Arts Group

The Arts Group has sent the Europe Unit & European Commission its response to their request for suggestions on Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries.

The summit has be rearrange for July 1st/2nd at University of the Arts London.

Please visit our “National Summit” Pages for more details and to register.

Arts Group Chair, Kit Friend, appeared on the BBC last weekend to defend the rights of interns to proper pay and treatment, highlighting specifically the issues with equality and diversity that the current lack of enforcement encourages.

To see the Arts Group’s recommendations on internships read the Emerging Workers Report here

Working from the original wattson design template, applicants’ designs will be judged by a high-profile judging panel, including the Head of Creative at Selfridges, and Wallpaper Magazine’s Art and Design Editor, jotta Editor Millie Ross and Max Fraser of the London Design Guide.

The competition will give applicants a platform for their work to be seen by influential figures from the art and design world, and the winning design will be made into a limited edition version of the Wattson, which will be stocked in Wattson’s retail outlets nationwide.

Green technology experts and independent design collective DIY Kyoto was established in 2005 by three RCA graduates: Greta Corke (Interaction Design), Jon Sawdon Smith (Industrial Design) and Richard Woods (Industrial Design). They presented the worldwide launch of their inaugural product at the Milan Salone del Mobile in 2006 and the first ever Wattson 01 previewed at the Milan Salone del Mobile 2007.

The Wattson is a designer energy monitor which has been proven to help households save up to 20% on their electricity bill, an average annual saving of approx. £280. It’s simple operation, smart design(“I Am Gorgeous” is his tagline), and renewable energy have garnered Wattson a huge amount of praise in the design and eco realms, helping people understand and control their personal impact on the environment.

The competition deadline is Friday 12 March find out more about how to enter here.

www.diykyoto.com

Pre-Registration is now open.

The National Arts Student Summit is open to all representative (from sabbatical officers to course reps) from creative subjects across the UK.

At the Summit you will have the opportunity to debate and discuss the development of Arts Education and Employment from Primary School to the Workplace.

For more information and to pre-register your delegates please click here 

The Liberal Democrats invited the Arts Group Chair, Kit Friend, to attend the launch of their new proposals entitled ‘The Power of Creativity’ . The celebrities were out in abundance with everyone from Imogen Heap to Rory Bremner milling around the tightly packed room at the Lords to hear an address by party leader, Nick Clegg.

Mr Clegg’s speech unfortunately seemed to plaguerise uncredited one of the best known speeches by Sir Ken Robinson but we’ll forgive him this one as it is very good. Perhaps more dubious was his claim the the Arts were ‘a duty’ for any government to support, which again probably had the right sentiments behind it, but could do with a little more work on if he wants to make it party mantra. For the record Nick we’d like to be seen as a strength, an opportunity, a vital contributor to society and at minimum a partner to Government and society – not something you’re obligated to look after.

The Arts team of Don Foster MP and Baronness Jane Bonham-Carter were on hand to introduce and speak to guests, and as usual did a fantastic job of raising the profile of creativity in government. Their approachability and willingness to except input from across the sector (including inviting the Arts Group to contribute to their policy discussions) should be welcomed, and even if we’re not going to see a Liberal government elected any time soon, it’s good to know people like them are on hand to put the pressure on with the other parties.

In terms of the actual content of the proposals, the Lib Dem press release has a capable summary of the highlights, including proposals to:

”

• Change the way the National Lottery is taxed to generate more money for arts and heritage as well as for the Treasury
• Provide support for new start-ups in the creative industries and enable more businesses to offer internships and apprenticeships
• Offer all our children a more creative education by freeing up the curriculum and increasing the amount of time trainee primary school teachers spend learning about the arts and creativity
• Make it easier for small venues to host live music events by reducing bureaucracy that restricts small venues
• Make sure the regions and cities outside London do not miss out by reviewing the Arts Council England’s funding structures and creating a new administrative status for national museums that will enable them to be more enterprising and independent
• Open up the Government Art Collection for greater public use “

The key points the Arts Group pushed in consultation were around our internships work and Further/Higher Education, which both have a mixed presence in the policy.

