Jennifer Pighin's lawsuit filed in small claims court against the 2015 Canada Winter Games and three auto dealers in the Wood Wheaton Group is a big deal with far-reaching implications.
Not only is it without precedent in local history, it involves one of the city's most popular artists going against the organizers of the largest sporting event ever in Prince George and a major local company and its subsidiaries.
While unheard of in these parts, these kinds of disputes are a common occurrence in the broader arts and business world.
Art is business, even in Prince George, and the use of a unique image created by a visual artist is intellectual property, just like words, photographs, music, hardware, software, architecture and industrial and commercial design.
In the music world, it's usually a dispute around copyright and how much is one song allowed to sound like another before it's stealing. The family of Marvin Gaye recently won a lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over Blurred Lines and how much it sounds like Gaye's Got To Give It Up. Have a listen to this blending of the two songs and decide for yourself - youtube.com/watch?v=ziz9HW2ZmmY.
The jury sided with the Gaye family.
Sam Smith recently reached an out-of-court settlement with Tom Petty over how close the hit Stay With Me sounded like a slower version of Petty's I Won't Back Down (hear it for yourself at youtube.com/watch?v=qkcZV97O3pw).
Some musical squabbles are for using music without prior consent of the artist. There is a long American history of politicians using famous songs at campaign stops without getting the permission of the artist, from Ronald Reagan's use of Bruce Springsteen's Born In The U.S.A. to George W. Bush featuring Petty's I Won't Back Down. Some musicians have received out-of-court settlements and public apologies for the appropriation of their music.
In the Pighin case, both copyright and permission are in play. She is seeking $5,000 from the Games for breach of contract and then $20,000 from each of the defendants - the Games and the three separate auto dealers - for copyright violation. It must be stressed that in the Pighin case, nothing has been proven in court. In her statement of claim filed with the court, Pighin makes two allegations - that her work was used for commercial purposes and it was used after the end of the Games on March 1. The defendants have 21 days to respond to her claims.
It doesn't matter whether the actions of the defendents was intentional or unintentional but Pighin does have to convince a judge that the contract was broken, copyright was violated and that she deserves compensation as a result.
Whatever the outcome, however, Pighin likely loses and she might have just put many of her fellow local artists out of pocket, too.
Any local business owner or manager could hardly be faulted for their reluctance to commission Pighin for new work or to obtain the rights to her existing work, worried about being dragged into court at a future date. That fear will certainly have a negative effect on her ability to partner with local business in the future. The effect of Pighin's lawsuit, however, could extend further than this one instance with this one artist.
Local businesses may suddenly avoid collaborative projects with artists for fear of legal repercussions. Imagine a business owner commissioning a local artist to paint a mural on their building. The owner sells the business and the building two years later and the new owner decides to paint over the mural. Could the local artist sue, arguing that while the wall belongs to the new owner, the painted images on that wall still belong to the artist?
Even if worst-case legal scenarios don't come to pass, there is still the matter of trust. From the perspective of the arts community, this can be seen as the brazen exploitation of artistic licence. From the perspective of the business community, this can be perceived as biting the hand that feeds. It doesn't matter which side is right because prosperous, mutually beneficial relationships are impossible if either of those beliefs are held. Both sides lose but artists lose the most in terms of financial support for their work, which is bad for art, bad for artists and bad for their business.
