Brixton news, rumours and general chat: Summer - Autumn 2018

[editor]

Just learnt that the Wicked Wednesday jam night at the Queen's Head has been cancelled because of noise complaints. Much as I loved the night, I'm not that surprised to be honest as live bands can be really loud - with or without a PA - and there was no new soundproofing that I could see. And the noise from people chatting outside in the street has always been a problem in this venue. It's a crying shame though - there are fewer and fewer live late night music venues left in Brixton.

 

[RoyReed]

Clearly infringing your copyright! You should demand the products be withdrawn from sale and she should refrain from using your photography in any future designs. Are your photographs the ones featuring people? If so, you should also inform her that you don't have model releases as you were only using them in an editorial context and the images are not cleared for commercial use.

Actually I don't think a model release would be necessary for this type of usage. That would apply if the person depicted looked like they were being used to endorse or sell a product or service. Not that editor shouldn't be either seeking recompense or asking for the product to be withdrawn.

 

[editor]

Actually I don't think a model release would be necessary for this type of usage. That would apply if the person depicted looked like they were being used to endorse or sell a product or service. Not that editor shouldn't be either seeking recompense or asking for the product to be withdrawn.

She's sent me a really apologetic message, full of praise for what I do, but the bottom line is that I don't want my work used - or connected with - luxury lifestyles, especially whren it's unpaid and unaccredited.

 

[editor]

Sent the artist a pretty furious response.

 

[Smick]

Sent the artist a pretty furious response.

If she has done it to you, the chances are that she does it wholesale to many artists, some of whom will never find out about it, some of whom don’t have the confidence / knowledge to challenge her which you have. The chances are she is being so complimentary so that she can keep her luxury goods on sale.

 

[discobastard]

If she has done it to you, the chances are that she does it wholesale to many artists, some of whom will never find out about it, some of whom don’t have the confidence / knowledge to challenge her which you have. The chances are she is being so complimentary so that she can keep her luxury goods on sale.

For context, it seems the photography has only been used for the art installation as part of London Design Week, which is not a commercial venture. Prints of which are for sale with profits going to relevant charities.

She does not appear to be selling wallpaper or other artwork including the photos anywhere on her website for commercial gain. Not that I can see at least, though willing to be corrected on that.

 

[RoyReed]

For context, it seems the photography has only been used for the art installation as part of London Design Week, which is not a commercial venture. Prints of which are for sale with profits going to relevant charities.

She does not appear to be selling wallpaper or other artwork including the photos anywhere on her website for commercial gain. Not that I can see at least, though willing to be corrected on that.

That's absolutely irrelevant to the fact that she should have asked the copyright holder ( editor ) for permission to use his work first.

 

[discobastard]

That's absolutely irrelevant to the fact that she should have asked the copyright holder ( editor ) for permission to use his work first.

I never said she shouldn’t and I agree with you.

 

[editor]

For context, it seems the photography has only been used for the art installation as part of London Design Week, which is not a commercial venture. Prints of which are for sale with profits going to relevant charities.

She does not appear to be selling wallpaper or other artwork including the photos anywhere on her website for commercial gain. Not that I can see at least, though willing to be corrected on that.

As RoyReed has pointed out that is totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter at all what the work was being used for, or whether she was paid or not. It's a nonsense point that provides no useful 'context' whatsoever.



Moreover, seeing as a large advert for her company appeared next to the work in question, she was clearly using it as an opportunity to promote her own luxury goods brand, which creates similar works.

Incidentally, she was also selling prints at an art fair and I saw no mention of any money going to charity, not that is has anything to do with the actual issue here.

 

[editor]

There's a new regular Tuesday night jam sessions at the 414 led by ex-Fela Kuti sax player Bukka Leo

New Tuesday late night jazz special for Brixton at the Club 414 on Coldharbour Lane

 

[discobastard]

As RoyReed has pointed out that is totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter at all what the work was being used for, or whether she was paid or not. It's a nonsense point that provides no useful 'context' whatsoever.

