What is "Originality" anyway?

In the film “Good Copy Bad Copy”, creativity is discussed in relation to copyright laws. Originally, copyright laws were created to protect the intellectual property of artists but over time, it has hindered the creative flow. This seems like a paradox, but we must understand that the mother of all invention is something borrowed. This film made me question where creativity comes from and how I should understand the word “originality”. Is copyright a good thing? Maybe not right now but it was once and it still can be, relative to the situation. In cultures outside of America, copyright laws do not seem to be as big of an issue. Those artists understand that the creation process is dependent on pre-existing works.

 

            This film depicted the US as a money obsessed culture. We are adamant about copyright laws because there is a ton of money in it. In the video, around 50:18, a man talks about Brazil and the techno brega movement. In techno brega, music producers use samples of other artists and take out the acoustic instruments, replacing them with synthesized percussion beats. Apparently, the artists who are used in these songs are not concerned with copyright. They are fine with their music being used because it means that they will have more live performances to promote their music. They allow the creative freedom for producers instead of stifling it. This is not at all the same in US culture. Plenty of artists’ works are partially owned by larger corporations who rely on copyright laws. The artists aren’t really the focal point as far as who benefits the most from the laws, rather, the corporations are.

            In Nigeria, “Copyright is not about stopping people from using your work, but getting them to use your work legally and giving you money for what they have done with your work” (30:34). It is a nice idea. Nigeria probably actually uses copyright in this positive way, as protection, but in America, the paying money part is somewhat ridiculous. Big music labels will have their artists’ work protected so heavily under copyright laws that in order to legally sample them, the hassle and money is almost not work it. Girl Talk talks about this issue in the video around 12:50. His creations rely 100% on samples of other songs, yet they are clearly original pieces of work. It would take millions of dollars to license all the samples in one song, and on top of that, he says, “it would still take 50 years to go through all the legal hassle and that’s just absurd”. In this way, copyright laws are hindering the creativity of other artists, since most up-and-coming music producers in America who want to sample other songs do not have millions of dollars and decades of time to spare. When their works are clearly original and they are not hurting the other artists being sampled, why is it an issue?

            Even if samples are not being used, in order to create something, something else is being borrowed, somehow. It is inevitable. Girl Talk says, at the end of the film, that passing down and recycling ideas is the most efficient way of artistic growth (57:20). He’s right. If we look throughout history, everything that exists is built off of an outside influence. It’s the age-old observation that there is no original thought. If there is no original thought, there is no original anything since everything is created through a process of thoughts. If nothing is original, who owns it? How can anyone own anything if everything is a compilation, remix, or remediation of something else that already exists? With this idea in mind, copyright laws should be more liberal and allow for creative freedom. Ownership is always relative.