The passing into law of the Digital Economy Act in April 2010 was controversial for a number of reasons [Re: BBC News]. The Act itself was a response to growing pressure to protect intellectual property and the creative industries in a digital age building on 2008’s Digital Britain report [Ref: BBC News]. The Act is currently under judicial review, amidst vocal opposition. However, this particular controversy reflects a long-running argument about the role of copyright in the arts industries, and perhaps more profoundly, arts relationship both to its creator and wider society. Copyright has existed, though always disputed, as a method of protecting artists’ intellectual property since the eighteenth century, when parliament decided to create a law that would protect books from piracy. More recently the issue of copyright has come under fire with the growth of the mass media, particularly the internet. Crucial to understanding the debate is the question of whether art can ever be owned by an individual or company (especially its creator) or whether it belongs to an intellectual sphere free of normal property restrictions. Does copyright, as some argue, protect the integrity of the arts and its creator? Or is the public benefit of the arts stifled by its imposition? With large sums of money at stake in some arts sectors, and very small amounts available in others, it is a debate which transcends easy cost-benefit analysis and straightforward technical solutions and goes to the heart of the question of what society understands art to be.

Digital rights and wrongs
Copyright law has evolved as technology and society has adapted to different methods of consuming art, which seeks to balance both rewards to the creator and the benefit to society of access to free knowledge and ideas, known as the public domain [Ref: Economist]. This is currently divided into economic and moral rights over ownership granted to the creator [Ref: Art Newspaper]. Always controversial – famously Disney has extended almost indefinite copyright over characters taken in part from the public domain - the development of the internet age has given the debate a new urgency [Ref: Observer]. How then do we balance an artist’s interest in their own with society’s interest in that work as part-and-parcel of both its artistic heritage and artistic innovation? Critics argue that copyright has now moved beyond its original intentions and is being used as a method to stifle creativity and the free exchange of ideas, a shift that is detrimental to the dynamic of artistic innovation [Ref: Guardian]. It is claimed that just as the printing press created a need for copyright, so the ‘freeconomy’ of the internet should signal its end [Ref: Wired].  But what would this mean for the arts? Copyright, say its supporters, allows judgment to be exercised over how a work is reproduced. Wouldn’t art – particularly in an age of digital reproduction – descend into anarchy without the judgment and control individual artists have over their work? However critics insist that attempts to maintain the status quo can only ever become more restrictive and authoritarian, as evidenced by what is seen to be the failure of the Digital Economy Act [Ref: The Times].

Valuing artists?
There have been numerous instances of copyright disputes across the arts in recent years, most notably with regards to file-sharing on the internet. Some artists argue that copyright is the best way to realise and reward their creative labour [Ref: Wall Street Journal]. Without intellectual property protection, some argue, the creative industries cannot survive [Ref: Financial Times]. In a ‘creative economy’, campaigners such as the Creative Coalition Campaign claim, it is not just individual artists who will suffer from piracy but the many other people who now work within the creative sector [Ref: New Statesman].  Neither is it just the wealthy songwriters or superstar visual artists who benefit from copyright, says songwriter Helienne Lindvall, but the smaller independent artists who rely on the income that it guarantees. But others remain unconvinced. It is argued that copyright is predominantly beneficial to powerful companies with expensive legal teams, who effectively restrict the creative freedom of individual artists to protect their pay-packets [Ref: New Yorker]. ‘Free culture’ advocate Lawrence Lessig cites examples such as Creative Commons Licensing as innovative ways creators can liberate themselves from industry concerns whilst still exercising moral rights [Ref: spiked] but others counter that this does not solve the pressing necessity of providing the income to create with [Ref: Guardian]. 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, something that should be reward enough for its creator?

Standing on the shoulders of giants?
Underlying this debate is a complex tension between creativity and originality. Art often draws inspiration from other works, and it is this tendency to borrow which generates the most conflict with digital rights [Ref: Guardian]. An art-form such as hip-hop, it is argued, would have struggled without the ability to sample and essentially steal copyrighted work [Ref: New Statesman].  The 2006 Gowers Review of Intellectual Property argued that copyright needed to strike a balance between ‘incentivising’ creativity while allowing freedom so that ‘innovators can see further by standing on the shoulders of giants’ [Ref: HM Treasury]. 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. For opponents of copyright, the phrase highlights the absurdity of assuming human creativity and endeavour will only occur through financial incentives: many great artists rarely made a penny. But for commentator Andrew Orlowski, attacks on copyright often act to undermine the role of the artist in the creative process and ignore that the arts are an industry with economic needs like any other [Ref: spiked]. As journalist Cory Doctorow notes, the question should be approached by going back to first principles and asking what copyright should be doing [Ref: Guardian]. Does copyright allow artists to stand on the shoulders of giants, or does it restrict expression and creativity?