Does copyright understand intangible heritage? The case of flamenco in Spain

Depósito de investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Heritage Studies on 2023,available at: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13527258.2023.2208102” Does Copyright understand intangible heritage? The case of flamenco in Spain Jesús Heredia-Carroza (corresponding autor) Economics and Economic History Department Universidad de Sevilla Luis Palma Economics and Economic History Department Universidad de Sevilla Luis F. Aguado Economics Departament Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Cali Abstract This paper illustrates the gap between the perceived value of performer input in intangible heritage and how it is considered in the market, drawing on a large sample of flamenco in Spain. The method used is constructed from four different components: an analysis of the intellectual property legal framework to determine the scope of copyright and neighbouring rights, interviews with experts to explain in detail the flamenco work creation process, double system surveys to determine the perceived evaluation of its agents and contributions, and finally – through a multidimensional structural equations model – flamenco work’s perceived value-scale is validated through three dimensions: composition elements, feelings, and virtuosity. The results show how the perceived value of flamenco production critically depends on the externalization accomplished by the performer through virtuosity. Nevertheless, copyright or royalties by no means ensure a level of protection that aligns with the key creative role of flamenco performers. KEYWORDS: intangible heritage; perceived value; copyright; performer; flamenco. JEL Classification: Z11; K11. 1 Does copyright understand intangible heritage? The case of flamenco in Spain Abstract This paper illustrates the gap between the perceived value of performer input in intangible heritage and how it is considered in the market, drawing on a large sample of flamenco in Spain. The method used is constructed from four different components: an analysis of the intellectual property legal framework to determine the scope of copyright and neighbouring rights, interviews with experts to explain in detail the flamenco work creation process, double system surveys to determine the perceived evaluation of its agents and contributions, and finally – through a multidimensional structural equations model – flamenco work’s perceived value-scale is validated through three dimensions: composition elements, feelings, and virtuosity. The results show how the perceived value of flamenco production critically depends on the externalization accomplished by the performer through virtuosity. Nevertheless, copyright or royalties by no means ensure a level of protection that aligns with the key creative role of flamenco performers. KEYWORDS: intangible heritage; perceived value; copyright; performer; flamenco. JEL Classification: Z11; K11. 1. Introduction Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, this article highlights the gap between the perceived value1 of the performer’s contribution to music and the copyright consideration in legal terms. We apply this to the protection of intangible heritage – specifically to the case of flamenco2 in Spain. This article posits a methodological approach constructed along four lines: first, it analyses intellectual property regulations to establish the variations between degrees of protection: copyright and neighbouring rights (Krieg 1986; De Román 2003; Towse 2007; Galacho Abolafio 2017; Heredia-Carroza et al. 2019b). Secondly – and aided by interviews with experts – it explains in detail the flamenco work creation process and its intervening agents (cultural heritage, author, and performer). Thirdly, thanks to questionnaires aimed at spectators3 and experts4 in flamenco, it generates an ad hoc database to measure the perceived value of flamenco work (Noonan 2003; Lundy and Smith 2016; Heredia-Carroza et al. 2021). Finally, it carries out two exploratory factor analyses by principal components as well as two analyses of structural equations modelling to identify the link between the intervening agents and their contributions and the perceived value of flamenco work. 2 The results section empirically demonstrates how flamenco’s perceived value depends on the virtuosity of the artist performing it. However, even though this is the most valued creative contribution, the coverage provided by intellectual property is not commensurate with its importance – either in terms of copyright or royalties. This generates problems in the music market and, specifically, in the popular music market due to the features of this kind of music such as orality, and improvisation, amongst others, which cannot be protected by copyright (Weiner 2004; Flegel and Roth 2014; Osborne 2017; Heredia-Carroza et al., 2019c). 