Saturday, 31 of July of 2010
Representation and action for students of the arts
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
| Words by Lucile Dupraz |
|
Workshops, expert presentations, peer learning and practical group work enable participants to explore ways to exploit their creative potential. Graduates develop the personal and professional skills necessary to translate their creative vision into employment, career development or a viable business.
Led by professional coaches who are used to working with ‘blue chip’ clients, and creative industry specialists. Diverse speakers and mentors give participants access to industry professionals. Guides such as Magnus Long (Product Designer and Co –founder of Viable London) and Alistair Hall (Graphic Designer and Director of We Made This Ltd), shared their experiences on a similar career journey.
Some of the questions participants can expect to ask themselves through tailored excercises and group discussions are “Where do I want to be in the future? What routes are available to get there? What is my unique offer in the market? How do I come across to others, how do I want to be perceived? What else to I need to succeed?”
So what did the ‘Immersionites’ of 2009 think of the programme? Michael Antrobus is a product Designer who studied at Kingston University. Michael feels that ”the practical guidance of the immersion course has helped me to identify obstacles and turn them into achievable tasks”. Michael is now pushing his work forward “with renewed confidence”. Annabel Johnson, a ceramicist and Central Saint Martins graduate, realised that “there are others in the same boat as me, starting up… Who share my fears and concerns!”.
“I now am in a better position to achieve my artistic goals” says Ann Pitkin, a fine artist and Byam Shaw School of Art alumni, ” the programme provided opportunities to explore and develop my art practice outside of the actual making of my art work.” More insights can be found on the immersion 2009 blog: http://www.jotta.com/jotta/groups/view?id=552726
Companies involved in the programme include Liberty’s, Ellesse, Live|Work, BBC, WGSN, Formerol, Futureheads Recruitment, Nokia, Max Fraser, Hannah Martin, Pulse London, Think Public, Make Good, Colour Union Ltd…Immersion is open to all UK creative graduates but places are limited. Book your place at http://www.csm.arts.ac.uk/csm_immersion.htm .
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.
More than 200 new arts jobs across London & Essex have been given the green light thanks to NDotM (New Deal of the Mind).
Working in partnership with a range of arts and cultural organisations including the British Library, Young Vic, Lyric Hammersmith, Notting Hill Mas and the Royal Court Theatre, NDotM successfully bid for funding through the government’s Future Jobs Fund which is aimed at helping find placements for young people who’ve been unemployed for six months or more.
167 people will be recruited through local Job Centres for the jobs in London. Meanwhile, 56 jobs have been created in association with Essex-based Theatre Resource which is one of the biggest disabled-led arts organisation in the UK.
Along with other placements announced previously, this latest announcement means that NDotM has helped identify and secure funding for over 300 jobs in the arts & creative sectors since its launch last March. That’s more jobs than days NDotM has been in existence.
Martin Bright, NDotM’s founder and Chief Executive said, “This is a great start to 2010 and means that 200 young people will be starting work in theatres, libraries, design studios and arts organisations who would otherwise have been stuck on the dole , their creative potential wasted.”
The people who’ll fill the first 30 FJF funded placements at London’s Southbank Centre are expected to begin work in early March.
Two hundred years ago, the arts were seen as a diversion from productive capital. Today, creative industries have a strong role in the country’s economy and accounts for 7.3% of it. What steps do creative projects have to take to ensure the achievement of their final goal? And what obstacles will they meet along the way?
By Lemma Shehadi
These are questions that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport tried to tackle in 2007, with a commissioned report on the state of Creative Industries. This analysis made by the Work Foundation argues for creativity as a catalyst for running businesses. Creative products are assessed and gain popularity by their “expressive value”, a concept which I will explain subsequently.
