To remain operational during COVID-19 and cater to an audience stuck at home, artists, producers, theatres and museums are all providing content online. A proliferation of live streams, audio books, online events, performances and exhibitions is being delivered, direct to our screens, without costing us a cent. At a challenging time for providers, Times of Malta looks at who is bearing the cost of the digital shift and if it’s reasonable for consumers to expect it for free.

To maintain their output and ensure projects under way are not entirely abandoned, artists and producers are naturally transitioning online.

Adapt or die, as the saying goes, and indeed, there may be no alternative. But if providers are paying to produce content and paying to digitise it, how can they afford not to charge for it? If the situation is unsustainable, there could be ramifications for the arts sector’s delicate financial ecosystem.

So with the future of artistic production itself quite possibly at stake, as consumers, is it okay for us not to pay?

To answer this question we must first understand what culture is, what our rights to it are and to whom it belongs.

What is culture?

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) defines culture “broadly as ‘the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of a society or a social group’, namely all aspects that elevate humans beyond their purely biological existence… in the EU, culture is most frequently defined in terms of the arts.”

Do we have a right to culture?

Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 states that “everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits”.

If culture is a human right, shouldn’t it be free?

Article 27 goes on to state that “everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.” So it is clear, access to culture is deemed a human right, and according to point number one, which refers to participation by attendance or consumption, we all have the right to enjoy the arts. However, point number two clearly states that creators too have a right: the right to the ‘material interests’ of the content they have produced.

What is intellectual property?

This second point in Article 27 is, of course, a reference to intellectual property (IP): the ownership and use of the things we design, invent and produce. The most commonly known types of IP are trademarks, patents and copyrights. When it comes to the arts, this covers everything from artworks and songs, to stories, scripts and musical scores. Although the concept of owning intangible creations and inventions goes back millennia, the first laws protecting intellectual property date back to the 17th century.

So while we do indeed have the right to access cultural material, we do not necessarily have the right to access it for free. Someone has invested time, hard work, talent and money into producing it, and for most producers, it’s how they make a living. With so much content freely available online, it’s easy to forget that the owners are not necessarily obliged to share it with us for free.

Is it ok not to pay?

To answer this question it is important to consider who content belongs to, how the digital shift and COVID-19 have impacted artists’ revenues and, when work is shared free of charge, who bears the cost.

Lockdown Festival, an online festival of live local music supported by the audience through the ZAAR crowdfunding platform.

What is the digital shift?

Salesforce.com defines the digital shift as “the process of using digital technologies to create new ‒ or modify existing ‒ business processes, culture and customer experiences to meet changing business and market requirements”. While the process began decades ago with the arrival of computers and the internet, it has gathered momentum in the 21st century and is transforming how audiences consume culture and entertainment.

How has digitisation impacted the arts?

The music industry has arguably taken the brunt of the revolution in accessibility. Physical formats, such as vinyl and CDs, have been replaced with much cheaper digital alternatives, causing musicians to rely on live concerts to replace lost sales revenues. As sales of printed newspapers and books decrease, authors are touring and media houses are ever more reliant on online subscriptions and donations, the UK’s Guardian newspaper and the Times of Malta being among them. Streaming services such as Netflix have caused DVD rental stores to close, cinema audiences have declined and the movie industry has adapted its business models to market behaviour.

How has COVID-19 impacted the arts?

When COVID-19 hit, the cancellation of live events and venue closures which ensued drove cultural provision almost exlusively online, dramatically accelerating the process of digitisation. According to William Deresiewicz, author of The Coronavirus Means Curtains for Artists, “this new crisis has collided with an arts economy that was already severely weakened by 20 years of digital assault.” In his May 7 article in The Nation, Deresiewicz explains that “the assault has taken the form, specifically, of demonetisation”. He goes on to claim that tech giants such as Facebook, Amazon and Google “have engineered a vast and ongoing transfer of wealth, on the order of tens of billions of dollars a year, from creators to distributors.”

This new crisis has collided with an arts economy that was already severely weakened by 20 years of digital assault- William Deresiewicz

Why does ownership matter?

With the livelihoods of artists under threat, ownership becomes a burning issue. Whoever owns our free online content is also paying for us to enjoy it. Knowing who it belongs to might affect our decision to pay, when given the choice.

Online experiences offered by Germany’s Städel Museum.

Who owns what?

For the most part, intellectual property ownership can be divided into two categories: public and private.

What is public content?

