Copyright and the Public Good

Copyright laws are about as confusing as the federal tax code. The original 1790 law only really refers to maps, charts, and books, but since the emergence of film, photography, television, mass consumerism, and the internet, the laws on copyright have become more complicated. The internet was created as a sort of ultimate open access tool-- millions of websites, programs, and tech advances have been born on the internet. The fundamental issue underlying copyright laws is the balance of encouraging intellectual invention, ingenuity, and scholarship while maintaining free access to information so that others can learn, use, benefit, and even expand or add to the intellectual conversation. The question that has plagued businesses, and creators is what is considered their intellectual property, how long it is protected under copyright, and what legal ramifications should come from copyright infringement online. 

     Cohen explains this in his chapter on digital copyright (found here),"those who create historical materials on the web are, indeed, likely to find themselves on both sides of the legal and ethical fence—creating intellectual property that they want to “protect” and “using” the intellectual property of others". The challenge to creating digital scholarship is the dual nature of the internet: open-access but clinging to capitalist ideals. A great example of this is Google Books: what started out as a project scanning millions of books from local libraries and uploading them to a sort of online library, quickly morphed into a privatized project plagued with copyright lawsuits not only from publishers but authors and artists as well. It is funny because while libraries cause little stir in the copyright realm, Google Books which essentially was attempting to do the same thing (only online) dealt with multi-million dollar lawsuits on copyright infringement, but while I would like to consider libraries and Google Books the same, I know that one is a government funded program and the other is a private company which makes all the difference in the world. 

The publishing organization, Creative Commons is dedicated to providing information for the common good, while protecting the copyrights of the creator. This image was provided free for download on their website (found here).

     I could go on voicing my disappointment in Google Books, I should say that there are other projects that have sought to create a open access collection of works that seek to limit the looming copyright rain cloud from the heads of those who are seeking to use materials found on the site for intellectual creativity and education. The Creative Commons (found here) is essentially a publishing company that creates copyright licenses for individuals who want their research, works and projects to be open to the public. Simply speaking the company's vision "is nothing less than realizing the full potential of the Internet — universal access to research and education, full participation in culture — to drive a new era of development, growth, and productivity" (found in their "About" section here). The beauty of this company is its recognition to the original intention of the copyright law. While it is important to recognize the work established by others, it is also incredibly important that we have the ability and freedom to expand and adapt works to make further advancements. Creative Commons recognizes the power of the intellectual community and broadens the scope of readership to those who might not be able to afford expensive subscriptions to academic publications where many of the advances in academic fields are being discussed. 

While Disney still holds the copyrights to this charming mouse, I was still able to find this picture on Google Images and post it online without asking for permission from Disney. The open-access nature of the internet makes it all too easy to find and republish intellectual property. (The image can be from from a blog post here)

     Maybe it is the poor grad-student in me, or maybe it is my experiences living abroad, but I just don't buy into the idea that my historical works are mine and should be tested or challenged or added to. Having taken a bit of Macro-economics, I know that there is a difference between what is considered private property and what is considered a public good. A public good is something that fills a public need. Street lamps, garbage collection, public schools, and libraries are all public goods. Intellectual property as defined in the that 1790 law, gives rights to the author for a limited period, and then turns it over to the public so that others can build off of the work. The problem is that congress has the ability to change the time frames for how long an item can be held under copyright. Mark Helprin's 2007 New York Times op-ed piece (found here) argues that companies like Disney should have the right to keep their intellectual property from the public, despite the fact that the company has been around for over half a decade. Helprin explains, "No one except perhaps Hamilton or Franklin might have imagined that services and intellectual property would become primary fields of endeavor and the chief engines of the economy". In his mind, since the ways of the world are now driven by ideas rather than the hard work of agrarian labor (as it was in 1790), congress should change the copyright laws to better suit the needs of "big idea" corporations. 

     I disagree. As soon as you start to claim intellectual property on ideas and hold copyrights on those ideas for 70+ years, advancement is stinted. As a historian, unlike corporations, I am ethically obligated to share my work to the public and hope that it is used, explored, expanded upon, and challenged by other  historians as it creates a better, broader, and more accurate picture of the historical world. Historical research is a dialogue between the historian, the information, and the community.