To creative individuals and consumers alike, it remains difficult to completely understand the complexities of copyright and the legislation that simultaneously runs parallel. Many view it as a challenging and theoretically intricate subject, but also realize its importance to almost every facet of our social and cultural world. Essentially, only the expression of an idea is protected by copyright but not the idea itself. Despite the well-established control of copyright practices for intellectual property in regard to how it is sold, disseminated and produced, it is inevitably unknown how effective it will be in its entirety and with a changing society. One of the main aims of copyright is so ensure society is rich with creative works as a result of its support for authorship. However, there are arguments both in favor and against the idea that without this copyright, creators would not create new works. This essay intends to discuss the particular statement and draw upon external notions such as enforceability, commodification and technological change. These concepts are significant because the ultimate purpose of copyright has been greatly debated over time and there are many factors to consider. Similarly, it will explore contemporary music and the different formats such as sampling, mash-ups and remixes and link this connection to copyright as an example.
Through theoretical frameworks, copyright law is generally known as a cultural product which subsequently provides ownership rights to the ‘creations of society’. This ensures the world is rich with creative works as well as their preservation and survival for generations to come. As stated by Burrows (1994), there are two justifications of copyright: the ‘justice argument’ and the ‘efficiency argument’. The first is concerned with the individual rights of the creator and the second focuses on the effect of copyright on the utilization and production of goods. However, Towse argues that copyright is about protecting the activities of the creative industries rather than encouraging the creation of content by individual creators, despite frequent claims to the contrary. The history of copyright can be traced back to the Stationers’ Company who claimed that if one was not a member of the company, they could hold copyright. As a result, this meant that copyright was essentially a ‘right of the publisher only’. However, with the emergence of the Statute of Anne in 1710, this allowed the contemporary idea of copyright as a right of the author to develop. The current law allows copyright owners to make derivatives off their work which essentially leads to profitability and also permits them to reproduce or copy a work, perform, distribute copies and display the work publicly. In addition, owners have the ability to prevent others from reproducing their work without their permission and can also sell these rights to another party. It is contained within the Copyright Act 1968 in Australia and is automatic. This highlights the common assumption that many composers are increasingly inclined to create content because they feel a sense of protection. It is viewed as an incentive or motivation to express freely without certain fears of plagiarism or going uncredited. Copyright is often considered a balancing system and there is a fine line between the competing interests of creators that own work and those that want to access it for consumption and creative use. Overall, one cannot justify and quantify the number of individuals who rely upon the notions of copyright to produce work.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
It is important to note that the concept of creativity is usually based upon previous works of creativity and does not occur in a vacuum. These creative modes may be variously plotted along continuums between direct and indirect, conscious or unconscious, aggressive or passive. Most works are transformed from one state to another and are often considered products in the globalized and capitalist world. Over the years, copying work has become a ‘common practice’ and it is one of the many reasons for the existence of copyright. This is dependent on the specific marketplace for the creative work and many individuals are capable of making a viable living through this relationship between product and market. In many cases, this is a method in ensuring society is rich with creative works because one can gain financially and make a name for themselves. The legislation of copyright seemingly offers no definitive standard for creativity, it merely suggests they are required to be ‘original’. In Australia, ‘originality’ is afforded to those that exercised nominal skill, labor and effort in the creation of the work. Under copyright legislation, creative works that are protected can include dramatic, musical, literary as well as artistic works, such as novels, poetry, films, computer software, songs and architecture. This reinforces Lawrence Lessig’s notion of a ‘free culture’ that supports and protects creators and innovators. There have been debates raised on the topic of intellectual property law. The role of copyright in supporting authorship could potentially underscore the value of fresh ideas and individual contributions to our public discourse. This suggests that society relies on copyright and it is a driving force behind the production of creativity rather than passion of the art. It hypothesizes that although we are maintaining the richness of creative works in society, there is lack of new ideas and concepts because everything is built upon one another or for a specific commercial purpose.
