In an online discourse the other day, a creator said something with which I strongly agreed. He said that copyright is essential for promoting the creativity of individual artists. Then he said something I found a wee bit incongruous; he said he wasn’t all that bullish on copyright for corporations.

Naturally that friend of yours who is a freelance poet is easier to relate to than some remote multinational corporation. Not sure that really needs stating. But let’s look at the creator’s central point, the role of copyright as a promoter of creativity. That is part of our mantra here at the Copyright Alliance — copyright is the engine for creativity, jobs and growth. But the promotional impact on creativity is wider than one might think at first glance. To understand this, we must properly define creativity, and within that the artist.

For purposes of this discussion, we will consider an artist anyone who plays a role in the production of a copyrighted work, a broad definition but necessary in this context. A newspaper reporter or a computer software engineer might not necessarily view themselves as an artist, but they contribute to the production of something of value that can be distributed in an intangible form.

Had I been more on the ball at the time, I would have told the creator to imagine three individuals:

1. Monica is a portrait photographer. She has her own studio in a small space in her community’s main commercial district. Thanks to resources provided to her by a professional association, she has put a legal licensing system in place that allows her to manage the rights over photos she takes, earn a living, hire a few employees, and pay the rent on her studio space while providing her customers with lots of photo print and digital options at a reasonable price.

2. Marcus is a novelist who works from home. He knows in this digitally distributed print-on-demand world he can self-publish, but he likes not having to be an expert at marketing and distribution, and he likes the credibility being published by a publishing house brings to his work. He is working under a contract with a publisher, and living off of the advance while polishing his masterpiece.

3. Matilda is a visual graphics programmer with a studio specializing in computer-animated motion pictures. She loves her job; it pays a generous salary with good benefits. She enjoys both the sometimes solitary nature of her work and those times when the programming and creative teams work collaboratively on everything from style concepts to story lines.

Monica, Marcus and Matilda are all working in creative industries. They are all producing creative works. The market for those works, in every case, is underlain by the rights given to them by copyright. But the creator I mentioned in the opening might not view them the same way.

The creator likely identifies with Monica. He may also identify with Marcus, although presumably not with Marcus’ publisher. That company — playing the same role as a record label, a photo registry, or any other third party distributor or producer — obviously serves Marcus, and Marcus voluntarily chose to partner with that company. But for some reason there is a sense that when one sticks it to the “man” by infringing on works distributed by the company, this doesn’t hurt Marcus. Maybe the rationalization is an assumption that the “man” is sticking it to Marcus, but it’s absurd in the extreme to think that what harms one business partner financially doesn’t harm another. In fact, if the “man” is as immoral as the infringer maintains, the “man” will simply pass the pain through to the artist. Marcus will be the one who truly suffers.

The creator probably doesn’t give a second’s thought to Matilda. Yet there are millions of Matildas across the country. Many are union employees in industries such as motion pictures and television and graphic arts. Many do work in various software industries. (Interestingly enough, a software engineer recently said to me that he never downloads software without paying but he has no issue with infringing works such as music and movies. Gotta know where your bread is buttered, I guess.) Many contribute to creativity as text or video editors or sound engineers but aren’t the original creators.

The Matildas of our world are always on my mind when I speak of artists and creators.

My own background is that of a writer. Early in my career I was Monica. Then, I often found myself being Marcus but still at times was Monica. After a few years, I became Matilda but still occasionally was both Monica and Marcus.

Perhaps it is because I have fed my children through the copyright benefits of all three roles, sometimes simultaneously, that I don’t see any reason to differentiate. Clearly many do.

Copyright promotes creativity. It enables Monica to run her own business. It enables Marcus to focus on his creativity while others focus on promoting his creativity. It enables Matilda to participate in an exciting workplace with some economic security.

It also allows me to bring my kids in to Monica’s studio for a sitting, reward them for their good behavior at the studio by taking them to see Matilda’s latest picture, and then reward myself for a hard day as a dad by curling up with Marcus’ latest book.

Copyright isn’t for some and not for others. It’s for all of us.

Share this:

This entry was posted on Friday, June 5th, 2009 at 4:03 pm by Patrick Ross and is filed under copyright opponents, creators, licensing, piracy, property rights. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.