On too much and too little

It isn’t the copyright that makes money for the “corporations” it’s their ideas and creations. Copyright law simply protects them from others appropriating their work. It’s like a home security system- it doesn’t earn you any money but it helps protect you from losing it. There is undoubtedly something to be said for the cross pollination of artistic ideas, but the true benefit of copyright protection to the artist is protecting the integrity of their art and any income derived from it. Derivative work is much less of a challenge than outright piracy. Without copyright protection, anyone could snap a picture of your work in a gallery, create and sell prints as their own, create and sell website graphics and templates based on the work, as well as promotional gizmos galore- all without remuneration and, more importantly, recognition.

The ease and economy of publishing, promoting, and monetizing intellectual property argues for stronger not weaker protections to insure the integrity of an artists copyright.

Copyright isn’t a sinister corporate conspiracy to exploit the artist. On the contrary, it makes it possible for the independent artisan to make a living creating artwork. Without it, the industry would quickly finacially favor those that could best promote what they could steal.

You say: “There is undoubtedly something to be said for the cross pollination of artistic ideas…”

Please elaborate!  I think this is at the crux of the disagreement between copyright warriors and and those of us who don’t think IP law helps artists.

I think most of us who support strong copyright protection, do so because we see those who create (fine artists, writers, software programers, photographers, et al) are much more likely to be victimized by those who would use their work without permission than to be limited by someone else’s intellectual rights. I believe that in a world where what we create with our intellect is becoming much more valuable, the need to insure that our work is not purloined becomes much more important. Because the mass publication and distribution of work has become almost a trivial matter, it is also important to be able to preserve the integrity of our work. We often refer to these long periods of protection as “The Mickey Mouse Rule” in that it seems to always be extended just before Mickey slips into Public Domain. Now it is true that Disney has a strong financial interest in retaining the exclusive rights to it’s characters, but it also has an interest in protecting how these American icons will be used. How long would it be before the characters were used to endorse other peoples products? Children’s health products, Novelty gifts, maybe even Mickey and Minnie sex toys!  All of us create within a certain milieu, a paradigm, a frame of reference that defines our style and is part of our art. We should have the right to protect that from interlopers.

As for the cross pollination of ideas, we’ve seen it for years. Parody is a well established artistic form and it’s need to draw on the work of those being parodied has been upheld in the courts. Music sampling has led to an entire new music form. In fact, musical interpretation (whether the song stylings of a lounge singer or the arrangements of a symphony conductor) is imperative to creating unique performances. Every artist is inspired by their heroes in the field. Copyright law doesn’t change that, it only seeks to define what you can call yours, and that works to your benefit more than to your disadvantage.

I’m not arguing that the copyright law, as it stands, is perfect… perhaps not even good, but I will assert that copyright law is necessary. Mostly so for the little guys, because they are the ones needing the most protection. Removing copyright protection would have a devastating effect on all types of intellectual achievements.

It’s not so much about creatives being limited by the IP “rights” of others (though that is important).  It’s about the fact that copyright allows ownership of bits of culture—ownership by the creators of those bits but also ownership by companies.  With corporate money and influence behind the idea of owning bits of culture, bad things like the proposed death of the Internet can happen.

In the end I think we’re talking about the same thing: what’s best for creatives.  The difference is that you think individual creatives need protection, and I think creativity needs protection.

Why shouldn’t corporations have a right to own the piece of culture they create? Corporations are just groups of individuals, aren’t they? Corporations aren’t evil entities out to exploit the hapless individual, their prime goal is to serve we the consumers of their products - whether it be the movie or the popcorn- and to do so in a way that ensures their further existence.

