what’s on 調査・資料作成
2026.2.3
Young London Exhibition at 20/20 Gallery in London, Ontario.Don Vincent, 1966, courtesy of arcpost.ca
“Has the Artist Been Paid?”, courtesy of CARFAC/RAAV
|
The following analysis examines the artist fee guidelines developed and implemented by CARFAC-RAAV, a Canadian artists’ association, in response to issues surrounding artist remuneration in Japan that have become increasingly visible since the COVID-19 pandemic. First established in 1968 as the world’s first artist-led fee standard, the CARFAC-RAAV guidelines are distinctive in that they carry effective enforceability through their linkage to public funding systems.This study outlines the historical background of the guidelines, their relationship to cultural policy, and the theoretical framework through which exhibition fees are understood not as compensation for labor but as payment for an exhibition right as part of copyright. It further considers the implications of the Canadian model for ongoing discussions around the development of artist fee guidelines in Japan, while identifying key challenges involved in any attempt to adapt such a system to a different institutional and cultural context. |
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, discussions around the possibility of establishing artist fee guidelines in Japan have gained renewed momentum. During the pandemic, comparisons with compensation systems for artists abroad made visible the structural instability of artists’ professional status within Japan’s art sector. This situation led to public petitions urging the Japanese government to implement emergency measures to support artists and art workers. The collective art for all was formed in 2020 in response to this petition movement, primarily by artists and art workers. The petition gathered nearly 5,000 signatures and contributed, albeit modestly, to the realization of government support programs for freelance artists, technical staff, and small-scale organizations under the framework of COVID-19 cultural relief measures (https://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/geijutsubunka/katsudoshien/). While art for all achieved certain results during the early phase of the pandemic, the movement also exposed deeper structural problems: the fragility of artists’ awareness of their own rights and the persistent instability of artists’ social and economic positions. In response, art for all initiated a series of practical seminars for artists, addressing topics such as finances, mobility and migration, harassment prevention, workers’ compensation, and care, in order to strengthen professional knowledge and mutual support（https://artforall.jp/).
Why the Canadian Artist Fee Schedules?
This report focuses on the artist fee guidelines developed by CARFAC-RAAV in Canada. These guidelines were established by a national alliance of artists and function as a de facto standard within the Canadian art ecosystem. Institutions that comply with the guidelines are regarded as credible and professional, while failure to do so may result in the reassessment or withdrawal of public funding. In this sense, the guidelines possess real enforceability rather than remaining symbolic recommendations.
What Is CARFAC-RAAV?
CARFAC (Canadian Artists’ Representation) is a national organization representing professional visual artists in Canada, while RAAV (Le Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec) represents artists in the Quebec region. Founded in 1968, CARFAC established the first artist-led fee guidelines in the world, setting standards for fair compensation and copyright protection, and RAAV, founded in 1990, operates in partnership with CARFAC as a unified body advocating for artists’ rights, fair compensation, and improved working conditions across Canada.
Why it was Possible in Canada
One of the defining features of Canadian cultural policy is its contrast with that of the United States, despite both belonging to the North American context. In the U.S., the dominance of large-scale capital-driven entertainment industries has fostered a market-oriented logic in which competition and survival of the strongest prevail. In contrast, Canada has developed a cultural policy framework that emphasizes public responsibility for the arts, cultural diversity, and the protection of creators’ rights. A crucial element of this framework is the establishment of the Canada Council for the Arts in 1957, which institutionalized sustained public funding for artistic creation. In parallel, Canadian copyright law has evolved to recognize artists’ rights, including exhibition rights, as fundamental legal protections. These policy and legal structures provide the foundation that allows artist fee guidelines to function effectively.
A Historically Groundbreaking Initiative
The CARFAC artist fee guidelines were first established in 1968, a period marked globally by social movements demanding greater equality and rights. In Canada, artists’ rights activism during this era crystallized into a permanent organization and a lasting set of rules. The initiative reportedly began with a small newspaper advertisement placed by artist Jack Chambers, calling for the creation of an artist-led organization to protect artists’ rights. Artists were invited to respond with a five-dollar cheque, and the response was immediate and widespread(https://carfac-raav.ca/about/history/). Despite Canada’s vast geography and the limited communication technologies of the time, the movement grew steadily. Within three years, artists were engaging directly with legislators to demand recognition and fair compensation. The result was not a temporary protest, but a durable institutional legacy that continues to shape artistic labor conditions today.