2. Research aim 2.1 Degrees of protection: copyright and neighbouring rights To understand the gap between the protection of the performer’s contribution and its perceived value, it is first necessary to set out the different degrees of protection in intellectual property regimes: copyright and neighbouring rights. Copyright focuses its attention on the patrimonial rights of distribution, public communication and transformation as well as the moral rights of paternity, integrity, legal disclosure, modification, removal from the market due to a change in intellectual or moral convictions and, access to the one remaining original copy (Rangel 2011). In contrast, neighbouring rights do not involve the patrimonial rights of transformation, nor the moral rights of legal disclosure, modification, nor removal from the market due to a change in intellectual or moral convictions, nor access to the one remaining original copy (HerediaCarroza et al. 2019a). However, one of the most disputed variations is the established period of time for patrimonial rights. Copyright duration lasts from the author’s time of passing until seventy years after their death or the declaration of their death. Nevertheless, neighbouring rights function only seventy years from the performance or from the legal disclosure of the recording (Directive 2011/77/EU). This meaningful time variation means that in the latter part of their lives, performers would not be legally protected for their creative work, which would also influence subsequent generations (De Román 2003; Heredia-Carroza et al. 2019b). As discussed in the next section, the performer is considered a creative agent in flamenco, such that this different application of the norm for creative agents is not supported by the principle of social equity. 3 Another widespread idea is that performers have enough incomes during their active professional life thanks to the cachet received, based on their performances and the income derived from royalties (Hugunin 1979; Conolly and Krueger 2006; Motherway 2013). Nevertheless, such an idea ignores the payments that performers must incur with their cachet, such as taxes, copyright management society, publishers5 and musicians (Caves 2003; Towse 2016). In addition, allocation of royalties amongst agents is disparate, as can be observed in the case of the streaming music market. This has been evidenced by the Libro Blanco de la Cultura6 (2016, 90), which analyses the distribution of royalties and the level of royalties for performers (4.60% of the total amount) and shows how this is much lower than any other intervening agent (Heredia-Carroza et al. 2019b). Drawing on information gathered from interviews with experts, the following section addresses aspects related to the creative importance of the performers. 2.2 Flamenco work creation process: creative vs. humdrum agents Due to its special performance features, flamenco7 is considered an arte vivo, where the level of the performer’s creative freedom is greater, thereby enabling the music to be shaped according to the performer’s individual differentiating talent8 (Cruces 2001; Aoyama 2009; Heredia-Carroza 2019b). The flamenco repertoire is derived from a strong oral tradition comprising an obvious symbolic message that is beheld by the audience, the transmission and evolution of which are learnt from others directly, with musical scores being relatively uncommon (Blacking 1981; Díaz-Bañez and Escobar 2009; Donnier 2011). Flamenco has many similarities with other kinds of music such as jazz. All these common features revolve around the concept of improvisation (Brown 1973; Gillespie 1991; Berliner 1994; Ake 2002; Istvandity 2021a). Improvisation is linked to the oral tradition of the communities that develop flamenco as a shared practice characterised by the need for active listening and a safeguarding of traditions – reflecting how music is perceived and understood (Whyton 2020; Istvandity 2021b). Prouty (2006) explained two distinct types of oral tradition in jazz that can also be applied to flamenco. The first was the dissemination of historical information (biographical, about feelings, venues, etc.) that reflect the key role of the oral mode as a form of dissemination. The second was the learning of the music itself by its practitioners through direct observation. 