On internships…

“a new “Paid Internship” for the first year of the next parliament, enabling hundreds of thousands of young people to work for up to three months with any employer, without cost to the business. Each intern would be paid a new “Training Allowance” of £55 per week”

The Paid internship bit and supporting a scheme with little cost to employers is a good call, but £55 a week? Half of this would go on travel in London alone, and it falls dramatically short of National Minimum Wage. In fact, if the young people are ‘to work, and not in study, this is illegal even by current employment standards. Revise it to cover at least National Minimum Wage however, and this sounds like a great idea.

On further/higher education…

Development for either of these in a tangible sense is difficult to find from the policies, but there are some good statements…

“Creativity is undervalued in our education system. All too often cultural learning is seen as an ‘add-on’ while priority is given to what is measurable through exams and league tables. The Liberal Democrats will seek to change this perception and place creativity at the heart of our education system.

Similarly, creative skills have often been inadequately supported in our society. Government needs to offer more support to the creative industries to enable them to offer training opportunities through apprenticeships and internships and to foster greater levels of partnership working to share expertise.”

It’s nice to hear Skillset and other agencies also mentioned explicitly…

“We are fully supportive of the invaluable work being done by Skillset through their academies network and training programmes and advice. We will ensure that government structures and regulation don’t form a barrier to creative organisations working in partnership with higher education providers in setting up academies and training courses.”

FE & HE aren’t mentioned explicitly elsewhere, and our input to the policy to look at making Arts education at this level more accessable by making sure materials and associated costs of study were covered by student finance appear not to have made the cut. However we’ve invited the team to join us at the National Arts Student Summit so with any luck they can be challenged to make some pledges there.

This post was originally created by Yanko Design, who recently reported on the nasty theft of a design; The Pocket Light by Hyun Jin Yoon & Eun Hak Lee (Ryan Harc),

The Pocket Light was stolen, produced and sold unlicensed under another brand. The original light-design had garnered much attention from the online community in 2008.
ORIGINAL POCKET LIGHT

COPY OF THE POCKET LIGHT

In many ways the Internet is a new medium when it comes to the management of intellectual property. Many designers are still struggling to reconcile its power of reach versus control of information flow. Here are some thoughts on managing creative content on the Internet.

1) Managing Expectations

Whenever a design is shown to the public there is a chance it could get ripped off. Design awards, graduation shows, public critiques, discussions with model makers, even obtaining costing for prototypes are all possible avenues where a design could get stolen.

The Internet is no different. In fact, because of the power of the Internet’s reach, the chance could be higher. However I do find it interesting that designers take more precautions showing work at graduation shows or manufacturers than on the Internet.

This being said, I have to say that the case of the copied Pocket Light happens rarely, especially if the stolen design was just a concept. The reason because the additional work required in taking a concept to an actual product requires far more effort than just coming up with an idea. In many cases it is very difficult to do if the designer that came up with the idea is not part of the development team.

That’s why people often tend to rip off finished products like LV bags or Vertu phones. All the hard work has already been done, all you need to do is just reverse engineer it. Oh, and there is that brand element as well.

So how or why did the Pocket Light get stolen? My guess is that it was “The Perfect Storm”. So happens that a manufacturer or a brand had access to all the right ingredients and be in a position to take up that idea and convert it quickly and easily into a product. In my opinion it was just sheer bad luck on the part of Ryan Harc.

2) So then why would anyone want to post his or her designs on the Internet?

There are actually a number of reasons, but the trick here is making sure you figure out “why?” before you do so.

The first and most common reason is credibility. Budding designers or design studios looking to make a name for themselves often share online self initiated design projects with the aim of getting their talent discovered.

If this were your objective, then getting a design copied would then fall in the realm of “imitation is the best form of flattery.” It is unfortunate, but consider milking it for all its worth.

