Is it creativity if it is built on someone else's work? Well, I am not really sure how one is supposed to be creative unless he is building off of someone else's work, however distant the connection may be. I do not believe there truly is something as original thought, which if why I believe that any create piece of work which has been created, whether it be a piece or art, a song, or a story has to have been inspired, at least in part, by someone else. What I cannot quite seem to figure out is where one would draw the line between being "inspired" and "stealing" someone else's ideas. Needless to say, anyone who has ever created a masterpiece of any kind has been inspired by someone else's work. Everyone knows that some of Shakespeare's greatest works were not his original ideas, but adaptations from other works. Where would the literary world be today if there had been such stringent copyright laws back then, and Shakespeare had been prevented from adding his own spin to someone else's work?
Although I do believe that copyright laws are there for logical reason, I believe that they need to be altered to fit today's world of ever changing technology and ideas. With the internet allowing for ideas to be shared at light speed with people from all corners of the world, it seems ridiculous to halt the creative ideas of so many because another author or musician has a piece of work which resembles yours in even the slightest way. Such copyright laws are preventing many from reaching their full potential and becoming the next Shakespeare, Cezanne, or Buckethead.
Clearly, it is wrong to steal another's work. However, it is another thing completely if one gets his inspiration from a particular source and samples a small piece of that work and reworks it to make it his own new, creative piece. If we continue blocking the inspirational paths of so many because someone else has had an idea that in some way resembles a small part of it, we are soon going to be left with nothing. Eventually, there is going to come a time where unless we start putting a new spin on old works, we are going to be stuck in a world with the same stories, music, and art.
True artists, those that create because they love what they are doing and they want to share with others what has inspired them, are willing to let others use their works to create something of their own. However, artists, musicians, producers, authors, and anyone else who has something to offer the mass public, are rarely left to their own devices. They have managers and publishers and executives and a slew of others to whom they must answer. Because the power has been taken out of the hands of the artists and instead rests with those who own them, money has become the central issue around which copyright laws exists. Something clearly needs to be done to maintain that an author or musician gets credit for his work, but that the same protection that is extended to the author or musician does not hinder the creative works of others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your last paragraph really hits on the crux of the matter for me. I see two sides of the issue. 1) authorship, artistry, or credit and bragging rights. Some people just want credit for their work, others may only care about sharing their labor with the world, and still others may only care that they can brag about having creating something. 2) Money, money, and more money. The profit motive is a powerful force. The law should protect the interests of both sides. Both have a rightful claim for protection. However, I believe that once profit enters the picture, the power and rights of authorship should be curtailed. Lifetime plus 70 years is far too long. The original law had it right. From the moment an author sells the "rights" to "copy" a work, a clock should start ticking down 10 to 20 years. Until that sale, rights are owned by the author indefinitely, even if the rights are "loaned" to other artists for free. People on both sides of the issue would have benefits and protections.
ReplyDeleteI second the notion that 70 years is too long. From the perspective of someone who has created in the past, and yearns to create in the future, I feel that I deserve due credit in producing something - if not wholly new in concept, at least original in arrangement, implementation or execution. However, there is a democratic side to me that feels enough is enough. One cannot hope to greedily hang on to one's work forever. On the contrary, there is a certain level of satisfaction, of achievement, of bliss, even, at knowing that once something is created, it is released, to be used and manipulated by the body social at a whim. I would argue that, far from stingy Scrooges obsessing about recognition and fame and conservation, artists are thrilled to be included in the consumptive zoetrope of images and "ideas" spinning around in our heads.
ReplyDeleteCopyright will not guarantee originality. But originiality should always guarantee a copyright, if only to the end that at least the "author" is not being pimped to the market without his/her consent.
I would like to amend the above term "democratic" with "socialistic." Seems to fit better; maybe it'll even ruffle a few feathers. God knows how taboo that word has become.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that money has become a central issue when it comes to copyright laws. Money is a central issue in pretty much everything in today's society. And I third the notion that 70 years is a bit extensive. It's unfortunate that these artists and their creative expressions are being manipulated by those that understand the economics somewhat better than they do. There should be a reevaluation of the current copyright laws for the sake of our future aspirants.
ReplyDelete