OPINION: When digital changes everything, copyright might have to change too

OPINION

Patricia Aufderheide

Patricia Aufderheide

Digital changes everything, for better and for worse, but for sure. That is the common theme of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s recent study Copyright and the Creative Sector. It offers a fascinating and solidly documented insider look at the challenges facing New Zealand creatives—authors, filmmakers, gamers, software designers, musicians, visual artists and product designers and architects.

Their double-sided challenges sound familiar to anyone who studies, as I do, practice within creative industries internationally. It’s never been easier to make work, but that’s just as true for amateurs and upstarts as it is for seasoned professionals. It’s never been easier or cheaper to reach out and target a network of potential users or purchasers; but it’s never been easier for them to ignore you or to find your material on a torrent somewhere. Collaboration and cross-border creativity are ever more common; so are bad creative breakups. Innovation speeds up production but also forces makers to constantly invest in new equipment and training.

The report, built from interviews, a survey, focus group and workshops, is full of little gems. There’s great information on the wide variety of revenue models, as well as their relative popularity (freemium’s at the bottom). Most everybody values the copyright in their works, but nearly a quarter of survey respondents do not even try to collect revenue from them. Everybody, understandably, wants credit for their work even when they don’t want money.

Creatives are figuring out clever ways to cope with piracy, while consumers are clamoring for better legal services to use.

But for me, some of the most interesting parts were hidden in the corners, and had to do with how creatives experience copyright when they are trying to create. This is because my scholarly work has been focused on use of exceptions to copyright monopoly among U.S. creators.

The major exception to copyright monopoly in the U.S. is fair use. Fair use is the limited right to employ unlicensed copyright material. Journalists use it to quote relevant material in their journalism. Visual artists use it when they make collages, or comment on previous work. Libraries and museums use it for digitizing exhibits and collections. Scholars use it both for their research and in publishing. Filmmakers use it when, for instance, they refer to a historical moment by showing clips and images of TV and magazine reporting about it. And of course Google and all Internet platforms that employ any kind of search depend on it because technically they need to make a digital copy of material in order to provide search results.

Fair use is immensely valuable to U.S. business—The Computer and Communications Industry Association estimated in 2011 that even in the Great Recession industries dependent on fair use contributed close to $5 trillion to the U.S. economy.

It’s also extraordinarily valuable for creatives of all kinds, who put it to work millions of times a day in the U.S. Ironically, that’s not always obvious, since it’s so ingrained into ordinary practice that people take it for granted. My research showed that when people don’t explicitly know about fair use, they tend to self-censor, fearful of copyright violation. But when they understand it, it enables their digital workflow and creativity.

And it doesn’t hurt their bottom line, because fair use permits re-use when the re-user is adding some value—creating some new culture, doing something different with the material than its marketplace role. That’s the opposite of piracy, which is taking something without paying and using it for its original purpose. Under fair use, the original market for the material isn’t touched. For any kind of routine fair use, the litigation history is almost zero.

Fair use has worked so well in a digital era because it’s a general rather than specific rule. It doesn’t say, “You can use 400 words/30 seconds/a tenth,” or “you can do this in the classroom but not the hallway.” It says, in effect, “Take what you need to do something different than the marketplace role served by this material, and make more culture.” So entrepreneurs can dream of applications that depend, say, on digital search; filmmakers can think about making movies on current events; meme creators can amuse each other all day long. 

New Zealand currently lacks fair use, but has other exceptions, highly specific and designed for an analog era. Their limitations show up particularly when creators want to access or showcase existing culture. Filmmakers are forced to go to physical archives when they could be looking online; they can’t use material where the owner can’t be found; they’re reluctant to make work that involves a lot of quotation because of both expense and the fact that licenses can be limited.  Authors must spend large chunks of time hunting down copyright owners for work they quote, and the evolution of ebooks—which hold the promise of multimedia—is affected. Librarians and archivists are frustrated because they would like to digitize their collections and make them available; museums and galleries face some of the same challenges, with digital innovation just out of their reach. Budding visual artists are running scared of copyright when they think of new work to do, or producing work they’re not sure is legal.

None of these problems has anything to do with taking other people’s work for the original market purpose. What these New Zealand creators are trying to do is to make distinctively new work, enable new work, envision and imagine new work. Between their own fears and the law, they’re locking up their own imaginations.

