Why cash and copyright are bad news for creativity
In this cross-posting from The Conversation Dan Hunter of Swinburne University of Technology explains why current copyright laws are actually a hinderance to creativity.
Imagine you were asked to write a law that encouraged creativity. What would it look like? Whatever your answer, it’s pretty clear that it wouldn’t look like copyright.
Which is weird, right? Because copyright is supposed to be the law that spurs creativity. The problem, it turns out, is that the central features of copyright are directly opposed to the things that support creativity.
Creativity is a tricky thing to understand, and we have very little insight into what animates the creative spark and why some people are more creative than others.
I think many Creative Directors would be unhappy to come back from the Xmas break to find that their income had been slashed in order to boost their creativity.
On the other hand, Agency Directors would be delighted.
I like this article.
Yet to decide whether I fully agree or not. I understand where you are coming from, and you craft a valid case, but…. for many artists, the industry can be tough to navigate, living off a shoe-string, looking for that big break.
Once you get the big break, the same work you have always produced suddenly gets valued at a higher price.
I think you can’t really have one without the other though. You have authors like Oscar Wilde for example, who – during their own life span – weren’t particularly successful, and in fact, quite the opposite.
What about the likes of Apple? Who arguably have never created anything by themselves throughout their existence, and to this day, still fight off legal battles to safe guard their – I’ll admit – ability to adapt different modules and technologies – rather than their sheer ingenuity. Maybe if those early tech users had trademarked their work, Apple might not be as big?
To conclude, I think creativity will always be there, how to keep it going – after fame – will always be the million dollar question. Musicians and first albums always seem to be the best mix, few go on to produce high quality work throughout the careers – except Britney Spears of course, I gest.
I think I am more confused on this subject from where I set out, but I think my point is, you need both, nature vs nurture, men and women, cats and dogs, and sun and moon?
OK, even taking into point this is a high level article of a pretty complex issue, I can’t help one obvious thing is being either overlooked or glossed over.
In terms of artist being less productive or doing ‘reducing their output’ when being paid, I can’t help to feel the obvious thing here is that more often or not, when an creative is being paid, they don’t own the copyright and probably feel less enthusatic because of that. So the matter is less whether they are being paid, but whether they feel it’s their own work. This is even discounting the point, often when they are being paid, they are working to a brief to a audience that they might not otherwise be trying to reach.
The other point of long funding artists, it comes down which artists deserve this boon, and according to who, and who sets the standard? What opinion or insight dersves a long term income without oversight? Even if you establish some fair standard for this, how do you filter out the ‘authentic artists’ to those that are trying to play the system?
So while I wouldn’t stay that the current copyright laws are great (let alone perfect), maybe instead of arguing against copyright, since there are already things like the creative commons licence, the better path is working out how to give creators better protectable ownership of their work and seeing how the react under those circumstances….
The problem with this article is that it assumes all creative work is commissioned.
The best work comes when the muse takes you. Copyright then creates income from the use of this work. And THIS is the long term reward that sustains successful artists. Having us enter talent competitions to win prizes is just plain demeaning. I don’t know any artist who has expressly chosen her/his artistic career with the intention of becoming a prize winner. This just reduces art to another from of sport.
Beyond childhood, I don’t believe good creative people need “encouraging by society”. They are driven. What they need is less distraction from doing what they love and what they’re good at. I can tell you from experience that the biggest distraction for most creative souls is paying the rent/bills/mortage. If copyright gets that monkey of our backs, it’s working. If the question Dan’s asking here is does more money equal more creativity – no it doesn’t. Once the monkey’s gone, it’s gone.
Copyright is pretty simple really. To use author John Birmingham’s words, it’s a codification of respect for creators. It means that if you want to use someone else’s original work, you ask permission. And if the creator wants to be paid for it, you pay them or you simply don’t use their work.
Dan Hunter seems to think that if you didn’t pay creators they would be more creative. Perhaps there is the exception in the odd instance where this might prove to be true. It makes for great dinner party chat. But it is not a good reason to abandon the code of respect that underpins the investment in all the great forms of entertainment and culture we enjoy, be it film, television, music, games or writing.
To support his theory Dan Hunter talks up a study where paying kids to learn how to read didn’t work so well. Is there any parent surprised by this? Oh and solving puzzles as a paid enterprise didn’t work so well either. People who enjoy the hobby of puzzle solving may be disappointed by this. It’s got nothing to do with copyright however.
Artists, according to Dan Hunter, apparently don’t produce their best work when commissioned. If this is true, it makes one wonder are pro-bono legal academics more creative than paid legal academics? Speculation aside, here’s what would happen if you stopped paying lawyers and academics: they would stop turning up to work. Wouldn’t you?
In the beginning, creative people will often produce work regardless of a moneyed incentive – but they usually will not continue in their endeavours long term without the rewards necessary to make a living.
That doesn’t mean they will not give people access to their work for free. Artists own their copyrights and it’s their prerogative to give permission for how the work is used. However, in order for creative people to survive, thrive – and support their families – they do need to be able to earn money at some point in some form or another.
Hunter also argues that copyright doesn’t require that an artist or author be attributed as the creator of their work. On the contrary, copyright provides a mechanism for an artist to specify how their work is used, one of which is attribution (and sometimes it might be all they ask).
Our Copyright Act was amended in 2000 to mandate attribution through moral rights. The moral rights were brought into the Act to demonstrate that copyright is, in fact, more than an economic right.
As an illustration of the importance of copyright to authorship, the case of Richard Flanagan is certainly salutary. Despite numerous critically acclaimed and awarded books including The Sound of One Hand Clapping, Gould’s Book of Fish and Wanting, Flanagan was so short of money to support his wife and three children after writing his Man Booker Prize winning work, The Narrow Road to the Deep North that he considered going to work in the mines in far northern Australia.
This was with the copyright system backing him up. What would have happened if he didn’t have that protection? Perhaps he would still have written those books, but he would have had even less return on them – people would have been able to copy and share and exploit his works with no return to him. Perhaps he wouldn’t have reached novel number six.
When he collected the £50,000 prize he thanked the judges for choosing him and thanked the sponsors “for the cheque”. When asked what he would do with the money, he said “Do what everyone else does with money: live,” he said. “I’m not a wealthy man. In essence, this means I can continue to write.” The resulting sales will also allow him to continue to write, we hope for many, many years to come.
The average annual income for authors in Australia dropped from $23,000 a year in 2001 to $11,100 in 2008. If anyone thinks self-publishing is the remedy, consider that average earnings for self-published authors in Australia are reportedly about $500 a year.
As we start to emerge from our summer holiday cocoons, where we have perhaps spent hours enjoying a wonderful new book or indulging in our favourite television show, been inspired by an musician at a festival or been blown away by an artwork – it’s worth recognising the richness those artforms bring to our lives and the risks those artists have taken. How many books, songs, images have changed your life?
I’m sure most people will agree we are glad those creators were able to build their careers beyond that initial creative spark – because it’s more often through practise, rather than genius, that these talented artists have been able to make their mark.
Perhaps one of the most telling characteristics of our community is how we demonstrate respect for those that challenge, surprise, enrich and inspire us.
Copyright allows the possibility of remuneration for work of quality and the protection of all individual creativity, amateur and professional. To disrespect this code is to insult artists and further empty their pockets.
Angelo Loukakis
Executive Director
The Australian Society of Authors