Culture only evolves if it is shared. Humans have been sharing for countless generations. Culture is our most valuable achievement – physical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual. But it has always had to be paid for, one way or another. The new realities require us to find new ways of supporting this phenomenal effort.

Apologizing for a solution that “does not give the artistic autonomy one may crave” (Walter van Holst, above) reveals a lack of understanding of the needs of creators…

Happy new year, Bob

thanks Bob. Regarding point 1, this is exactly the approach of creative commons, to give creators the choice and make copyright more flexible; regarding point 3, though the digital revolution has increased precarity in some aspects, it also predates it, and it brings other advantages, hence a mixed reality. The difference remains between choices that either sabotage technology (DRM) and illegalize human sharing/cooperation behaviours; and approaches that seek solutions within the new social and technological realities.

Jim Killock’s comments reveals how important it is that a campaign for change understands concepts and aims. “Weaker”? “Stronger”? “More flexible”? Time for clarity…

Bob

Walter van Holst’s points are deeply unconvincing!…

Point 1 – it would be hard to find a photographer that agrees. That’s why the overwhelming majority value and retain their copyright.

Point 2 – the example he gives might happen in 0.01% of cases. Why highlight something so insignificant?

Point 3 – he confirms the economic precariousness of creators today, which is the point I’ve been making all along…

Bob

I think this question shows the poor framing of the below article.

Flexible copyright is not weaker: it is stronger.

Why? Because flexibility affords permission, leeway, legitimacy; it can legally control or permit as appropriate.

Thus flexibility aids the long term survival of copyright as a system.

If you’d like an analogy: do engineers generally consider cast iron or steel as stronger? And which is more flexible?

“First of all, the livelihood of a lot of photographers does not depend on their ability to license their copyright. A lot of photography work is commissioned. And yes, that usually does not give the artistic autonomy one may crave, but it does not necessarily make it lack creativity all of a sudden.

Secondly, any professional photographer knows that if a photograph contains objects that are under copyright, in quite a few jurisdictions such a photograph may have to be cleared with those copyright holders. Copyright introduces transaction costs that are often prohibitive for new work. So a weaker copyright may very well benefit photographers.

Lastly, professional photography as the sole source of income for specialists is going the way of the dodo, regardless of what is happening in copyright. Photography could be a prime example of digital technology removing the barriers of entry to a market to such an extent that for all practical intents and purposes a talented amateur (photography still requires talent, regardless of equipment) will do fine in a great number of situations where you otherwise would hire a professional photographer. No matter how weak or strong copyright is, the full-time professional photographer, especially the artistically autonomous kind, will become as rare as the full-time professional novelist. No amount of copyright will stop this.”

Your comments are appreciated. You say, “The main concern of the free culture movement is to find a synergy between the need of creators to make a living, and the need of the public to share creation…” Most creators would support this. They would also say that it’s important to agree and establish an alternative model before weakening the copyright system on which their livelihood currently depends.

In seeking to get rid of something bad, there’s an obligation to come up with an alternative. At the moment “Weaker Copyright Benefits Everyone” is unfortunately untrue.

Bob

The main concern of the free culture movement is to find a synergy between the need of creators to make a living,

My sense is that it is probably the same. In france, only 1,000 people can live from copyright, and that was the case even before digital sharing, so the copyright system is not working for most creators and I’m assuming this is so for photographers. I’m also assuming that the dynamic that unknown creators benefit from exposure, and thus sharing, would be the same.

I could be wrong, and would welcome any pointers. The main concern of the free culture movement is to find a synergy between the need of creators to make a living, and the need of the public to share creation, using moderate copyright that benefits creators instead of intermediary corporations.

Michel

How does weaker copyright benefit those, like photographers, whose livelihood depend on being able to license their copyright?

Copyright isn’t just about sharing music files, or greedy record companies. Countless creative people around the world, photographers included, depend totally on their copyright in order to make a precarious living. How would weakening copyright help them survive?

Bob