Individual creators – Project update

This blog was originally published on CREATe’s Research Blog Series

Project: Individual Creators

Investigator: Dr Smita Kheria, University of Edinburgh

What did your research aim to do?
The key aim of the research was to understand how, in a changing technological and socio-economic environment, copyright law trickles down and is played out in day-to-day creative practices. The research focussed on individual creators and their understandings of how copyright intersects with their careers, in particular how relevant or irrelevant it might be to them and whether or not it hinders or benefits their creative practice.

How did you do it?
In order to investigate the role of copyright across different creative disciplines an extensive study was initiated. Over 120 formal in-depth interviews were conducted with a range of writers, illustrators, composers, visual artists, and performers. The interviews were undertaken (and in conjunction with observations) at selected literary and arts events and festivals (for example: Edinburgh International Book Festival, Edinburgh Fringe, Ars Electronica, Transmediale, Future Everything, Go North!, FACT Liverpool and others), and informal conversations with various agents, managers, curators and arts organisations. Additionally, organisations that play an important role in representing creative practitioners, such as the Association of Illustrators, the Musicians’ Union, the Scottish Artists Union, and the Society of Authors in Scotland, were consulted.

Events where interviews and observations were conducted:
Ars Electronica, Transmediale, FACT Liverpool

What are your key findings?
Copyright underpins the professional practices of a range of individual creators and many see it as valuable both economically (through monetary reward) and personally (when aspects such as reputation, attribution and ownership are viewed as important). In a precarious professional environment, where individual creative careers are portfolio-based, copyright continues to have a useful role. At the same time copyright is not always viewed as optimally configured when it can, in certain instances, restrict creative pursuits or fail to serve professional creators’ interests.

Creators’ relationships with copyright are complex and cannot be understood in economic terms alone. The value and utility of copyright, to an individual creator, is dependent on a number of factors; such as the nature of the creative practice, associated sources of earnings, awareness and understanding of copyright as applied to one’s practice, philosophical or political disposition. For instance, one common presumption is that copyright is only valuable to those creators that exploit their creations for monetary reward. However, my findings indicate that creators’ ability to exclude others through copyright is also valuable and it is perceived to be beneficial for several reasons, even by creators who don’t often, or perhaps never, exploit copyright.

What impact has your work had so far/what impact do you anticipate it will have?
A cursory look at popular media demonstrates that not only is copyright protection highly controversial but it is also an issue that polarises opinion. My work will contribute to dispelling various myths and misgivings that have come to be associated with the role of copyright in the working lives of creative practitioners. Recently, I took my findings to the largest arts festival in the world in order to engage the general public on the role of copyright in the lives of creatives. My spoken word show at 2017 Edinburgh Fringe (via Beltane Public Engagement Network’s Cabaret of Dangerous Ideas), used entertainment and story-telling to deconstruct notable copyright controversies while sharing narratives of individual creators’ lived experiences. I also took my findings to local creative practitioners in Edinburgh at the Creatives Mean Business initiative by Creative Edinburgh.

Dr Kheria, Edinburgh Fringe 2017, Cabaret of Dangerous Ideas, ‘No copyright, No Problem?’

My work is relevant to policy discussions on how copyright can more effectively serve the interests of individual creators.  At a meeting of the European Group of The International Federation of Musicians I drew on my findings to underline how the provisions in the proposed EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market can be recalibrated to properly and more positively affect the working lives of creators.

As a direct consequence of my research for this project I have collaborated with two music industry partners (British Academy of Songwriters, Composers & Authors and Music Managers Forum), and we successfully obtained an AHRC Creative Economies Studentship to evaluate whether the current legal framework is fit for purpose in rewarding musicians and music creators in the changing digital music consumption landscape.

How has your association with CREATe helped to take things forward?
It has provided opportunities for engaging with academics from different institutions on interdisciplinary research and for disseminating findings to both domestic and international audiences.

No copyright, no problem?

This blog was originally published on Cabaret of Dangerous Ideas and is a Q&A on my Edinburgh Fringe 2017 show ‘No copyright, No problem?’ (1.50pm, Wednesday 16th August at the New Town Theatre). The provocatively titled show was inspired by my fieldwork conducted at the Edinburgh Festivals, including the Fringe, in 2014 and 2015 and I drew on extensive empirical research on the perspectives and practices of individual creative practitioners (writers, illustrators, and visual artists) to ask whether copyright matters or could we live without it.

Poster for the show, 2017

Tell us a bit about yourself

Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Edinburgh. Feminist. Former amateur DJ.

How does your CoDI show fit in with your research?

My CoDI show is derived from research I conduct on copyright ‘law in action’; as opposed to just ‘law in the books’. Mainly I have been investigating whether copyright continues to play a useful role in creative practices. The show is inspired by fieldwork I conducted at the Edinburgh Festivals in 2014 and 2015 when I interviewed various writers, illustrators, comic book artists, visual artists and performers to find out what is the relevance of copyright, if any, in their everyday creative lives.

Why is the topic ‘dangerous’?

The topic is dangerous because it delves into the question of what would happen if there was no copyright, and relatedly, whether or not copyright currently has a positive role in today’s post-digital society. Dumping copyright might, on the surface, sound like a good idea, but the idea actually carries dangers with it because copyright protects both creative works and the livelihoods that many creators successfully derive from them.

If copyright disappeared, would we all really be able to ‘freely’ download and share all the content we like (e.g. Game of Thrones episodes, Harry Potter books, and Ed Sheeran songs)? Or, would other restrictions perhaps replace said copyright law and be even less desirable? Additionally, without copyright, would artists continue to create content and pursue financially sustainable creative lives? Would a sufficient number of artists continue to create so that we can continue enjoying reading, watching, listening to new creative content? And if so, what kind of artists will they be?