4 To identify flamenco’s characteristics as well as the intervening agents and their contributions, 15 of the most distinguished flamenco and Spanish music industry experts9 were consulted through interviews (Arboleda and Gonzalez 2016; Heredia-Carroza et al. 2017). Furthermore, and based on existing bibliography (Cruces 2001; Towse 2007; Radbourne et al. 2010; Hernando and Campo 2017), the interviews were divided into three sections. Firstly, respondents answered questions about the elements involved in the flamenco creation process and its intervening agents, the second part explored copyright issues in depth, and finally, a general part addressed future research. This paper uses data related to the first and second parts of the interviews. At this level, the elements explained by the interviews were put together as creative and/or routine agents, also known as humdrum agents (Caves 2003). The former participates in flamenco work creation through structural elements,10 while the latter are non-creative elements such as economic, digital music recorders or technical support, among others (Caves 2003; De Román 2003; Levinson 2015) and are characterised by not participating in the music’s creative process. Experts agree that flamenco work creation begins when the composer resorts to this pre-existing creative antecedent known as cultural heritage. This creative antecedent gives rise to musical forms known as palo11 in flamenco. At this level, the composer chooses the palo for developing the flamenco with its own rhythmic and harmonic characteristics, which encompasses the expression of flamenco. The author then includes their own personal components such as melodies and lyrics, thereby creating a musical composition. The present-day legal framework for copyright – Spanish art. 10.1.b) Texto Refundido de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual12 – would consider the work to be finished at this point, thus overlooking what the experts have recognized and considered to be the final level of the creation process: externalization (Heredia-Carroza et al. 2019b; Heredia-Carroza et al. 2021). Thanks to the merging of the composition elements and the performer’s own features such as their perception of cultural heritage and their personal differentiating talent, the recreation of what the author has established is then permitted. As reported by experts, differentiating talent is composed of nine elements such as the distinctive element, technical features, ability to improvise, consistency, performance innovation, ability to stir emotions and to allow for reflection among spectators, as well as the capacity to arouse a feeling and sense of flamenco (Heredia-Carroza 2019), see Table 1. 5 Table 1: contributions of the intervening agents Own elaboration Once the creation process of the flamenco work has concluded, the humdrum agents become involved. These agents add non-creative resources that act as a bridge between the creative agents, and include such aspects as: management, recording, or allocating services, among others, and the music market (Caves 2003; De Román 2003; Galacho Abolafio 2017). This exemplifies flamenco work’s intricacy and chronology, and the different degrees of protection for the creative agents involved (public domain13 for cultural heritage, copyright for the composer and neighbouring rights for the performer) and humdrum agents (neighbouring rights for all of them). The performer is considered a humdrum agent from the standpoint of intellectual property regimes. 