According to the European Parliament, it is “cultural and historical heritage content and public sector information... cultural content held by public service broadcasters, educational, research and cultural establishments. With respect to copyright protection, public content encompasses: (1) works in the public domain; (2) works where copyright appertains to a public entity; (3) works where copyright appertains to a private subject but which are guarded or held by a public entity (including orphan and out-of commerce works).”

Works in the public domain are defined by Stanford University Libraries as “creative materials that are not protected by intellectual property laws such as copyright, trademark, or patent laws. The public owns these works, not an individual author or artist. Anyone can use a public domain work without obtaining permission, but no one can ever own it.”

Who pays for us to enjoy public content online?

In 2011 the European Commission described digitisation as an “investment for the future [with] great benefits for many different purposes, such as education and research, but also tourism and the creative industry” and made recommendations for “getting Europe’s entire cultural heritage digitised by 2025”. It made clear, however, that the cost was too high to be covered by public funding alone, EU Structural Funds were allocated to co-fund digitisation projects and “private sector sponsoring of digitisation or partnerships between the public and private sectors” were encouraged. Two years later, the European Parliament reported that the lengthy and costly process of digitisation, around 20 per cent complete, would require a “further €100 billion of investment”.

Digitisation is, therefore, being at least part-financed by public funds. 70 per cent of the EU budget is made up of contributions from its members. Each country pays a proportion of its Gross National Income (GNI) and, in turn, receives EU funding in the form of investment.

According to the European Commission, “the average EU citizen pays €240 per year towards the EU budget (2018 figures)”. In terms of its net contribution, Malta receives slightly more from the EU than it gives, so a Maltese taxpayer gets back more or less what they pay in the form of EU funded projects, of which digitisation is one.

Who provides public content in Malta?

In Malta public content falling under the banner of arts and culture is usually delivered through government-funded bodies and institutions in receipt of public funds. These include museums, heritage sites, libraries and Public Cultural Organisations (PCOs) such as Spazju Kreattiv, Manoel Theatre, Festivals Malta, Malta Philharmonic Orchestra, the Mediterranean Conference Centre, Pjazza Teatru Rjal, Teatru Malta, Valletta Cultural Agency, ŻfinMalta, the new national choir Kor Malta and the Malta International Contemporary Art Space (MICAS). However, many of these also present privately-owned content, such as art exhibitions or performances by private theatre companies.

What is private content?

Private intellectual property refers to anything that is not publicly owned or in the public domain.

Who pays for us to enjoy private content online?

This is typically born either by the original artist, creator or producer, or the current owner of the content and its distribution rights. In Malta, the arts sector is made up primarily of self-employed individuals and small private production and event companies, many of whom do not benefit from government or EU funding. Some are providing online content free of charge, while others have adopted alternative payment models, such as the Lockdown Festival, which paid its musicians from optional payments pledged by online viewers through crowdfunding platform ZAAR.

During COVID-19, many countries, including Malta, announced wage supplements of around €800 per month for the self-employed in vulnerable sectors such as the arts. Companies also received subsidies towards employee salaries. This ‘minimum wage’ was intended by the government as a poverty avoidance measure, and for individuals whose usual income had been decimated. It is, therefore, a financial lifeline to cover basic rent and bills, not the production or digitisation of creative content.

Freelancers, the self-employed and event-based producers are all experiencing a loss of income due to COVID-19. It’s worth remembering this when we are invited to pay for their content. The ‘donation’ we are invited to make can be considered a ticket price for entry.

In the case of public content, COVID-19 may have simply brought forward a digitisation process which is adequately funded and well under way, making content available earlier and in greater volume than we would have otherwise enjoyed at this stage. Equally, it could be argued that everyone else is at a disadvantage as a result. Many small companies and self-employed individuals are certainly finding themselves under pressure to follow suit without the funding to do so.

When it comes to the arts, the flow of funding and revenues is a complex matter, to which a single article alone cannot possibly do justice, but whether we pay for it or not, it’s worth remembering that creating content and digitising it costs time and money. Producing new content digitally can also be a challenge for those suddenly having to learn the new technical skills it requires. Perhaps if we are more aware of the origin of the culture and entertainment we enjoy online and what goes into bringing it to our screens, we might be more willing to consider paying for it when given the choice.

While the Times of Malta’s independent journalism is accessible to all, producing it costs a lot of time and money. To subscribe to the Times of Malta newspaper, visit timesofmalta.com/purchases and to donate visit timesofmalta.com/donations.