The issue of dispute in regard to copyright and creativity in my mind is this; if you create something, you should be recognised for it. Definitely. No questions asked. However, what if what you create is built off someone else’s creation? A remix or Machinima? Is it yours or theirs? This issue has been contentious since the creation of copyright, when prior to this, the notion of ownership was simply in regard to physical and scarce property. I find it very hard to fully imagine the idea of a world prior to copyright, where everyone blatantly copied everyone else’s work with no repercussions.
However, although I do believe it is necessary to stop blatant copying from occurring, in my opinion many copyright law suits today may be deemed unnecessary if the original idea is not damaged and being used creatively. Although having said this, I do believe authors should be recognised. The notion of ‘fair use’ may come into play here as a defence, however I believe many law suits would be easier/wiser not to begin anyway.
Using music as an example (though I believe it may be applicable to many other sources), it is clear to see the blurred lines between who wrote/owns what, and who exactly is the original creator. With an abundance of co-authorship seen through different songwriters, producers and performers for one song or album, as well as a healthy remix-culture, music in particular can be quite hard to attribute to a single person. Even if the one person writes the music and lyrics, performs and produces the piece, you could argue that the music would most likely be inspired by other musicians, songs or previous styles of music, therefore, is it truly original. Much of popular music today includes sampling or remixing others work, and I know that many of our generation are blind to the fact that quite a lot of music we listen to is not exactly ‘new’.
However we do need to ask the question; if culture is appreciated, does the ownership and authorship even matter? In response to these questions, many current and emerging artists are choosing to allow their work to be downloaded for free online, and instead choose live shows as their profit-making method.
In my opinion, CreativeCommons licensing is a great alternative to regular copyright licenses, where content creators can have the amount of control they desire over their work, while allowing freedom for those who simply want to share.
I agree Emma. Copyright laws are becoming increasingly out of date as we move into the digital age. Yes, artists need to be recognised for their creations, both financially and egotistically, however, I think the lock that we currently have on using or building on these creations is a little bit extreme. The Kookaburra Sits in an old Gumtree vs Land Down Under case is a good example of copyright laws gone wrong. Men at Work did not set out to destroy this classic Australian ditty, but simply build on the typical Australian tune and turn it into another unofficial Australian anthem. Should they be punished for this? I don't think so, and it relates to your question, 'if culture is appreciated, does the ownership and authorship even matter?' It will be a very interesting road ahead for copyright laws as remixing and producing becomes easier to do.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I find it weird that many artists become offended when their music is remixed and re-appreciated by the modern audience. If it was my music i would be flattered, firstly that they felt that my music was good enough to copy and secondly that it was ageless enough to be appreciated by a new audience. I mean, I can understand an artist getting upset if the original version of the song wasn't as popular but if another artist took the work and made it better good on them, should that really be a crime?
ReplyDelete@Annie, I find the definition very hard to make. Whether it should be a crime or not is very hard to say, and often situational. I heard a quote the other day in regard to copyright; 'it depends on what you take, and how much they get upset about it'.
ReplyDeleteI love the idea of creative commons, I think if everyone used it, the world would be a better place!
ReplyDeleteWith music, while I think others shouldn't directly copy, I do find the odd remix a good way to reinvigorate the original song. Like, I just downloaded a complete remix of a particular album, and it is amazing to say the least.
Further, I think what Girl Talk does, is take many things and makes it into something creative, not at all to the detriment of the original artist.
I think the issue here is where to exactly to draw the line, and I couldn't even begin to think where this would be.