3. Materials and methods 3.1 An empirical analysis. Towards an understanding of flamenco work’s perceived value Once flamenco’s creative elements and the intervening agents involved were recognized, the questionnaires for spectators and experts were carried out (Radbourne et al. 2009; Radbourne et al. 2010; Heredia-Carroza et al., 2019b). This enabled us to create an ad hoc database with the observations, in addition to grading the impressions of the intervening agents and their contributions to flamenco work. Online surveys were completed between May and September 2017 after being disseminated by Flama. La Guía del flamenco, Centro Andaluz de Documentación del Flamenco and promocionmusical.es14 web page. The questionnaires were structured in five sections. In the initial part, a consumption profile was requested. In the following section, questions were formulated concerning aspects of flamenco work and its creative agents’ evaluation. The third section addressed the level of agreement/disagreement with certain statements about composer and performer-related aspects. The issue of cultural policy was addressed in the fourth section, while the last part sought information on socioeconomic aspects15. The questions in the second and third sections referred to the evaluation of the creative agents and the level of agreement/disagreement with certain statements, using a Likert scale from one to seven points, with an eighth ‘do not know, non-response’ option 6 (Hernando and Campo 2017; Heredia-Carroza et al., 2021). Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics about the socio-demographic characteristics of participants, the valuation of the creative agents of flamenco and the aspects of flamenco work and, finally, the level of agreement/disagreement with some statements about the performer. Spectator numbers were equal in terms of sex, and all the age ranges evidenced a high educational level. Interviewees were also familiar with flamenco, as shown by their knowledge thereof and the time they had spent consuming flamenco music (De Sancha-Navarro et al. 2021). The experts were predominantly male, had a high level of education, and were older than the spectators. The data shows how both spectators and experts alike – through their high appraisal of the aspects about which they were interviewed – confirmed the stages involved in the process of creating flamenco and placed great emphasis on its externalization as the final phase in its production. Table 2: Descriptive Statistics Own sources In Table 2, “Statements about performers”, illustrates that there is consistency between the evaluation of said statements and what was explained earlier. Results show that the performer is highly valued by spectators, with this role outweighing the function of the other creative agents, given that the performer is the unique intermediary between the musical ideas set out in the composition and the audience, through the externalization of the flamenco (Felton 1978). Nonetheless, copyright regulations show that the performer is a humdrum agent protected by neighbouring rights (De Román 2003; Heredia-Carroza et al., 2019c). Owing to the ‘do not know, non-response’ alternative, data sets are incomplete, such that they should be imputed to build the final model. As stated by Schuschny and Soto (2009), it is possible to make artificial imputations when missing data account for less than 15 percent of the accessible material (García-Sánchez et al. 2015). In this study, the level of missing values for spectators is four percent, and 2.89 percent for experts. In addition to the above-mentioned criteria, checking the pattern of the missing information was also fundamental in terms of choosing the best technique for missing data imputation. In sum, before commencing the empirical examination, the multiple imputation method was employed for these missing values (Horton and Lipsitz 2001; García-Sánchez et al. 2015), see Table 3. 7 Table 3: Descriptive statistics without missing values Own sources 4. Results Having provided the descriptive statistics about the characteristics of flamenco, we now look at the variables that impact its perceived value (Hernando 2017). To test this, firstly, since there were high correlations16 between the variables – which is indicative of redundant information – an exploratory factor analysis by principal components was carried out (Malthouse and Calder 2002; Srakar et al. 2017). 