1/8/2015
I’ve been saying it for a long time: copyright as a means to leverage income for one’s creative works is going to go away. It will. Not entirely, mind you. But the word will. It’s been so diluted in the last decade I’ve been wondering why it’s still on the books. So I’m reaching out to you: marketplace, and you: my fellow creatives to brainstorm with me here to come up with a new term we can all get behind. We’ve got to shore this term up before we lose its import altogether.
How about finquity? (You know, financial equity). Or, capain? (You know, capital gain). Or, sales (You know, sales!).
Don’t believe me about the term copyright’s demise? C’mon! Our click and purchase habits are dictating copyright change. Our couch-potato non-crediting of “regrams” dictates it. I mean #regram doesn’t note who created the image, only that it’s being reused. You can listen to any song on the web for free. Increasingly, these are daily habits for us.
I don’t have exact metrics on this, but surely you’ve experienced it. Daily, click and purchase habits are redefining the position creatives find themselves in when negotiating compensation for the work they put out. Not the work they do, mind you. The marketplace doesn’t dispute the time creatives spend to make whatever it is you are enjoying. What it continually disputes are the requests to pony up for the finished product.
Now, marketplace, I don’t want to alienate you. I like you. You like my stuff so how can I not like you? We can work together on this. I know we can.
How about rebranding copyright in 2015? Yes? No? Who’s with me? Not you? It’s because I said rebrand, right? I know. Sorry about that. (Rebrand is due for a rebrand). Anyway, how ‘bout rejuvenate copyright then? No? Too feely? Too affected? Listen, I said I’ll work with you and I will.
Certainly we can agree copyright needs a fresh coat of paint. It needs to be a term we can easily plug into our estimates; a term that will account, simply, for the materials and labor that creatives put forth; a term that will inspire both the marketplace and creatives to equally subscribe and engage in its use. And yeah, let’s be real, it’s gotta be short.
Simply understanding the definition of “copyright” has, by it’s own definition, always been a roadblock to the exchange and sale of creative property.
Sometimes copyright is a positive roadblock: for example, when a creator wants to protect her work from being reproduced by a business that doesn’t uphold her interests.
Oftentimes copyright is interpreted as a negative roadblock. Clients simply don’t want to talk copyright because they’re thinking “I thought she wanted me to use this material, but now she wants me to pay more? Didn’t I just agree to pay her for the time she put into creating it? Why do I have to pay for the product too?” To those of you asking this question, let me refer you back to the terms I brainstormed in paragraph two.
And to content users, well, we all just want to click and purchase. We’re thinking “you don’t have to remind me that you own it, just put a price tag on it already and let me get this thing.”
Not to worry, clients and content users, we creatives don’t want you to have to think about it any more either. We’re over-stimulated ourselves and, frankly, wonder about the poor souls who never cultivated skills to understand licensing agreements. So, let me as both a creative and a user in the marketplace offer the following: it’s a term that has cultural currency. It means currency. And, it’s short; @ML. That’s it.
@ML means “at materials and labor.” I’m going to start using @ML when I talk about copyright. You can also hashtag it of course for searches, just please know that the @ symbol is being used to reflect the soul of the matter. You know, the soul of any thing is where we creatives are @. It’s where we live. The rest of it is how we support that place.
If you want, you can also use @TML. That translates to “at time, materials, labor.” This will help you when you simply want to roll all your line items into one on your estimate sheet. Still, you’ll need to factor in the ML. Remember, that’s copyright.
What do you think? Are we good? Told you, I was willing to work with you. It’s just a matter of defining where we’re all @.
Amy Tierney / Thrive Images 