Creativity vs. Individual Rights: How the Digital is Complicating the Debate

facebook.com/pages/BYU-Prelaw/295626162013

Last year I was an editor for BYU's Prelaw Review. It wasn't too bad, but I know now that I defintely don't want to study law. It has too many nuances and the reading can be incredibly dull. I chose to work on one being written about copyright law. It seemed to be a good choice for an English major/ Editing minor.

For two semesters, I went to work with author Jordan Call and two other editors on the paper that Jordan eventually called Updating Copyright: Capitalizing on Digital Opportunities. It's actually quite good--he did a nice job and we weren't too bad of editors either. Read it if you have some time.

The claim that Jordan eventually published, and that surrounded the work on the article for the entire school year was that "the Copyright Act should be revised by eliminating the exclusive reproduction and distribution rights granted to copyright holders in the case of digital media" (see pg. 7 of his article).

I reeled at this claim the entire year that we worked on it. I played devil's advocate against him probably more than he cared for. Eventually I had to just tell myself that he was the author and that if he wanted to write a law review article about how we should pretty much just eliminate the copyright law as it applies to digital media, then fine. I was just the editor. It was his name that was going to appear in print (although, he did thank me and the other two editors in the first footnote on the first page, so my name actually did wind up attached to the work).

Initially what bothered me the most about Jordan's claim was that I thought artists would not receive compensation if their exclusive reproduction and distribution rights were eliminated for their digital content. Jordan asserted that there "seem to be many other compelling factors besides monetary compensation that drive people to create." Recognizing that monetary compensation can be important to artists trying to earn a living though, Jordan comes up with other economic models that would allow artists to share their works and receive compensation. See Section III of his article for the models.

Anyways, even though I was impressed by  many of his arguments, I'll admit that Jordan did not have me entirely convinced by the end of our work on the paper. But he didn't need to have me convinced, so the paper was published and life went on. After the semester I soon forgot about the work on that article and moved on to other things, figuring that if I ever needed to know about copyright law in my future endeavors, I'd work with a lawyer. However, when I came back to it through the Digital Culture class at BYU, I began to see some of Jordan's points more clearly. Therefore, I was especially curious about what the panel members of BYU's Copyright and Fair Use Laws presenation at the Varsity Theater today would have to say about it.

Through my work with Jordan, I'd heard most of what they had to say before. What struck me the most though were the comments about Creative Commons, a site that me, the other editors, and Jordan somehow missed in our research. If Jordan had known about it, there is no doubt he would have mentioned it as a potential economic model.

Creative Commons logo

Creative Commons provides a good middle ground for the current Use vs. Ownership and Creativity vs. Individual Rights debates. Creative Commons has six different licenses that creators can put on their works. Some allow as much freedom as allowing others to use your work and tweak it as much as they want, even for commercial purposes, so long as they give you credit for the original work. Others are more restrictive in not allowing commercial use or only allowing downloads and shares of the work, but nothing else. This seems like a wonderful compromise: creators are still in control of their work but others can use their work for their own creative purposes.

However, Creative Commons does not apply to those who want to sell their works for a living. And arists have every right to want revenue for their hard work, just like non-artists want revenue for their hard work. Maybe there are those that would say creativity should be free for everyone and those people should find another job. Jordan certainly thought so, and he argued that people would create regardless. I'm not so sure. If people weren't getting paid for their works would we have people aspiring to be writers or artists or musicians? Granted, many people that write, draw/paint, or sing do not do it for the money. But some, and in fact it can be argued that many, do. And even if they don't do it for the money, it can be argued that the money certainly frees them up to have time to create more.

The take-home point I got from the panel is that the lines surrounding the Copyright Law have become blurred thanks to digital culture. There are hot debates going on over it. Be aware of potential changes to it in the coming years.