The arrival of the digital age can be considered the catalyst of the evolving context in which creative works are shared around the world as well as the frameworks for their copyright. Since one of the main aims of copyright is to ensure society is rich with creative works, many argue that the enforceability of the legislation plays an influence in whether individuals will actually make the content. Prior to the ability of online media sharing, most creators that would commit acts of copyright infringement would, for example, photocopy sheet music. This was highly time-consuming and also easily detectable, however, nowadays it is harder to track and control those that share illegally with the rise of the Internet. The technological advancements in reference to digital file-sharing across the entire world has made it difficult to enforce international intellectual property law as it is essentially anonymous. The material shared online cannot be pertained to a single geographical jurisdiction. Although this theory has the ability to promote the elicit production of modes of art, it reinforces a sense of society being awarded copious amounts of creative works. However, on the other hand, it also makes creators cautious of whether their work is genuinely being protected or not. In spite of, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), as known in the United States, works to strengthen the protection conferred by intellectual property law to digital information. It focuses on the technical measures used to protect digital information, but is unfortunately not designed to enable fair uses, making it a threat to the public domain. Significant effects of particular legislation such as the DMCA render copyright in a negative way and can impact the extent that society is enhanced by creative works. However, overall, it has been argued that copyright has indeed served as an engine of free expression, despite there being some issues often debated. There is an underlying reliance on the protections of copyright for individuals who create in the public area but that is not to say society will be devoid of all types of work without it.
One of the most important aspects of our modern world is the music industry and it also can be demonstrated as an example when understanding copyright. Many would agree that our current society is incredibly rich with creative works in regard to songs and albums. However, it is uncertain how to justify if copyright was a driving factor in their production. Copyright legislation that pertains to the re-use or remix of original material is a common discussion between intellectuals and law-makers as it becomes difficult where one should draw the line between legal and illegal use. In a piece of music, ownership is awarded to the composer, lyricist, artist and typically record company. The basic principle is that one cannot copy or distribute music without permission from owners unless in limited circumstances. This highlights a sense of a ‘permission culture’, where creators get this specific permission from ‘the powerful’. Through this dynamic, one can start to question the extent of copyright’s purpose in developing the richness of society. It offers a debate of whether copyright’s existence actively allows the creative quality of content to actually enhance society or if it just adds to a ‘property approach’. In addition, some argue that because creators are just transforming, mashing or sampling already existing pieces of music or backing tracks, it is difficult to view anything as ‘new works’ as most songs are recycled. There is no definitive answer to this though as it leads back to the idea of originality and how society categorizes a creative work. The concept that ‘appropriation is inevitable’ plays in action through this debate. An example on the opposing side is the genre of hip-hop and how many artists in the 1980’s experimented with reggae and Latin-influenced music samples, eventually creating an entire new genre called reggaetón. Nevertheless, individuals who desire to use these samples are subject to licensing fees from the copyright owners and they are frequently beyond the scope of many musicians in the financial sense. The statement that without copyright, creators would not create new works can be retracted in this case because even when predisposed to these heavy fees, individuals still choose to purchase them. This evidently reiterates that despite occurrences where there may be limited copyright, creators will still create because of sheer passion or impulse
Copyright owners receive exorbitant fees for the work they own and allow for distribution and use. The commodification and opportunities for high profitability is one of the main incentives for those to continually create works. They have the ability to gain financially for the content they permit for use as well as earn from within the public domain from individuals who desire to consume their work such as songs on iTunes. According to Wikstrom (2013), copyright legislation is what makes “it possible to commodify a musical work, be it a song, an arrangement, a recording, etc.”. Many rely heavily on copyright to make a living and its absence could potentially lead to a lack of income. If artists did not have access to copyright and the earnings from derivatives, they may have to turn to other employment fields. The time they spent on producing creative works would now be used on non-creative employment, evidently reducing the richness of society. Similarly, there is still the stereotyped cliché of the ‘starving artist’ with their artistic capabilities and hunger for the arts including Michelangelo who slept in his clothes and boots. It remains an obstruction in assuming that without copyright, there would be no new works.
As copyright is an exceptionally dynamic body of law, there are many arguments and questions up for debate. It remains true that one of the main aims of copyright is to ensure society is rich with creative works but there are also many other reasons as stated above such as individual profitability. Throughout this essay, I have remarked upon the alternative notions of legal enforceability and technological changes including digital file-sharing. By analyzing examples within contemporary music, it is evident that copyright is an influential topic in all realms of the public sphere. In closing, it is difficult to say for a fact that without copyright, creators would not create new works as there are many other factors to consider both for and against.
Stuck on your essay?
