Madonna is a pop icon with hits like ‘Like a virgin’ and ‘Vogue’. Renowned Hollywood director, Steven Spielberg, has movies like ‘E.T.’ and ‘Catch me if you can’ to boast about. Rock legends, The Eagles, are known for classics like ‘Hotel California’ and ‘Tequila Sunrise’. These people have one thing in common: they are professionals. They make their living, be it singing or directing, with their God-given talents for their fans to appreciate. And Copyright makes that possible.
Copyright is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information (“Copyright”, 2007) over a certain amount of time. It’s a point where creativity and business meet. “The purpose of these laws is to ultimately by promoting learning and knowledge” (Ovalle, 2005). What this means is that instead of inventing something that has already been created, copyright forces one to come up with something better. You could call it a friendly competition.
The copyright laws protect the creators as well. It gives the creator or inventor the rights ‘to the reproduction of the work, preparation of the derivative works, and the distribution of the copies’ (Copyright FAQ: 25 Common Myths and Misconceptions, 2004). In short, the copyright law gives the creator ownership of his or her creation. In 1998, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Act was passed by the American Congress, which extended the term by 20 years. This meant that the copyright over works owned by their creators would now last the life of the creator, and an additional 70 years (Manjoo F, n.d.).
But the age-old issue with artist, musicians alike is the argument that copyrights, in one way or another, stifle creativity. There have been countless debates about this issue and the lines are still somewhat blurred. Copyright owners jump at the opportunity to exercise their right and take legal action to those who, unintentionally or otherwise, cross that line. One example is when rap group, 2 Live Crew, wanted to make a parody of a song, ‘Pretty Woman’, by Roy Orbison. Despite refusal of permission to use the song, they stubbornly published the parody and ‘exploited it commercially in a nationally distributed album’ (Music and Copyright, n.d.). Thankfully, though a little too late for 2 Live Crew, some compromises have been made.
One of them is Fair Use. ‘Fair use is a doctrine in United States Copyright Law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review’ (‘Fair Use’, 2007). Again, the line that separates commercial use and educational purposes is still not clear. Hence, Fair Use has come up with four parameters to eliminate the possibility of copyright law infringement due to ignorance.
But in 2001, the gap between creativity and copyright law was bridged with the launch of Creative Commons (CC). CC is a non-profit organization that has released several copyright licenses, known as Creative Common Licenses, which restrict only certain rights (or none) of the work (‘Creative Commons’, 2007). In other words, instead of stating ‘All rights Reserved’, CC allows owners of materials to have ‘Some rights Reserved’. What this means is that there is royalty-free work available for other creative minds to work and build on. One other organization also allows the dissemination of royalty-free material is Getty Images. They provide photos and illustrations that are royalty-free for designers to design without worry that they might be slapped with a copyright infringement lawsuit.
Even with the aid of Fair Use and CC, a big problem lies with the public. Fines have been imposed, prices of music have been cut down, big Hollywood stars have urged us to stop, but piracy is still an ongoing problem. Downloading of music and movies is considered piracy and an infringement of the copyright laws as it provides pecuniary gain and displaces potential gains (Brady K, 2004). Music labels against downloading seem to be fighting a losing battle.
But does the downloading of music and movies put the creator, or copyright owner, at a disadvantage? Studies have shown that up to 75% of all artists actually profit from file sharing. There are a few explanations on why this is happening. One explanation is that pirates save money by downloading the music of highly popular artists, thus leaving them more money to buy albums of less popular artists. Another is that the downloading allows the public to sample the music. If they like what they hear, they will buy probably buy the rest of the album. Downloading also acts as a form of advertising for the artist (Why most artist profit from piracy, 2006).
It seems like the only thing we can do to stop piracy is to try to change the mindsets of both parties. Artist and copyright owners should realize that downloading does not necessarily ‘hurt’ them. Instead of banking in on the public buying the music that they put out in stores, they could embrace the downloading and look at it as ‘advertising’ for the concerts. They could make the singles available for download to generate a greater interest for the desired artist.
On the other hand, the public should not take advantage of the situation. They should adopt the mindset that copyright laws are there to protect the interest of other human beings that are trying to make living; just like them.
Copyright is just protection of a skill that most of us possess: imagination. One might argue that if Shakespeare’s heirs had copyright over Romeo & Juliet, would West Side Story be made? But on the hand, without copyright, would Bono, of U2, be the humanitarian that he is today?
______________________________________________________________
Reference
Copyright
Retrieved on 01/02/07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
An introduction to Copyright,
Retrieved on 01/02/07
http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/%7Ei312co/2.php
Copyright FAQ: 25 Common Myths and Misconceptions
Retrieved on 31/01/07
http://users.goldengate.net/%7Ekbrady/copyright.html
The mouse who would be king
Retrieved on 31/01/07
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/04/08/copyright_culture/index.html
Music and Copyright
Retrieved on 02/02/07
http://publishing.wsu.edu/copyright/music_copyright/
Fair Use
Retrieved on 01/02/07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Creative Commons
Retrieved on 02/02/07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons
Why most artist profit from piracy
Retrieved on 02/02/07
http://torrentfreak.com/why-most-artists-profit-from-piracy/
2 comments:
hey kevin,
Sorry something went wrong while publishing. But nothing wrong with the content, i hope.
Jonathan
Jonathan: About Getty Images, it's not entirely free for use. As with all stock photography web services, you pay for using these images in your project and are not suppose to share them with other people. Are are still license agreements to deal with as seen below. Still, a good attempt at explaining Creative Commons with decent suggestions on solutions. Full grade awarded.
"Royalty-Free (RF)
Royalty-free products may be used by the licensee multiple times for multiple projects without incurring additional fees. Royalty-free pricing is based solely on the file size of the product the licensee needs and the number of people entitled to use it (maximum 10), not the specific use. You don't have to pay any additional royalties on a use-by-use basis. However, as with all Getty Images licenses, the rights granted are non-transferable and are personal to the licensee. This means that if an RF product is used in a derivative work by the licensee for another person, the other person may not use the licensed product separately from the derivative work. Royalty-free licenses are always non-exclusive. All licenses of royalty-free products are subject to Getty Images Royalty-Free Image and Film License Agreement."
Post a Comment