View attachment 150429

Moreover, seeing as a large advert for her company appeared next to the work in question, she was clearly using it as an opportunity to promote her own luxury goods brand, which creates similar works.

Incidentally, she was also selling prints at an art fair and I saw no mention of any money going to charity, not that is has anything to do with the actual issue here.

It has plenty to do with the issue and I also agree with you.

If you look at the projects section of her website it explains the installation and also the charity element.

The context is important as one wouldn't want to mistakenly assume she is selling work based on your photographs on an ongoing basis for purely commercial gain.

It's still out of order though - so I don't know why you're using italics at me.

 

[editor]

The context is important as one wouldn't want to mistakenly assume she is selling work based on your photographs on an ongoing basis for purely commercial gain.

The charity element is utterly irrelevant. She is a professional artist who used my work without permission or credit for an outdoor installation which heavily advertised her commercial luxury services. The same work also appears in her commercial portfolio online and prints were sold at the Kings Cross Art Fair in Sept 2018.

Quite why you're pursuing this half arsed defence is beyond me, tbh.

 

[aka]

Oh, I notice that the work uses at least one of my (uncredited) photos too

which bit. looks like Elli has changed the website?

 

[editor]

which bit. looks like Elli has changed the website?

Does it matter? It's clearly my photo that is featured in the work. That's why I spotted it so easily.

 

[aka]

Does it matter? It's clearly my photo that is featured in the work. That's why I spotted it so easily.

sorry, it's not clear to me, but I don't know all your photos.

 

[editor]

sorry, it's not clear to me, but I don't know all your photos.

And how does that change the argument? But just for you, here's the image. There's at least one other image in there that looks like mine.

 

[aka]

Thanks, that confirms it for me.

 

[editor]

Thanks, that confirms it for me.

Confirms what, exactly?

 

[aka]

That’s right.

 

[editor]

That’s right.

Any chance of you expressing whatever point it is you want to make in a manner which can be understood by all? Thanks.

 

[discobastard]

The charity element is utterly irrelevant. She is a professional artist who used my work without permission or credit for an outdoor installation which heavily advertised her commercial luxury services. The same work also appears in her commercial portfolio online and prints were sold at the Kings Cross Art Fair in Sept 2018.

Quite why you're pursuing this half arsed defence is beyond me, tbh.

which bit. looks like Elli has changed the website?

I agree. And I am not defending the artist. Pointing out that her current wallpapers on sale for several hundred pounds per roll (which is mental btw) do not appear to feature your work is not a defence of the fact that she has clearly appropriated some excellent photography for free and with no credit. Whether they are for projects highlighting gentrification or for charity is no excuse. I was just pointing out what she appears to have used your work for and that it doesn't appear to [still?] be on sale for stupid prices (maybe she did take them down ass aka suggests). And I also think it would be extremely hyocritical for a Brixton artist charging those kind of prices without clearance to be protesting gentrification.

If I were you I would be extremely pissed off and would want credit, payment or public withdrawal of any existing examples of the work whether sold for charities or not. And I hope you get to the bottom of it and get the credit due. Is that clear?

 

[editor]

Brixton tomorrow Futures Festival in Brixton – young persons’ careers fair in Angell Town, Thurs 25th Oct

 

[Nanker Phelge]

I recently paid £720 for four rolls of wallpaper....

It's handmade and quite lovely....it wasn't for me, it was for a wall at work (and the artwork on it wasn't ripped off....)

 

[editor]

I recently paid £720 for four rolls of wallpaper....

How the other 'alf live, eh?

 

[klang]

I thought the days of wallpaper were long gone...

 

[Nanker Phelge]

How the other 'alf live, eh?

Quality products which have taken time and effort and creativity to produce should command a decent price.

I wouldn't pay that much myself....but it's quite nice spending someone else's money...

