Commentary: Bryan Adams may be onto something about copyrights

Commentary: Bryan Adams may be onto something about copyrights

What Bryan Adams is proposing in Canada will help authors get paid and keep works available to the public, says one observer.

Bryan Adams sings during the closing ceremony for the Invictus Games at the Olympic Park in east Lo

MELBOURNE: Last Tuesday (Sep 18), Bryan Adams entered the copyright debate.

That’s Bryan Adams the singer and songwriter, the composer of “(Everything I Do) I Do It for You”.

Authors, artists and composers often have little bargaining power, and are often pressured to sign away their rights to their publisher for life.

Adams appeared before a Canadian House of Commons committee to argue they should be entitled to reclaim ownership of their creations 25 years after they sign them away – to publishers and music production houses or the like.

In Canada they get them back 25 years after they are dead, when the rights automatically revert to their estate.

Some publishers voluntarily put such clauses in their contracts, but that is something they choose to do, rather than something the law mandates.

WHAT COPYRIGHTS ARE FOR

Copyright is a government-granted limited monopoly to control certain uses of an author’s work.

It is meant to achieve three main things: Incentivise the creation of works, reward authors, and benefit society through access to knowledge and culture.

Incentive and reward are not the same thing.

INCENTIVES NEED NOT BE BIG

The copyright term needed to provide an incentive to create something is pretty short.

The Australian Productivity Commission has estimated the average commercial life of a piece of music, for example is two to five years. Most pieces of visual art yield commercial income for just two years, with distribution highly skewed toward the small number with a longer life.

The average commercial life of a film is three to six years. For books, it is typically 1.4 to five years; 90 per cent of books are out of print after two years.

It is well accepted by economists that a term of about 25 years is the maximum needed to incentivise the creation of works.

READ: Intellectual property is making today's ideas tomorrow's assets, a commentary

BUT THE REWARDS FOR CREATORS SHOULD BE BIG

The second purpose is to provide a reward to authors, beyond the bare minimum incentive needed to create something. Quite reasonably, we want to give them a bit extra as thanks for their work.

But, in practice authors, artists and composers are often obliged to transfer all or most of their rights to corporate investors such as record labels or book publishers in order to receive anything at all.

In the film and television industries, it is not unusual for creators to have to sign over their whole copyright, forever.

It means investors don’t just take what is needed to incentivise their work but most of the rewards meant for the author as well.

This isn’t new. Creators have been complaining since at least the 1700s that too often they have no choice but to transfer their rights before anyone knows what they are worth.

READ: Intellectual property can power innovation and build an economy, a commentary

SOME COUNTRIES CARE FOR COPYRIGHTS BETTER

In recognition of these realities, many countries, including the US, have enacted author-protective laws that, for example, let creators reclaim their rights back after a certain amount of time, after publishers stop exploiting them, or after royalties stop flowing. Other laws guarantee creators “fair” or “reasonable” payment.

Canada’s law already protects authors by giving rights back to their heirs 25 years after they die. Bryan Adams’s proposal is to change one word in that law. Instead of copyright reverting to the creator 25 years after “death”, he wants it to revert 25 years after “transfer”.

COPYRIGHT IS MEANT TO BE ABOUT ENSURING SUCCESS

Handing rights back to creators after 25 years would not only help them secure more of copyright’s rewards, it would also help achieve copyright’s other major aim: To promote widespread access to knowledge and culture.

Right now laws is many other countries aren’t doing a very good job of that, particularly for older material.

Copyright lasts for so long, and distributors lose financial interest in works so fast, that they are often neither properly distributed nor available for anyone else to distribute.

In the book industry my research into almost 100,000 titles has found that publishers license older e-books to libraries on the same terms and for the same prices as newer ones. That includes “exploding” licenses which force books to be deleted from collections even if nobody ever borrows them.

Publishers are interested in maximising their share of library collections budgets, not ensuring that a particular author continues to get paid or a particular title continues to get read.

As a result libraries often forgo buying older (but still culturally valuable) books even though they would have bought them if the publisher cared enough to make them available at a reasonable price.

Restricting access to books is not in the interests of authors or readers.

READ: Why Nestle is fighting to keep KitKat’s shape, a commentary

REDIRECTING REWARDS

If rights reverted after 25 years, as Adams now proposes, authors would be able to do things like license their books directly to libraries in exchange for fair remuneration – say US$1 per loan.

If authors weren’t interested in reclaiming their rights, they could automatically default to a “cultural steward” that would use the proceeds to directly support new creators via prizes, fellowships and grants – much like Victor Hugo envisaged with his idea of a “paid public domain” back in 1878.

We could get creators paid more fairly while keeping cultures alive.

Rebecca Giblin is associate professor at Monash University. This commentary first appeared in The Conversation. Read it here.


Source: CNA/sl

Bookmark