External Aspect of Copyright

Although the primary focus of this paper is the legitimacy of the internal aspect of copyright as per the perceptions of writers, it is worth briefly noting some of the interview findings with respect to the external aspect of copyright (the ability to exclude others), an issue that has rarely been focussed on in the economic literature. A large majority of interviewees considered the writer’s ability to exclude others on the basis of copyright, and its potential deterrent effect, as quite important, especially when it came to preventing unauthorised copying and modification by others

74 Kretschmer and Hardwick, ‘Authors’ Earnings from Copyright and Non-copyright Sources’, pp. 30 and 174.

75 Gibson, Johnson and Dimita, ‘The Business of Being an Author’, pp. 12 and 17.

170 Whose Book is it Anyway?

for commercial gain, and also more generally when unauthorised acts might not be in line with the artist’s political or ideological beliefs. In fact, when asked about the role of copyright in their practice several interviewees associated the question, first and foremost, with the external aspect of copyright; and offered to explain whether or not prevention of infringement was important in their opinion, and if so, when and why.

Having the ability to exclude others by enforcing copyright (either themselves or through intermediaries such as publishers) was perceived by the interviewees to be economically valuable to their practice, but it was also important to them on a personal level. However, such notions of perceived value were quite variable and markedly contextual; it was the writer’s (or their representative’s) ability to choose whether or not to enforce their rights that was perceived to be important.

While nearly all the interviewees valued the external aspect of copyright, they were clear that they did not perceive strong or strict enforcement of rights as a necessity in every situation. It was important for some to be able to gauge whether the enforcement was required, dependent upon the context of infringement; crucially this was seen as an expression of the choice afforded by having copyright protection.

Having the right to choose and control how others use one’s work is something Czerkawska believed to be valuable:

you should have the right to say no, you, nobody else should be able to come along and take that away from you, and say well you know, I’m going to do something […] Intellectual property, the central creation of what you have made, I do believe very strongly that you should be able to do what you want with that.

As to when the external aspect of copyright might come into play in interviewees’ practices, online infringement was often provided as an example. However, on this matter, the interviewees differed widely in their views on when enforcement was necessary. Although a number of interviewees thought that some form of rights infringement was inevitable, especially in the digital domain, a variety of responses were offered. For instance, Brookmyre, in the context of file sharing, seemed to accept that with the advent of ebooks it was simply unavoidable that some people would share his work freely:

I am aware that on the internet now people will be passing on links to download like 10,000 books at a time, obviously it’s a concern on one level, yet on another level you think well often it’s a bit like someone lending a book or a bit like when we used to tape records that yes, that was an infringement of copyright but it was also a very effective way of sharing and introducing people to new work.

While Brookmyre indicated that online enforcement is a matter that is handled by his publishers, he personally viewed some infringement as inevitable, in that there will always be a segment of his readership that will illegally download his work. He did not necessarily see it as something negative:

I think for the most part, maybe I’m being just optimistic, but often it’s people who weren’t going to go and buy your book anyway, and if they end up reading one of your books, that way then there is maybe a chance they will go and buy another one, but maybe they’ll illegally download another one, I don’t know.

Similarly, Murdoch contextualised things in terms of online music sharing, and expressed the opinion that it this is not necessarily a bad thing, that it can increase an artist’s overall exposure, although he admitted sharing would be problematic if it ever meant that the potential for lost revenue was significant:

I’ve always thought about rights. And I’m probably more relaxed now than I was in the past… [but] if I had a million-selling book tomorrow, and everybody started ripping it off I’d probably be a bit annoyed, I’m a human being.

In contrast to those who demonstrated a certain amount of contextually bound flexibility in their views on online infringement, a number of other writers were much less forgiving. Clarke, like Brookmyre, understood the challenges presented by so-called ‘free culture,’ but took the opposite view with respect to the online sharing of her works. She was of the opinion that sharing would not necessarily provide the benefits claimed by others and that not everyone would see a general upturn in readership. According to Clarke, a direct relationship exists between the loss of book sales and the potential for this to damage a writer’s chances of finding new book deals or renewing existing contracts: which, in

172 Whose Book is it Anyway?

turn, could serve to undermine one’s ability to continue earning a living from writing. Her perception was that infringement amounted to theft:

[W]ell, it feels like it’s stealing from me basically. And it’s, the more it happens, for some authors, if it is taking away that many sales, that can damage their chances of getting another contract. So that can stop them writing books. But people don’t see it as stealing and I do.

