Before Napoleon invaded Italy, Italian composers would get paid only once for their music. This meant no royalties, no matter how often their work was performed.

But when Napoleon conquered Northern Italy, places like Lombardy and Venetia suddenly got French-style copyright laws. This was a game-changer. Not only would composers get paid for composing the opera, but the money would pile up with every new performance.

These new copyright laws did more than just put money in composer’s pockets.

Beyond the score

Researchers from the University of UCLA and NYU wanted to see what happens to the composers' creative output after implementing copyright laws.

They focused on the case of Italy between 1770 and 1900 — a time when Napoleon’s conquests led to the implementation of French copyright laws in certain Italian regions. Interestingly, some regions got the copyright law (like Lombardy and Venetia), and others didn’t (like Tuscany and Modena).

They gathered 2,598 operas from 705 composers and tracked everything from premiere dates to how long these operas stayed in the spotlight. They looked at two measures:

• Creativity: primarily measured by the quantity of new operas produced.

• Quality: including several factors like immediate popularity and success of the operas (i.e., how many notable performances they had), where they were performed (i.e., prestigious venues or not), and availability of these operas on platforms like Amazon.

So what were the main findings?

The opera boom

The study showed that the copyright laws led to more and better operas.

• There was a 157% increase in opera production in the areas where copyright was introduced (Lombardy and Venetia) compared to other regions (like Tuscany and Modena).

• Quality, measured by popularity and durability, skyrocketed as well. For instance, many operas from these regions were performed at the Metropolitan Opera House much later.

The timing of the increase coincided with the introduction of these laws. Coincidence? I think not. Legal changes impact creative output. Researchers also found that other musical compositions (i.e. symphonies and songs) also increased creative output after getting copyright protection.

But there’s more.

The limits of copyright

The researchers found that getting copyrights beyond a composer’s lifetime didn’t do much to boost creativity. By getting royalties for 30+ or 40+ years after the composer’s death, the composers didn’t increase their opera output. Few operas played even 20 years after their premiere, so composers might realize that it doesn’t change much if they get many more years of royalties after their deaths.

Think of giving a retired CEO a bonus. It’s nice for him, but it doesn’t increase productivity in the company.

Plus, longer copyright can restrict access to these pieces of music, potentially stifling new creative endeavors that build upon past works.

It seems that longer copyrights don’t benefit the overall field.

The delicate balance of copyrights in music

Legal frameworks impact creative industries.

There’s no doubt about that.

We often undervalue this aspect, but securing protection for composers is important. Copyrights ignite creativity!

You can’t plagiarize music anymore, forcing cultural institutions to pay for new music. There is more need for music, which implies more jobs for composers.

But like any other good thing, it needs a proper balance. Too little protection and artists are eating ramen and creating crappy music. Too much, and innovation hits a wall.

But getting royalties also implies a different type of chess game for composers and publishers. It becomes a battle of who gets to squeeze more money out, and the music arena suddenly becomes more like Wall Street.

Hint. If negotiations are not going well, look out for terms like 40+ years of copyright after the composer’s death. It might sound nice, but it doesn’t add much, and if you’re a composer, you’ll think you got a juicy deal when, in fact, you were played upon.