Creativity builds on creativity – and if you must track down, seek permission from and pay every person whose work you build upon, then everything from a Public Enemy record to a homemade collage would be outlawed.

However, the more I think about this, the more swayed I am by the idea of a moral right in perpetuity.

Even if there are no further commercial ramifications of a work, or if it is allowed to go into the public domain, I do think instances may arise where works might be used in the public domain for causes that for political, religious, or ethical reasons may cause the author distress.

In those instances, I think the author should be able to make a case for the right to veto such works – but I believe that those cases should be rare, and rigorously challenged. And most importantly, the onus should be on the author to demonstrate that distress.

The default position should be that unless a work is being actively exploited for commercial purposes, then it should be free to use as part of the cultural vocabulary.

I also think there’s a case that can be made for a work to be able to return from the public domain into copyright territory under very specific circumstances (say, a re-issue of a pop song after 40 years in the vault) – but prior and extant art and non-commercial use must have immunity in that case.

You can’t retrospectively declare a derivative work to be an infringement if it was in the public domain (or under the appropriate Creative Commons licence) when the derivative work was made. That’s just dumb.

Essentially, mine is not a totalising position – I think copyright is really important, and should be robust and artist-friendly. But I also think that if a work is not in the commercial realm, then it needs to be rapidly released into the public domain, where it can create and seed value far in excess of its monetary potential.

Only under rare and unusual circumstances should that public domain use be curtailed – and it’s exactly those exceptions you’re thinking of.

A nicely composed piece that enriches your current thematic concentration on emerging rights management and the ‘cultural stimulus’ of a boosted public domain.

I’m still pondering the seeming conflict that was highlighted in your Billy Swan ‘Help’ piece. If the “most important thing to you” is what Billy might think of your use of his work, would that affect your use of his work if it were in the public domain?

I’m intrigued by this because your discourse is informing my developing attitude to copyright. My ‘gut’ reaction is that creators should have copyright in perpetuity, although I am seduced by your idea of a greatly expanded public domain. The nonsense of long discarded works being unavailable for free use is obvious and I can see the merit of 5 year periods for reassertion of rights. However, there is something in the periphery of my thought that is nagging at me.

If the issue is on the axis of ‘It’s easier to ask forgiveness than to seek permission’ then there is an uncomfortable dynamic. The intention would surely be that any artist making use of ‘PD’ material should do so without fear of their new creation being compromised through retrospective objection.

Pursuant to this thought then, is there a third position to your argument, that allows for the retention of copyright without renewal but that permits a ‘sharealike’ type CC licence if a ‘dormant’ period has elapsed?

It’s possible that you’ve thought this through and eliminated this idea but I’d be interested in your thoughts on it

Thanks

Colin

PS I wonder if, perhaps, culture is an ‘essence’, distilled from “the experienced, shared lives of the citizenry … [ and ] …the sum of the beliefs, values, traditions, ideas, behaviours, experiences, conversations and artefacts jointly held by the members of a society.” An essence that is distorted and/or completed by the perspective of the observer.