Whether it’s U.S.-style fair use or Canada-style fair dealing or some unique reform appropriate to New Zealand, more flexible exceptions to copyright monopoly will be important to an era of such rapid and constant change. By taking the actual production practice of creatives seriously, the report offers an opportunity to address the real gaps between yesterday’s copyright law, today’s realities and tomorrow’s possibilities. 

Patricia Aufderheide is a 2017 Fulbright Senior Fellow at the Queensland University of Technology and University Professor at American University in Washington, D.C. She is the author, with Peter Jaszi, of Reclaiming Fair Use (University of Chicago Press). She will give presentations in Auckland and Wellington in March 2017.


6 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

6 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

One of the best pieces I've read on restrictions to creatives, in NZ, via our draconian enforcement of copyright and it's bounded fair dealing provisions (compared with US fair use). For creatives, or relevant for me, writers, our culture and our tradition are the writers before us and our contemporaries; it's (L)iterature. But writers are the only group that copyright effectively cuts off from that tradition. Because the permission process is so unwieldy, and in the one instance I managed to get a reply from a writer's agent it was a blanket refusal, I can't even (effectively) quote another writer in an artistic work (with full credit via footnotes and bibliography). So long as there is full attribution (copyright is not the same subject as plagiarism) then that should be included in fair dealing, and that's just for starters. It's absurd. Imagine if we had law that separated ethnicity from the cultures and traditions that make up identity? Well why to NZ creatives accept it?

Answer: the law is made by suits. The current CEO of copyright NZ (nothing personal Paula) is a damned accountant (with a sketchy view of this overly-complex law. When I asked her why I couldn't quote another writer in a novel manuscript with credit but without having to seek a permission that probably won't be given, she thought I could. Enough said).

Hopeless.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

For the record, in a comment about copyright and the arts I wish, this once, I didn't have so many typos. As it goes.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Addendum. My first post was all about one thing.

Copyright will remain an impediment to artistic expression, denying artists a commons in New Zealand, so long as copyright law is made by lawyers and accountants, and precedent is set in the courts by judges over arguments placed by lawyers. Ie, where copyright law is governed by those who parasitically feed off the arts, not who 'are' the arts.

Note I'm not talking about IP in general, just copyright as it relates to artistic expression, which is very different.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Most of the support for "strong" Copyright (and Patents for that matter) come from "corporate rights holders" not creators (or innovators). Corporations are all about creating and exploiting market distortions, which is what Copyright is from their perspective. The balance with the "commons" has been well and truly upset in NZ. We need formal fair use similar to the US here in NZ. That, however, is the *only* way we should emulate the US' very corporate-tailored IP regime.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

FYI, my research at QUT involves a survey of creative practices in relation to copyright, which might permit some comparisons between NZ and Australian practices. If you're interested, I'd be very grateful if you would take it. Thanks in advance! Any creator--journalist, musician, filmmaker, author, other--is eligible. It's anonymous, and on an academic platform that is secure and passworded. Here's the link: https://american.co1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bKQLpFacNB9cZb7.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Completed your survey Patricia.

Note, re parody, unlike Australia and - I believe - the rest of the Commonwealth, New Zealand has no fair dealing exemption for parody. We're one of the only nations that doesn't. Given a lot of the parodied material has to be included for a parody to work, this means parody, in total, is basically outlawed in New Zealand which is a huge attack on free expression by a draconian copyright.

Perhaps Copyright NZ, or whatever or whoever, should be pushing to give Kiwi creatives at least this?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot

Forex

Sym Price Change
USD 0.7015 -0.0143 -2.00%
AUD 0.8914 -0.0211 -2.31%
EUR 0.5928 -0.0140 -2.31%
GBP 0.5335 -0.0084 -1.55%
HKD 5.4733 -0.1160 -2.08%
JPY 78.9760 -1.9660 -2.43%

Commods

Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1280.7 -4.180 2017-10-18T00:
Oil Brent 58.1 0.280 2017-10-18T00:
Oil Nymex 52.0 0.170 2017-10-18T00:
Silver Index 17.0 -0.044 2017-10-18T00:

Indices

Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 8115.0 8129.9 8115.0 0.11%
NASDAQ 6634.3 6635.5 6623.7 0.01%
DAX 13036.3 13042.6 13043.0 -0.41%
DJI 23087.1 23172.9 22997.4 0.70%
FTSE 7542.9 7542.9 7542.9 -0.26%
HKSE 28783.8 28798.8 28711.8 -1.92%
NI225 21450.0 21503.8 21363.0 0.40%
ASX 5890.5 5910.2 5890.5 0.05%