Perhaps most dangerously of all, without copyright protecting creators and their works, will large corporations like Google benefit more as they will be able to scoop up mountains of “free” content that they can then monetise ?

Does it rightly have this label? Is the topic unjustly controversial?

A cursory look at popular media demonstrates that not only is copyright protection highly controversial but also an issue that polarises opinion, and although we mightn’t often think about it, copyright is ubiquitous. In fact, it intersects with our lives on a daily basis.

Whether or not you are a professional content creator or producer, you are still likely to be regularly engaging with copyright protected content: watching videos on Youtube, taking photographs to share on Instagram, reposting a funny comic or illustration you found online on Facebook. The examples are endless (and they are not limited to the digital environment). If you are a professional content creator or producer then you will be routinely dealing with copyright in the various contracts and agreements you enter into (not as simple as it sounds).

Yet, copyright is more controversial today than it has ever been. The very ability to easily create, edit, and share copyright content has raised questions about the role of copyright. Do we need copyright when it poses restrictions on this process of creation and sharing? Do content creators really benefit from copyright? Is it an unjust monopoly?

Why is the topic important to you?

Copyright is a complex issue. It is important to me that research is used to examine the nature of the various myths and misunderstandings that have built around copyright, and to also properly assess if copyright can, or in fact does, play an important role in the lives of creative practitioners.

Describe your show in 3 words

Three pictures instead?

Why should the unenlightened Fringe-goer attend your show? What will they learn?

Because they will go boldly where no Fringe-goer has gone before!

At the largest arts festival in the world, the unenlightened Fringe-goer will see many artists and enjoy lots of creativity. As patrons and consumers of art, they can learn from my show, whether copyright law matters to artists, creativity, and society, or could we live without it.

Does copyright matter to creators?

Copyright has increasingly been subjected to public debate. Two weeks before the last UK general election, in May 2015, the Green Party, unwittingly, brought copyright to the attention of certain members of the electorate. The Green Party is a left-leaning, Green, political party with one MP in the House of commons (out of 650 MPs) and 3.8% share of the vote. On 22 April 2015, scrutiny began over one of the points in the party’s policy. This scrutiny appeared to have started on social media through discussions amongst illustrators and writers – many of whom self- identified as green party supporters or at least sympathised with their policies.

The party’s policy at the centre of the discussion was to “introduce generally shorter copyright terms, with a usual maximum of 14 years”. On 23 April 2015, several newspapers picked up on the social media debate and reported that authors and illustrators were shocked and alarmed with the Green Party’s policy: it would be an “appalling injustice” if this shorter copyright term were to come to effect. There was some confusion, as to what the Green party meant by the policy – did they mean a shorter term of 14 years after publishing or, the longer interpretation ie 14 years after the death of the author, the latter many authors appeared to be less dissatisfied with. After some to and fro, Caroline Lucas, their only MP, admitted that the party had ‘got it wrong’ and had agreed to review its policy on copyright.

The traditional news media coverage ended and this was seen as a resolution of sorts. But what is interesting is that – actually the battle about legitimacy of the authors’ beliefs about the importance of copyright duration in their writing lives continued.  Through online ethnography, it emerged that the discussion amongst authors and illustrators continued on social media even after the traditional news media coverage died. In these discussions, the duration of copyright protection simply became a launch pad for a debate on the role of copyright. There were attacks on creators that suggested they should do some ‘work’ to earn a living, or that copyright is only a means for publishing houses to make money, some suggested that writers don’t earn much as they had seen it reported in newspapers and jumped to the conclusion that as such copyright is irrelevant for them. There were misunderstandings and misgivings about how copyright functions, and also much trolling! These social media discussions served to highlight the bewilderment and frustration of many creators as to the general lack of understanding today about the role of copyright in creative worlds and, how authors make a living. Some creators even saw this as hostile public perception about artists having any rights or having a choice about how they make a living.

Some may consider these frustrations of authors rather surprising, since the “creative industries” have been accused of aggressively justifying the role and importance of copyright in the digital era. But what this story suggests is that voices and perspectives of individual creators on how they exploit copyright, or not exploit copyright, and how they navigate the current economic and technological realities to make a living, have not have been adequately understood. And this incident is just example that highlights the importance of capturing and reflecting the perspectives and interests of the individual creator in debates about copyright today.

In the ‘Individual Creators’ project, which is investigating the interaction between copyright and the everyday life of creative practitioners, I have been examining the following research questions and focussing on the creators’ perspectives:

  • What is the role of copyright in the day to day practice of creative practitioners, and how is it changing? Are their views changing in relation to it and why?
  • What is the actual as well as perceived value of copyright from the creators’ point of view?
  • How are meanings and beliefs regarding copyright being shaped and how do such meanings, beliefs, and experiences regarding copyright ultimately shape the various contours of creators’ practices?

In recent months, I have shared the story above, as well as, early findings from the interview and observation data collected in the project, at a number of recent events:

  • ‘Copyright and Individual Creators: Preliminary Findings from an Empirical Study’ presented at Law and Society Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, USA, 2015
  •  ‘Life on other Worlds: Creators and Copyright’ presented at GikII, Berlin, 2015
  • ‘Creators and copyright: Voices from the field’ presented at Friction and Fiction: IP, Copyright and Digital Futures, Victoria & Albert Museum, London, 2015
  • ‘It feels like I am always hustling, constantly hustling!: Creators, copyright and business models’ presented at the Global Congress on Intellectual Property & The Public Interest, New Delhi, 2015

Slides from one such presentation can be found here.

1 2