Copyright Violation in Action: The Case of the Paul Kopeikin Gallery


Reply to AIPAD
by A. D. Coleman

What follows is my reply to the letter to me from Robert Klein, President of the Association of International Photography Art Dealers (AIPAD), on behalf of the AIPAD board, responding to the charges I lodged in August with that organization against one of its members, the Paul Kopeikin Gallery. For a synopsis of the situation and other pertinent material, click here.

-- A. D. C.
November 1, 2001

Robert Klein
Association of International Photography Art Dealers
1609 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20009

Dear Robert:

I’ve just received your October 19 letter on behalf of the AIPAD board in regard to the Paul Kopeikin matter.

I appreciate the time and attention that individual AIPAD board members and the AIPAD board as a whole have devoted to this matter. However, I feel obliged to point out that AIPAD had an opportunity here to take a public position -- consistent with the claims concerning "ethical standards" in its published statement of purpose -- on the issues of theft of intellectual property and respect for the copyright law. This could have been done in general terms, as proposed in my letter to you of October 18, affirming AIPAD’s concern with those issues and commitment to protecting the rights of writers on photography and other makers of intellectual property, without specifying what one particular member had done or even indicating whether he had done anything meriting AIPAD censure.

Clearly, you’ve all decided not to take such a position. Please convey to the board, and to the AIPAD membership, my disappointment in AIPAD for that decision.

It’s one you’ll have to live with. I've now posted a synopsis of the situation, plus my correspondence with Kopeikin and the several annotated lists of his infringements, at both the AICA-USA website (www.aicausa.org, in the "Advocacy/Action" section) and in a new section of my own site that I've lately developed and opened, WordWork. The AICA site already contains one response from an AICA member, and I expect some more. And I have now posted your AIPAD letter to me at both these sites, where I’ll also post periodic updates through to the eventual resolution of this case.

In our phone conversation last week over the content of this letter to me, you indicated that the board’s decision was based in part on some board members believing that this was in no way an AIPAD matter, but was -- and should remain -- strictly between Kopeikin and myself. As I didn’t bring this matter before AIPAD either arbitrarily or casually, I’d like to place on the record my reasons for thinking that this is indeed an AIPAD matter.

I’m not an AIPAD member myself, of course, not being a gallerist or private dealer, but Paul Kopeikin is. I am, nonetheless, a professional in the same field -- fine-art photography -- as well as a member of the general public.

I also understand that AIPAD does not exist for the purpose of arbitrating or adjudicating all disputes even between AIPAD members, much less all those between AIPAD members and others who don’t belong to the organization.

However, for years I’ve noted with interest that in AIPAD’s statement of purpose -- posted at its website (http://www.photoshow.com), published in its annual catalogue for The Photography Show, and otherwise distributed to the public -- the following appears:

"AIPAD is dedicated to creating and maintaining high standards in the business of exhibiting, buying and selling photographs as art. Acting as the collective voice of the art photography dealers that make up its membership, AIPAD maintains ethical standards, promotes communication within the photographic community, encourages public appreciation of photography as art, concerns itself with the rights of photographers and collectors, and works to enhance the confidence of the public in responsible photograph dealers."

These are broad assurances. However, from my dealings with AIPAD over the matter of the theft of my intellectual property by one of your members, it’s unclear to me what "high standards" and "ethical standards" AIPAD concerns itself with -- aside from the itemized obligation to describe photographs accurately and to honor agreements. Can I ask you -- on behalf of the AIPAD Board, and for the public record -- to enumerate precisely what other ethical issues and standards (if any) come under AIPAD’s purview, and to explain why the charges I brought against Paul Kopeikin are not worthy of public comment by the organization, even commentary addressing the larger issues of intellectual property rights and copyright law?

Can I also ask you to specify who -- aside from buyers and sellers of photographs -- enjoys any protection through AIPAD against unethical conduct by AIPAD members? Was it the fact that I’m not a member of AIPAD, or not a buyer and/or seller of photographs, that invalidated my charges as an AIPAD matter? Does the creation of a gallery website packed with pirated intellectual property not fall under the heading of "the business of exhibiting, buying and selling photographs as art"? Were I a photographer whose press prints an AIPAD member had taken from a magazine’s picture archive and put up for sale, would I have recourse through AIPAD? If an AIPAD member had discovered a trove of my manuscripts and begun to vend them illegally, would it be appropriate to pursue that through AIPAD? And does AIPAD have the authority to adjudicate such a matter and enforce its decisions among its membership?

Your published statement of purpose also notes that "AIPAD Members have agreed to a Code of Ethics: Members agree to conduct dealings with the public, museums, artists and other dealers with honesty and integrity." These too are broad assurances -- in light of the current situation, some might say purposefully vague. Even so, please explain how Kopeikin’s "dealings with" me as a member of the "public" qualifies for that description of "honesty and integrity."

Exactly what "dealings" does this agreement by AIPAD members cover? All? If so, why are dealings with authors seemingly excluded? Can I also ask you for AIPAD’s working definition of "responsible photograph dealers," and inquire as to how someone who violates the copyright of three dozen authors for personal gain fits that definition?

Finally, I must ask you to explain what AIPAD means in asserting that it is "dedicated to creating and maintaining high standards" and that it "maintains ethical standards." (Italics mine.) The word maintain means "practicing as a matter of habit or custom." Its synonyms include upholding, supporting, preserving, defending, and backing. Its synonyms do not include merely suggesting, proposing, recommending, or advising -- those being widely understood as much less rigorous than actual practice or enforcement thereof. What mechanisms are in place for "maintaining . . . high ethical standards" among AIPAD’s membership? Do members pledge themselves to a code of ethics more extensive and specific than the one just cited? Is the board empowered to censure, suspend, or expel members who can be proven to have violated that code?

Unless you can demonstrate to my satisfaction that AIPAD maintains some meaningful standards, I regret to say that I will find it necessary -- in my public commentary on this situation -- to describe that claim as hypocritical misrepresentation and borderline false advertising, and will have to urge you to change your promotional material if you won’t change your internal structure. In any case, I believe it’s long past time for a full disclosure of exactly what self-policing mechanisms, if any, are (and are not) built into AIPAD’s bylaws, policies, rules, and regulations governing the organization and its membership.

Yours,

/s/ A. D. Coleman

Copyright © 2001 by A. D. Coleman. All rights reserved. For reprint permissions contact Image/World Syndication Services, POB 040078, Staten Island, NY 10304-0002 USA; imageworld@nearbycafe.com