The drivers of creativity and innovation in copyright discourse: a value chain analysis across cultural industries

IF 0.4 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.03
Ke Yu, C. Darch
{"title":"The drivers of creativity and innovation in copyright discourse: a value chain analysis across cultural industries","authors":"Ke Yu, C. Darch","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We build on the well-established critique, primarily in the US literature, of the following assumptions: (1) copyright protections serve to incentivise creativity; (2) copyright is designed with such incentivisation as its primary purpose; and (3) a standardized set of copyright protections should ideally be applicable to all forms of cultural production, across all situations in all countries. These assumptions lead to two fundamental conceptual flaws in much current copyright policy discourse: (1) it conflates concepts such as incentive, reward, and recognition; (2) it is nomothetic in character insofar as the existing structural and procedural diversity of the different cultural industries that it governs is inadequately acknowledged. Our critique in this article is not, therefore, a general one, but is limited to a specific theory of copyright, which pretends that copyright is an incentive to creativity while the evidence indicates that it is not. We highlight the importance of taking account of the whole ‘creativity value chain’ in the different industries with their various components – the creator, the copyright holder, the distributor, and the market. Drawing on case studies of three creative industries: literary writing, film, and fashion, we demonstrate that not only is there currently considerable heterogeneity among these industries, but that there has also been heterogeneity within each industry at different periods and in different contexts. We argue that this flexibility is a beneficial characteristic of the current functioning of copyright that should be defended against pressures in favour of harmonization.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":"10 1","pages":"321-338"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.03","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

We build on the well-established critique, primarily in the US literature, of the following assumptions: (1) copyright protections serve to incentivise creativity; (2) copyright is designed with such incentivisation as its primary purpose; and (3) a standardized set of copyright protections should ideally be applicable to all forms of cultural production, across all situations in all countries. These assumptions lead to two fundamental conceptual flaws in much current copyright policy discourse: (1) it conflates concepts such as incentive, reward, and recognition; (2) it is nomothetic in character insofar as the existing structural and procedural diversity of the different cultural industries that it governs is inadequately acknowledged. Our critique in this article is not, therefore, a general one, but is limited to a specific theory of copyright, which pretends that copyright is an incentive to creativity while the evidence indicates that it is not. We highlight the importance of taking account of the whole ‘creativity value chain’ in the different industries with their various components – the creator, the copyright holder, the distributor, and the market. Drawing on case studies of three creative industries: literary writing, film, and fashion, we demonstrate that not only is there currently considerable heterogeneity among these industries, but that there has also been heterogeneity within each industry at different periods and in different contexts. We argue that this flexibility is a beneficial characteristic of the current functioning of copyright that should be defended against pressures in favour of harmonization.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
版权话语中创造力和创新的驱动因素:跨文化产业的价值链分析
我们建立在主要在美国文学中对以下假设的公认批判之上:(1)版权保护有助于激励创造力;(2) 版权的设计以激励为主要目的;以及(3)一套标准化的版权保护措施理想情况下应适用于所有国家的所有情况下的所有形式的文化生产。这些假设导致了当前许多版权政策话语中两个基本的概念缺陷:(1)它混淆了激励、奖励和认可等概念;(2) 就其所管理的不同文化产业的现有结构和程序多样性而言,它在性质上是法治的。因此,我们在这篇文章中的批评并不是一个笼统的批评,而是局限于一个特定的版权理论,该理论假装版权是对创造力的激励,而证据表明它不是。我们强调了考虑不同行业的整个“创意价值链”及其各个组成部分的重要性——创作者、版权持有人、经销商和市场。通过对文学写作、电影和时尚三个创意产业的案例研究,我们证明,目前这些产业之间不仅存在相当大的异质性,而且在不同时期和不同背景下,每个产业内部也存在异质性。我们认为,这种灵活性是版权当前运作的一个有益特征,应该保护版权免受有利于统一的压力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊最新文献
Pharmaceutical corporate power, traditional medical knowledge, and intellectual property governance in China Book review: Karine E Peschard, Seed Activism: Patent Politics and Litigation in the Global South (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 2022) 208 pp. Judicial and legislative approaches to employee patent rights in France Page against the machine: the death of the author and the rise of the producer? The universe identification and sampling design of consumer surveys in trade mark lawsuits
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1