Some 13 to 16 year old school children in Singapore recently held a competition at making a clay sculpture. In my experience, it’s hard to get through school without playing with clay every week, although these children were unusual in having their own Facebook page and access to 3D digital rendering. But what was really remarkable was their teacher’s decision to test the children’s knowledge of intellectual property as well as their artistic talent. The school wanted them to learn about the mix of inspiration and perspiration that goes into making something novel as well as to learn how the law applies at each stage of the process.

A lawyer would have fun watching the children as they turn physical property into intellectual property. At which point, he might ask, does the clay morph from being a sticky mess into an artistic work, or a child gives evidence of a unique, technical process that might be patentable? When and why does a lump of clay change from being a natural raw material into being someone’s private property?

Children like to mix clay with water and throw it around (and possibly at each other, if my own schooldays are any guide). But clay can become valuable. A lucky artist acquires moral rights, including the right to be named as the creator, as well as commercial rights which mean they can try to make money. In this category, they compete with the ceramics of Sevres and Limoges and the masters of China as well as with Pablo Picasso. A ceramic vase that sat unnoticed in a small house in unfashionable Pinner in London until last year 2010 turned out to be a masterpiece of the 18th century Qing dynasty. It was sold for US $83 million.

There are three main kinds of intellectual property: copyright which arises automatically whenever anyone makes an artistic or other qualifying expression (and this includes every clay sculpture) and patents and trademarks which have to be tested and registered.

Copyright is the most controversial, partly because it is automatic and partly because the Internet has vastly expanded its scope. Digital media makes it as easy to create new photos and videos as it is to shape a lump of clay. People just want to make something interesting and show it off. Everyone who uses a digital camera and everyone who uploads material to YouTube rightly does not care about copyright. They simply want to share their pictures as quickly as possible with as many people as possible.

But the Internet also makes it easy to obtain other people’s creations, especially music tracks and Hollywood movies, where money is an issue. Film director James Cameron who raised $350 million to finance his hugely profitable film ‘Avatar’ had to reassure his investors that he could protect their money.

The conundrum facing everyone who deals in copyright is how to encourage the Internet’s wonderful freedom of expression and freedom to create without destroying the business case for commercial investment.

The industry has several weapons at its disposal. First, it has the power to create astonishing, unique and highly desirable content, whether 3D blockbusters like ‘Avatar’, and ‘Avatar Two’ which is scheduled for 2014, or this season’s low-budget marvels like ‘Black Swan’ and ‘The King’s Speech’. Second, it has more options for showcasing its material in different formats, from IMAX to online. Third, it can use differential pricing, as do the airlines, to maximise revenues from these new outlets.

But many companies depend on trademarks and patents more than on copyright. Every company needs a name and a brand, and every technology company is likely to use a variety of patented processes whether they develop them internally or license it from outside. Countries which want to promote their creative economy need to provide a hospitable environment for registering this kind of intellectual property.

According to the Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011 by the World Economic Forum, Singapore was ranked third in the world for having the best protection of intellectual property, after Sweden and Finland. Singapore has developed a strong intellectual property framework and enforcement over the years. It also has corporations and law firms that know how to enshrine intellectual property in contracts, and civil authorities that are able to make sensible judgements about the appropriate level of enforcement. These support factors can be decisive in a company’s decision to base itself in the country. Nowadays, intellectual property frameworks are ranked with the same importance in a company’s choice of location as airports, infrastructure and banking.

Intellectual property laws are like traffic laws which Singapore already does well. The main purpose of traffic laws is to keep the traffic moving. If a driver behaves badly, then a bit of enforcement is necessary. Hopefully that seldom happens.

Likewise, the main purpose of intellectual property laws is to stimulate more creativity and innovation. A bit of enforcement is necessary. But not too much because that clogs up the spawning of new ideas. Those children need to be free to play and to copy before they think too much about ownership.

With the advent of the internet, what is the main issue surrounding the complication of intellectual property issues?

• Difficulty in prosecuting law breakers
• Ease of reproduction makes protection difficult
• Difficulty in claiming rights to creation

  View Results

 Loading ...