Dear Sir, I'd like to address my comments to the community at large, regarding artists, artwork and copyright. This letter has been prompted by the arrogance of the Bermuda Telephone Company and the inertia of the Bermuda Society of Art towards the issue of copyright in the Bermuda Society of Arts Telephone Directory Cover Artwork Competition.

According to the entry form, which includes the logos of the Bermuda Society of Art (BSoA) and the Bermuda Telephone Company (BTC), the contest is open to all mediums, and the artwork must be original, signed by the artist, and not previously published. All entries will be judged, the winner receiving $2,500 in exchange for "ownership and usage rights'' by BTC.

I would like to make it clear to the public that the terms of the contract award $2,500 in exchange for "ownership of the work, which will not be returned, together with sole and exclusive rights to make reproduction in any form of the winning entry for the entire term of the copyright subsisting in that work''. I'll explain what this means shortly.

Last year the BSoA queried this contract, and BTC tacitly agreed that the licence to these rights should be for only one year. This year the contract was published again unchanged, and unchallenged until last week.

Unsurprisingly, BTC officials have adamantly taken the position that for $2500 they get the artwork and all rights, for ever and ever. If the winning artist doesn't like it, they have said, we'll simply pick another one.

Mr. Editor, this is cultural blackmail. Totally unacceptable. There is no law against this kind of exploitation; BTC may ask what they like in return for their money. Where, though, has the BSoA been in negotiating the rights of artists against this astounding display of arrogance? This is a case of artists, and art organisations knowing little about their rights, and the public knowing even less. The BTC knows exactly what it wants, and being in a position of power in relation to the artist, is in a position to abuse that power.

In their anxiety for exposure, Bermuda's artists feel they must put up with exorbitant gallery commissions or risk isolation. It hearkens back to the old argument of who really creates art -- the artist or the museum? Is it in the creation or the perception of the art that makes it art? Somehow Hamilton gallerists have begun to equate their establishments and their exposure to the more fashionable salons of SoHo, or the Upper East Side, charging artists recently as much as 50% commission to be shown. Or maybe it's just the rent.

Artists pay rent, buy food, raise children and pay taxes just like the rest of the country, yet only in the past five years has a certain respect for the work of Bermuda's artists begun to illuminate our national character. We continue to struggle against enormous odds to make ends meet in exchange for the privilege of creating Bermuda's cultural identity. Is this our reward? I am tempted to draw further inferences on BTC's cultural myopia from BTC's local rate charges and the vital need of this community to talk, but I won't.

Why is BTC doing this competition? Is there some kind of altruism that I'm unaware of that the BTC intends by associating with the BSoA? What -- that in exchange for stripping artists of their rights to their own artwork the BSoA gains additional membership? A Faustian bargain if I've ever heard one. Does the BTC think that in their anxiety for exposure, in the prestige of being on the cover of the telephone book, the telephone book for God's sake, that artists will throw away all their self-respect and accede to any demand? First of all, there is a difference between fine art and "work for hire''. In layman's terms, if you acquire a work of fine art from an artist or gallery, you have acquired the physical object only. The rights to the use of the image of that work resides with the artist. That's international copyright law. That means that you cannot, say, take a photograph or reproduction of the work you have just bought and resell it, or make your own Christmas cards using the image, without permission of the artist. If you do so without permission, you are breaking the law, and are liable to suit and damages. An artist may elect to give you permission, or grant you a licence to use that image in specific ways in exchange for a fee.

Think of it from the artist's point of view. What BTC are demanding in return for $2,500 is not only your artwork, but the right to reproduce your artwork on anything, in any quantity, to sell anywhere, for any price, for every, without paying you an additional cent. Oh, and because it is sole and exclusive, that means you can't do anything with it either. For ever. Well, your life plus fifty years anyway, but then who's counting. Sound fair to you? Don't care? Then by all means go right ahead. But what kind of artwork are BTC going to get for such a cavalier attitude? Certainly not the best any artist I know is capable of.

Let's clarify this. This is a design competition, not an art competition.

Under the terms of this competition an artist is not producing art, but "work for hire''. Under "work for hire'' as in an advertising firm, the designer agrees that the copyright of the work they are hired to do resides with the employer. The designer has no rights to the work he produces for his employer.

