no CoPyright and no CuLtura L Cong LomeratesThe individual and absolute ownership of creations and inventions is a concept that
is alien to many cultures. in most cultures it is not justified that an individual exploit
a creation or an invention monopolistically for many decades, nor is it the common
practice. after all, the artist or inventor continues with the work of predecessors. of
course, we are well aware that copyright in the Western system is granted on the basis
of what artists add to the knowledge and creativity that they find in the world around
them and in previous cultures. however, this cannot justify allowing them exclusive
and monopolistic right to the work.
in the system of intellectual property rights the author is elevated to celestial
heights, almost as if he or she had performed something that welled up from a source
that existed only within themselves. This is a rather romantic view and is not how
artistic works are created and performed. Furthermore, it is nearly impossible to trace
back and tease out the added element within the work. and in the rare case in which
the addition is discernible, the interest of society in its entirety should still prevail over
the interest of a single artist. after all, not a single case exists in which the additional
element is of such great value that it would justify the prohibition of an endless number
of artists building on it.
i always wonder what is going round in the mind of many artists. They may be
realistic enough to recognize that originality is a relative concept, which also concerns
their own work. nevertheless, most of them, including artists working in the digital
space, adhere to (or in any case do not deny) the basic principles of copyright that are
based on assumed originality that gives them the absolute ownership on their work.
i find this schizophrenic, to say the least. The only ones that can do research on this
contradiction, based on their practices, are the artists themselves.
There is yet another reason why we should rid the integrity of a work (i.e. the moral
right to it) from its legally enforceable status. This has less to do with artists and more
to do with democracy. The way moral rights have functioned thus far is diametrically
opposed to the opportunity we ought to have, from a democratic perspective, to
contradict a work. The moral rights of an author forbid, or at least makes it highly
contestable for us as citizens to give an artistic work a different turn. it is a feature of
democracy that a story can be told in a different way, a melody can take a different
course, an imagination or fantasy can tap into a different dimension, and the same
material of a film can be regrouped into a completely different narrative structure and
story line. it is alien to democracy to allow the ‘owner’ of an artistic expression to say:
‘my view on the world, on sound, on sentiments, on the framing of images, on the
choreography of a dance, on the ordering of words should remain as i have created it’.
now that i have presented several arguments pertaining to why originality is a
relative concept and cannot justify the preservation of even the moral rights aspects
of copyright, some artists may feel that i give no justice to their work. They may
believe that they have created a unified piece of work that should not be allowed to
be violated by others, and must certainly not be used outside the context for which it
was meant. They want to see the integrity of the work protected. in copyright they see
an appropriate legal instrument to safeguard that integrity, if necessary by getting their
due in court. i can well imagine the concern of an artist for his or her work.
This, nevertheless, calls for additional observations. First of all, the degree of
attachment to one’s work varies considerably between individual artists. some feel