The Australian Centre for Contemporary Art is scrambling to limit damage to its reputation after it was accused of breaching artists' copyright in its latest exhibition.
In the installation, which opened on Monday at the Melbourne gallery, artists and the public are invited to email works to the gallery. These are vetted, printed and displayed in a process streamed live to a website.
But the project, My work is in the Australian Centre for Contemporary Art, is a promotion for Hewlett-Packard, and the fine print gives the technology giant extensive copyright. These rights are ''perpetual, non-revocable, worldwide and royalty free'' and give permission for the works to be used ''in any way whatsoever'', including in ad campaigns.
A Sydney artist, Deborah Kelly, has been instrumental in a social media campaign to alert artists around the world to the copyright abuse after she first noticed the fine print.
''Every artist wants to be shown in ACCA,'' said Kelly, whose work sells for up to $15,000. ''It strikes me as astounding that a fully funded gallery should be exploiting artists with conditions like that.''
Kelly, who had an entry rejected, said she was shocked that the gallery would allow works of political protest to be censored by a commercial partner. ''They refused to print it, saying it wasn't appropriate for public display. Actually, what's not appropriate for public display is the exploitation of artists.''
Damon Kowarsky, a Melbourne artist, said: ''I'm giving away my work forever. [The licence terms] are too broad - HP could start printing the works on T-shirts.''
Both said their protest artworks were rejected by the ''curators'', staff from Hewlett-Packard's local advertising agency, Clemenger BBDO.
Kay Campbell, ACCA's director, defended the project, saying it was aimed at the general public. While artists were welcome to take part, the terms and conditions were clear. ''There is nothing covert here … and we believe that artists won't sign up if they are not happy with them.''
But yesterday a clause giving Hewlett-Packard licence to use the ''likeness'' of participants was removed from the project's website and Clemenger, which did not return calls, was adding separate terms and conditions for artists, said Campbell.
The existing conditions remained on the site last night.
Tamara Winikoff, the chief executive of the National Association for the Visual Arts, said ACCA's prestige added to the controversy. ''Obviously the imprimatur of the institution is something that needs to be carefully guarded.''
She said the gallery's swift response was indicative of how seriously it was taking the accusations.
The furore is particularly embarrassing for ACCA. Under the artistic direction of Juliana Engberg, the gallery has long been a champion of artists whose work protests against the insidious power of corporations, including Americans Barbara Kruger, whom the gallery showed in 2005, and Jenny Holzer, exhibited this year.
''It's appalling that a public art institution has no regard for artists' rights,'' said Kowarsky, who argued for one ''decent'' agreement for everyone who entered.