The next reason designers publish designs online is that they are looking for a job. Most of the time these designs are portfolio work that have already been introduced in the market. However there are designers that would include personal design projects or submissions to design competitions hoping to show potential employers the breath of their talent.

The final last two reasons are closely link. That is, designers intending to sell a product or the rights to a design for production. If this is indeed your objective, you should ensure that you have taken the relevant intellectual property protection like patents or design registrations.

An important thing to note is that these 4 points are mutually exclusive. You cannot hope to “gain credibility” and also aim to “sell your design”. Both require different mindsets, and to combine the two is a recipe for disappointment.

3) So what can we do to protect ourselves?

I’m no expert on intellectual property, but by understand the gist of what it can do for you widens your options. Do research the details of Utility Patents, Design Registrations and Trademarks at your nearest Intellectual Property Office as soon as you can.

But for the purpose of this discussion, let us look at IP more from a strategic angle; is IP really needed for what you want to do?

An old employer of mine has this policy on patents. If an idea or invention could be licensed to another party for royalties, then it is worth taking the effort to get a patent. Why is this so? It makes perfect sense when you look at patents from a business point of view.

In certain cases the cost for a patent could come in at USD $30,000-50,000(for a worldwide coverage) or more. This does not include things like patent searches, legal fees and other incidentals. So if you look at it from an ROI (Return on Investment) perspective it just doesn’t not make sense. More so when you consider that most patents are applied on inventions before they are even launched or market proven.

I’m not saying don’t patent your idea. If you think you have a killer idea or invention, then you should really consider investing in a patent. The hard part is figuring out if the idea is really worth it.

Now this comes to the next part of the patent equation. Lets say you managed to pull together $30,000 and got yourself a patent. You now have peace of mind. You launch your product and it becomes a small success. The success is small enough that you don’t rest on your laurels but big enough for the rest of the world to take notice that it is now market proven. Soon cheap imitations start to flood the market while you are struggling to grow your business. The question now is do you have the financial muscle or just simply the willpower to enforce your patent?

Many inventors I have spoken to shared with me that patents are really just for a peace of mind. In certain cases they are useful, in other times, too much of a good thing. At the end of the day the decision is really yours but be aware of what it can do for you, and weigh the pros and cons of that hefty investment.

4) So what shall we do now?

Let me now share with you 4 suggestions on what I think designers can do, considering the landscape I have outlined above.

a) Share it, Get famous and Move on.
Most designers would fall under this category. So when you share designs, you do it to share and celebrate the cleverness of the idea. You may also do it for karma, and in the hope that by sharing, karma comes back to you as fame and maybe even fortune. But at the end of the day you are realistic, you expect nothing in return and quickly move on to the next big idea you come up with.

b) Make it, Share it, Sell it, and Get Out!
One thing about patents they never talk about is that it can be circumvented. There is no guarantee that someone will not takes your idea, modify it and sell it as a better alternative. So one way to play it is that if you think you have a good idea and want to capitalize on it; then a way to do it is to make your money and get out.

I planned my iPoor T-Shirt project with this strategy in mind. I knew the idea had merit, but with the product being a T-Shirt with a simple silkscreen graphic, I knew anyone could easily copy it. So I hatched a plan to make the iPoor T-Shirt in limited quantities and once it sold out, I’m out of the game. This strategy also forces you to ensure costs, margins and return on investment all work they way you want it.

c) Share it to Stake your Claim to the World.
I’m sure you can relate to my situation. I’m an employed designer, struggling to make ends meet, but I have ideas and some savings to invest in it. So how can I leverage on the power of the Internet to help me? I know I can’t afford a patent, so what do I do? I share it and stake my claim to the world, and if the design gets ripped off people will hopefully “do the right thing”.

My Spaces for Ideas Sketchbook is one such project, where by engaging my readers for feedback and getting them to be part of the development process, I hope to build a following of people that have a strong relationship with the product. Furthermore, by showing my process and prototype, there is no doubt as who came up with the idea first and when.