Clarke was also eager to highlight that the majority of writers do not earn significant amounts for their activities (a point that was raised by many interviewees) so percentages received for book sales were squeezed when readers did not pay for titles. For her, and several other interviewees, there was an overarching sense that rights generate income and therefore are an essential component of sustaining a writing career, so the external aspect of copyright mattered economically:

well, it’s the revenue source, it’s my life, and my livelihood, and if I don’t get paid properly for that, you know, which is a small amount anyway then I would have to stop writing books… it’s intellectual property. It’s not because I put a piece of myself into it, it’s just, it’s lost income.

The perspectives on the necessity of rights enforcement were heterogeneous. This also applied to contexts other than online infringement. However, variables such as the nature and context of infringement, its potential economic or reputational impact on an individual practice, and personal or ideological beliefs, were some of the factors that interviewees mentioned in assessing whether or not rights should be enforced. For example, some considered fanfiction to be paying homage to an author, and as the kind of activity that they would deem acceptable, but infringements that are attempts by others to profit from their works are unacceptable.

Overall, it was clear that, despite the existence of differing views regarding the point at which the external aspect of copyright became relevant, and for which reason (economic sustenance of their creative practice or more personal reasons), the interviewees were unanimous in seeing the external aspect of copyright as crucial in protecting their creative interests, and as something that afforded them the ability to choose how it is contextually applied. Recent empirical research on copyright and writers in the UK has largely focussed on the internal aspect of copyright (exploitation of rights and earnings), but the findings

in this section suggest that the external aspect (ability to exclude others) also has an important value in writers’ everyday practice and cannot be ignored in assessing the legitimacy of copyright. Future research in this area would benefit from acknowledgement and assessment of the potential economic value of the external aspect of copyright.

8. Conclusion

This chapter focussed on writers and copyright with an emphasis on writers’ relationship with copyright in their everyday practice. After reviewing two recent strands of empirical research that question the legitimacy of copyright law in the context of benefits accruing to creative practitioners (in Section 3), the chapter drew on the IC study (in Sections 5–7) to provide original accounts of how writers relate to copyright law.

The thematic findings demonstrate that writers value both the internal and external aspects of copyright in terms of their careers and more personally.

As to the internal aspect of copyright, the interview data indicates that writers place significant value on the direct monetary benefits afforded by the exploitation of the copyright in their writing. Irrespective of the amount and type of associated earnings, it emerged that the authors perceived clear monetary benefits, as well as personal benefits in some cases, from holding and exploiting the economic rights afforded by copyright. This applied to those whose income largely stemmed from writing, as well as those who were not yet earning (or indeed may never earn) enough to depend solely on writing as a livelihood. It appeared that all earnings from copyright exploitation counted, and that such income was vital for the sustenance of any long-term creative practice — and even more so when the extant uncertainties connected with the success or failure of a publication, or indeed the size of future royalty yields, are considered. The financial rewards were perceived to be a crucial part of the ‘earnings portfolio’ that enabled them to sustain writing careers, but also acted as recognition and reward.

Additionally, as to the internal aspect of copyright, the interview data also showed that writers do not only associate economic rights with the actual financial return they receive, but also believe that owning and controlling such rights as writers carries a potential for better earnings,

174 Whose Book is it Anyway?

but not a guarantee. Finally, the interview data also demonstrated that the external aspect of copyright, although often ignored in economic literature, is also seen as valuable by writers and is perceived to be crucial in protecting their creative interests. The value associated with the writer’s ability to choose whether or not to enforce their rights, and the relevance of the context of the infringement to this choice, demonstrated that writers’ relationship with copyright is complex and cannot be studied only in terms of monetary returns and earnings surveys alone.

What do these findings imply with respect to the legitimacy of copyright? A focus on earnings data alone may suggest that copyright has little or no value in writers’ careers. However, richer, complementary, socio-legal work examining the overall role of copyright (both internal and external aspects) in the everyday practice of writers, and captured by the research presented in this chapter, strongly challenges this suggestion. Original first-hand accounts from writers indicate that copyright plays a positive role in their practices, albeit not a perfect role. Further, the legitimacy of copyright cannot be judged by whether it can ensure sufficient earnings for all writers to make a living, or whether it can ‘secure the financial independence of creators’. Copyright provides a mechanism for writers to enter the market and receive monetary reward for their work; but it does not guarantee success in said market. It appears that the writer interviewees are aware of the role that copyright plays in supporting their practices, in that it provides them both with an opportunity and potential to earn, yet they do not expect copyright itself to guarantee market success.

