REPORT OF THE 2ND SEMINAR OF THE RSA RESEARCH NETWORK ON CREATIVE INDUSTRIES AND THE REGIONS: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLACES, LOCAL AND REGIONAL POLICIES AND CREATIVE PRODUCTION

2009 ◽  
Vol 275 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-30
Author(s):  
Nick Clifton
Author(s):  
Riitta Kemppainen-Koivisto ◽  
Katta Siltavirta ◽  
Rauno Rusko ◽  
Seppo Särkkä

Typically, creativity and institutionalism are not closely related. However, when talking about cooperatives (or co-ops), the authors introduce, in addition to the paradoxical tension between institutionalism and creativity, perspectives and cases in which institutionalism is a channel for creative production. People often associate cooperatives with institutional characteristics because of their collective manifestations in history, such as agricultural or financial cooperatives. Furthermore, co-ops typically consist of several entrepreneurs working under the same “umbrella” organization. However, according to the outcomes of the chapter, cooperatives could also be a source of, or at least a channel for, contemporary creativity. In this chapter, the authors introduce Finnish cases in which the planners and designers of creative industries have established cooperatives successfully. These cooperatives have already created sustainable paths in their business activities to provide younger and youthful entrepreneurs with business possibilities and at least modest profitability. They also consider neo-cooperatives and light cooperatives, which provide services to cooperatives and allow them to focus on their main area of creating and innovating new business. Creativity cannot flow if there is no time or will to secure large investments and financing, or if the marketing and brand-building are problematic and the decision-making slow. Cooperatives could provide a suitable arena for innovative and creative business if there is a will to change and renew the idea of cooperative institutions, law, and practice.


Economics ◽  
2015 ◽  
pp. 1035-1054
Author(s):  
Riitta Kemppainen-Koivisto ◽  
Katta Siltavirta ◽  
Rauno Rusko ◽  
Seppo Särkkä

Typically, creativity and institutionalism are not closely related. However, when talking about cooperatives (or co-ops), the authors introduce, in addition to the paradoxical tension between institutionalism and creativity, perspectives and cases in which institutionalism is a channel for creative production. People often associate cooperatives with institutional characteristics because of their collective manifestations in history, such as agricultural or financial cooperatives. Furthermore, co-ops typically consist of several entrepreneurs working under the same “umbrella” organization. However, according to the outcomes of the chapter, cooperatives could also be a source of, or at least a channel for, contemporary creativity. In this chapter, the authors introduce Finnish cases in which the planners and designers of creative industries have established cooperatives successfully. These cooperatives have already created sustainable paths in their business activities to provide younger and youthful entrepreneurs with business possibilities and at least modest profitability. They also consider neo-cooperatives and light cooperatives, which provide services to cooperatives and allow them to focus on their main area of creating and innovating new business. Creativity cannot flow if there is no time or will to secure large investments and financing, or if the marketing and brand-building are problematic and the decision-making slow. Cooperatives could provide a suitable arena for innovative and creative business if there is a will to change and renew the idea of cooperative institutions, law, and practice.


Intellectual property (IP) law is premised on assumptions about creative behavior. Fundamentally, the case for regulation assumes that creators require a legal right to prevent copying, or they will under-invest in new works. But this premise fails to fully capture the reality of creative production. It ignores the range of powerful non-economic motivations that compel creativity. Equally importantly, it overlooks the capacity of creative industries for self-governance and innovative social and market responses to appropriation. This book reveals the on-the-ground practices of a range of creators and innovators. In doing so, it challenges intellectual property orthodoxy by showing that incentives for creative production often exist in the absence of, or in disregard for, formal legal protections. Instead, these communities rely on evolving social norms and market responses—sensitive to their particular cultural, competitive, and technological circumstances—to ensure creative incentives. From tattoo artists to medical researchers, Nigerian filmmakers to roller derby players, the communities illustrated in this book demonstrate that creativity can thrive without legal incentives, and perhaps more strikingly, that some creative communities prefer self-regulation to law. Beyond their value as descriptions of specific industries and communities, the accounts collected here help to ground debates over IP policy in the empirical realities of the creative process. Their parallels and divergences also highlight the value of rules that are sensitive to the unique mix of conditions and motivations of particular industries and communities, rather than the monoculture of uniform regulation of the current IP system.


2008 ◽  
Vol 128 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly McWilliam ◽  
John Hartley ◽  
Mark Gibson

This issue of MIA is based on several of the papers presented at the Digital Literacy and Creative Innovation in a Knowledge Economy symposium held by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation at QUT and the ARC Cultural Research Network in March 2007. The articles in this issue consider how the rapid development of digital technologies has changed the production and consumption of media content, altering the very nature of the relationship between ‘producers’ and ‘consumers’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document