Originality and creativity, the production of ideas rather than objects is what makes the Creative Industries a “pioneer” sector. Universities and high tech manufacturers, which are hot spots for new ideas, become central building blocks of the economy. These two contribute to what is known as the knowledge economy. Similarly it is this basis in innovation that gives creative industries that lucrative potential. Furthermore, in the UK, knowledge and creativity fuelled industries thrive better than in other parts of Europe. On a tangent, the reports adds that cultural diversity, as is seen in the highly cosmopolitan cities like London, bring forth a tolerance and openness to new ideas from which the knowledge economy thrives. Creative industries function by commercialising expressive value. This is not limited to paintings and poems but new software, video games etc. “Essentially expressive value creates new insights, delights and experiences. It adds to our knowledge, stimulates our emotions and enhances our lives” (4.7) This commonality also makes creative industries unique in that their products are truly original. Playstations 2, 3 and Xbox for example, are technological enhancements of the original Playstation, however new games that emerge, with new narratives and new graphics are the marketed ‘expressive’ goods. Makers of creative products cannot predict how these will be received. As the report points out, fluctuating trends allow for some products to experience an unexpected vogue, though this is always temporary. But what such products have as a distinguishing quality is that once made obsolete, they can experience a revival. This is very true to the current fad for “vintage” clothing and accessories. A 1970’s kettle, for example, is made useless by newer, faster and more eco-friendly ones. However it is highly desirable as an antique or as a decorative object. The “expressive value” of the kettle comes into play even though its value as a technological product is nought. It becomes also difficult, with the uncertainty of reception, to predict what profits a creative product will make, and creative products cannot be sold until they are packaged and completed. It would be absurd to release half of a blockbuster in cinemas whilst the rest of the movie is still in the making. What happens then is that a lot of money is spent producing a good film with unpredictable revenue and shelf life. A man setting up a barber shop can compete with his peers by ensuring quality and value. He can hire the best hairdressers, give cheap haircuts and build on his reputation. On the other hand, an eminent film maker could ensure that the best actors, the best production team and the latest equipment be used for her film. However she cannot guarantee that the ‘expressive value’ of the film itself will appeal to contemporary audiences. The dissemination of products with expressive value involves many layers of work from various creative industries. At the core are the creative ideas, truly innovative products that earn the need of a copyright. These are disseminated and mass produced by cultural industries such as film or production companies, radio, television. If Don deLillo writes a novel, this is a product of “core expressive value”. It is awarded copyright which protects it’s expressive originality. deLillo’s publisher is the cultural industry that reproduces the book. Another sector in the creative industries, designers and marketers would get involved in producing a cover for the book and advertising such as banners and PR. Politicians and celebrities also make use of this latter sector to create a public image. It is finally important to note that this analysis explores the function of art within an economic framework. The commercial value of artistic expression is subjective to popular demand, though this changes radically and unexpectedly. Creative projects undertake a lot of risks in such an ambiguous market. However, as the report underlines, there is much demand for expressive value in almost every aspect of consumer experience, which allows creative industries to flourish and generate more ideas.
Copyright gives creators of original works (called “copyright works”), such as artwork, illustrations, pieces of writing and even software code, legal rights allowing the creator to stop reproduction of that work by others without the creator’s permission. Copyright does not need to be registered with any Government agency to exist, it exists automatically when an original copyright work is created and the first owner is automatically the creator of that work. The duration of copyright for most types of creative work is 70 years after the death of the original creator.
If copyright exists in a copyright work it is illegal for anyone to make copies of that copyright work without the creator’s permission. It is also illegal for anyone to issuing copies of that copyright work to the public or reproduce it on the Internet (or to broadcast that copyright work if it is music or film) without the permission of the creator, i.e. the original artist or designer.
One issue that is sometimes overlooked is where an artist or a designer is working for someone else when they create copyright works. This will affect ownership. If an artist or designer is employed by a company or other person, then when that artist or designer as an employee creates a new creative work, the copyright in that creative work is automatically owned by the artist or designer’s employer. However, the opposite is the case if the artist or designer is self-employed and working for clients on a freelance basis. In the latter situation, the artist or designer would automatically be the owner of the creative works he or she creates even where the client has instructed them to do it and paid the artist or designer to do the work. Because of this, it is a good idea for all artists/ designers to have a simple agreement for work they do for clients which covers the issue of IPR. This will normally be a Freelancer Agreement.
Whoever is the owner of copyright in creative works, they will be able to give permission to others to use their work commercially (this is called an IPR licence) in return for regular payments (licence fees or royalties) or if a company or person wants to buy copyright in certain creative works outright from the owner for a one off lump sum this can be done by way of an IPR assignment. Both are common in the art and design world. If copyright works are assigned, this will not change the duration of the copyright which will still last until the end of the seventieth year after the death of the original creator, regardless that the original creator no longer owns the copyright because it has been assigned to someone else.
It is worth remembering that copyright does not protect ideas, or such things asnames or subject titles. So, for example, a painting of a still life with a clever theme will not stop other artists staging still life on the same theme and producing paintings of them. The same goes for ideas for creative works; for example, if you write down a summary of an idea for a piece of creative work that you are planning to produce, copyright in that written work will only allow you to stop someone copying the written words, and will not allow you to stop them from producing the envisioned work summarised in writing.
Image by Slaven Gabric, Don’t walk !
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
SUARTS are campaigning to ensure that any additional course costs (on top of tuition fees) are upfront, transparent and reasonable.
This means additional course costs should be stated on all Entry Profiles, there should be no compulsory fees further to those stated, there should be support and structured programmes in place to help students with their fundraising and sponsorship and student should receive a breakdown of what their additional fees have been spent on.
Currently additional course costs are administered on an ad hoc basis that varies widely across different colleges and courses – some students are asked to pay £100 towards materials at the beginning of each term. After this, the extra costs students are asked to pay could be almost anything. Often sprung upon students with little or no notice and at difficult times of the year. This affects every student, but we all know that those from lower income backgrounds and those hard up of cash are going to suffer the most.
It is not unknown for students to enter the last few weeks of Uni not knowing whether they will be able to afford the obscene amounts of money that are needed for a Final Show.
