Why Writers Should Seek Payment for Reuse

These days, you'll find many people, from consumers to large corporations, all asking why content providers should get a cut of revenues made off their work. I've recently been involved in some discussions along this line and have found the following points helpful - you might as well:

• This is an issue of ground rules and assumptions. In our society, writing is considered a form of intellectual property because of choice - copyright has not always existed, and when it didn't, the English printed and sold Mark Twain's works without paying him a penny, just as the Americans printed and sold Dickens without royalties. The reason that writing and other forms of creative expression get property protection is that society as a whole sees the need to encourage innovation of many types, but if we say that it's open field day on what people create, many now have an enormous financial disincentive to continue their work. That reduces the benefit to everyone. Now, some people might argue that the periods of protection are too long, and I might agree, but that is a separate argument.


• The reason to let property interests lapse is not so people can take the material as is and make money off it, but to let people build upon what has gone before. Those who focus on wanting free stuff might ask themselves what it would be like to buy a house and then be told that other people would also be making use of it without chipping in on the investment or doing any work of upkeep or maintenance. Yes, a house is tangible, but so what? Are love and hate an illusion because you don't see them floating around in the air?


• There are people who argue that all "content" should be free - whether writing, music, software, or art - and that taking it is ethical. To take someone else's work and to proclaim that it is ethically allowable to copy and sell it, making a profit without their permission and, in fact, in the face of their express disapproval, is just rationalization of an unethical act. Just because you don't like the way your neighbor cuts his lawn doesn't give you the right to tell him how to do it, which is essentially the argument being made with "all content should be free." Some activists think that any control over content prevents free exchange and common work. If someone wants to write open source code or make a book available for free download or turn an artwork into a free image file, that is the person's right. But if I’m putting the effort in to create something, and I’m the one whose business is making the investment to do something, then I'm the one who has control. Why should all my investment be taken out of my hands and given to someone else to profit from it? For the same reason, I cannot tell others not to freely distribute their own creations.


• A large part of the problem is that people often do not distinguish between intellectual property and a product. There is a difference between licensing a use and selling the property. If you rent out your car, you retain ownership and control, even if you allow someone to use it. If you sell some electronic device, the units are the physical property of those who buy them, but those buyers do not necessarily have the right to take the design of the device and incorporate it into something else for profit. When someone brings up the word product, try having them substitute something else, like design or underlying concept or brand or business plan. What makes writing different from many businesses is that it can make possible whole lines of separate income, and what the writer has is the ability to let someone pursue those businesses. The writer licenses an opportunity for a suitable fee.


• Many question why Hollywood writers should keep getting a cut of revenue. That's easy. When you sell copyright, you no longer retain control. However, Hollywood writers are in an odd situation. The only way they generally get to do business is to sell copyright, and yet the industry has long recognized that the writers have a right to ask for continued payments as part of the price of that copyright. In other words, they learned from the vaudeville performers of the early 20th century who allowed their acts to be filmed, receiving a single payment, and then found that no one was willing to pay them to do the same act. They had put themselves out of business. If the studios are not willing to pay the price that the writers think is fair for giving up all control, then the writers have the right to refuse to provide the material.


• If someone brings up the idea of a painting and how the buyer might sell it for more money down the line, you can agree that the painter doesn't get a cut of that money - because in this case, there are two things in question. One is the painting, which is a "product." It's a physical thing and once sold, the painter has no claim on it. But selling a painting does not convey the underlying copyright of the image. The painting's buyer cannot license the use of the image, but the painter still can, because the painter owns the copyright of the image. Similarly, a publisher only buys the use of a piece of writing for a given use. But that doesn't convey - and should not convey - underlying ownership and control of the writing. If that were true, then virtually no publishing venture of any type could exist. The only thing a company could sell would be some supporting services or simple delivery. While this has worked with Linux, given that much creation doesn't come out of groups of people who have full-time jobs, much of the content would be unavailable, because few people would have the resources to spend their time doing something that would pay nothing.