4.1 Exploratory factor analysis Using the 13 variables specified earlier, we conduct a factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimation with varimax rotation. Accuracy of the model fit was verified through Bartlett’s sphericity test and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test. Table 4 presents the outcomes of the exploratory factor analysis. Table 4: Outcomes of the exploratory factor analysis Own sources Explanatory factor analysis identifies three elements that make up the discernible components which impact the appraisal of flamenco work, accounting for over 70 percent of the total accumulated variance for spectators and 64 percent for experts (HerediaCarroza et al. 2021). The factors are feelings, virtuosity, and composition elements. (Radbourne et al. 2009; Chan et al. 2016). Features linked to the subjective element of flamenco make up the “feelings” factor. (Bermúdez and Pérez 2009). Considering the multi-dimensional nature of cultural value, this factor is associated with the emotional dimension (Au et al. 2016; Hernando and Campo 2017b). Following Cotter et al. (2019), when music is perceived from the perspective of subjective qualities, it is classified as more complicated and charming, and even familiar, intimate, and emotional. In this regard, social and environmental aspects are fundamental for the kinds of emotions evoked. For example, when the music makes spectators remember someone they knew (Smith 2011; Launay et al. 2016; Campbell et al. 2017; Heredia-Carroza et al. 2017; García-García et al. 2021), it conveys the impression that emotions are a reaction to the musical characteristics of flamenco, such as its grace and immensity (Romero 1996; Manuel 2010). Indeed, flamenco exhibits and arouses a wide 14 Anderson, J.C., and D.W. Gerbing. 1998. “The evaluation of cooperative performance.” Journal of Business Logistics 9: 69-83. Aoyama, Y. 2009. “Artist, Tourists, and the State: Cultural Tourism and the Flamenco Industry in Andalusia, Spain.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33 (1): 80–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1468–2427.2009.00846.x. Arboleda, A. M. and González, J. F. 2016. “Creating competitive advantage: the exoticism of tango and salsa from Cali, Colombia.” International Journal of Arts Management 19 (1): 42–53. Au, Wing Tung., Ho, Glos and Chan, Kenson Wing Chuen 2016. “An Empirical Investigation of the Arts Audience Experience Index.” Empirical Studies of the Arts 35 (1): 27–46. doi: 10.1177/0276237415625259. Bank, M. 2022. “Cultural work and contributive justice.” Journal of Cultural Economy. doi: 10.1080/17530350.2022.2058059 Benhamou, F. 2016. “Artists´ labour markets.” In The Artful Economist. A new look at Cultural Economics, edited by Rizzo I. and Towse, R., 69-75. Springer. Bentler P. M. 1990. “Comparative fit indexes in structural models.” Psychological Bulletin 107 (2): 238–246. Bentler, P. M. and Bonett, D. G. 1980. “Significance test and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.” Psychological Bulletin 88 (3): 588–606. Berliner, P. 1994. Thinking in Jazz: The Infinite Art of Improvisation. Chicago: U. of Chicago. Bermúdez S. and Pérez, J. 2009. “Introduction: Spanish Popular Music Studies.” Journal of Spanish Cultural Studies 10 (2): 127–133. doi: 10.1080/14636200902990661. Bergeron, V. and Lopes, D. M. 2012. “Aesthetic theory and aesthetic science.” In Aesthetic science. Connecting minds, brains, and experience, edited by A. P. Shimamura and S. E. Palmer, 61–79. New York: Oxford University Press. Blacking, J. 1981. “Making artistic Popular Music: the goal of true Folk.” Popular Music, 1, 914. 15 Blesa, Andreu, Bigné, Enrique, Küster, Inés, and Andreu, Luisa 2001. La medición de la orientación al mercado en los sectores cerámico y turístico de la Comunidad Valenciana: propuesta y validación de una escala a medida, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas. Brown, M. 1973. “Improvisation and the Aural Tradition in Afro-American Music.” Black World 23: 15-19. Browne M. W. and Cudeck R. 1993. “Alternative ways of assessing model fit.” Sociological Methods and Research 21 (2): 230–258. Campbell, Gary, Smith, Laurajane and Wetherell, Margaret. 2017. “Nostalgia and heritage: potentials, mobilisations and effects.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (7): 609-611. doi: 10.1080/13527258.2017.1324558. Caves, R. 2003. “Contracts between Art and commerce.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 17 (2): 73–84. doi: 10.1257/089533003765888430. Chan, Mei Ki, Au, Wing Tung, and Ying, Chung. 