As advocates for innovative and creative works, we feel that the scope of current critical copyright discussion today is lacking. Aside from the increasing rapidity of technological growth, there are numerous legal and economic effects, usually caused by single entities, and generally to serve a private interest, rather than the public good of creation and expression. Fair Use may allow individuals to avoid harsh penalties for basic, personal copyright infringement, however Fair Dealing is the current system used within Australia. With an adoption of the Fair Use system – used within the United States – it is possible to help shape how copyright infringement is handled here, to provide a more flexible system within which artists can exercise innovation without immediate threat of reprisal.
The moral considerations of copyright must also continue to be placed under scrutiny, as we can see inconsistencies in the intentions of large companies such as Walt Disney who strongly protect their IP which is based on public domain material. These situations illustrate a negative use of the copyright system, and serves the interests of a select few. With potential alterations to copyright, these instances of claiming a stake on public domain material might be prevented or at the very least, heavily discouraged.
The economic and creative effects of similar abuses of the copyright system are already evident. With unusual and specific trademarks placed on words and mundane items, creation for small business, and individuals is constricted by what large companies can afford to claim. Examples of game development studios claiming the sole use of specific words and titles has already affected smaller businesses, a practice that if continued en masse would discourage creative endeavours by those who cannot afford to place trademarks on all aspects of their venture before a well funded company does. Similarly, the zealous protection of a company’s assets being visually reproduced through the medium of ‘Let’s Plays’ and video streaming can hinder burgeoning industries that expand upon existing systems of critique through reviews and critical essays. These visual mediums offer a new way to engage with copyrighted content intellectually, and provide newer generations with tools for critique not available to those before them. Potential over-privatisation of this new language could lead to a restriction of this critique and discussion.
In the face of many bills and attempts to alter legislation in regards to the use and distribution of copyrighted works, such as sections on Intellectual Property in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, this reconceptualisation of Copyright is in dire need to ensure that it maintains the standards of protection that it offers to Producers, without hindering the creative process of individuals, and smaller business entities. The potential for abuse of Copyright in the near future for large companies threatens to stamp out many potential smaller, less advantaged entities.
Examples of a healthy interaction between Producer and Fans set a precedent for continued creation based on existing fictions and IPs. J.K. Rowling’s attitude towards fans of her Harry Potter novels displays a gratitude towards the creativity of her fans, and the innovative nature of this creation such as the fan made databases of Harry Potter information that she herself accesses and uses. This interaction is one that benefits both the Producer through continued marketing and sharing of Rowling’s work, while allowing Fans of the work to read into, alter, copy, and redistribute new ideas, and information surrounding the work for others to then further reproduce and redistribute. What follows is a large scale reproduction of the original IP on no further effort of the original Producer, while even benefitting her in the process.
Examples such as this should be used as the Russian Tanya Grotter parody of the Harry Potter series remain something Rowling and Warner Brothers do not agree on, however this is a situation where a dialogue on copyright must be maintained to always consider what might be appropriate and healthy for both the Producer and Fan. While in this case the reappropriation of her work cannot simply be removed from circulation due to the resilience of networked mediums, it helps to stimulate this dialogue and questions whether even the Producer should be able to fully control the circulation of transformative works.
The need for this reconceptualisation is important to encourage a dialogue surrounding how individuals create nowadays, and rather than eradicate Copyright or dramatically overhaul existing systems, protection for Producers and authors ought to be modified to maintain a balance of power between Producer and creators and Fans.
While the preceding sections of this research have not exhaustively covered every aspect of Copyright, it is ideally a starting point for a future definition of Copyright. In regards to the legal considerations and restraints of Australian Copyright, there remains some desired change as the existing framework can be considered too rigid to fully encompass all expressions through reappropriation of media. In comparison the United States’ Fair Use system provides an example of how reappropriated media can be protected by the intention of the author, and could be a more sustainable and reliable system to move towards. Whatever system Australia chooses to adopt, the tensions between formal and informal media economies will continue as communication practices remain in flux.