Artists who believe in copyright are like Tea Partyists.
The similarity lies in where these groups place their priorities.
As far as I understand it, one of the tenants of Tea Partyism is the idea that the wealthy—both human people and legal people (corporations)—deserve any and all tax breaks they get. The stated reasoning behind this belief is that if the wealthy are allowed to keep more of their money they will reinvest it wisely in society and in that way improve the economy. Underlying this reasoning is a secret dream. All Tea Partyists want to believe that one day they will be rich, and, when that day comes, they want to be able to keep as much of that wealth as possible.
Similarly, artists who support copyright believe that it protects the sanctity of intellectual property. They reason that if artists are allowed to control the use of their creative output they will create more and in that way contribute more to society. Of course, every artist also thinks that one day something she-he makes will be popular or important enough for everyone to want a piece of it. When that day comes, the artist will make a killing on licensing fees and copyright infringement lawsuits.
In other words, both the Tea Partyists and the artists who champion copyright are focused on their future potential wealth.
Gwenn Seemel
This Looks Like A Job For A Chicano! (Mexican-American)
2008
acrylic on bird’s eye
19 x 25 inches
(Part of Apple Pie, a series about the American identity.)
What if instead of looking to a possible one-day maybe world, Tea Partyists and artists who use copyright looked at the world as it stands today? A world where the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer. A world where corporations—not artists—own the rights to a good deal of our favorite bits of culture.
A world that doesn’t have to be this way.
If creatives work together to invalidate copyright law, we can at least insure that culture-making is possible in the future—a worthy cause in itself—but our actions can have more widespread consequences too. We can change the way laws are made.
Currently, copyright has been extended almost indefinitely by corporate interests manipulating lawmakers. The original 14 years of copyright have now become 100+ years, and Congress hasn’t shown us that they’ll deny corporations extensions if asked for more. If artists can overturn intellectual property law, we might be able to rekindle the original spirit of law-making in this country—for the people and by the people, not for the corporations and by the corporations.
In other words, invalidating copyright could clean up some of the mess that Tea Partyists and their ilk keep making.
RELATED ARTICLES:
- Why I make art / Pourquoi je crée l’art
- On owning culture
- Artists are future-makers.
CATEGORIES: - Free culture - Philosophy -
(4) Comments / Commentaires: Artists who believe in copyright are like Tea Partyists.
It is funny how were trained to think of the future, isn’t it? Kids are naturally really good at the now and adults are too good at the future. Looking for that happy medium…
I think you go too far in lumping all persons with copywrite interests together. Many of us artists fully realize that we will never make enough money to live on, much less get rich from our artistic work, that is not why we do it. Personally I am often frusterated that so many people think that as a musician I should work for free, or at the most minimum wage. Copywrite also works to at least try and protect what happens to our art when it goes out into the world. Many people today feel that they can take someone elses works and do whatever they like with it. You could just as easily post art work without permission on your web site, sell it, say it was yours, change it, any number of things that violate someone elses artistic work. Copywrite laws work to at least try and prevent these sorts of problems. Yes corporations use copywrite to do all sorts of bad things, from our perspective, and I’m not claiming there are no problems, but to say we just should toss the whole thing would effect much more than just businesses.
I don’t think artists should work for free. I couldn’t work for free and I don’t. I wrote about my business model that doesn’t use copyright here. No copyright ≠ no money.
I also don’t think that copyright helps protect against the infringements that you are talking about. A much more effective way of fighting that sort of thing is through social pressure, calling hacks out on your blog and that sort of thing. If done well, it not only makes the hack look stupid, it also makes you and your work look a lot more desirable. And it does all that without damaging culture-making in the way that copyright law does.
There should be a certain amount of copying that goes on, both for the health of the cultural ecosystem (spreading the nutritious culture around) and also to sort out the stuff that is worth copying from the stuff that isn’t.
Adriana...
Whoa, now there’s something to think about. It’s hard to focus on today, though, when we’re trained from birth to always ‘plan for the future’ and make a 10 year plan
But I love the idea of breaking down these rules. I get so much inspiration and fuel from other artists that it’s hard to imagine trying to create my work in a vacuum.
--- -- - --- - ---- - - --- ----- -- -