As a side note, the final design has not been revealed as it is in the process of getting a Design Registration. This is an alternative to a patent and not as expensive. Did I mention Google Design Registrations?

d) Go under the Radar
My last suggestion does depend on the nature of your product, design or invention. Akin to much of the things you will find on Etsy, going “under the radar” means you build a design so niche, unusual to make, or not inline to existing standard processes that it becomes difficult to copy.

Read the full original article here:

http://www.yankodesign.com/2010/01/22/how-to-manage-your-creative-work-and-intellectual-property-online/

Written by Brian Ling – a multidisciplinary industrial design leader that goes under the pseudonym of “The Design Translator”. He muses about the art of design leadership and the business of strategic industrial design over at his website Design Sojourn. He often laments the lack of good soy mochas and Italian pizzas (with Rocket and shredded Parma ham) in Asia.

The Guardian has coverage of announcements from Shadow culture secretary Jerermy Hunt indicating what a Conservative victory at the general election could mean for the shape of the Arts. Contrary to claims (last year at the launch of the National Campaign for the Arts Manifesto launch) by Ed Vaizey, Shadow Minister for Culture, it appears our sector may also be subject to cuts in funding in response to dwindling public finances.

The coverage is led by the Tory aspiration to enter into a “Golden Age” for the Arts, through encouraging the emergence of a culture of philanthropy equivalent to our American equivalents. This would seem to set us up for tax-related benefits  as well as other measures recommended by Sir John Tusa’s Arts Task Force in their report (see www.artstaskforce.co.uk ). Whilst undoubtebly a good ideal, this is largely unproven in the UK as a model, and would be a massive step to take from recent year’s reliance of much of the Arts on public subsidy. Whether this would be a phased movement, looking to replace public with private funding is not made clear, though as journalist Polly Toynbee commented at the Bright Blue event in Portcullus House this week – cuts are seldom able to be able to be carried out in the the surgical manner that might be desired to produce the “leaner” organizations Hunt perhaps rightly espouses.

Singled out for criticism by Tory policy is the proportion of state funding that goes on the administration of the Arts grant distributors, with organizations including the Heritage Lottery Fund and Arts Council England spending more than 10% of their income in this way. The Arts Council is restructuring to reduce this, but the premise does call in to question the balance of spending across other similar bodies.

The Conservative policy of returning more lottery funding to the Arts is re-emphasised, as is a committment to championing excellence in the arts (perhaps responding to much of the criticism levelled at public art initiatives’ over-emphasis of diversity and localism over quality of practice).

And last but not least, we are assured that free museum entry “is here to stay under a Conservative government”.

Following a warm reception for the Liberal Democrats, who invited us to input on their own Arts Policy, the Arts Group is continuing to speak to the Shadow DCMS team around issues relating to internships and STEM funding following discussions at the Conservative Conservative Arts and Creative Industries Network and other events with Shadow Arts Minister Ed Vaizey. Watch this space for formal responses!

The Guardian article is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/jan/1Following a warm reception from the Conservatives, who have invited us to their network events, and the Liberal Democrats, who invited us to input on their own Arts Policy, the Arts Group is continuing to speak to the Shadow DCMS team around issues relating to internships and STEM funding. Watch this space for formal responses!4/arts-funding-cuts-proposed-conservatives

Robert Pacitti next to a model of his flags, Artists taking the lead

Pacitti is one of 12 artists across the UK awarded this grant as part of an Arts Council funded project, Artists Taking the Lead, which has been set for the 2012 Olympics. Critics of Pacitti have raised questions on the artistic value of all 12 pieces, and whether this can outweigh the money that will be spent on their production.

“Will it be any good? And will anybody care?” asks a Guardian journalist at the ATTL launch in March last year. ATTL will be receiving a lot more funding and a lot more coverage than other art projects in line for the Olympics.

