You are here
Copyright and Cacada - What is all the fuss about?
At the heart of all the recent fuss about copyright in Carnival is money. Who’s making it, who’s allowing access and where the heck, really, is my cut.
Copyright is a modern invention, an attempt to make it possible for the fruits of the mind to benefit from popular appeal in a world of broadcasting and mass distribution.
It’s one of the great ironies of modern copyright issues that it’s the acceleration of modern media distribution, at a rate unimaginable in the era of Gutenberg, that’s causing the problems of today.
Modern copyright isn’t a single right, it’s now multiple opportunities bundled into a single creation and sometimes a myriad of rights clearances within an existing property.
A movie is a good example of a creation with multiple authors and many licensing opportunities and challenges. From the screenplay, to the actors’ likenesses, to the blister-packed toys, there are contracts aplenty in every 90 minute action adventure.
Now it looks as if the event that likes to call itself the greatest show on Earth, is aspiring to the legal spiderwebs of the modern blockbuster film even as its actual content struggles to muster the audience of a straight-to-DVD no-budget production.
From the first rumblings of income curiosity among the glittered faithful to the fear, uncertainty and doubt being aggressively sown by Richard Cornwall of the T&T Copyright Collections Organization, Carnival in 2013 collectively demonstrated an admirable yearning to police empty stables. Perhaps some bandleader, inspired by this year’s many pointless rights debacles, will play The Augean Wuk in 2014.
Rights in an intellectual property (IP) can be sliced thinly, but this year we saw blunt three-canals, not Muramasa swords in play and let’s not say anything about the spastic bladesmanship.
It isn’t clear where we go from here. The level of comprehension of copyright is at an absolute nadir, providing rich fodder for the kind of uninformed and highly opinionated arguments that have migrated so neatly from local rumshops to Facebook.
Our IP itself is compromised, with our mas and music now in three neat phases, dramatic and aspiring, befeathered and perspiring and traditionalist while expiring.
It’s exactly when Carnival needs more informed review of the practice and principles that it’s built on that the chilling effects of the dubious 1995-era tax on Carnival souvenir magazines is having its most deleterious impact.
That fee urged such publications to a profit-driven, 15-year, images-only focus on pretty bands that’s marginalised everything that hasn’t got a thong or 150 beats per minute.
I’ve had my intellectual property infringed in the past and reacted poorly as well. It was only when I began looking at what people were interested in that I began to realise that there really is a fundamental difference between price and value.
With a surprising consistency, what people are interested in using from my archives, either by asking or outright theft, are rarely the things that cost the most when they were produced, it’s those elements of Carnival in which considerable personality and authenticity were invested.
The best thing about the rights invested in IP is that they don’t have to be exercised to be retained. You can allow someone to make use of something, within carefully circumscribed limits, without surrendering your ownership of it.
But doing that means making an investment in the intellect half of IP, and we’ve only been willing to argue about the property bits, like maddened children playing a Carnival version of Monopoly.
Read an expanded version of this column here (http://ow.ly/adAll).
User comments posted on this website are the sole views and opinions of the comment writer and are not representative of Guardian Media Limited or its staff. Guardian Media Limited accepts no liability and will not be held accountable for user comments.
Please help us keep out site clean from inappropriate comments by using the flag option.
Guardian Media Limited reserves the right to remove, to edit or to censor any comments. Any content which is considered unsuitable, unlawful or offensive, includes personal details, advertises or promotes products, services or websites or repeats previous comments will be removed.