Early-morning Copyright Musings
I wrote this on the train into Toronto yesterday morning:
At the Technology in the Arts conference, Elsie Orenstein gave a presentation on copyright for artists and arts managers. Although I haven’t been engaged in the discussions on copyright reform for as long as some of my colleagues, I must admit that I was still shocked when Orenstein told the audience that she felt the current Copyright Act is inadequate for protecting copyright in the digital age.
This, of course, is a sore spot and point of contention for many. On the one hand, many of us recognize and lobby for the need for copyright reform. On the other, scores of lawsuits relating to copyright infringement in digital media are being filed based purely on current copyright law. Often, the very entities which preach about current copyright law being too lax are the ones who are also finding ways to abuse it.
I believe that some of the terminology in the Copyright Act needs to be changed so that it speaks more generally to concept than specific technologies. I also believe this type of revision is very different from what many envision when they speak of “modernizing” the language in the Copyright Act.
Because of how quickly technology and its use is changing, stripping the Act of technology-specific language is wholly important. Many of the key players in the music industry are now trying to determine whether p2p file sharing constitutes a “broadcast”, and those in the literary industries are doing the same with the concept of “publication”. Rather than probing the intent of this terminology, many find themselves in a labyrinth of legal and technical jargon as they try to retrofit the technologies and methods used online and in other digital media to the terminology being used by an archaic document.
For the most part, the core concepts behind the rights and remedies provided by the Copyright Act are sound. Consultation with the various creator groups and user/public interest/consumer groups needs to happen for us to better define and revisit some of the particularities of the rights.
With the dropping cost of production and distribution of creative works, the emergence of the User Generated Content movement can not be ignored in discussions of copyright. Not only has it made us more aware of the user rights which need to be protected, but it is changing the way we see the motivation for and value of creative works.
Although not entirely accurate, the current Copyright Act sees creative works as being the product of a limited number of people and having monetary value. This is no longer entirely true. More than ever before (or perhaps simply more visible than before), people are participating in the act of artistic creation. Not all of this activity, however, is being done for monetary gain. A hobby which used to be limited to the elite, who could afford the time and money for things like painting classes from a practised artisan, is now accessible to and being practised by hundreds of thousands of individuals. Not only that, but this new community of creators are able to publish their work to an expansive audience with little investment in time, commitment or money.
This poses a problem to the creators whose artistic practise is not merely driven by the desire to create, but so much that they need to find a way to sustain themselves financially based purely on their creative work.
So, now I’ll post the scary question which I have yet to hear others ask:
Does it still make sense for creators to attempt to make a living on their creative works?
For a pessimist, the situation looks quite dire. The concept of the starving artist is not new, and creators have always struggled with how they can generate enough income from their artistic practise to not need supplementary jobs and live above the poverty line. Now that competition for patrons is becoming more fierce (especially because much of this competition is making their creations available for free), it looks as though fewer people are willing to pay for an artistic experience.
But we certainly have no shortage of artists (even living ones) who are making more than a comfortable living from what they do. Whether they be performer, writer or visual artist, we have a fair number of superstars at the national, international and local level. Joining the ranks of superstars is a whole other challenge, exasperated not directly by technology being able to dilute an artist’s work, but by the infusion of a new class of creators producing work primarily for their own enjoyment.
We should look to copyright law as an extension of our understanding and agreement on the workings of the creative industry, not as a business model in and of itself.
Tags: art, business models, copyright, technology in the arts conferenceRelated posts
By Julianna Yau
On May 14, 2008
At 9:53 pm
Comments : 0
Print This Post
