To all those who have been participating in this discussion:
Thanks for your comments.
Some things that make the whole issue very clear:
###
Firstly, I have charged Bea with illegitimately re-appropriating my project (Mrs. Jeevan Jham) as her own (without crediting me at all) and then proposing to build on it. She never informed me and was never granted my permission for this.
Her response to this (in an e-mail sent to me) is that it was a collaborative project co-authored by both of us. She has accepted that it was a mistake on her part not to credit me for it and has apologized for this.
I have asserted earlier that even if Bea is to be believed, she has no right to individually start building on something which she singularly doesn't own. She never informed me about this or asked my permission. Hence by Bea's own admission she is guilty on the first count. Her apology comes too late and is useless as it still does not give me back the right to continue to develop a project which I initiated.
###
Secondly, I have claimed that the ‘nungu collective’ did not exist when Bea applied for the grant as a collective and the grant will solely benefit her.
The direct proof of this lies in the nungu resume listed on the Rhizome website itself. It explicitly names Bea and me as the only members of nungu. This partnership broke down in February this year and the ‘collective nature’ of nungu came to an end. The resume attached to the grant proposal does not mention any new collaborators. In fact it tries to imply that Bea = nungu. Bea’s CV and nungu’s CV are written concurrently: Bea’s date of birth followed by nungu’s d.o.b., her address followed by nungu’s IP address etc. Bea also states that nungu is her digital manifestation! Then how is nungu a collective???
Also, the grant proposal clearly states in the budget section that the grant amount will (besides for equipment) pay for only one artist i.e. B. Gibson and one unnamed programmer. Hence there is no doubt that it is she alone and not any collective which will benefit from the grant.
###
Thirdly, I had accused Bea of claiming undue credit in her resume for work not done by her.
Bea has accepted (in an e-mail sent to me) that the omission of individual names is a mistake on her part and that this could make it seem that she is primarily responsible for all the projects. She has since sent me an updated credit list with all contributors duly mentioned which put things into perspective. However, again the remedial measure comes too late. Further, Bea has credited herself as a ‘collaborating artist’ on several projects, which is a lie.
All contributors mentioned in the credit list (including me) have impressive resumes (I don’t mean to be immodest), which go back to at least five to six years; they have done at least one or two award winning projects, have won important scholarships and grants and have worked on several commissioned projects in the past.
Bea has never ever individually executed a single work of art in her entire life and can at the most (illegitimately – according to me) claim to be a collaborator on only two art projects: Masala_x and Mrs. Jeevan Jham done in the last year.
She is asked to submit her personal resume and academic qualifications prior to winning the grant – without frills and fancy writing. That would make the facts very obvious to all.
I hope I have made things very clear and provided enough facts to support my claims. The onus is on Bea to either own up to her mistakes publicly (she has done so privately to me – which is of no consequence) or to refute the charges by proving the facts presented by me as false.
The important issue here is my right to continue work on a project initiated by me – which has been illegitimately snatched away. The grant amount does not interest me in the least. If I have to, I will apply for a grant at my own sweet time. I am currently engaged in executing a commissioned project which is more important to me presently, but I do not intend to gift away Mrs. Jeevan Jham to Bea as a gracious gesture from a generous Indian to this British visitor.
Thank you for hearing me out.
Regards,
Vishal Rawlley
charges on Bea/ NUNGU proved
-
Type: discussion
Comments
hi v & all,
just want to get a handle on this:
vishal R wrote:
> Firstly, I have charged Bea with illegitimately re-appropriating
> my project
okay, that's a grievance.
> Her response to this (in an e-mail sent to me) is that it was a
> collaborative project co-authored by both of us. She has accepted
> that it was a mistake on her part not to credit me for it and has
> apologized for this.
fair enough.
> I have asserted earlier that even if Bea is to be believed, she
> has no right to individually start building on something which she
> singularly doesn't own.
okay, here is where the real issue starts. lets just say for the sake
of clarity, the both of you contributed equally in terms of time and
creative input to the original project. if this is true she totally has
the right to build on the project independently unless you agreed when
you first partnered to specifically *not* develop the "codebase"
seperately in the future.
however, if i or you conceptualize a project, and then hire others to
realize it, then you or i do indeed have exclusive right to further
development, the programmer or web designer has no right at all. the
company who casts the koons puppy has no right to make extras and sell
them. the problem really comes down to the word collaboration. it is
assumed that if it is a "collaborative," everyone involved is on equal
footing, equal contribution, equal right.
gonna skip down to your next remark
> The important issue here is my right to continue work on a project initiated by me
at this point it stands to reason that you indeed *also* have the right
to continue to develop the existing codebase independently of Bea.
Perhaps the only real legal question is who has the right to use the
name "Nungu," as the name could be considered a legacy asset, whereas
when the codebase gets its first modification, it no longer exists as a
legacy asset, its a new asset.
i suppose the question can only be resolved by absolutely asserting that
Bea was working for you on your idea, that the project is your progeny.
and the outcome of this i hope will in the future, establish the term
"collaboration" as meaning an equal investment of labor, intellect, and
ownership.
just want to stress that i'm not taking sides here, i'd just like to
know more about the nature of your original agreement. even if the
whole thing was entirely your idea, by accepting the term
"collaborative," you are agreeing to equal footing. if it was on the
other hand a "collaboration" between you, the artist, and bea, the
designer and implementer, then perhaps you are in the right. just one
more time so i'm perfectly clear is it a "collaborative" or a
"collaboration."
with everyone and their grandmother participating in a "new media
collaborative" we need to establish precedents that establish just what
this really means. in my mind at this point, it means that everyone has
equal footing, otherwise its not a "collaborative" its a company, with a
well established hierarchy.
like toknow what all think on the topic.
best,
j
This Nungu situation exposes the limitations that are part of all institutions – even innovative non-profit organizations such as rhizome. The "utopic" moment is over. The sandbox has a rupture, and the sand is getting out. Rhizomers must now be supportive for the next stage in this reality check.
I have been reading the postings on the Nungu incident, and it is quite appaling to see how it is starting to become a gossip column more than a constructive exchange of information. Some people are attacking others left and right. And we even have a journalist from India who would rather stay anonymous… Drama!
Somebody needs to moderate this situation before it gets out of hand. When "we" start pointing the finger, it is no longer about disemination but about personal/corporate issues – or plainly self-interest. If anything, this points to how, in the end, deep down, "we" may be self-centered, which is why innovative institutions end up getting absorbed so briskfully into the capitalist powerstructure. Let us be wary of this, please.
As to what collaborative means, well, I think that someone with legal background should comment on John's posting. However, I will say that whenever I collaborate with others, and somehow think of something that could help the collaborative project move further, I always check with my partners. This has always worked for me and those who I work with. But it seems that Nungu has problems on the inside that need to be straightened out before they can be fully understood on the postings at rhizome.
I just want to emphasize that this incident should be a learning experience for everyone that has been supporting Rhizome up to this point. I am certainly greatful for all the things that I have been able to learn and share by being part of the community – even when I stay mostly silent.
Part of the problem in this situation is that it is dealing with a country (India) that is not the U.S. It looks like globalization is no longer an abstraction but a legal matter.
We need an "official" (I really dread that word) statement as to where this stands or will stand in terms of the commision. I am certainly anxious to know as it is something that will affect collaborative work in the future. With all my support.
Peace,
Eduardo Navas
http://www.navasse.net