This is it. Let's talk Copyright. It may be a long story, but copyrights are not conditional
Of late THERE IS A RESOUNDING ALARM
RAISED BY CONCERNED ARTISTS AND CREATIVES IN THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY
REGARDING THE ISSUES OF COPYRIGHTS. This piece will not dwell on the details of
existing controversies OF SPECIFIC copyright issues BEING CIRCULATED IN MEDIA. Instead,
this article would merely want to throw further rhetoric on the issues and
raise further awareness of the importance of copyrights. Also, this article would
like to mention on the side, the issue of censorship, two of the most pronounced topics
that can hound the vast workscape of entertainment, creatives, and music industries.
In actuality, it is expected that writers in the industries that hire
them for work, or commission them to specific projects, herein pointed to encompass
both the entertainment; creatives such as advertising and communication agencies;
and music professionals, would want to impose their own “originality” and “sense of ownership” to their works or
bodies of work.
These are expressed when writers assert their copyrights or affix one
or more identifiers in their work/s that can actually validate or identify them
as the writer/s hence owners and/or source of article/s; content; copy or copies; lyrics; poetry, and
yes, including writeups.
The latter seems to be the easiest as all the writer has to do is to
affix a line to the word “by” and the name of the individual, (e.g. By Juan De
La Cruz), (see example herein): to signify who prepared the writeup in whatever
niche or beat.
Having a byline printed right actually gives consolation to the time and hard work spent
by a writer to finish the copyrighted product--regardless of whether a person serves as a
reporter or as an ordinary writer, with a published article for many readers or
viewers to read or listen to.
In the case of copywriters, the copyright assertion can be simply done by
giving credit to the creative or copywriter/s behind a specific ad
campaign.
For songs, the easiest way to tell that there are copyrights, entitlement, and recognition, is when the lyricist’s name is written on the album or a song
mentioned in the feature article. It can also be done by giving credits to
the songwriter during the performance of a song for commercial shows.
Copyrights are also essential to protect the integrity of the writer behind an
idea; group of ideas; words; phrases and structure; whether the lines and
paragraphs are formed to come up as a news; or as a plain newspaper article or
features. Or as part of an advertising campaign; or as lyrics for a song, music jingle, or other products of the intellect in written, digital, electronic,
graphic, or artistic design and/or rendition,
with the aim to bring a message or expound on a certain thought, word, concept; give it breadth, structure, substance, content, meaning, format
and so forth.
The thing with copyrights in practice is, that a writer or creative who is hired by a company, at
the early stage of employment can be compelled by a hiring personnel or
management to sign an agreement that his or her copyrights belong to the
company and not to the writer.
This ensures that a company’s investments are protected and sheltered. And that moonlighting and/or duplicity of work are not allowed in reality by companies who hire writers and creatives.
Even when the writer has created a certain work, only the employer/company must
benefit from it, if it gives remuneration for the hours spent by the writer
to come up with a work expected of him or her.
But, the anonymity of writers, (herein to mean without a byline or credit) just because they are employees or
talents can be read and interpreted as “exploitative”. Especially when writers devote much time, effort, research, and use of set skills, to contribute their work for a company, but are not given proper credit or rights of ownership
to their works.
The anonymity of writers can be exploited in such a way when others “pose” or front themselves to have written a specific
article, or writings (that may not necessarily be anonymous writing for another), with the aim of grabbing the credit of a writer’s work.
It is understandable that writers and creatives of late would like to go further to the front row to
be recognized for their copyrights.
This would not be so difficult to do if companies really understood and
imbibed the importance of their writers who hone their work with copyrights in
mind (herein comes originality).
No writer would want to be unrecognized, and yes, no writer would want
to be left jobless either, by not agreeing to somewhat copyrights' "diluting" (figure of speech), when fronted with an agreement to be accepted for work.
It is important to settle this from a mindset that knows a writer's work purpose. Copyrights are also founded
on an individual right to create, represent, and write ideas; and produce products that are original; that which can be understood, shared, and expressed in many ways
and forms.
If we follow this line of thought and explanation, then people can also claim
copyrights to their own original conversational expressions that can be replicated or repeated by others-- e.g. “acheche” (back in the day this was a popular expression repeated in many shows; it was a word to express surprise).. Or the expression, “I love you, Lucky,” (we all know who the famous celebrity who spoke this expresssion much).
Ultimately the goal of copyright is to identify-- who wrote, produced, printed,
conceptualized, or expressed and finished the work. Is
it related to a professional duty? Is it an exercise and pursuit of a hobby? Or is it a natural practice and endowment of a talent that led one to
come up with a copyrighted work-- one that has commercial and yes, even sentiment
value-- that can distinguish a writer, creative, or artist from another
practitioner. or talent These are some of the list of things to consider when discussing respect for copyrights.
There must
not be a contest on who gets copyright recognition. In fact, one must not even
ask if a credit is in order.
It must be a given, that the one who hires or commissions the individual; assigns a writer or creative, or endeavors to use the lyrics of
a song for a specific purpose must give the copyrights' benefit, recognition, or credit; and of course, remuneration for a work done.
This is where complications exist.
When writers are paid by the hour to work for a company. But all the
ideas that bring light and life to a company’s products (no matter what kind of
business or industry he or she belongs to), ultimately embody the company’s
majority of products or services such that they carry the persona and the work
personality of the writer.
Or let’s say, the work is laborious, tedious, and almost
exhausting to finish, and/or, the work requires a lot of inventiveness,
originality, creativity, and differentiation of ideas to come up with a written
or expressed work. Writers and let’s include the artists, would definitely want to bind
themselves to their work because that is the goal of their education and profession. Otherwise, being uncredited OR DISCREDITED defeats the purpose of working for an industry that centers mostly on coming up with tangible, written, visible, and/or audible; representations; concepts, or intellectual products.
There are different ways to understand copyrights: by looking at it on the level of implementation-
where there is a specific point person/s that ensures copyrights are credited rightfully.
On the level of engagement or dedication when a writer, creative
or artist/ talent focuses on that particular work for a definite period or is purposely
commissioned to use his or her individual talent that thrives on copyrights;
and on the level or POV (point of view) of entitlement and assumption, to mean the writer, creative or artist deserves the copyrights because, he or she has trained for
a certain profession that requires experience, research, skills and a lot of ingenuity and creativity.
From its current state and practice, copyrights seem to be conditionally recognized
depending on the employer or client of the writer, creatives, or artist, despite the
existence of proper safeguards in local laws.
Unconditional copyright protection can further be defended by the fact
that writers and artists are required and expected to dedicate plenty of time to come up with the right output; making writing without copyright recognition merely an ordeal undertaking, particularly when writers are not given proper credit and pay for their work.
The last is to understand copyright as an entitlement because not everyone can enter the same field or writing profession without the right training. Giving copyrights credit is not done merely to brag or to earn but also for the fulfillment of writing.
On the issue of censorship, in reality, censorship of work can change the contextual meaning and final output of an original copyrighted work. The thing that must be put to
light is whether the output is for mainstream audiences. Writings to be read, or heard by many, must exercise more careful preponderings, before being shared with the readers or audiences.
If a work fails
to meet common public expectations and interests, then, a writer, creative, or artist, must practice their own censorship without the need to be reminded,
prodded, compelled, or bounded by authority or well-meaning individual action to edit or redo a work.
Censorship even when voluntarily done by the writer, creatives, or artist, can deviate from the original intention and purpose of the
messaging, conceptualizing, and editing of work. But if public interest demands that
a copyrighted work must be limited, to fulfill respect for sensitivities, and uphold respect for individuals on socially relevant or controversial topics, then an edit can be in order.
