Copyright has always been a difficult area, but for some a highly profitable one – a lawyer friend of this reviewer continues to build a very lucrative career for herself from advising on the subject.
Chair Charles Oppenheim introduced Simon Frith, now Tovey Professor of Music at the University of Edinburgh, formerly (amongst other things) Editor of Let It Rock magazine, and Debi Gliori, author of (among other works) ‘The Tobermory Cat’.
Oppenheim observed that there was always a tension between owners of copyright and those who wanted to quote from or otherwise use copyright material. ‘Fair Usage’ is the term used to cover use of material for study or reference purposes, but increasingly, access is by leasage of material and protected by subscription, even if this is theoretically ‘free’.
Simon Frith pointed out that the majority of an artist’s or other producer’s income came not from copyright but from direct sales.
The issue more directly affected publishers, and raised the further question of how these might survive without copyright income. This in turn suggests that the current economic model of publishing will have to change to deal with the disappearance of previous forms of distribution, or at least adapt current practice to take these into account.
However, neither public libraries nor radio (think of all those book adaptations) diminish the demand for books, and indeed provide a curatorial function, making people more aware of what may be available.
Professor Frith spoke warmly in favour of the Open Access project to make all academic papers and journals available free at the point of delivery, although how peer-review will operate in this environment remains unclear.
Digital delivery, after all, is not ‘free’ – the platforms to deliver content still have to be paid for somehow, and if there are no adverts or pop-ups that most if us would wish to avoid, then where can ‘cross-subsidy’ (already decreasing) be found to contribute to these costs?
The question, Professor Frith suggested, was how would it be possible to reconstruct the ecology that once supported publication? His suggestion that revenue from licensing agreements be used to fund artist’s and other producer’s development of new content seemed a pious hope at best. It would seem that the digital realm provides an illustration of how property rights destroy open markets.
Debbi Gliori, herself having had experience of a well-known copyright dispute over her work, pointed out that writers concentrate on content – on making their work as good as may be, and that most would continue to produce no matter how small the reward. Some 50,000 published authors earned less than £20,000 each last year for their work, and figures between £3,000 and £8,000 represented author’s average earnings in 2008. This means that many writers earn less than the minimum wage from their writing.
The current copyright legislation is toothless, in Gliori’s opinion, but remains the only protection ‘creatives’ have. It often seems that the law in this regard is overly complex and seems to serve those who understand it rather than those whom it is intended to protect.
Copyright is also very difficult to police at an international level, especially as legislation differs from one jurisdiction to another. Charles Dickens, whose work was heavily pirated in the United States, was compelled to carry out extensive tours of the country to promote his work, the physical toll of which contributed to his death.
In further discussion, Professor Frith quoted the saying ‘information wants to be free’, but asked how that aspiration can be squared with the recognition that ‘work has value’. There is furthermore the problem of small-scale content creators who remain particularly vulnerable to large and global organisations who often control the platforms on which smaller producers depend.
Gliori suggested that part of the answer might be to teach the ethics of copyright in schools – which, ironically, do not themselves always respect copyright restrictions.
Oppenheim pointed to the growth of self-publishing, while acknowledging that self-publication was rarely profitable for the author. Although he cited the case of E. L. James (author of ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’) he seemed unaware of another more recent case, where a Fife farmer’s crime novel, published as an eBook has received a six-figure advance from Pearson Penguin.
The discussion ended in recognition by the panel that the general public remain largely ignorant of the terms and limits of copyright and ‘fair use’ and that those who produce what they enjoy continue to be disadvantaged as a result.