Accreditation is important. It is harmless, and builds trust. I have never asked for money, nor more than being jointly accredited with the creative concept. Without this, an artist, writer or scientist is constantly wary of sharing their ideas with fellow creators. Many times I have come across friends, and colleagues who have heard of Plantoid and described it as an original work by Primavera Di Filippi. In the original publicity material FurtherField refers to the work as “Plantoid conceived and developed by Primavera de Filippi”. I’d ask you to consider these points. Head over to www.plantoid.cc (which I registered in April 2015 for the collaboration), and give your views. Do you think that I am unreasonable to seek joint accreditation for the concept? How much is an idea worth, and how much the representation?
This is the reply I received from FurtherField to my request to be mentioned in the publicity and exhibition:
We have consulted with a lawyer who has confirmed that our position is right.
You might well be the co-author of the Google doc, yet copyright does not subsist in an underlying concept or idea, only in a specific work. You did not build the physical Plantoid, nor did you write the code. Therefore, you have no legal claim over the specific Plantoid we are exhibiting, which is an original work made by Primavera.
From a legal standpoint, we have no obligation to credit you, and neither does Primavera. Primavera has already laid down your role in the Plantoid's website, at the following link: http://okhaos.com/plantoids/#history
You have already wasted a considerable amount of our time and energy with this issue. For this reason, you are not welcome at Furthferfield for the opening of the show. And if you continue to threaten us (legally or otherwise), you will no longer be welcome at Furtherfield for any public events in the future. If you make a public statement claiming credit for Primavera's work we will counter it.
I hope that we can put this behind us now.
Ruth and Marc
Do you agree with this position? Or does this reduce the current work on display to a craft, rather than an artistic work? Does burying my name at the word 573 of a “history” page really count as accreditation? My view is that if you find the sculpture beautiful, or interesting as an art work, then part of that appreciation is in the idea or concept that it embodies. FurtherField you are our friends and neighbours. We ask you to reconsider. Conceptual art is not nothing. An idea has value. As does the skill and craft of the maker. Both deserve accreditation. Accreditation is important.