Married to the Printing Press

Regulatory structures must evolve in tandem with their given arena to minimize conflict. An administration that increases regulation to counteract the changes in its industry will struggle until it cedes to change as well. That the current landscape of Copyright Law and Fair Use is a battlefield of money grabbing and legal squabbles is no surprise. Modern copyright law takes no account of participatory culture, settling for broad or reactionary laws that stifle creativity.

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 Copyright laws founded in already outdated modes of acquisition can’t properly contend with the freedom of modern media.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. People will still create with the content 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?