Digital defence

Andrea Sanders-Reece explains how the Creators' Rights Alliance is facing the challenge of the digital age.

The digital world is an exciting and challenging place to be with fantastic opportunities for creators but there are also threats to our means to earn from our work.  There really is no room for complacency and that is why the Creators’ Rights Alliance (CRA) has worked over the last year to ensure that creators’ are represented and heard by the people who are influencing change.  The WGGB is one of 16 affiliated member organisations of the CRA.  CRA does not negotiate but acts as a pathfinder campaigning for creators’ rights and occasionally facilitating meetings between organisations.  

A major issue, related to the digital future, is the ease with which people can access original material, cut and paste it and create ‘new work’.  The Creative Commons (CC) and the Creative Archive Licence Group (CALG) – BBC, Channel Four, Open University and the British Film Institute - were both set up as ways to legalise activity that they believe will happen anyway.  Both initiatives were very late in involving or even speaking to creators’ organisations, which inevitably led to problems that we are only now beginning to resolve.  David Ferguson, who is chairman of both CRA and British Academy of Composers and Songwriters, and Tom Morgan, who is chairman of British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies were eventually invited to join the CALG Advisory Panel. 

New models

At the CRA we recognise that the increased access to content requires the construction of new models that work for creators and consumers. Unfortunately, the debate about public domain and copyright is in danger of overheating with the two extremes appearing to control the agenda. Creators are caught somewhere in the middle, needing to protect their rights from media giants on the one hand and under attack from those who see copyright as a form of institutionalised theft on the other. 

Helping people to understand the difference between material that exists in the public domain, and has already been paid for, and rights rich material, that earns money each time it is consumed, is key to the current discussions. Being paid for secondary exploitation of our work has become the cornerstone for many freelance creators, so people should not really be surprised when we become nervous at the prospect of distribution content models that are free.

Exploding the myth that licence fee payers own all content shown on BBC television   is one of the ideas that make it look as though creators’ are trying to block content placed in the public domain.  In many circumstances, television licence fee payers have paid for licences to watch content, they do not own that content and this needs to be explained.   

There also exists copyright material that has either already been paid for or has little commercial value that may benefit from the CC approach.  In particular this applies to academic papers and books where the authors are paid by the institutions that employ them and the promotion of their views to as wider audience as possible is of great mutual benefit.  Is it a coincidence then that CC Licences were developed by academics and that the main instigators of the CALG are also salaried employees? 

Earning a living

When talking at the Personal Managers’ Association (PMA) seminar on Digital Rights last autumn, Derek Wyatt MP enthused about the opportunities for both consumers and creators with the use of CC Licences.  Sadly his comments failed to take into account the need for professional creators to earn a living.  Like many supporters of CC he ignores recognising that writers and composers – among other creators – depend upon their copyright not only for their living but also their reputations, related to moral rights issues.

It is, of course, essential to create a positive dialogue between creators and consumers and respecting people’s original creations should be a fundamental part of this.  We do not want to see copyright demonised while it remains essential to our ability to earn a living.  Respect for copyright needs to be lifted from the small pint and given the same appeal as cutting, pasting and creating ‘new work’.

Encouraging people to be ‘creative’ with other people’s work without paying for or respecting it and believing that this is to the public good cannot be sustained in the long term.  People need to be encouraged to create non-derivative, original work, inspired by others maybe but not as a substitute for self-expression.  

 Andrea Sanders-Reece is a freelance writer and works part-time for the CRA.

This article first appeared in the Guild's magazine, UK Writer (New Year 2006).