Banksy - an unlikely copyright ambassador?

Dear Reader,

Whilst Laurie remains heavily involved in SABIP's work on the future of copyright, I want to share a thought with you which struck me at the Banksy exhibition in Covent Garden recently. This scribbled card was displayed amongst the graffiti, chunks of wall and ghetto rat stencils and, for me, it set the black-letter reproduction right in a very real, straightforward way:

 

As I took my photo (getting sympathetic looks from people who didn't have the heart to tell me I was photographing the wrong thing!) and queued to buy a postcard, I thought about how Banksy was successfully connecting with the exhibition-goers in exploiting his copyright. He understood his target audience and made them understand the give and take of his creative endeavour. I have since looked at his online shop and the copyright notice there is similarly straightforward ("Everything in the shop is free, simply download the file and process the artwork. Please note:This shop is for personal amusement only. Please don't use it to start a business. Thanks.") This keeps the artist in control and highlights the fact that the works do have a value arising from rights which only the artist is entitled to exploit (even if he chooses to exploit these rights by allowing free downloads).

It is well established that people don't always understand the acts restricted by copyright - or, indeed how the underlying copyright regime works. In other words, in order to prevent ignorance, disdain or flouting of the copyright system, "a key necessity if this problem is to be solved is to change the minds of the vast number of, predominantly young, people who think that downloading content without paying for it is OK."

Having been somewhat sceptical of the emphasis on 'education and awareness' in Digital Britain, the consultation on legislative options to address illicit P2P file-sharing and other government papers and industry association initiatives, I am now a convert. I think it is of paramount importance to demonstrate to the wider population (particularly the MySpace generation) the value of creativity and the creative process that the copyright system is designed to protect. If people do not understand the reasoning underpinning the copyright system and the importance of ensuring creators are fairly remunerated for their works, they are far more likely to disregard the entire system as irrelevant in the modern age.

You may think this is all very well and has been said before, which is fair enough. However, what Banksy's scribbled message, displayed amongst the exhibits, tangibly demonstrated to me was that the 'education and awareness' message needs to be tailored to each target audience within the creative industry. What appeals to visitors of Banksy's exhibitions will not affect online gamers, for example. MySpacers will respond in a different way to messages sent to them by their favourite artists than those sent out by the government.

A certain degree of creativity is required in order to get the copyright message across to different groups. Even then, their response to this message and subsequent behaviour will differ in an online as opposed to offline environment, and even from site to site.

Laurie will be blogging soon about the Infopaq case, which raises some important copyright issues.

Yasmin Joomraty

Comments

[Anji Pratap]

Yasmin, I thought this was really well put. I find it very hard to get this message across to others.

I must go down to the bookshop again, though, because I seem to remember reading a Banksy copyright line in one of this books that said something like 'Against my better judgment my publishers have advised me to assert my copyright'. This was a few years ago and the philosophical tensions in the line struck me at the time: publishing a book yet shying away from copyright. I wonder if he still uses that line because, as you say, he seems to have an instinctive appreciation of the fundamentals of copyright.

[Lior H.]

Dear Yasmin,

I really enjoyed reading your entry and I think that the argument put here is very good.

At the same time, I think that the case for copyright is not always that straightforward. The point is that empirical evidence with regard to the impact of copyrights (and some other IPRs) on trade, investment, as well as innovation and its diffusion is indeed positive, yet quite limited and not strong. Hence, theoretical and plausible reasons are abundant but the empirical case is still lacking.

A particular point of interest here is the distribution of costs and benefits that result from copyright protection.

A good book I recommend on the issue is Keith Maskus' "Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy, Institute for International Economics". I think that it was published in 1999 or 2000.

[Nick Miller]

I certainly agree that dealing with the current maelstrom in the world of IP from a bottom-up perspective is necessary. Information has become too "free" as a result of broadband connections, P2P downloading sites and tech-savvy consumers to truly attempt to combat it through litigation alone. Just ask the RIAA and MPAA.

That being said people will only buy what they perceive to be of value. Banksy is helping to draw this parallel by creating a conversation with the person photographing his work. He's saying, "If you think this is cool enough to take a picture of, don't you think it's worth paying for in the gift shop in another format?" The onus then shifts to the consumer to do "what's right."

Education is a key component of any successful campaign to protect intellectual property. Producers of content also have an emerging role in connecting with their fans and encouraging them to attain copyrighted materials through legitimate channels. It may not be ideal but the fans will react to an artist more readily than an attorney or record label executive.

[Yasmin Joomraty]

Thank you for your interesting comments.

Anji, I will be heading to the bookshop to look up the copyright notices in Banksy's books to see if they have changed over time! It is interesting to consider that not only are there tensions between consumers' expectations of and rightsholders' approaches to copyright but there are also tensions within individual artists' perceptions of their own rights (as demonstrated by Banksy "publishing a book yet shying away from copyright").

Lior H, I will endeavour to get my hands on the book you recommend as, being an economic right, I agree that the 'case for' copyright should be supported by empirical evidence, which will change over time, in order for people to respect it. However, this should not undermine the moral rights to which artists are entitled, which provide a different way of looking at the system.

I think you have hit the nail on the head, Nick, by stating that "people will only buy what they perceive is to be of value" and "producers of content also have an emerging role in connecting with their fans and encouraging them to attain copyrighted materials through legitimate channels."

[Yishay Mor]

Yasmin, very timely and well-written post. I definitely agree that there is an acute need for promoting awareness of intellectual property in the digital age. In fact, I would argue that this topic should be part of school curriculum.
However, I think you're confusing the ethical principle of creative ownership with the legal structure of copyright.
The example you bring of Bansky's license notes are a good example of copyleft or creative commons approach.
While few would argue against the need to protect the rights of artists and other producers of creative work, it is seriously debatable what effect current copyright laws have toward this goal. One could argue that these laws protect corporations and intellectual property traders more than the creators of content, and in this actually stifle creativity and lead to a commodisation of intellectual effort.

[Yasmin Joomraty]

Interestingly, I have just noticed an article on the ICO website saying that the contract between Banksy and Bristol City Council has been made public under the Freedom of Information Act, revealing that Banksy accepted a nominal fee of just £1 in return for his hugely successful exhibition at the City Museum and Art Gallery. Whereas the fee was nominal, the confidentiality provisions were watertight, with the contract including obligations to destroy CCTV footage of the artist installing the exhibits and redacting all indicators of his identity. This seemed to me to further illustrate Banksy's business strategy which is, as an artist, based on copyright, but which pulls other factors into play, such as clever manipulation of his 'brand' and media identity. It is a 'big picture' approach which focuses on accessibility rather than restrictions.