By Eivind Torgersen

Copyright and patents provide important rights to artists and inventors. However, for countries in the South, intellectual property rights still create problems.

Professionals in creative industries should have some form of protection against others exploiting what they have created, even if it’s not a tangible, physical object.

In technical terms, this is referred to as intellectual property rights, a catch-all term that includes copyright, patents, and trademarks.

The history of copyright dates back to the 18th century when, for example, authors grew frustrated with their works being translated into other languages without permission and compensation.

“Authors lost money when their books were printed in another country. It was essential to provide them with the opportunity to at least earn some money,” says history professor Véronique Pouillard at the University of Oslo.

She has led a research project that has studied the history of intellectual property rights in the creative industries, dating back to their formal establishment in the Berne Convention in 1886.

Copyright Can Hinder Development in the South

Since then, several new and updated international agreements have emerged. However, finding the right balance between protecting the creative and providing access to as many as possible remains challenging.

Pouillard identifies two major issues:

“One was that many countries wanted better agreements for their own productions. There was a tempting inclination toward protectionism. The other major issue, which we still face today, is disparities in development. Countries that were economically weaker, particularly in the South, lacked access to books,” she notes.

This last point manifests not just within literature, music, and the arts but also has implications for access to technological innovations and life-saving medications.

“Intellectual property rights should not present an obstacle to developing countries. But in reality, they can, especially when considering patents in medicine and pharmaceuticals. People die because they cannot afford medications,” says Pouillard.

Musicians Lose to Digital Platforms

In the creative sphere, she and her research colleagues have closely examined fashion and music. The traditional perception was that copyright was little used in the fashion industry, while it was extensively used in music.

“After studying them, we have come to somewhat different conclusions. The fashion industry has invested enormously in trademark rights. Fashion companies view themselves as creative actors, even when what they offer is mass-produced, derivative and highly commercial,” Pouillard explains.

In music, there has been and is extensive use of copyright.

“Music is a copyright industry, but with the emergence of the platforms, it has become much more complicated,” she states.

The last few decades have revolutionized where and how we listen to music, with almost everything now happening on Spotify and other digital platforms. The issue of copyright has not kept pace.

“Musicians are losing out under the new business model. The platforms favor anything mainstream, giving nothing to the small creators trying to transition from amateur to professional. The disparities have grown enormously,” says Pouillard.

The South Loses to the North

Once again, the contrast between the North and South becomes evident.

Pouillard has conducted a close study (De Gruyter Brill) of the music industry in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where some form of copyright organization has existed since the late 1940s, although it has been diluted by corruption and political control.

“There are still remnants of it, but the old model no longer works. They face a very weak position against the platform model, compounded by poor infrastructure,” Pouillard adds.

A small elite of Congolese musicians are internationally prominent enough to fill stadiums abroad, but it’s something the vast majority can only dream of achieving. The possibility of uploading music to YouTube does not help if there is no access to the service.

“The problem in Congo and many other countries is lack of access. These are nations where there can also be issues related to electricity, streaming, and infrastructure in general. Artists have very limited access to these platforms,” Pouillard states.

She is unsure whether it is possible to create a system that is fair to smaller entities while also accommodating the diverse needs of creative individuals across various countries.

“That has not happened yet. It looks like a hopeless situation where those who have already won keep winning. There may be hope, but first, we need to address issues of infrastructure and access,” says the history professor.

Access is More Important than Copyright

She believes it might be wise to distinguish more between different fields instead of pursuing a system that covers all forms of intellectual property rights.

“Copyright can still elevate certain artists, but when we talk about patents, scientific innovations, and technological advancements, it has only favoured international corporations and been detrimental to people in the South,” she argues.

Perhaps some will need to be willing or incentivized to relinquish some of their rights, for instance in the form of patent waivers, particularly concerning health and technology.

“We in the North should ensure open access for countries in the South. We have not done enough to curb the power of large corporations and should provide more access to patents, more access to information related to health, and to innovation,” asserts Pouillard.