A Guideline with Legal and Practical Force
A defining feature of the CARFAC-RAAV guidelines is their enforceability, ensured through their detailed structure and their linkage to public funding mechanisms. Developed in collaboration with lawyers and policy experts, the guidelines articulate concrete fee structures using precise categories and numerical standards(https://carfac-raav.ca/fees/). Their effectiveness lies not only in their formulation, but in the mechanisms established to ensure compliance. By aligning the guidelines with public funding bodies, CARFAC-RAAV created a system in which institutions that fail to respect artist fees risk losing access to grants.
Post-COVID Global Attention
A particularly emblematic example of recent revisions to the CARFAC-RAAV fee schedule is its response to online exhibitions. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, online exhibitions rapidly became widespread. However, opinions differed internationally as to whether they should be treated as equivalent to traditional, physically situated exhibitions. CARFAC-RAAV clearly positions online exhibitions as one form of exhibition and states that, in principle, they should be subject to the same level of artist fees (see the “Online Exhibitions” section of the Fee Schedule). This decision reflects an approach that assigns value not to the format of an exhibition, but to the fundamental fact that an artwork is made public and available for viewing.
The most crucial point for understanding the CARFAC-RAAV guidelines is that exhibition fees are defined not as compensation for labour, but as payment for an exhibition right, understood as a form of copyright. This conceptual framework is closely connected to amendments to Canadian copyright law that have taken place since the 1970s (Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985). By grounding remuneration in the act of exhibiting and publicly presenting a work—regardless of how much time or effort its production required—this approach avoids many of the difficulties associated with calculating artists’ labour time. Questions such as how long the production took, or whether conceptual development should be counted as work hours, become irrelevant within this framework. Furthermore, exhibition fees are determined according to the budget scale of the hosting institution. This structure is designed both to ensure that smaller organisations can realistically meet their obligations, and to prevent larger institutions from paying unreasonably low fees. This logic corresponds to the development of the Canadian Copyright Act, particularly through its 1988 and 2012 amendments, which progressively clarified the exhibition right as an explicit author’s right.
Structural and Institutional Challenges
While the CARFAC-RAAV fee guidelines offer many valuable insights for discussions in Japan, they cannot be transplanted wholesale. First, Japan has a relatively limited system of stable, ongoing public funding for artists, and therefore lacks a strong institutional foundation for linking fee guidelines to grant eligibility. Second, the idea of understanding exhibition fees as part of copyright—rather than as discretionary payments or labour compensation—is not yet widely shared within the Japanese art world. In addition, the organisational infrastructure that would enable artists to negotiate collectively and engage in sustained dialogue with political and administrative bodies remains underdeveloped. Any attempt to formulate fee guidelines in Japan must begin by acknowledging these structural differences and by envisioning a gradual, context-sensitive approach.
Introducing the Canadian fee guidelines directly into the Japanese context is unrealistic. Cultural policy frameworks, funding systems, and the social recognition of artists differ substantially between the two countries. Nevertheless, the principles and structures embodied in these guidelines constitute an important reference point. Two elements are particularly significant: first, the clear positioning of remuneration as a right rather than as an act of goodwill or institutional discretion; and second, the simultaneous design of mechanisms that ensure compliance with that right. These issues are unavoidable in any serious discussion of artist fee guidelines in Japan.
April Britsky, Executive Director of CARFAC-RAAV, offers the following advice to those working toward similar frameworks in Japan: there is no need to aim for a perfect guideline from the outset. It is sufficient to begin with a short document of one or two A4 pages and to revise it over time. What matters most is building numbers, forming union-like solidarity, and establishing connections with political representatives. Equally important is the resolve not to be discouraged by the backlash that will inevitably arise. Her words underscore that the debate around artist fee guidelines in Japan should be understood not as a short-term campaign, but as a long-term process of institutional formation.
—
Hanako Murakami
A contemporary artist based in Paris. Her practice investigates the origins of photography and the conditions of vision, approaching the act of seeing itself through poetic installation.Recent exhibitions include the Guangzhou Image Triennial (2025), the Daegu Photo Biennale (2025), and Nineteenth-Century Photography Now at the Getty Museum. She has participated in residencies at Le Fresnoy – Studio national des arts contemporains, the Getty Research Institute, and the Villa Albertine. Her works are held in the collections of CNAP (Centre national des arts plastiques, France) and the Getty Museum.Alongside her artistic practice, she is involved in initiatives addressing the institutional and social conditions of artistic practice, serving as a representative of the Artists’ Union Japan and as a co-founder of art for all. http://www.hanakomurakami.net