The scholarship on the negative space of IP generally seeks to challenge the assumptions of copyright policy. In contrast, this chapter affirms that some of the policy assumptions — copyright provides recognition, payment, and protection (set out at the start of the chapter) — hold true so far as writers’ own beliefs and perspectives are concerned, albeit heterogeneously, and in a complex manner. While said scholarship questions the legitimacy of copyright law in some areas of creative production (e.g. stand-up comedians, tattoo artists, and haute-cuisine chefs), this chapter demonstrates that copyright law continues to play a role in the long standing, albeit changing, profession of writing.

Is copyright relevant to the everyday lives of writers and seen as valuable by writers in the context of professional writing? The answer from the IC study is a resounding yes. However, at a broader level, this answer also poses critical questions for copyright policy: could copyright serve writers’ interests more effectively? Clearly, these are difficult times for writers. In an environment in which writing incomes are falling and writing careers are markedly precarious, could rules strengthening authorial ownership and control of economic rights, and their exploitation, be a possible way forward?

176 Whose Book is it Anyway?

Works Cited

ALCS (June 2018) ‘Authors’ Earnings: A Survey of UK Writers’, https://wp.alcs.

co.uk/app/uploads/2018/06/ALCS-Authors-earnings-2018.pdf

Aufderheide, P. and P. Jaszi (2004) ‘Untold Stories: Creative Consequences of the Rights Clearance Culture for Documentary Filmmakers’, Center for Social Media, http://archive.cmsimpact.org/sites/default/files/UNTOLDSTORIES_

Report.pdf

Brauneis, R. (2015) ‘A Brief Illustrated Chronicle of Retroactive Copyright Term Extension’, Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 62.4, 479–502.

Brown, K. (27 April 2015) ‘Green Party to Review Controversial Copyright Plans’, Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/11565548/

Green-Party-to-review-controversial-copyright-plans.html

Brown, K. (23 April 2015) ‘Authors Criticise Green Party Plan to Reduce Copyright to 14 Years’, Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/

books/booknews/11557810/Authors-criticise-Green-Party-plan-to-reduce-copyright-to-14-years.html

Carter, N. (2015) ‘The Greens in the UK General Election of 7 May 2015’, Environmental Politics 24.6, 1055–60, https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1 063750

Dawson, N. (1994) ‘Copyright in the European Union — Plundering the Public Domain’, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 45, 193–209.

Elgot, J. (23 April 2015) ‘Green Party Plan to Limit Copyright Attacked by Writers and Artists’, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/

apr/23/green-party-plan-to-limit-copyright-attacked-by-writers-and-artists European Commission (2018) ‘Digital Single Market Policy: Copyright’, https://

ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/policies/copyright

Fauchart, E. and E. Von Hippel (2006) ‘Norms-based Intellectual Property Systems: The Case of French Chefs’, Organization Science 19.2 (2008), 187–201.

Fiesler, C., J. L. Feuston and A. S. Bruckman (2015) ‘Understanding Copyright Law in Online Creative Communities’, in Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW ‘15), 116–29.

Green Party (2016) ‘Economy’, https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ec.html

— (27 April 2015) ‘Greens to Review Copyright Policy’, https://www.greenparty.

org.uk/news/2015/04/27/greens-to-review-copyright-policy/

— (2015) ‘Economy: Part of the Green Party Policies for a Sustainable Society’, https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/assets/images/policy/pdfs/Economy.pdf

— (2015) ‘For the Common Good: General Election Manifesto 2015’, https://

www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/manifesto/Green_Party_2015_General_

Election_Manifesto_Searchable.pdf

Gibson, J., P. Johnson and G. Dimita (2015) The Business of Being an Author: A Survey of Authors’ Earnings and Contracts (London: Queen Mary, University of London), https://orca.cf.ac.uk/72431/1/Final Report - For Web Publication.

pdf

Glaser, B. G. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory (Mill Valley: Sociology Press).

— and A. L. Strauss (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (London: Aldine Publishing).

Hargreaves, I. (18 May 2011) ‘Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth’, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/

digital-opportunity-review-of-intellectual-property-and-growth

Hemphill, C. S. and J. Suk (2009) ‘The Law, Culture and Economics of Fashion’, Stanford Law Review 61, 1147–200.

Katzenberger, P. et al. (2009) ‘Comment by the Max-Planck Institute on the Commission’s Proposal for a Directive to Amend Directive 2006/116 Concerning the Term of Protection for Copyright and Related Rights’, European Intellectual Property Review 31.2, 59–72.

Kheria, S., C. Waelde, and N. Levin (2018) ‘Digital Transformations in the Arts and Humanities: Negotiating the Copyright Landscape in the United Kingdom’, in R. Hobbs (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Media Education, Copyright and Fair Use (Abingdon: Routledge), pp. 182–200.

Kretschmer, M. (21 May 2012) ‘Does Copyright Law Matter? An Empirical Analysis of Creators Earnings’, SSRN Electronic Journal [n.p.].