 

[blameless77]

I agree. And I am not defending the artist. Pointing out that her current wallpapers on sale for several hundred pounds per roll (which is mental btw) do not appear to feature your work is not a defence of the fact that she has clearly appropriated some excellent photography for free and with no credit. Whether they are for projects highlighting gentrification or for charity is no excuse. I was just pointing out what she appears to have used your work for and that it doesn't appear to [still?] be on sale for stupid prices (maybe she did take them down ass aka suggests). And I also think it would be extremely hyocritical for a Brixton artist charging those kind of prices without clearance to be protesting gentrification.

If I were you I would be extremely pissed off and would want credit, payment or public withdrawal of any existing examples of the work whether sold for charities or not. And I hope you get to the bottom of it and get the credit due. Is that clear?

So, as it happens I'm in the same studio space as this artist (who, by the way was one of the artists recently evicted from Brixton Market), and I just spoke to her. She's actually really upset about the situation. She asked if she could use a picture of my child, and has credited all photos except that one - as she wasn't able to track down who had produced it. She created this piece of work to highlight issues of gentrification, regularly donates materials to local primary schools, and is donating the proceeds of this piece of work to local charities. Does seem a bit unfair that you've latched onto her 'commercial luxury services' when she's actually barely making a living, and STILL takes the time to support local causes. Just adding this for balance!

 

[editor]

So, as it happens I'm in the same studio space as this artist (who, by the way was one of the artists recently evicted from Brixton Market), and I just spoke to her. She's actually really upset about the situation. She asked if she could use a picture of my child, and has credited all photos except that one - as she wasn't able to track down who had produced it. She created this piece of work to highlight issues of gentrification, regularly donates materials to local primary schools, and is donating the proceeds of this piece of work to local charities. Does seem a bit unfair that you've latched onto her 'commercial luxury services' when she's actually barely making a living, and STILL takes the time to support local causes. Just adding this for balance!

On her Facebook page she says her company produces "Luxury wall coverings, fabric and home accessories," and the prices she charges are absolutely on the luxury end of the scale (£200 for a scarf, £120 for a pillow!).

It took me precisely 10 seconds to find the source of the image.

She asked if she could use a picture of my child

I think that's my photo too as it's off the same page and looks identical.

Oh and she's only giving half of the profits to charity and pocketing the rest.

 

[blameless77]

On her Facebook page she says her company produces "Luxury wall coverings, fabric and home accessories," and the prices she charges are absolutely on the luxury end of the scale (£200 for a scarf, £120 for a pillow!).

It took me precisely 10 seconds to find the source of the image.

View attachment 150527

I think that's my photo too as it's off the same page and looks identical.

Oh and she's only giving half of the profits to charity and pocketing the rest.

Actually, that's a different image to the one that she asked me about. Same day though...

"Pocketing" makes it sounds like she's stealing. Perhaps you don't think artists should be able to make a living from their work?

Typically, you've latched onto the most expensive item on her website, and given the impression that it's all that expensive. That's not the case, as a quick review of the site makes clear. This piece for example is £3. That's less than the price of a box of chicken....so hardly out of reach for most Brixton residents.

Dusk-The sound of w... by Elli Popp

I get that you're annoyed that she's used a photo uncredited (although I notice she credited all of the other photos used). I think you're unjustified in complaining that she's not donating ALL proceeds to charity. Do you think studio space, materials, paper and printing are free? Or perhaps you don't think artists deserve a living wage, because they're all 'yuppies', or get to enjoy what they do, rather than slaving for the man for 50 pence and a button?

Mostly I applaud the work you do to highlight the effects of gentrification, and provide a forum and a space for people to discuss what action can be taken in a constructive way. In this particular case I think you've chosen the softest of targets, and she doesn't deserve the negative press you've created around her work.

 

[Angellic]

You can't expect people to eat wallpaper samples.