Kretschmer, Bently, Singh and Cooper (2011)

From Copyright EVIDENCE
Revision as of 22:43, 19 August 2015 by Andrew (talk | contribs) (1 revision imported)

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Kretschmer, Bently, Singh and Cooper (2011)
Title: Copyright contracts and earnings of visual creators: A survey of 5,800 British designers, fine artists, illustrators, and photographers
Author(s): Kretschmer, M., Bently, L., Singh, S., Cooper, E.
Year: 2011
Citation: Kretschmer, M., Bently, L., Singh, S., & Cooper, E. (2011). Bournemouth and Cambridge: DACS/CIPPM/CIPIL. Available at SSRN 1780206.
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by: Goodridge, Haskel and Mitra-Kahn (2012)
About the Data
Data Description: Two rounds of the survey were conducted, using the online service SurveyMonkey:

Round 1 was mailed on 28 May as an e-mail link to 293 visual artists; 32 responses were received. Round 2 was circulated on 30 June via e-mail to 5,507 visual creators; 596 responses were received. Total number of responses (constructed sample): 628

Data Type: Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?:
Government or policy study?:
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2010
Funder(s):
  • Not stated

Abstract

There is a common perception that digitisation has prompted changes in creative labour markets. In particular, it is widely assumed that exploiters insist on "grabbing rights" (i.e. broadly conceived assignments of rights), that visual artists are not able to negotiate, that they are paid less and less, and that they are compelled to waive their moral rights. This study suggests a much more equivocal picture. In place of a straightforward narrative of decline, the results of the survey suggest that in most fields there has been less change over the last decade than one might have expected: that, terms of exploitation are most often about the same. That is not to say that there are no discernible changes in particular occupations and media. Respondents and interviewees identify some important shifts. Perhaps surprisingly, it seems there are changes in practice that are, from the creator's perspective, both positive and negative. The most positive change is identified amongst the fine artists where half (50%) see their personal bargaining position as having improved, with only 6% perceiving a weakening. The most disturbing changes are in relation to photographers. About half of all photographers (49%) say their bargaining position has worsened, with only 22% reporting improvements. A significant percentage of photographers (40%) report an increase in assignments (compared with 6% who think they have decreased). Moreover, 24% report an increase in moral rights waivers (compared to 3% who identify a decrease), and a decline in the practice of attribution. 31% of photographers see attribution as decreasing over the last decade, and only 8% increasing. 28% say income from secondary use has decreased, while only 16% say it has decreased.

Main Results of the Study

  • This study offers a detailed picture of the conditions under which visual creators worked in the UK in 2010, using a survey, supplemented by focus group research and legal analysis.
  • Visual artists have precarious careers, with typical earnings well below the UK national median wage of £21,320. In 2009/10, the typical photographer earned £15,000 (median), the typical illustrator earned £15,723 (median) while the typical fine artist earned only £10,000 (median).
  • Careers typically are sustained by a portfolio of other activities. Close to half of visual creators (44%) earn all their income from visual creation. 35% had a formal second job.
  • There is a common perception that digitisation has prompted changes in creative labour markets. In particular, it is widely assumed that exploiters insist on “grabbing rights” (i.e. broadly conceived assignments of rights), that visual artists are not able to negotiate, that they are paid less and less, and that they are compelled to waive their moral rights.
  • This study suggests a much more equivocal picture. In place of a straightforward narrative of decline, the results of the survey suggest that in most fields there has been less change over the last decade than one might have expected: that, terms of exploitation are most often about the same.


Policy Implications as Stated By Author

There is a need to create an independently validated evidence base as a guide for policy makers, in particular in relationship to copyright issues in the digital environment.


Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Green-tick.png
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Green-tick.png
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Green-tick.png
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets

Sample size: 628
Level of aggregation: Individual
Period of material under study: 2010