This is not to say that the intention
of copyright is entirely negligible; when one’s income depends on monetizing
their art, securing it is essential. Derivative works laws insure that reproduction
will result in authorial attribution and financial compensation. Yet the
associated issue of Fair Use is an increasingly vague arena of what
constitutes original content. Something like Doggie Woggiez Poochie Woochiez
that constructs an entire narrative out of VHS ripped dog commercials and TV
shows would most likely be considered a transformative work by most that see
it. Yet its appropriation of clearly copyrighted material would prove negligible
should a court determine it “contributes nothing additional” or “undermines the
market of the original work”. Thankfully for the project’s producers’
Everything is Terrible, their niche market as well as a comparably meager
possibility for financial gain on the part of the companies ensures they can
continue to profit from the film. Ten
seconds of a Wishbone episode is nothing in comparison to the potential
earnings from a “Grey Album” lawsuit.
With big money at stake, the companies’ only squeeze harder as the
consumers-turned-producers continue to obtain and utilize works in creative ways. Consider it the natural side effect of exponential growth in a short
frame of time. Gone is the era of gradual content dissemination; consumers can
receive content and re-appropriate it with near simultaneity. Copyright laws
founded in already outdated modes of acquisition can’t properly contend with the
freedom of modern media. As Paul Goldstein observes “copyright doctrine today remains wedded to the economics of the printing press.”
Commercial image and content integration is the next step in creative re-interpretation. George Lucas might fight against fan-fiction, but there’d be no Star Wars without The Hidden Fortress. Entities such as Disney integrate themselves into the mass consciousness, yet their creators subvert laws in order to retain financial control. Disney World and Mickey Mouse are iconic institutions with far-reaching cultural relevance, yet the public at large is denied their use for personal expression. As expected, people create with it anyway.
As technology progresses, increased consumer participation with the media is guaranteed. How lawmakers will ultimately address this inevitability is still uncertain.
If participatory culture and copyright laws cannot coexist effectively in their present form, what specifically can be done? Do you think companies will be keen to cede ground in the hopes of securing some other form of monetization on their works? Or do you disagree and think tougher regulation is the answer?