2016. “Developing Validating a Theater Experience Scale.” Empirical Studies of the Arts 35 (2): 169–193. doi: 10.1177/0276237416662737. Chojnacka, E. 2001. “L’interprete-la memoire du compositeur (the performer-the essence of the composer.” Contemporary Music Review 20 (1): 25–34. doi: 10.1080/07494460100640041. Circular 92, Copyright Law of the United States and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code. Dec. 2012. Retrieved on the 30th of October 2021, https://www.copyright.gov/title17/ Circular 96. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 37– Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Copyright Office regulations codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Retrieved on the 30th of October 2021, https://www.copyright.gov/title37/202/ Connolly, M., and Krueger A. B. 2006. “Rockonomics: The economics of Popular Music.” Handbook of the Economics of Arts and Culture, Elsevier. doi: 10.3386/w11282. 16 Cruces, C. 2001. El flamenco como Patrimonio. Anotaciones a la Declaración de la voz de la Niña de los Peines como bien de interés, Sevilla: Bienal de Arte Flamenco. De Román, R. 2003. Obras musicales, compositores, intérpretes y nuevas tecnologías. Madrid: REUS. De Román, R. 2010. “Derecho de propiedad intelectual de los artistas intérpretes o ejecutantes como derecho análogo al derecho de autor.” Diario La Ley vol. 7987. LA LEY. Retrieved on the 30th of October, 2021: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3186011 De Sancha-Navarro, Jesús Manuel.; Lara-Rubio, Juan; Oliver-Alfonso, María Dolores.; PalmaMartos, Luis 2021. “Cultural Sustainability in University Students’ Flamenco Music Event Attendance: A Neural Networks Approach.” Sustainability 13 (5): 2911. doi: 10.3390/su13052911. Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011, amending Directive 2006/116EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights. Retrieved on the 30th of October, 2021 https://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:265:0001:0005:EN:PDF Donnier P. 2011. “Descripción multimedia del flamenco. ¿Un nuevo medio de transmisión oral?”, in Investigación y flamenco, edited by José Miguel Díaz-Bañez and Francisco Javier Escobar Borrego, 83–95. Sevilla: Signatura. Elliot, J. I. 2003. “From partnership to profits: the role of cowriting with recording artists as a strategic plan for copyright exploitation.” Popular Music and Society 26 (2):169–181. doi: 10.1080/0300776032000095503. Felton, M. V. 1978. “The economics of the creative arts: the case of the composer.” Journal of Cultural Economics 2 (1): 41–61. doi: 10.1007/BF02479731. Figiel, J. 2015. “Theorizing Cultural Work: Labour, Continuity and Change in the Cultural and Creative Industries.” Journal of Cultural Economy 8 (6): 734-737. doi: 10.1080/17530350.2014.989886. 17 Flegel, M. and Roth, J. 2014. “Legitimacy, Validity, and Writing for Free: Fan Fiction, Gender, and the Limits of (Unpaid) Creative Labor.” The Journal of Popular Culture 47 (6): 1092–1108. doi: 10.1111/jpcu.12198. Galacho Abolafio, A. F. 2017. “Artículo 105. Definición de artistas intérpretes o ejecutantes”, in Comentarios a la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual, by Palau Ramírez, F. and Palao Moreno, G. (dirs.), 1291–1306. Tirant lo Blanch. García-García, Lucía, Solano-Sanchez, Miguel Ángel., Muñoz-Fernández, Guzmán A. and Moral-Cuadra, Salvador. 2021. “Flamenco experience in Córdoba, Spain: estimating tourist profiles by multilayer perceptron's artificial neural networks.” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. doi: 10.1108/JCHMSD-06-2021-0109. García-Sánchez, Isabel, das Neves Almeida, Thiago Alexandre, and Paes de Barros Camara, Renata. 2015. “A proposal for a Composite Index of Environmental Performance (CIEP) for countries.” Ecological Indicators 48: 171–188. Gillespie, L. O. 1991. “Literacy, Orality, and the Parry-Lord “Formula”: Improvisation and the Afro-American Jazz Tradition.” International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music 22 (2): 147-164. Hair, Joseph F., Anderson Rolph E., Tatham Ronald L. and Black William C. 1999. Análisis multivariante. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice Hall. Hernando, E. and Campo, S. 2017. “Does the Artist´s Name Influence the Perceived Value of an Art Work?” International Journal of Arts Management 19 (2): 49–58. Heredia-Carroza, Jesús, Palma Martos, Luis and Aguado, Luis Fernando 2017. “Originalidad Subjetiva y Copyright. El caso del flamenco en España.” Anduli. Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales 16: 175–194. Heredia-Carroza, Jesús, Palma Martos, Luis and Aguado, Luis Fernando. 2019a. “Song, performance and authorship: The case of flamenco in Spain.” Trames. A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 23 (73/68), 1: 3–14. doi: 10.3176/tr.2019.1.01. 18 Heredia-Carroza, Jesús, Palma Martos, Luis and Aguado, Luis Fernando. 2019b. “Why does copyright ignore performers? The case of flamenco in Spain.” Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 49 (5): 347-64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2019.1646682 Heredia-Carroza, Jesús, Palma Martos, Luis and Aguado, Luis Fernando. 2019c. “Flamenco y derechos de autor. El caso de Camarón de la Isla.” Arbor 195 (791): a496. doi: https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2019.791n1009. Heredia-Carroza, J. 2019. “Flamenco Performer’s Perceived Value: Development of a Measurement Index.” Scientific Annals of Economics and Business 66: 59–71. doi: 10.2478/saeb-2019-0017. Heredia-Carroza, Jesús, Palma Martos, Luis and Marín, Alejandro. 2020. “Determinants of attendance frequency to flamenco shows in Spain. A cultural economic approach.” Revista de Métodos Cuantitativos para la Economía y la Empresa 29: 79-98. doi: https://doi.org/10.46661/revmetodoscuanteconempresa.3751. Heredia-Carroza, Jesús, Palma Martos, Luis and Aguado, Luis Fernando. 2021. “How to Measure Intangible Cultural Heritage Value? The Case of Flamenco in Spain.” Empirical Studies of the Arts, 39 (2): 149-170. Horton, N., and Lipsitz, S. 2001. “Multiple imputation in practice: comparison of software packages for regression models with missing variables.” The American Statistician 55 (3): 244–254. Hugunin, M. 1979. “ASCAP, BMI and the democratization of American popular music.” Popular Music and Society 7 (1): 8–17. doi: 10.1080/030077677908591144. Hutter, M. and Frey, B. 2010. “On the Influence of Cultural Value on Economic Value.” Revue d’économie politique 120: 35–46. doi: 10.3917/redp.201.0035. Infante, B. 1980. Orígenes de lo Flamenco y Secreto del Cante Jondo. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía. Consejería de Cultura. 19 Istvandity, L. 2021a. “Creative heritage: An approach for research and practice integrating heritage and the performing arts.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 27 (11): 1149-1162. doi: 10.1080/13527258.2021.1958364. Istvandity, L 2021b. “How does music heritage get lost? Examining cultural heritage loss in community and authorised music archives.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 27 (4): 331-343. doi: 10.1080/13527258.2020.1795904. Jola, Corinne, Ehrenberg, Shantel and Reynolds, Dee. 2012. “The experience of watching dance: phenomenological-neuroscience duets.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 11 (1): 17–37. doi: 10.1007/s11097-010-9191-x. Jöreskog, K. G. 1971. “Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests.” Psychometrika 36 (2): 109–133. Jöreskog, K. G., and Sörbom, D. 1993. Lisrel 8: Structured equation modeling with the Simplis command language, Scientific Software International. Kanellopoulou Evgenia. 2022. Competition Policy and the Music Industries: A Business Model Perspective. London: Routledge Klamer, A. 2003. “A pragmatic view on values in economics.” Journal of Economic Methodology 10 (2): 1–24. doi: 10.1080/1350178032000071075. Krieg, P. A. 2010. “Copyright, Free Speech, and the Visual Arts.” Journal of Arts Management and Law 1 (4): 59-80. doi: 10.1080/07335113.1986.9942168. Krueger, A. B. 2005. “The Economics of Real Superstars: The Market for Rock Concerts in the Material World.” Journal of Labor Economics 23 (1): 1–30. Leder, Helmut, Belke, Benno, Oeberst, Andries, and Augustin, Dorothee. 2004. “A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments.” British Journal of Psychology 95: 489– 508. Leder H. and Nadal, M. 2014. “Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode – Developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics.” British Journal of Psychology 105: 443–464. 