Digital Art as ‘Monetised Graphics:’ Enforcing Intellectual Property on the Blockchain

In a global economic landscape of hyper-commodification and financialisation, efforts to assimilate digital art into the high-stakes commercial art market have so far been rather unsuccessful, presumably because digital art works cannot easily assume the status of precious object worthy of collection. This essay explores the use of blockchain technologies in attempts to create proprietary digital art markets in which uncommodifiable digital art works are financialised as artificially scarce commodities. Using the decentralisation techniques and distributed database protocols underlying current cryptocurrency technologies, such efforts, exemplified here by the platform Monegraph, tend to be presented as concerns with the interest of digital artists and with shifting ontologies of the contemporary work of art. I challenge this characterisation, and argue, in a discussion that combines aesthetic theory, legal and philosophical theories of intellectual property, rhetorical analysis, and research in the political economy of new media, that the formation of proprietary digital art markets by emerging commercial platforms such as Monegraph constitutes a worrisome amplification of long-established, on-going efforts to fence in creative expression as private property. As I argue, the combination of blockchain-based protocols with established ambitions of intellectual property policy yields hybrid conceptual-computational financial technologies (such as self-enforcing smart contracts attached to digital artefacts) that are unlikely to empower artists, but which serve to financialise digital creative practices as a whole, curtailing the critical potential of the digital as an inherently dynamic and potentially uncommodifiable mode of production and artistic expression

Evaluating the Benefits of Fair Use: A Response to the PWC Report on the Costs and Benefits of 'Fair Use'

This submission to the Australia Productivity Commission responds to a recently published PricewaterhouseCoopers report on Understanding the Costs and Benefits of Introducing a ‘Fair Use’ Exception, prepared for APRA, AMCOS, PPCA, Copyright Agency | Viscopy, Foxtel, News Corp Australia and Screenrights (“PWC Report”). The PWC Report does not provide a sound evidence base to evaluate the true total costs and benefits that the introduction of a fair use rights would have in Australia. Part I points out how the PWC Report fails to adequately define the nature of the real change being proposed in Australia – which is effectively to subject its existing fair dealing clause to an open list of potentially lawful purposes. Part II provides a survey of a range of benefits that the opening of Australia’s fair dealing clause to resemble the U.S. fair use doctrine may have, drawing from published research on the topic which is not canvassed by the PWC Report. Part III analyses the PWC Report’s evaluation of the costs of adopting fair use, criticizing the Report’s basis for concluding that adopting fair use will lead to massive shifts from licensed to unlicensed use of works, a litigation explosion and the destruction of all collective management organizations in Australia. The diffuse and forward-looking benefits of open exceptions like fair use may be hard to measure, but they are no less real. The PWC’s evaluation of the costs and benefits of fair use are not real. It is full of imagined horror stories that are unlikely to take place in fact and should be disregarded in their entirety