no CoPyright and no CuLtura L Cong Lomeratesexperience their own work, i.e. as something that should not be touched by others.
emotionally this might be difficult for some artists. The whole concept of moral rights
is melting like snow in the spring sun.
Untouchability of a work no longer in vogueif the moral rights along with the system of copyright are nullified, then what should
artists do who are disgusted to find that their work has been changed by others or has
surfaced in political contexts with which they do not wish to be associated? The most
simple, but probably least satisfactory answer is that they have to get used to the fact
that the untouchability of their work is no longer in vogue. Those who nevertheless
wish to draw attention to a work that has been affected to a degree that is unacceptable
must seek to mobilize societal discourse on matters like: what degree of respect does a
work deserve; what kind of changes are too horrific to even consider; when is a work
abused in the political sense of the word? if we must use the legal toolkit to support a
claim of blunt mistreatment, then one could look in the direction of concepts such as
libel, insult and unlawful act.
one could well imagine that an artist or producer may claim to be harmed by an
unlawful act if a political party uses their work to advocate, for instance, its extreme left
or right wing message. however, it is up to the judge to discern whether, for instance,
the appropriation of a specific work is justifiable as a normal contribution to the public
discourse or whether it is an unlawful act. only those with convincing reasons for why
their work should not be used in specific contexts would be able to forbid certain uses
of said work.
despite all my arguments, i can imagine that some authors feel so attached to their
work that they only want it to be (re)presented in ways they consider correct and
adequate. should we not respect and honour their wishes? out of consideration for
the artist and as a form of civilized behaviour we certainly should, but not if this means
that they can claim a form of ownership. again, this does not mean that others should
not be allowed to use this work. and, obviously the option to change and adapt a
work must be available, as i have said before. however, mention should to be made
that the new version is only based on the work of an earlier writer, composer or painter,
if a radical change of interpretation has been made. This procedure would create a
clear distinction between the work of a first author and the new, deviating version of
another artist.
making this distinction – between the primary work and the radical adaptation – is
culturally helpful as well. it contributes to raising awareness that artistic creations and
performances do not just appear out of the blue. if there is a link between a new work
and something that has been created or performed before, it is culturally enriching to
disclose the source.
Finally, this is also the right place to discuss a possible misunderstanding regarding
my not caring about theft. of course i do not propose that X should attach his or her
name to Y’s book or film, and thus suggest they are the author of that work. That would
be plain misrepresentation or fraud. if this were to be found out – and it would be
bound to happen sooner or later – then the lazy fraudster should receive a fair penalty
in court. however, we do not need a copyright system to accomplish this.