An article about the recent J.K. Rowling court case [Ref: Guardian] reported that ‘Judge Robert Patterson looked a little bemused that a case on copyright law had turned into a discourse on the writer’s art.’ But art’s relationship to both its creator and wider society are at the heart of copyright [Ref: Wikipedia] – it is included in the US Constitution [Ref: Wikipedia] ‘to promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts.’ Today copyright is often associated with earning royalties for multimillionaire artists like Rowling or Damien Hirst – not to mention huge corprorations such as Disney [Ref: New Statesman]. In contrast major recording artists such as Radiohead [Ref: NME] and Nine Inch Nails [Ref: cnet] make a virtue out of giving away their work for free, while the Illegal Art exhibit laments the work ‘censored’ by copyright and openly mocks the legal scaremongering of copyright agreements [Ref: Illegal Art]. But according to Andrew Orlowski, ‘freeconomists’ [Ref: Wired] such as Chris Anderson risk taking copyright for granted [Ref: spiked]: artists need revenue in order to keep on creating, and copyright is their only protection. Helienne Lindvall makes the point that copyright does more to help struggling, upcoming artists than fat-cat megastars [Ref: Guardian] – something which the Featured Artists’ Coalition (including members of Radiohead) seems to recognise [Ref: Guardian]. Culture Secretary Andy Burnham has stated there is a moral case for extending performers’ copyright to 70 years so that they can financially benefit for the full course of their life [Ref: BBC News]. But Cory Doctorow warns of its terrible implications for preserving artistic legacies [Ref: Guardian]. Elsewhere, William Rees-Mogg admits that copyright can be used as censorship but that it is essential in allowing for something more important – the spreading of knowledge and ideas [Ref: Times Online].

Freedom of ideas?
Cory Doctorow highlights the problems with trying to determine ownership of ‘intellectual property’ [Ref: Guardian] – how do we balance an artist’s interests in their own work (work that society itself may value and want to preserve) with society’s interest in that work as part-and-parcel of both its artistic heritage and artistic innovation? Colin Burrow illustrates the way in which artistic development relies on the ability to plagiarise and borrow from others’ work [Ref: Guardian] while the rap group Public Enemy have railed against copyright restrictions on sampling [Ref: Stay Free Magazine]. Much anger has been raised at the intrusive [Ref: Guardian] and threatening nature of copyright enforcement [Ref: Times Online], particularly when it is arguably used as a form of censorship to protect a wealthy artist’s ego [Ref: Adam Macqueen]. But copyright also allows judgment to be exercised over how a work is reproduced: why shouldn’t an artist have a right to control their work’s reproduction and prevent, for example, well-known fictional characters being used in material that many would deem offensive [Ref: Guardian]? Wouldn’t art – particularly in an age of digital reproduction – descend into anarchy without such judgment and control? Moreover, when the reproduction of an artist’s work makes vast sums of money [Ref: ft.com], shouldn’t they (or their relatives) benefit financially? But big copyright fees, says Martin Kemp, are actually damaging the publication and circulation of fine art images [Ref:  Guardian].

Valuing artists?
It is worth noting that many of the artists promoting free art actually do expect some form of renumeration [Ref: Guardian] – it is just that they plan to gain revenue in more creative ways. One of the more innovative solutions being advocated by the Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig is Creative Commons Licensing [Ref: spiked]. This offers more freedom in the way in which rights are released, allowing artists to share their work with fellow artists, students and for other public services (as long as they are credited), but still allowing them control over who uses their work. But, says Orlowski, CC is primarily useful to amateur artists more interested in self-expression than creating great works of art. Great artists, he implies, need to get paid for their work – and they have earned the right to do so [Ref: The Register]. This poses important questions. Should society value and reward artistic genius – and the product of that genius – differently from other sorts of labour? Or is art a pinnacle of human endeavour that belongs to and benefits us all – and which should be reward enough for its creator?

Standing on the shoulders of giants?
In 2006 HM Treasury Gowers Review of Intellectual Property [Ref: H M Treasury] (summarised here [Ref: Public Technology.net]) called for tougher legal penalties on IP to prevent piracy and copyright infringement. Gowers defended this on the basis that the UK economy was now ‘knowledge-based’ rather than producing physical capital, and that creativity needed to be protected and ‘incentivised’ through copyright. But he also wanted to encourage creativity and innovation by increasing the free share of ideas so that ‘innovators can see further by standing on the shoulders of giants.’ The phrase was made famous by Sir Isaac Newton, whose discoveries helped shape mankind’s understanding of the world and improved people’s lives through technological advancement. But both scientific discovery and artistic creation can be long and arduous processes. Without the money from their rights many artists would be struggling to support themselves [Ref: ft.com] – let alone their families. Does copyright allow artists to stand on the shoulders of giants or does it censor expression and creativity? Should society instead find alternative ways of supporting artists financially so they can get on with creating great art [Ref: Guardian]?