HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.
HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

Sculptor Of Pillar Of Shame Announces It's Now Public Domain So That Anyone Can Make A Copy, As Chinese Authorities Seek To Destroy It

from the public-domain-to-the-rescue dept

Last fall we wrote about how Chinese officials were looking to remove the "Pillar of Shame," a sculpture by artist Jens Galschiøt that commemorates China's massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators at Tiananmen Square in 1989. The sculpture was erected at the University of Hong Kong in 1997, and now that China has been wiping out every last bit of freedom in Hong Kong, the statue has been targeted as well. In our post last fall, we noted that (1) Galschiøt was threatening legal action if the statue is damaged, and (2) activists were making 3D scans of the sculpture so that it can be replicated.

Of course, while Galschiøt can (without much leverage) threaten legal action against China for removing the statue, some realized that the unfortunate state of copyright law today means he might also threaten legal action against those making replicas and copies from those 3D images. Thankfully, Galschiøt himself recognizes how problematic that is, and after receiving a bunch of requests has signed official paperwork relinquishing his copyright on the Pillar of Shame, thus putting it into the public domain:

To DR News, Jens Galschiøt says that he has had so many inquiries that he finally had to make a signed declaration in which he relinquished the right to the production of the sculpture and in which it is stated that any profits should be given to the democracy movement.

“Normally, artists will not give their art commercially free, but I have done so because the art must come out. And the sculpture is a reminder of the massacre in Tiananmen Square, the democracy movement, and human rights,” Jens Galschiøt adds.

Galschiøt does not appear to be your typical copyleft activist, and certainly notes his concerns about doing this, but seems to say that, when considering the alternatives, this makes the most sense:

“I could probably spin a fair deal of gold on this if I wanted to. But I’m not particularly interested in money,” Jens Galschiøt says.

He admits that he has taken a risk by revoking his copyright protection on the sculpture and big corporations or private companies could potentially abuse that.

“Yes. I’ve laid down with the devil, but that’s how it is when you are suddenly involved in big politics. It can not be avoided and that’s fine. I exploit them and they exploit me. It’s a mutual “spanking”. But I actually do not feel this sculpture can be abused, because it is a symbol of keeping the memory of the massacre and Hong Kong alive,” Jens Galschiøt says and adds:

“The worst thing that could happen was if nothing happened and that no one cares about the “Pillar of Shame”.

The article separately notes that he is still seeking to get the sculpture (safely) back from Hong Kong, where it remains in danger of destruction.

In some ways, it seems absolutely ridiculous that people should need for the artist to "relinquish" his copyrights in a scenario like this, but it is the unfortunate nature of copyright law today. Given that, it's great to see the artist make such a decision, and recognize that the statement he is making is more likely to benefit not just himself but the larger world and society in the long run.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: censorship, china, copies, copyright, hong kong, jens galschiot, pillar of shame, public domain, tananment square


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Frank Cox (profile), 10 Jan 2022 @ 9:44am

    Public art should be public

    Shouldn't public art actually be public?

    If an artist accepts a commission to make a statue or obelisk for a park or a public square, shouldn't the deal include the fact that the public art then belongs to those who paid for it, i.e. the public.

    Same deal as copyrights on government publications, including software written for government use. Research papers paid for by grants funded by taxpayers. Etc.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2022 @ 9:58am

      Re: Public art should be public

      None of the statues in this art series were commissioned by anyone, much less a government.

      This particular statue was a gift to the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements for the 1997 Tiananmen memorial, and has never been paid for, or used by, a government.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        James Burkhardt (profile), 10 Jan 2022 @ 10:37am

        Re: Re: Public art should be public

        Which only supports Frank's position. Copyright exists to incentivize creation by allowing monetary exploitation, which the artist has expressly stated isn't the prupose or intent of the work, and he never exploited. The work was intended to be seen and shared by everyone in memory of a government attacking its citizens.

        Shouldn't that art be free, without needing the sculptor to authorize such sharing? Why does the sculptor have any say in our ability to see and share a sculpture he gave away as a gift? (other than to, perhaps cynically, demand his gift, the original work, back)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2022 @ 12:11pm

          Re: Re: Re: Public art should be public

          The work was intended to be seen and shared by everyone in memory of a government attacking its citizens.

          If instead of "government commission," the standard should be "the artist's intentions for the work," what better way of identifying the artist's intention than the artist saying "this work is free to use by anyone?"

          Should we punish artists who talk about their work, embroil them in litigation over the nuances of everything they've ever said? Force artists to run everything by lawyers, carefully doling out non-incriminating sound bites instead of freely discussing their works?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2022 @ 4:52pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Public art should be public

            what better way of identifying the artist's intention than the artist saying "this work is free to use by anyone?"

            And if the artist should choose to renege that intention later on when it's convenient?

            Should we punish artists who talk about their work, embroil them in litigation over the nuances of everything they've ever said?

            We already can, and we already do.

            Force artists to run everything by lawyers, carefully doling out non-incriminating sound bites instead of freely discussing their works?

            People with far bigger risk profiles already do that.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2022 @ 3:21pm

          Re: Re: Re: Public art should be public

          Why does the sculptor have any say in our ability to see and share a sculpture he gave away as a gift?

          Why should a sculptor or any other artist, author, etc. have any say in what we do with the things they create? If they want money, they can do work on contract like my plumber does—it's easier than ever to raise money for art. Afterward, we do what we want with it. That's what's happening anyway, and our pretending otherwise is a great cost and headache to everyone.

          (Things like LibGen, Sci-Hub, archive.org, and Github give a glimpse of what things could be like. "Give 'em all the information in the world, and let history decide who becomes what.")

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2022 @ 10:32am

      Re: Public art should be public

      Elsevier et. al. dissagrees.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Coyne Tibbets (profile), 10 Jan 2022 @ 12:00pm

    Accountability

    Now that the sculpture is public domain, let's alll make the artist famous with a replica at every crossroads. Like roaches, crimes against humanity flee from the light.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2022 @ 1:30pm

    Now that the sculpture is public domain, China can quietly replace it with an altered version that isn't about the massacre at all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 10 Jan 2022 @ 3:15pm

      Re:

      Yeah, that wouldn't work too well, I have no doubt that if they were stupid enough to try that they'd instead face an avalanche of the real copies showing up all over the world.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 11 Jan 2022 @ 12:57am

      Re:

      You say that as if China would be honouring copyright law in the first place. I suspect that if that's all that was standing between them and erasing this reminder from the planet without consequence, the original would already have been disposed of.

      Also, Streisand Effect is still a thing and any attempt to silence the truth like that would simply result in it being more loudly communicated. China can control a lot of its internal access to the truth and influence some international reporting, but they won't be able to stop thousands of dedicated independent artists from doing things to remind everyone of the original if they felt that necessary.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 10 Jan 2022 @ 3:20pm

    Atrocity memorials for all

    Well that didn't work out so well for china, they attempt to have a sculpture reminding people of their past destroyed and end up pushing the artist to allowing anyone and everyone to make a copy.

    I look forward to seeing/hearing about the plethora of copies springing up all over the place rather than just a single college campus.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 10 Jan 2022 @ 3:35pm

    Now a

    Now to place a Sign and page on the statue.
    Asking that each person should make a mark, not a name, Only 1 per person, for those that support that this statue Stay as is, where is.
    As a 'Peoples Statue'.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.