Copyright and Innovation. A contradiction in terms?
Copyrighting is an act of implementing protection on exclusive and transferable creative works which applies for the lifetime of the creator and 70 years after (Packard, 2013). Copyrighting protects the artists and gives value to their works. However, it might stand in the way of free speech and the public’s right to access cultural goods since it affects the ease of accessibility, circulation and availability of creative works to the public (Sarikakis, Kolokytha, Rozgonyi, 2016). In the digital age, it has become more challenging to implement the laws of copyrighting materials with all the hacking systems that work to steal other people’s creations. If creative works were to be easily accessible and usable, then individual creativity would be hindered and “stealing” other people’s works would become normalized.
The idea of implementing this protection gives credit to the creators, helps preserve the originality of the work produced, and promotes “the progress of science and useful arts” (Packard, 2013). That and it protects people’s ideas and most importantly, it reinforces creativity. Emerging in the nineteenth century, the first move in the direction of copyrighting dramatic compositions took place in 1856 (Alexander, Gomez, 2016). According to Alexander and Gomez in their book Research Handbook on the History of Copyright Law, the idea of copyright developed to become “a general control of the market value of an intangible intellectual work that could take many concrete forms”. With the arrival of digital media, however, it has not only become easier to copy material but also to adjust and combine the material with something else to produce something new (Balkin, 2004). For example, the case of the Seattle dog firm which produced a sketch of dogs in 2008 that was then used and printed on a shirt sold in target.
This is an idea which was utilized on another product for the sake of making money. In such a case, the easy part was stealing this drawing and making use of it in a profitable manner which hinders the producer’s creativity. In addition, the digital media makes it easier to steal and reuse materials online, but here is where copyright laws interfere and give back the original creator’s rights to own and share this product/work.
Yet, there are still some cases of lawsuits filed against recreations of specific things which abuse what copyrights stand for. People cannot always be punished for using elements that have been created by someone else, especially not when it is reshaped and remodeled. Nothing can be completely original, and the laws of copyrights accentuate the importance of inspiration and the need to learn and get inspired from other people’s works. For example, the famous street artist Shephard Fairey’s use of the photograph shot by AP freelancer Mannie Garcia in his Hope poster for Obama’s campaign was not an act of stealing the portrait but instead getting inspired to create a whole new art form to promote something completely different than what the photograph was promoting.
This is where democracy comes in with its idea that individuals should have a fair opportunity in participating in social acts (Balkin, 2004). This means that prohibiting the use of all sorts of arts and creative works especially in the digital world would lead to a less democratic society. Hence, in order to protect this freedom of speech in the digital age, we require “a new generation of cyber-lawyers who understand the impact of technological design on free speech values and how to protect them” (Balkin, 2004). Even though it is considered fair to use previous works in parodies (Standford Copyright & Fairuse Center), in some cases, parodies are considered as an act of infringement. Such as the example of the film The Hangover which featured a tattoo which was an exact replica of a tattoo specifically designed by Victor Whitmill for Mike Tyson. Whitmill’s case highly affected the film and was right to file the lawsuit against it.
In conclusion, copyright laws help preserve and maintain the originality of creative works, and looking at it from a perspective of it pushing people to get inspired by others’ works is a healthy way of dealing with it. That being said, if copyright laws hadn’t been enforced, stealing would’ve been normalized and the idea of democracy would be abused since people would be invading other’s rights of ownership. However, with the coming of the digital age, and the ease of taking, saving, modifying and reshaping other’s works, the copyright laws do need to be revised in order to preserve people’s rights in democratic societies.
References:
Alexander, I., Gómez-Arostegui, H. T. (2016) Research Handbook on the History of Copyright Law. Edward Elgar Publishing p. 362
Balkin, J. M. (2004). Digital speech and democratic culture. New York University Law review, Vol 79, p 3;5
Ellison, K. (2016). 5 famous copyright infringement cases (what you can learn). (2016, November 22). Retrieved from https://99designs.com/blog/tips/5-famous-copyright-infringement-cases/
Obias, R. (2013, November 21). 8 Movies and the Lawsuits That Plagued Them. Retrieved from http://mentalfloss.com/article/53331/8-famous-movies-and-lawsuits-plagued-them
Packard, A. (2013). Intellectual property: copyright. Digital Media Law, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, p. 188
Sarikakis, K., Kolokytha, O., Rozgonyi, K. (2016). Copyright (and) Culture: the governance of audiovisual archives
Standford Copyright & Fairuse Center http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/#sthash.JKCItrOd.dpuf