The real danger lies in those that do exploit the creative. The fly by night guy who steals your art and makes prints, or cards, or websites; the weasel that pirates your music or movie; the person who plagiarizes your written work - making money on your labors without compensating you. As an artist (whether individually or as a group) you create things of value. When someone appropriates those things without your permission and compensation, it is every bit as much a theft as if they’d driven your car away. You deserve to have protection and recourse for that. If you chose to give up those rights early, you are welcome to do so. Simply declare your work to be in the public domain or register it with one of the limited rights organizations. What you are advocating, however, is that everyone be forced to abandon their rights. This would very quickly bring an end to, or severely and negatively impact the professional artist of every stripe. If you think I’m overstating the problem, have a conversation with a professional photographer about free stock photography (not a case of piracy, but an illustration of how the devaluation of a product thru the abandonment of copyright has led to the virtual destruction of an industry). I’d hate to see that with painting or sculpture or music…

Our founding Fathers invented copyright to foster, not impede creativity. It has been wildly successful. Just looking at the plethora of galleries and the myriad artists they represent, the thriving music scene, the vibrant writing community attests to the success of the creative crucible made possible by copyright protection.

Our system of protection for creative content is the envy of much of the world. It has been the driving force of innovation for over 2 centuries. Abandoning it for some perceived artistic freedom seems, at best, counterproductive.

The problem is in the way companies can use copyright.  I provided a link in my last comment to an example of the dangerous sort of thing that corporations can (try to) do based on IP law. 

What you described is not going to happen with painting or sculpture, because these media have originals so those artists can always sell originals even when their reproductions are being used freely.

That said, it’s true that photographers, digital artists, writers, and, to some extent, musicians are really seeing their business model change.  They used to be able to make a living by selling reproductions, but that seems to be fading as a viable source of income.  Technology seems to be stealing a business model from these artists, but that’s not really the case, is it? 

Technology (the printing press, records/tapes/CDs) gave them their “sell reproductions” business model in the first place.  Now these artists need to figure out how to evolve with the changing technology.  They need to find new business models for new technology…like their predecessors did last time!  I talk about one idea for how in this article about photography versus painting and broader ideas for how in this one which explains a potential business model for artists who do not use copyright.

I think you underestimate the power of technology when you state that what’s happening to music , photography, and writing, can’t happen to Artists and sculptors. A sculpture can be reproduced in 3 dimensions, to the very smallest detail, starting from as few as 3 photographs, then reproduced in endless numbers without human intervention. Watercolor paintings can be photographed with such clarity that when reproduced, it is difficult if not impossible, to tell which is the original from an arms length away. Oils can be reproduced to the smallest detail by talented painters in China, Korea, India, Vietnam, and countless other places, for next to nothing. You can always sell the original, but for the preponderance of artists, the availability of artwork for far less than they can produce it, will hold their prices down to a fraction of it’s former worth. We haven’t seen this occur yet, but not because it’s not possible, and in time, likely.

As for the PROTECT IP, perhaps it’s not a good idea, but I wouldn’t make up my mind based on one, obviously anti-corporate article in the HBR. I won’t defend the Bill because I don’t know it well enough, but it has been my experience that, when an article is written in the way this one is, it usually portrays a certain point of view without accurately and fairly portraying the opposing opinions and motivations. The important thing is, we can influence the world around us. If Corporations and Unions have undue power, its because they speak up for their interests. We as individuals have the ability to do that also, and we have the ultimate power, namely to elect the people who represent us. If we don’t speak up for our own interests we have no one to blame but ourselves.

It is obvious that there are flaws in the canon of Intellectual Property law, but the answer is not to make it easier for those who would abuse the creative, which is what would happen if the laws are significantly relaxed from where they are now. Before making wholesale changes to a generally successful system of protections, we should carefully examine what we are seeking to accomplish, and analyze whether the changes recommended will accomplish those goals. I’ve yet to be persuaded that the goals you have alluded to…
1) Are not already being accomplished in the present system
2) Would be enhanced by changing the system as it is
3) Would not be used by those wishing to co-opt the new system for their own gain.

Vigilance is the price of freedom. That includes the freedom to create. If a proposed law works against that, work against that law. If you believe that art is best served by rejection of copyright, put your work into public domain and encourage others to do the same. You have personal options in the system we have, I’d like to retain those options for myself and those who think the way I do. What you seem to be advocating would remove those options, committing us all to your path- one that I believe would be disastrous for all the arts. I may be wrong. Perhaps abandoning our rights would lead to a flowering of American culture. I suspect it would lead to the deflowering of our culture. In this case, as it usually is with public policy, the middle ground is the status quo.

