Creativity in non-copyright world

Keith Handley <kehandley[_at_]amherst.edu> replied:
>
> Dan Agin of Spectrum Press Inc. <specpress[_at_]earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > I see absolutely no evidence (and correlations are NOT evidence) that
> > there is or was anything in our copyright laws that is or was
> > responsible for artistic productivity here. The idea is sophomoric.
> > It is one thing (and a good thing) to specialize in copyright, it is
> > something else to think the world turns on copyright. The entire
> > European Renaissance in art and literature occurred without copyright
> > or anything close to it. The 19th century was extremely productive
> > --- for the most part without copyright. There are 5000 years of
> > exquisite Indian and Chinese art -- all produced without without
> > copyright protection.
>
> So it does seem that creativity can thrive with short copyright terms,
> say 14 years, since so much good stuff happened without copyright at
> all. Perhaps long copyright terms are stifling creativity?

The missing point has to do with investment. When art meant a single copy that satisfied a patron and an artist, copyright had little impact. As reproduction technology developed, the right to copy implied an investment in copies and distribution. Now some art is created by teams organized by investors who are not patrons. If they are unable to recoup their total investment and make a profit from the small fraction of creativity that has a long life in the marketplace, they will invest elsewhere.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com Received on Tue Oct 07 1997 - 01:48:41 GMT