With my enduring interest in all things Northern (the North of?) Ireland I was watching some time ago the excellent Channel Four series ‘Trespasses’, based on a book by Louise Kennedy and set during the Troubles of the 1970s. Imagine my surprise then when the penultimate scene, shot in the Ulster Museum, featured a large painting of mine, The Other Cheek ?(1989), shown prominently both in several background shots and also full frame. The scene was a kind of epilogue to the painful circumstances of decades earlier which constitute the story, and the painting was clearly intended as a commentary on the tragedy of the toll of ruined lives. My response was conflicted - obvious surprise, mixed with an element of gratification that the painting was selected to help tell such a powerful story, but at the same time anger that I had not been asked permission, and had certainly not been paid a fee. How had this happened without my knowledge? I got in touch with DACS (Design and Artists Copyright Society), and someone there, after a bit of detective work, presented me with a licensing agreement between the production company, Wildgaze Films, and the gallery that had until 2 years ago represented me, Flowers. I was dumbfounded - the document had been signed by a director, no less, of the gallery for an agreed sum of £1. Firstly the gallery had no right to issue the clearance, and secondly, in the manner that the painting was used in the production, a significant fee should have been charged. Where to start? The DACS investigation prompted the gallery to call me, however I did not wish at that stage to have a conversation (relations having been strained since we parted company) and then subsequently via WhatsApp.. I asked that anything they had to say be put in an email, but (possibly to avoid legal implications), that was not followed up. The lawyer at DACS, however, did speak with the gallery, who admitted it had been a ‘mistake’. Apparently they went on to say, however, that if we contested the matter there remain ‘outstanding issues with John Keane that they might be minded to pursue’. This, as recounted to me, sounded like something in the nature of a threat. At this point the DACS lawyer said that in view of this, I would not be able to pursue the matter any further with them. It seems the threat had worked. So what am I supposed to do? The DACS lawyer did suggest a couple of legal copyright practices I could get in touch with, which I duly did. One responded to me, and were good enough to give me a remote meeting to discuss what I could do. Not very much, it seems. My understanding is this: my complaint is initially with the production company, for it is they who have used my image without my permission. They believed they had a document which licensed permission, but which turns out is not worth the paper it is written on - it may as well have been signed by Mickey Mouse. So their issue is with Flowers gallery, who purported to own the copyright but don’t, but they are indemnified, however, in the small print of the agreement against just such a misrepresentation. On the basis of this, I sent an invoice for my licensing fee to Wildgaze. Unsurprisingly I got the brush off and was told to take it up with Flowers, (who have already made their position absolutely clear). The situation remains unresolved, with the prospect of having to resort to costly legal measures.
COPYRIGHT PIRACY?
Film production company refuse to pay copyright fee for use of image in Channel 4 series 'Trespasses'
