Creativity in non-copyright world

JQ Johnson <jqj[_at_]darkwing.uoregon.edu> wrote
>
> Albert Henderson <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> There may be evidence from some industries of investors making
> art-production decisions based on long-term payoff, but if so it needs
> to be documented. There are quite a few counterexamples. For example,
> the U.S. movie industry, currently a VERY capital-intensive art
> production industry, apparently makes its investment decisions based on
> expected short term (1-3 year) ROI, not based on expected ROI over the
> current length of the copyright term. So there's little evidence that
> the length of the term has much if any effect on investment in that
> industry.

Again, experience indicates that only a small fraction of the creativity pays off and actually returns the investment. The really successful movies are printed over and over, sequeled, translated, turned into TV shows, support licensed products, etc. Short copyright would have put the classics into public domain prematurely

In short, the handful of creations that are viable in the longer term justify investments in efforts that don't sell right away, no matter how good they may be. Some may catch on later or gain new life because of technology. Old movies, for instance, that are shown on TV had exhausted their appeal in theatres.

> There is arguably a different investment decision to be made when
> thinking about reprinting a work (e.g. a book) near the end of its
> copyright. Are there documented examples of publishers in fact
> dissuaded from reprinting because they know copyright is about to expire
> (and presumably some other publisher is expected to immediately compete
> by reprinting the now-PD work)? If so, it would be puzzling since the
> assumption is that the other publisher has made an economic decision
> that investment is worthwhile even without copyright protection!

Investment without the protection of copyright is possible. It is just riskier.

There are many editions of Hamlet, for instance. Many of them survive based on unique distribution or production qualities which add value to the text. Some may lose money. The risk is offset by the advantage of not paying royalties and, in some cases, using photo-offset rather than paying for type. In the case of more specialized works, the first to reprint may enjoy a de facto advantage of skimming the cream of the sales interest in the marketplace.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY. 70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com and former editor, Johnson Reprint Corporation div. Academic Press Inc. Received on Fri Oct 10 1997 - 13:25:42 GMT