Who gets the check?

Philosophically I do not believe there should be restrictions or regulations on creative works however, there are several aspects to consider before eliminating all copyright laws. For one, copyright laws serve to protect creative practice and thought. Some professional artists, writers, musicians, philosophers, and scientists rely on copyright laws to protect their creative and financial assets. Therefore, if copyright law is removed and their work can be copied, these practices might loose viability as a profession.

Artists, writers, musicians, philosophers, and scientists create “new” material from reacting, reflecting and referencing the apparatus and the archive. While copyright laws protect creative work from being copied copyright laws also restrict the progress of creative innovation. In today’s society there are many restrictions and regulations placed on creative work to protect the legacy of the creator. Many working within these professions have to be careful to not “copy” anyone prior to them for fear of being sued. These regulations slowly diminish the common knowledge source, but if we did not have these regulations the roles of these professions would change or diminish.

The Internet is the common knowledge source of the world, allowing us the opportunity to connect with each other and gain knowledge with the touch of a finger. Technological advancements such as the Internet have complicated copyright laws and regulations. There are not too many restrictions and regulations within the Internet we usually do not think twice about the original source when we cut and paste an image onto our desktop. However, there is an original source for everything. In a way everything is just a copy of something that has been made before. Ideas and knowledge are developed through reflecting on what we already know from the past and what we should know for the future. Ideas are knowledge and knowledge creates ideas. If we continue to regulate knowledge then ideas will come to a stand still. If innovations come to a stand still, the human race will not progress and culture will not evolve to its full potential.

While working in the Rights and Reproductions Department at the Center for Creative Photography in Tucson, Arizona, I was exposed to copyright laws and regulations. My job at the CCP was to collect money from publications that used a photograph owed by the CCP’s archive. When I started working there in May 2004 the R&R department was behind by about six years in collections. At first I was shocked and curious as to why they were so far behind in collections, especially seeing that the establishment was in debt, and laying off employees. Initially, I did not have an opinion about copyright laws. I believed they were “protecting” ideas and creative work. I did not think more philosophically about copyright laws until the end of the summer of 2004. The CCP primarily houses work that is owned by the family or estate of the artist if the artist is no longer alive. While sorting through all the R&R cases I began to question the fact that some of the trustees were getting paid for a photograph that they did not create. After three months of working in Rights and Reproductions I began to see the copyright law as a contract between two entities that do not have anything to do with the original idea or source of the image. If the purpose of copyright laws is to protect creative works from other people making money off them, it is ironic that a second party (trustees) is profiting from the original work. Copyright laws allow for a legacy to live on but that can live on through referencing the archive. Maybe copyright laws should be rewritten so that the work is only protected during the lifetime of the creator.