Pappalardo and Aufderheide (2020)
|Pappalardo and Aufderheide (2020)|
|Title:||Romantic Remixers: Hidden Tropes of Romantic Authorship in Creators’ Attitudes about Reuse|
|Author(s):||Pappalardo, K., Aufderheide, P.|
|Citation:||Pappalardo, K. and Aufderheide, P. (2020) Romantic Remixers: Hidden Tropes of Romantic Authorship in Creators’ Attitudes about Reuse. Cultural Science Journal, 12(1), pp 1-12|
|Key Related Studies:|
|About the Data|
|Data Description:||The study analyses existing data from 3 surveys: |
• an Australian survey with 467 responses;
• A survey of 516 documentary filmmakers in 2015, and;
•a 2016 survey of US visual artists with 1,200 responses.
Thereafter, this data was compared with a 2014 survey of the general population (including 7 unspecified countries) with 1,400 respondents.
Data were analysed using discourse analysis to determine cultural patterns, and grounded theory to create categories.
|Data Type:||Secondary data|
|Secondary Data Sources:|
|Data Collection Methods:|
|Data Analysis Methods:|
|Cross Country Study?:||No|
|Government or policy study?:||No|
|Time Period(s) of Collection:||
“This article draws from data generated in existing studies in Australia and the U.S. to examine how creators describe themselves and their creative acts when they are recombining or trying to combine copyrighted work with their own work. It finds a surprising congruence of self-perception across very different copyright regimes and creative practices. An undercurrent of Romantic notions about the originality of creative genius runs through even cutting-edge digital practices. This attitude then bolsters strategies used by large media interests to expand copyright monopoly rights and extend them internationally. Results have implications both for policy and advocacy, in particular, how creators respond to campaigns for expanded copyright exceptions, and a reluctance by even remix creators to challenge the legal structures that restrict their creative practice.”
Main Results of the Study
The study finds that there are many justifications or explanations for reuse practices that share a logic with a conceptualisation of creative works as acts of individual genius:
• Original work is more creative - By contrast, sampling and reuse is perceived as easier or lazier, therefore less creative and more likely to diminish reputation.
• Barriers spur creativity - When creators are denied permission to reuse work, this can often spur creativity by encouraging workarounds. By contrast, failure to implement this workaround is perceived as the fault of the creator’s creativity or grit.
• Artists deserve payment - Payment functions as a type of recognition that carries reputational benefit; this can be used to reconcile the commercialisation of culture with a higher artistic purpose.
• Artists deserve recognition - Attribution and respectful reuse is perceived as the minimum requirement of acknowledgement, which validates a creator’s identity.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
The study suggests that their findings may explain how policy debates are ‘easily co-opted by large rights holder interests’, or why creators resist the introduction of new exceptions (such as e.g. the proposed introduction of fair use in Australia). The study also suggests that creators are frustrated or confused by the law, and ultimately feel constrained by it.
Coverage of Study