Wednesday, October 13, 2004
My take on Copyright
This is something that's been going on in my head for a while, and it came up in a couple of discussions I had today. When I came to law school, I had a very artsy background. I majored in music as an undergrad, and I had worked for a year and a half at a performing arts association. Going in to law school, I thought that I would be very interested in copyright law, because that's essentially where the arts and the law intersect. I told myself that because I am an amateur artist myself, and had studied and worked with real professional artists, I understood their situation and wanted to learn how to protect their rights under copyright.
I'm still very interested in copyright--it's probably going to be my specialty when I finally land at the firm next fall or the following fall. But I've changed my tune about it. I think the copyright law is far too expansive for its own good. It's been driven by highly corporate interests that can hardly be described as "artists," such as the RIAA, the MPAA, and Disney. Every time Mickey Mouse is about to fall into the public domain, Congress not-so-coincidentally extends the term of copyright protection. I wonder if he'll ever be in the public domain.
To make my point somewhat succinctly, I think the copyright laws shouldn't be as broad as they are. I think that to encourage and enable a true creative culture, we should allow the public to have some level of access to other people's works. I've heard proposals that the term should be shortened, or that fair use should be expanded, or that after the economic viability of the work has passed, to allow more forms of copying and/or adaptation. It doesn't seem right that a mediocre novel that could be turned into a fabulous movie, for example, can't be without the author's permission for nearly a hundred years. And if he does give his permission, the profits should go mainly to those who made the crappy novel into a good movie.
The body of creative works is a wellspring of inspiration and content that other artists need to be able to draw upon to create new works. Culture and life would be far richer if we were able to do that. But alas, Disney is more powerful than I am, and they will always win out in Congress.
I'm still very interested in copyright--it's probably going to be my specialty when I finally land at the firm next fall or the following fall. But I've changed my tune about it. I think the copyright law is far too expansive for its own good. It's been driven by highly corporate interests that can hardly be described as "artists," such as the RIAA, the MPAA, and Disney. Every time Mickey Mouse is about to fall into the public domain, Congress not-so-coincidentally extends the term of copyright protection. I wonder if he'll ever be in the public domain.
To make my point somewhat succinctly, I think the copyright laws shouldn't be as broad as they are. I think that to encourage and enable a true creative culture, we should allow the public to have some level of access to other people's works. I've heard proposals that the term should be shortened, or that fair use should be expanded, or that after the economic viability of the work has passed, to allow more forms of copying and/or adaptation. It doesn't seem right that a mediocre novel that could be turned into a fabulous movie, for example, can't be without the author's permission for nearly a hundred years. And if he does give his permission, the profits should go mainly to those who made the crappy novel into a good movie.
The body of creative works is a wellspring of inspiration and content that other artists need to be able to draw upon to create new works. Culture and life would be far richer if we were able to do that. But alas, Disney is more powerful than I am, and they will always win out in Congress.
Comments: Post a Comment