It is not a surprise that Artists Taking the Lead, a project which has put £5.4 million into 12 commissions spre

ad across the country, has achieved such scepticism. Cynics are sure to raise their voices when it comes to government expenditure. In this particular case, money is shown to have been attributed to individual artists, and the award of a £500,000 budget may seem a bit like winning the lottery. However these funds will not be feeding the artists themselves but going towards the production of their projects. These are larger than life scale installations that will involve the efforts of many, many practising designers, sculptors, accountants and engineers. In fact these projects are so technically ambitious that a £500,000 budget might not be enough!

Pacitti’s flags and feasts, as a critic called them, may value entertainment over artistic depth, but this is part of a political motive inherent in all the ATTL projects. Each piece does its best to involve the community and to reflect national pride. The Northern Ireland project THE NEST will be a devised musical piece based on objects donated by “the people of Northern Ireland”, which is to be performed in Belfast.

Shauna Richardson, Artists taking the lead East Midlands. c Matthew Andrews 2009

Shauna Williams, commissioned in the East Midlands, plans to build three taxidermy style 30 foot high lions across Nottingham to disseminate the values of courage and nobility, commemorating Richard Lionheart, and “celebrate the region”.

The debate between elitist and accessible art, Ezra Pound over Harry Potter, Tarkovsky over Goddard is made prominent. That the commissioned pieces are neither too obscure nor avant-garde, that no one opted for a gothic performance on male/female deconstruction (followed by an after-party in a Glasgow basement) is part of a deliberate and political choice. Rather this is art that is democratic, it aims to be universally understood.

“Much is being prepared for the Olympics, and a lot of it has received Arts Council funding.” Says an artist commissioned by Art at the Edge, a project organising a public display of sport themed art.  Here, as opposed to ATTL, established fine artists will be creating exhibition pieces, and their audience is restricted to the gallery space. Aimed at the wider public rather than the artistic elite, ATTL becomes dependant on wider coverage, larger scale pieces and accessible ideas.

Words by Lemma Shehadi

The Arts Group’s first meeting of 2010 will be held on 11th-12th February in Lincoln.

Please register your details below and we will contact you with joining instructions/accomodation info.

cforms contact form by delicious:days

Melissa Henderson, from 10 Park Signs

So, what is IPR? Well, put simply it is legal property in original work. But unlike your house, your car or your MP3 player, IPR is intangible. This means that it isn’t the type of property you can hold and pass around. Rather, it is the type of property which bestows on the owner certain legal rights – the right not to be copied for example. If anyone reproduces or copies someone’s original work without their permission they will breach or infringe that person’s IPR. So, it is important for creative people to understand IPR, particularly if they are using their creative works commercially. There are various different types of IPR which exist depending on the type of creative work you might produce. The main types are copyright, design right, trade marks and patents, and very briefly: Copyright exists automatically in creative works such as artistic works (paintings, illustrations, photographs etc.), literary works (writing, songs, music, software code etc.), dramatic works (plays, structured dance choreography etc.). More information about copyright may be found here [link to copyright article]; Design right exists both automatically and also if the owner chooses to register via a form of Government registration in illustrated design drawings (line drawings, CAD drawings etc.) from which a 3D product can be made. More information about design right may be found here [link to design right article]; Trade marks exist both through their use over time and also if the owner chooses to register via a form of Government registration of trade marks in names (e.g. an artist’s name) or other marks (e.g. a logo) under by which a business is identified. More information about trade marks may be found here [link to trade marks article]; Patents exist only if the owner chooses to register via a form of Government registration of patents in inventions (i.e. new ideas which improve technology). This is less relevant to artists and designers and so is just mentioned here for completeness. As you will be able to tell from the above, this IPR is valuable property because if you create something original, be it a piece of artwork, a graphic illustration or a photograph, if it is good, others may wish to use it commercially (e.g. to use as an album cover or to sell as a collection) and because the creator owns IPR in their work, anyone who does want to reproduce that work commercially must obtain the owner’s permission (for which the owner may charge). This is called licensing of IPR.