One more thing, I would recommend that you discount Mr. Allworth’s somewhat paranoid interpolation of what the Bill means and actually read it. (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/show) As with most bills, one can project into it’s potential enforcement, any nefarious result one wishes to or serves the agenda being promoted. The reality of enforcement would be much different from the alarmist rhetoric.  It always is.

I do embrace free use of my work—click on the smiley face at the bottom of the page for more details.  Also, this very article you’re commenting on is me encouraging people to do the same.

Your opinions on IP law are colored by the fact that you believe that you need copyright for your business as a printer to flourish.

If by flourish you mean that it is important to us that our artists succeed in their careers so that we can establish long term, mutually beneficial relationships, you are correct. In reality, we would benefit by the repeal of copyright laws! Anyone could walk in the door with any image and we’d be able to print as many as they wanted! As it stands, we have to make sure to the best of our ability, that the potential client has the rights to reproduce the work. You’d be surprised how many people come in with a print or original they’ve bought thinking they have the right to make a couple copies for their friends and relatives. It certainly wouldn’t hurt us. We’d have more printing to do. But it would hurt the artist, and whether a client or not, we stick up for them. It’s the right thing to do and it’s the law. We produce very little copyrighted work of our own. It would be much more profitable for us - as do many companies in countries that don’t protect the artists rights - to purloin a piece of art, mass produce it, and market it relentlessly. Please, let’s not resort to personal attacks and innuendo simply because we disagree. I have spent many years in industries whose clients needed the protection of copyright, who have been seriously injured by infringement of those rights, and, fortunately, have had legal recourse to be made whole in the courts. It has been my observation that it is always the artist, the musician, the writer, the creative that is most damaged by copyright infringement. And it is the creative that these laws are designed to protect. If you actually read the text to the Bill you mentioned, you’ll find that it is filled with protections from exactly the fears mentioned in Mr. Allworth’s article. Is the nightmare scenario possible…yes. Is it likely… no.

As for your donating to the world some of your work, I applaud you for taking a step towards the future you imagine. While I wouldn’t recommend doing the same to any of my clients or those I counsel, I respect your desire to act in accordance with your beliefs. As you no doubt noticed, there are no laws preventing you from doing so. I prefer that my clients have the option of controlling how their work is used and portrayed. If they elect not to register their copyright, or abandon it all together, that is their privilege. I urge them not to do so, but it’s their option. And that’s my point. The law, as it stands, gives them a lot of options. Reducing those options works to the artists disadvantage.

I did not mean anything I said as a personal attack.  I was simply pointing out your bias.  Your industry may or may not be doing better in a world where new technologies mean that a lot of us don’t need the services of a printer like you, but I can’t help but think that your business has a lot to do with your response to my article.

As I said a few comments back, we do agree on something.  We both want what’s best for creatives.  We may differ on how to achieve that—you think individual creatives need protection and I think creativity itself needs protection—but at least we’re both interested in the same thing.

I readily admit to having a strong bias on the subject. It comes, however, from decades of serving creatives (in both the music and fine art worlds) and helping them protect their interests. Like all businesses, we exist to serve our clients/customers. We believe that we can’t succeed if they don’t succeed, so our focus is on doing whatever we can to assist them in reaching that goal. It serves them and it serves us. I’m proud to be a businessman. I’m proud that our customers recommend us to their friends. They do that because we have their best interests at heart. Always.

The reason I oppose significantly reducing copyright protections is because I have seen examples of what happens in countries that don’t have strong protections. It doesn’t lead to more and greater creativity, to the contrary, it leads to less creativity and diversity.

I don’t see how the creative muse is being stifled by the laws as they stand (or even by those being proposed). Perhaps I am not fully grasping your viewpoint, but I am yet unconvinced that The U.S. creative culture would benefit by forcing us all to have less control over the fruits of our minds and hands.

I believe that protecting the creative being protects the creative spirit. I think where we diverge is in what we believe will best unencumber the creative self.