We accept that costs for materials must come from somewhere, but if students are going to be asked to pay for something which they need for their course, the University needs be upfront, transparent and reasonable. Something which currently does not happen.
Over the course of the next term SUARTs be collecting raw data on the extent of the hidden course costs that you have to face. We will be distributing blank Compulsory Costs guides (through Course Reps) so you can all feed in to this. This will be analysed to highlight the breadth and disparity of the problem. This will then be taken to the University to ensure these are addressed and to highlight the absurdity and unfairness of the situation.
What can you do?
• Report any ‘surprise’ costs that you are asked to cover this year by emailing campaigns@su.arts.ac.uk
• Fill in your blank Compulsory Costs Pro Forma when it is distributed this term
• Stand as a Course Rep!
Last week their travelling campaign ‘Hidden Costs’ went on a whistlestop tour of all the University of the Arts London colleges.
They gathered pics of students looking surprised by these outrageous extra costs -looks like they had fun!Ssee the facebook group (tinyurl.com/UALhiddencosts), tag yourself to be in with a chance of winning some great prizes! Prizes include…
DAB Digital Radio
£50 cash
£20 HMV vouchers
and other mystery prizes!
Winners will be announced 22nd January
http://www.suarts.org/content/213845
In an effort to define how they will work with artists and arts organisations to create positive change for the arts over the next 10 years, Arts Council provide the following information and ask for your ideas and opinions.
How we sit within a diverse and ever-changing England, taking into account the progression of society, industry, technology and the environment.
Our ambitions for the next 10 years, encompassing diversity, internationalism, strengthened organisations and heightened excellence across the arts.
How we will adapt and change with society and the arts to achieve our ambitions.
Our 2009 review of recent literature relating to the arts in England, developed to inform our 10-year strategic framework.
To give them your feedback you’ll need to register with Arts Council.
Do it.
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/consultation/
The agenda and joining instructions for the meeting in Lincoln are ready and can now be downloaded by clicking here
Please register if you have not already done so using this form
The Arts Group is calling for legislation governing the practice of work experience, internships and placements. In its “Emerging Workers” document the Arts Group puts forward the case that Government action is needed in order to protect students and graduates in the arts and creative industries.
Many arts organisations and businesses are reliant upon unpaid workers, both on work experience and on longer term placements. Whilst the Arts Group recognises that some of these organisations are run on low budgets, it is not in the interest of diversity, equality or creativity for internships to remain as the preserve of the well off.
Kit Friend, Chair of the Arts Group commented “Access to the creative professions should be based on ability, not means. As the labour market is near saturated with those financially able to take up unpaid placements, equal access to the creative professions will not be realised unless internships are regulated by government.”
The Arts Group recognises that the creative sector is made up of a large number of small and medium enterprises, and calls for funding and bursaries to be made available to employers so that they are able to continue to offer internships that are genuine training and development opportunities.
>> A pdf of the report can be downloaded by clicking here
Though there have been no major cuts to Arts Council funding just yet, the looming elections are likely to set a new tone. Much has happened over the past two years to dramatically alter its budget. In 2007, the Arts Council placed a large chunk of its funding towards the 2012 Olympics. Last year’s recession meant that public sectors faced major setbacks, and the profits made in the arts were significantly reduced.
This all sounds very gloomy, but is it really? The 2009 budget report in April announced it would cut £4 million out of the previous £467 million, decreasing the budget by less than 1%. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport, which, along with the Arts Lottery, funds the Arts Council has had its own cuts in 2010 of £20million. The Arts Council, therefore will only be bearing a fifth of DCMS’ losses.
Although these cuts are minimal, they do come as a great disappointment. Since 2002, the Arts Council has had yearly increase in funding. That year, a new spending plan was announced that would make the DCMS budget £257 million higher in 2005-06 than in 2002-03. Furthermore in 2007, the Arts Council was promised £20 million over the following three years.
As for prospective cuts, the Arts Council continues to point out that the revenue from the Arts sector is much higher than its spending. In July last year, MP Andy Burnham told the Stage: “the small – relatively small – amount of funding here, produces a huge benefit not [just] socially, educationally, culturally, but also economically.” Indeed, when Liverpool became Europe’s Capital of Culture in 2008, it generated £176 million from tourism alone and an £800 million boost to regional economy.
No doubt 2010 will see a decrease in Arts Council money. Can a new government change this? Or is it dictated by the recession? Predicting the former, Chief of the Arts Council Alan Davey met with the Conservative Party last October to discuss the importance of funding. Like Burnham, he argued that arts revenue was beneficial to the economy. On the opposite side of the spectrum were the conclusions reached at the Funding Transition conference hosted by arts think tank Missions Models Money in December. Chair of the meeting Clara Miller, CEO of Non-profits Finance Fund, argued that it is the way arts businesses are run that needs to change, rather than government revenue. Can art businesses, as Clara Miller suggests, overcome financial struggle by remodelling? These are questions organisations, as well as art students and artists, will have to face as we draw closer to a new government and a revision of this year’s budgets.
Words by Lemma Shehadi
