What if Copyright No Longer Existed?
[by Richard Kelly]
The purpose of copyright is, “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
This is how we as commercial photographers profit from our photographs. However, if we read these words from a broader perspective, as far as copyright law is concerned, profit is really secondary to the primary purpose of encouraging new works of art and ultimately that knowledge into the public domain, where it can become part of our collective and cultural heritage.
The question I keep thinking about: Is copyright doing either of these things well?
If the only motivation that artists required to create new works were financial incentives, there would be a lot less creative activity. I am not so sure that having a monopoly for 70 years past the author’s death does as much to encourage new creative work, as it does to give a false sense of value for the archives that we leave to our children’s children.
I think an argument could be made that a society that wants to encourage creative expression, especially for a professional creative class needs a better system for compensating independent creative artists.
When controlling copies and, therefore, controlling commerce, was the role of copyright the business model seemed to work well. In a global, digitally connected economy, though, controlling copies for commerce seems so 20th century.
For the past few years, I have been searching for digital solutions that will offer fair compensation to the independent creative. Part of that quest is having academic conversations that push and expand our thinking of copyright, compensation and creativity.
What if Copyright no longer existed? How would Artists make a living?
Richard Dale Kelly teaches his students the value of copyright and licensing; He spends way too much time reading and thinking about business strategy and is optimistic that the tools artists need to manage their copyrights and images are on the near horizon. An early supporter of the PLUS Registry, he encourages you to sign up today at www.plusregistry.org.
4 Responses to 'What if Copyright No Longer Existed?'
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'What if Copyright No Longer Existed?'.
Copyright must continue. It needs stronger reinforcement among the public and bussiness community that, today, views artists,musicians, and other creative workers with increasingly less value.
Copyright insures that a business model exists for the creative discovery process. Removal of the rules for business and the means to procure fees for expenses incurred during the creative process will ensure failure of the system. In my own experience, particularly with younger professional designers buying photographs, copyright is viewed as a bad thing based on unfair controls and rather, not for the fair and meaningful evaluation of the discovery process or even the base acceptance that my business must be able to pay for its own expenses. We need to push better ethical understanding of copyright and its necessity to the foundation of business.
“Useful” arts. Interesting term.
If there were no copyright law, I would have complete freedom to use anyone’s art and evolve it into anything I wanted… oh yeah, and I’d have to get a day job to support my art thing.
I would assume there would be three kinds of artists/scientists;
Those who the Government would fund.
Those who would be privately funded by benefactors, w personal or societal interests.
Those who would create for enjoyment.
Sounds a lot like the dark ages…
It’s a difficult issue. The key point as Steven pointed out is being paid fairly for the value of the work. (And certainly the cost of producing the work.)
I started in this business a number of years before the copyright law changed. There were many successful photographers when copyright was not the key issue. Those photographers understood that the fee they charged was based on the value (exposure) of the photographs they were producing. They did not call it copyright, usage or licensing. But they structured their pricing models as variable based on value.
The change in the copyright law gave photographers ownership of their work. Licensing simply quantified what photographers had been doing all along.
The industry’s focus has been on copyright and the exclusive control it provides. Competition and the economic leverage of large clients have negated much of that control. “Agree to our terms (no matter how unfair) or we find another photographer who will!” “Just say no” hasn’t worked for a very long time.
The industry focus need to change to being paid fairly based on true value. If there were no copyright, this would inevitably be the model.
Very interesting question!
I think the value of stock photography would go down even further and possibly the value of on location shooting and professionally produced images may go up.
The saturation of so much being available could make it really hard for creatives to find the work they need if they have to sift through even more uninspiring work.
It might make it easier to show more work online. Right now I am sometimes paralyzed by the idea of someone stealing my work. I may decide to tighten up my online presense too so I can be more exclusive.
In your question, do you assume it will be fair among all businesses? Will Disney still have the Mickey Mouse copyright for example? I can see Big Money finding some way around it.
I hope it goes the other way though! Would be a lot easier if we could maintain good copyright law and enforcement.