One of the key points we have to establish, if we are to bring an ever larger number of people round to understanding that copyright is a contraint upon cultural freedom and not an authorial right, is that culture is more than pure originality and always has been.

We have always built upon each other’s work, and this is good, natural and wholesome.

Sadly, many mistake this as misappropriation, which it can only be if the artist pretends their work to be original. And sadder still, the pressure to pretend originality is a side effect of copyright, because it actually punishes artists who build upon another’s work – especially, if they admit to it.

Without copyright, artists can build upon each other’s work, and attribute their influences and sources accurately, without worry of litigation – or shame that they have been less than original.

When I recently suggested that copyright supported the philistine assumption that artists could only aspire to originality, that the ‘lesser’ arts (copying, imitation, derivation, translation, transformation, etc.) could only be for practice or for reference, Janet Hawtin eloquently debunked this assumption:

A lot of phases and schools of art have been based around communities of artists who explore visual theories or techniques as a community. Artists often train with a studio which has a feel or style. There is a culture of learning the craft of your community or school.

Japanese and Chinese cultures have similar strong community and cultures of learning embedded in creating.

I feel that this is at least as strong a tradition as the idea of the lone artist or inventor. We probably have a mix of both. I dont see why either should be the only way.

The community of people who are collaborating on building the Sagrada Familia are learning skills together and learning about the math and engineering of Gaudi.

Impressionists, Expressionists, Cubists, Dada, Pop Art, Mashups,

We are all making and all exist as children of the culture we have been born into. It is a sad thing for a generation to feel the only way that they can secure their own creativity is to steal the opportunity to participate from the next generations.

The photo of a mother’s ultrascan belongs to the radiographer. Big deal. The image also has a wonderful and powerful meaning for the people in and around that image from a social perspective. Creation is a part of our interaction with each other. Defining images and ideas and as something which can be fenced by one person breaks much of who we are as a community.

Copyright is breaking because we can now implement it fully and that in itself is making the problems more obvious. We need to make business AND community. Culture and participation as well as investment in innovation. Freedom should not be the price of profit.