The correct and sensible thing for BTC to do would be to agree that for $2500 it acquires the artwork and specific rights to the image for one year -- specified on what, how many, where, for how long, and what price. Telephone book covers, on the web site, a print, calendar, perhaps a postcard. After one year the rights revert to the artist, so that he or she may continue to benefit from the work. If BTC wished to continue use of the image in some form they may then negotiate with the artist a specific licence.

If BTC feels this is inappropriate, then the BSoA should dissociate itself from this competition. The BSoA logo should be removed from the entry form, the artwork removed to BTC premises and the judging and exhibition held there.

To do less is a gross misrepresentation of the BSoA membership and a disservice to all Bermuda's artists.

DAN DEMPSTER City of Hamilton Who was Cox addressing? February 5, 2000 Dear Sir, In Paula Cox's address to BIBA, she answered a question not posed by the audience; she gave a solution to a problem that does not exist.

She discussed her changes (to Immigration) apparently designed to eliminate/stop qualified Bermudians from being blocked access to (higher) positions in the International business sector.

Her audience probably felt; every qualified Bermudian is fully/well employed with excellent career prospects; no `ceilings' encountered.

What these (BIBA) employers are experiencing is that the imported "expats'' leave the Islands too soon, typically after less than four years. This (un-legislated) high turnover already comprises their service/product and threatens their industry's competitiveness with other domiciles or the historical home-office base of these exempted companies. In addition, note that a significant number of Bermudians with (world-class) qualifications seek `real world'/overseas experience (career/life-style).

A better audience for Ms Cox's address would be "qualified'' Bermudians with: a college education, and post graduate qualifications (i.e. CA/CPA or Bar member, etc) and a couple of years experience in the International Business sector here in Bermuda. Better yet she should poll that group to establish what are the problems they face or perceive as insiders and then work on solutions.

By answering a question not posed; addressing a non-existent problem, I can only believe she is politically-motivated and addressing an audience not present. She is pandering to voting Bermudians who are "outsiders'' (from International Business) and (understandably) `clue-less' with regard to the International Business sectory; but (understandably) eager to benefit more materially from the Golden Goose.

Companies within this sector wish to be exempt from meddling as well as taxes.

Successful businesses often react "in anticipation'' of the market or perceived onerous legislation and in this instance that might create the problem that qualified Bermudians lost the International Business sector; an excellent place to work within their lovely, Island home.

ANDY X. PAT Devonshire PS.I believe in "Bermuda for the Bermudians'' and no country should manage its affairs for the benefit of foreigners; but that doesn't sell papers.

Thank you for generosity February 8, 2000 Dear Sir, I would like to thank all those who generously donated their used clothing and shoes recently to the Guatemala Relief Fund. Also to the many people who kindly stopped and helped load the two recent containers sent to those in desperate need in Guatemala.

In the past five years, The Guatemala Relief Fund has successfully sent 7 containers of used clothes and shoes which have helped to clothe thousands in desperate need. Thousands of children and adults will benefit from your generosity.

Lastly, none of the above would have been possible without the amazing financial help received from corporations like Fidelity International, Chubb Atlantic, Butterfield & Vallis, Gibbons Deposit, White Spruces Investments, Business Services of Bermuda, Transworld Oil, Stuarts on Reid Street, Argus Insurance, Stockton Re, Griffiths and Wanklyn, Tops Ltd., Vallis & Hayward, Burrows and Lightbourn, John Barritt & Son Ltd., Arnolds Tile, Pembroke Tile & Stone, Swiss Re, Arthur Morris, Christensen & Co., Mailboxes Unlimited, Ernst and Young, Ace Foundation, Euroba Management, General Atlantic Group Limited, The Reefs, DFS Holdings, International Advisory Services Ltd., Bermuda Public Services Association, Bermuda Industrial Union, Southampton Princess, Bermuda Export Sea Transfer (BEST), Meyer Freight and the many individuals who donated funds towards the shipping of the this aid.

From the people of Guatemala -- MUCHAS GRACIAS! NORMA R. THOMSON Founder of The Guatemala Relief Fund