300 Years of Copyright

This year marks the 300th anniversary of modern copyright laws in England. The original document was entitled the Statute of Anne, and its purpose was stated in the opening line: "An act for the Encouragement of Learning..." The British Council has asked a wide-range of professionals to submit their thoughts on the purpose of copyright and how it could be improved upon. So what is current copyright law? What is the purpose? Does it meet the needs of the artist and society in today's world?

A brief overview:

In 1710 the Statute of Anne was adopted in England to put a stop to monopolies in the printing industry. A copyright was in effect for 14 years and could be renewed once, for a total of 28 years. After that the creative work went into public domain and could be used by anyone. The thinking was that this knowledge could then be expanded on by others, for the betterment of all.

1790 the United States adopts similar law with the same purpose, "the Encouragement of Learning. " The duration was identical to England.

Looking at the graph above - every time the copyright laws changes it is extended for a longer period of time. The last extension is pejoratively referred to as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act," due to extensive lobbying by Disney Corporation.

Current copyright is now: 70 years after the creator dies or 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier, for corporate creations.

Mickey was published in 1923 so my guess is around 2015 lobbyist will want extensions again. Since what they really wanted in 1998 was forever. What this means in practical terms is that almost all of the 20th century is still locked up in copyright and cannot be used without permission and royalties paid.

To put this in a different perspective if 28 years was still the length of copyright - every song the Beatles ever recorded would be in public domain. Every movie, photograph, painting, sculpture, song, and literary work created before 1982 would be a part of public domain and free to use for any purpose. My mind spins with all the possibilities for mash-ups.

Should artists be able to cull from the cultural archive for creative purposes?

When should a creative work pass into public domain to be expanded on by others?

Science fiction writer, Cory Doctorow, was asked to submit his thoughts on copyright to the British Council: He posted his essay on Boing Boing.

I learned to write by copying. In 1977, when I was six, my father took me to 'Star Wars'. I couldn't figure out how a made-up story could be so exciting, so I went home, stapled some paper together and trimmed it to book size, and wrote out the story as best I remembered it, doing it over and over again as I strove to unpick it.

Today, I earn my living by copying: taking ideas that excite me and combining them in ways that are mine, but never wholly mine.

If copyright law is to truly nurture art and creativity, rather than merely lining the pockets of the last generation of copyists who now declare themselves to be pure of all replication and wholly original from the first word to the last, it *must* recognize and celebrate the wonderful thing that is copying.

This idea of learning by copying, and creating by copying, is an ancient concept in the arts and I am reminded of the often quoted "good artists borrow and great artists steal" which actually comes from this quote by TS Eliot (h/t Nancy Prager):

One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.

300 years ago copyright was established as a means of breaking up monopolies. The companies were not happy about it, and have been fighting these laws every since. As the British Council revisits copyright laws should the value of public domain be given more consideration? Artist's need to earn a living, and societies need to adapt creative works for other purposes. These works become a part of the collective experience, and in order to use them for "the enhancement of learning" they need to become public domain at some point. Why does an artist still need money 70 years after they are dead? Could corporations get by on 50 years instead of 95? Do current laws nurture art and creativity? These questions seems worthy of discussion.

Embedded Viddie: Annie Lennox and DJ Earworm Mash-up

Graph Credit: Wikimedia Commons (Vectorization of Tom Bell's graph, which shows expansion of U.S. copyright law. See fuller description at the original website).

Other mash-ups

Updated

Consider the possibilites!