like to set out what are the amendments forthcoming on the IACA. Are these amendments a result of public consultation or committee? How far along are amendments in getting pronounced to be in full force and effect?

I'm curious as to why native artists aren't speaking more about Intellectual Property to protect their work over relying on the IACA? If as you gave in your example, that someone copied a design from Begay and reproduced it, why wouldn't they seek damages under the copyright laws? I think by the sound of what you have described that Natives in the US aren't using their copyright and IP ownership to stop counterfeits but relying upon a law that even you have admitted isn't enforced all that much.

Recently, I had someone copy and reproduce some of my work and when I discovered the reproductions (thanks a very cool org that I am a member of that vigilantly searches for ripoffs of my work and other artists) I fired off a legal claim for copyright infringements. Now our laws up here are pretty strict and very clear on what I can do to protect my work. Some say IP litigation is pretty toothy and yields results beyond anything that civil or criminal prosecution could yield. For every image this offender made of my work, they were made pay me 10,000 per image. The judge could have ordered up to 20,000 per image but the offender voluntarily destroyed all images and provided proof. I'd rather have a law that protects my work against forgeries, counterfeits and unauthorized reproductions than something that protects the consumer via the artist's authentication.

Who gets the fines up to the specified amounts in the IACA? The government or the artist? Let's think about that for a minute.

One of my other concerns that if a Native artist actually wanted to mass produce their work, say for argument sake, a specific designed pair of beaded earring. Maybe even sell a licensing agreement to a chic brand store, then how does the IACA hamper or assist that endeavour? Does the IACA approved Native then have to relinquish their ability to tout the earrings as "Indian Made" in favour of economic development? What if an IACA approved Indian were to hire assistants in their studio work or even to assist in installations work, do those assistants have to be IACA approved in order for the originator of the work to still be able to say "Indian Made"?

Are any of the changes to the act you've alluded to addressing any of this?

[timmy tiger]

Originally Posted by yaahl

Who said anything about volunteering? I said voluntolding.. ask your wife to explain it to you... lol

LMAO--that's an old wives trick. I used to do that when i was a wife too.

Originally Posted by yaahl

ask your wife to explain it to you... lol

Hence the reason I had to get married.

[timmy tiger]

Originally Posted by pigheaded

Hence the reason I had to get married.

Learned fast, didn't ya.HAHAHAHA

[Toolbox]

It has been decided that we should split up the discussion on the IACA from the discussion pertaining to the Federal Cherokee debate. I simply just moved all posts from #640 onward from the Federal Cherokee Debate thread to this new one.

[timmy tiger]

Originally Posted by Toolbox

It has been decided that we should split up the discussion on the IACA from the discussion pertaining to the Federal Cherokee debate. I simply just moved all posts from #640 onward from the Federal Cherokee Debate thread to this new one.

Thanks for clearing that up.Whew

I thought "When did I join that discussion?"LMAO

[Keely]

Originally Posted by yaahl

Keely, in the art world I work in, we produce certs of provenance. My gallery owners and my agent require it of me in my contracts as they do with all their other artists. The two museums that have my work also required it. It's not a matter of should we take measures to record the provenance of a piece, it's expected now up here in the Canadian art world, especially if one is an Aboriginal, Metis or Inuit artist.

However that said, in my spare time work I deal with museums, galleries and private collectors to repatriate artifacts and human remains to their original First Nation. Provenance and provenience are key documents in getting negotiations underway.

Perhaps you would like to set out what are the amendments forthcoming on the IACA. Are these amendments a result of public consultation or committee? How far along are amendments in getting pronounced to be in full force and effect?

I'm curious as to why native artists aren't speaking more about Intellectual Property to protect their work over relying on the IACA? If as you gave in your example, that someone copied a design from Begay and reproduced it, why wouldn't they seek damages under the copyright laws? I think by the sound of what you have described that Natives in the US aren't using their copyright and IP ownership to stop counterfeits but relying upon a law that even you have admitted isn't enforced all that much.

Recently, I had someone copy and reproduce some of my work and when I discovered the reproductions (thanks a very cool org that I am a member of that vigilantly searches for ripoffs of my work and other artists) I fired off a legal claim for copyright infringements. Now our laws up here are pretty strict and very clear on what I can do to protect my work. Some say IP litigation is pretty toothy and yields results beyond anything that civil or criminal prosecution could yield. For every image this offender made of my work, they were made pay me 10,000 per image. The judge could have ordered up to 20,000 per image but the offender voluntarily destroyed all images and provided proof. I'd rather have a law that protects my work against forgeries, counterfeits and unauthorized reproductions than something that protects the consumer via the artist's authentication.

Who gets the fines up to the specified amounts in the IACA? The government or the artist? Let's think about that for a minute.

One of my other concerns that if a Native artist actually wanted to mass produce their work, say for argument sake, a specific designed pair of beaded earring. Maybe even sell a licensing agreement to a chic brand store, then how does the IACA hamper or assist that endeavour? Does the IACA approved Native then have to relinquish their ability to tout the earrings as "Indian Made" in favour of economic development? What if an IACA approved Indian were to hire assistants in their studio work or even to assist in installations work, do those assistants have to be IACA approved in order for the originator of the work to still be able to say "Indian Made"?

Are any of the changes to the act you've alluded to addressing any of this?

Oh I found where the confusion is at you are in Canada... things are different there than they are here.

Since you are in Canada, I can only wonder why you have such interest in the IACA since it does not pertain to Canadians, that is, unless a person comes down to the states to sell, then they would need to sell their items as Canadian Aboriginal. Problem solved.

[Toolbox]

I think the point a lot of people miss here is that people from tribes on both sides of the border take interest in what is going on with each other. Remember that border with Canada is imaginary and the original inhabitants of what is now the northern U.S.A. never had such a border. Many people have relatives on both sides and some tribes were even divided because of it.

[Keely]

Originally Posted by Toolbox

I think the point a lot of people miss here is that people from tribes on both sides of the border take interest in what is going on with each other. Remember that border with Canada is imaginary and the original inhabitants of what is now the northern U.S.A. never had such a border. Many people have relatives on both sides and some tribes were even divided because of it.

I have no interest in what happens in Canada..... it does not pertain to me.