Kretschmer, M. (2010) ‘Copyright and Contract Law — Regulating Creator Contracts: The State of the Art and a Research Agenda’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law 18.1, 141–72.

Kretschmer, M. et al. (2008) ‘Creativity Stifled? A Joint Academic Statement on the Proposed Copyright Term Extension for Sound Recordings’, European Intellectual Property Review 30.9, 341–47.

— and P. Hardwick (2007) Authors’ Earnings from Copyright and Non-copyright Sources: A Survey of 25,000 British and German Writers (Bournemouth:

Bournemouth University), https://microsites.bournemouth.ac.uk/cippm/

files/2007/07/ACLS-Full-report.pdf

Lessig, L. (2005) ‘Does Copyright Have Limits: Eldred v. Ashcroft and Its Aftermath’, Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal 5.2, 219–30.

178 Whose Book is it Anyway?

Lucas, C. (25 April 2015) ‘Copyright — Standing up for Brighton’s Creative Industries, Artists and Writers’, https://www.carolinelucas.com/latest/

copyright-standing-up-for-brightons-creative-industries-artists-and-writers McIntyre, S. (27 April 2017) ‘In Defense of Copyright’, Jabberworks, http://

jabberworks.livejournal.com/703055.html

Merges, R. P. (1 January 2016) ‘Philosophical Foundations of IP Law: The Law and Economics Paradigm’, UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No.

2920713, [n.p.].

Michael, L. (2014) ‘Making a Living as a Writer’, in Steven Earnshaw (ed.), The Handbook of Creative Writing (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), 510–17.

Nordicity (June 2015) ‘Literature and Publishing Sector Review’, Creative Scotland.

Oliar, D. and C. Sprigman (2008) ‘There’s No Free Laugh (Anymore): The Emergence of Intellectual Property Norms and the Transformation of Stand-Up Comedy’, Virginia Law Review 94.8, 1787–867, http://www.

virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/1787.pdf

Perzanowski, A. K. (2013) ‘Tattoos & IP Norms’, Minnesota Law Review 98 (2013), 511–91.

Pollock, R. (2009) ‘Forever Minus a Day? Calculating Optimal Copyright Term’, Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues 6.1, 35–60.

Pool, K. (2000) ‘Love, Not Money’, The Author, 58–66.

Posner, R. (2003) ‘The Constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act:

Economics, Politics, Law, and Judicial Technique in Eldred v Ashcroft’, The Supreme Court Review 2003, 143–62.

Puri, K. (1990) ‘The Term of Copyright Protection — Is it Too Long in the Wake of New Technologies?’, European Intellectual Property Review 12.1, 12–20.

Rahmatian, A. (2009) ‘Dealing with Rights in Copyright-Protected Works:

Assignments and Licences,’ in E. Derclaye (ed.), Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), pp. 286–316.

Raustiala, K. and C. J. Sprigman (13 September 2016) ‘When Are IP Rights Necessary? Evidence from Innovation in IP’s Negative Space’, UCLA School of Law, Law and Economics Research Paper Series No. 16–15 [n.p.].

— and C. J. Sprigman (2006) ‘The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design, Virginia Law Review 92.8, 1687–777.

Rosenblatt, E. L. (2011) ‘A Theory of IP’s Negative Space’, Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 34.3, 317–65.

Salter, M. and J. Mason (2007) Writing Law Dissertations: An Introduction and Guide to the Conduct of Legal Research (Harlow: Pearson Education).

Scafidi, S. (15 March 2016) ‘Fashion Designers Deserve The Same Protection as Other Creatives’, The Business of Fashion, https://www.businessoffashion.

com/community/voices/discussions/what-is-the-real-cost-of-copycats/op-ed-fashion-designers-deserve-the-same-protection-as-other-creatives

— (2006) ‘Intellectual Property and Fashion Design’, in P. K. Yu (ed.), Intellectual Property and Information Wealth: Copyright and Related Rights, Vol. 1 (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Publishers Inc.), 115–32.

Squires, C. (2005) ‘Novelistic Production and the Publishing Industry in Britain and Ireland’, in B. W. Shaffer (ed.), A Companion to the British and Irish Novel, 1945–2000 (Oxford: Wiley Blackwell), pp. 177–93, https://doi.

org/10.1002/9780470757611.ch12

Strauss, A. L. and J. M. Corbin (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications).

Torremans, P. (2009) ‘Questioning the Principles of Territoriality: The

Torremans, P. (2009) ‘Questioning the Principles of Territoriality: The

Im Dokument Whose Book is it Anyway? (Seite 185-197)