![\"Speech](\"http:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/files\/2017\/01\/Free-Speech-Copyright-300x285.png\")
Copyright is regularly held up in public debates as both a barrier to, and a pre-condition of free speech.<\/p>\nCopyright is regularly held up in public debates as both a barrier to, and a pre-condition of free speech.<\/p>\n
Given the emotive power of human rights arguments, as well as how readily they are used, it is worth exploring these claims. The answer, to both, is \u2018not necessarily\u2019.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Foe?<\/strong><\/p>\n Taking the Universal Declaration of Human Rights<\/a> as a starting point, free speech and copyright appear to sit in different places. Article 19 explicitly guarantees Freedom of Expression, while it is Article 27(b) that is usually given as the human rights justification for copyright.<\/p>\n Article 27(b) comes alongside the right in Article 27(a) to participate in cultural life, enjoy the arts, and share in scientific advancement and its benefits. The implication is that Article 27 has dual goals \u2013 to ensure the rights both of the community as a whole, and those of creators.<\/p>\n This same idea of dual goals is also visible in the Berne Convention<\/a> of 1886, which established the international copyright framework. As well as giving rights for creators, it also set out a range of exceptions to these rights that allow the community to use works \u2013 books, newspapers, other forms of creativity \u2013 in support of free speech in the press, education institutions, and broader public life.<\/p>\n For libraries, these provisions and other exceptions<\/a> such as lending and copying, are vital to their work of promoting literacy, research and creativity, from villages and schools to the biggest cities or universities.<\/p>\n Nonetheless, these exceptions, both for libraries and more generally, are not universally applied. Copyright need not be opposed to free speech, but when it is applied in an unbalanced way, it can be harmful.<\/p>\n The situation is not necessarily getting better. For example, in Europe, the proposed press publishers\u2019 right \u2013 a move that is justified as a means of creating a market for small snippets of articles \u2013 risks making it more difficult to bring together and share news.<\/p>\n The justification is the idea that rights are needed in order to create a market for the licensing of such content. The position taken by libraries<\/a>, up to now, is that such a provision has no place in a balanced copyright system.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Friend?<\/strong><\/p>\n While it is easy to dismiss this argument as based on purely monetary concerns, there is a counter-argument that makes the case for copyright (and related rights, such as the press publishers\u2019 right) as being at the heart of free expression.<\/p>\n The logic? It is copyright that allows money to be made from creativity. Without it, then there would be no professional expression or creativity. In short, no free expression without copyright.<\/p>\n The argument is initially attractive \u2013 and has the advantage of being a model that is familiar. However, as indicated above, the fundamental human right given to artists \u2013 to enjoy protection of the moral and material interests of their labour \u2013 does not specify how this is to be achieved.<\/p>\n