20 Levinson, J. 2015. Musical Concerns, Essays in Philosophy of Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lundy, D. E. and Smith, J. L. 2016. “It’s tough to be a Critic: Professional vs. Non-professional Music Judgment.” Empirical Studies of the Arts 35 (2): 139–168. doi: 10.1177/0276237416661989. Malthouse, E. C., and Calder, B. J. 2002. “Measuring Newspaper Readership: a qualitative variable approach.” The International Journal on Media Management 4 (4): 248–260. Manuel, P. 2010. “Composition, Authorship, and Ownership in Flamenco, Past and Present.” Ethnomusicology 54 (1): 106–135. Marsh, H. W, and Hocevar, D. 1985. “Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: firstand higher order factor models and their invariance across groups.” Psychological Bulletin 97 (3): 562–582. Motherway Susan H. 2013. The Globalization of Irish Traditional Song Performance. Farnham Surrey: Ashgate. Noonan, D. S. 2003. “Contingent valuation and cultural resources: a meta-analytic review of the literature.” Journal of Cultural Economics 27 (3-4): 159–176. doi: 10.1023/A:1026371110799. Nunnally, J. C. 1967. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Osborne, R. 2017. “Is equitable remuneration equitable? Performers’ rights in the UK.” Popular music and Society 40 (5): 573–591. Doi: 10.1080/03007766.2017.1348660. Palma, Luis, Palma, María Luisa, Rodríguez, Asunción, Martín, José Luis, and Cascajo, Isidoro. 2017. “Live Flamenco in Spain: a dynamic analysis of supply, with managerial implications.” International Journal of Arts Management 19 (3): 58–70. Plataforma en Defensa de la Cultura. 2016. Libro blanco de la Cultura. Madrid: Editorial Dilema S. L. 21 Prouty, K. E. 2006. “Orality, literacy, and mediating musical experience: rethinking oral tradition in the learning of jazz improvisation.” Popular Music and Society 29 (3): 317–334. doi: 10.1080/03007760600670372. Radbourne, Jennifer, Johanson, Katya, and Glow, Hilary. 2009. “Empowering Audiences to Measure Quality Participations.” Journal of Audience & Reception Studies 7 (2): 360– 379. Radbourne, Jennifer, Johanson, Katya, Glow, Hilary, and White, Tabitha. 2010. “The Audience Experience: measuring quality in the performing arts.” International Journal of Arts Management 11 (3): 16–29. Rangel, H. 2011. La observancia de los derechos de propiedad intelectual. Retrieved on the 30th of October 2021, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/es/intproperty/627/wipo_pub_627.pdf Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996, de 12 de abril, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual, regularizando, aclarando y armonizando las disposiciones legales vigentes sobre la materia. Retrieved on the 30th of October 2021 https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1996-8930 Romero, J. 1996. La Otra Historia del Flamenco. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía. Rosón, T. 2010. “El Flamenco como Obra Musical, Coreográfica, and Escénica. Las obras originales y derivadas: versiones, arreglos y utilización de las obras.” In El Flamenco y los Derechos de Autor, edited by Castilla, M., 23–38. Madrid: REUS. Schroeder, M. R. 1991. Fractals, chaos, power laws: Minutes from an infinite paradise. W.H. Freeman. Schuschny, A. and Soto, H. 2009. Guía metodológica diseño de indicadores compuestos de desarrollo sostenible. In: Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEAPI). Naciones Unidas, Chile. Shanahan, J. L. 1978. “The consumption of music: integrating aesthetics and economics.” Journal of Cultural Economics 2 (2): 13–26. 22 Smith, L. 2011. Affect and Registers of Engagement: Navigating Emotional Responses to Dissonant Heritages: Laurajane Smith. In Smith, L., Cubitt, G. Fouseki, K and Wilson, R. (eds.), Representing Enslavement and Abolition in Museums, New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203808252. Srakar, Andrej, Copic, Vesna, and Verbic, Miroslav. 2017. “European cultural statistics in a comparative perspective: index of economic and social condition of culture for the EU countries.” Journal of Cultural Economics 1–37. doi: 10.1007/s10824-017-9312-2. Steenkamp, J.B.E., and H. Van Trijp. 1991. “The use of LISREL in validating marketing constructs.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 8 (4): 283–299. Throsby, D. 2003. “Determining the Value of Cultural Goods: How Much (or How Little) Does Contingent Valuation Tell Us?” Journal of Cultural Economics 27 (3-4): 275–285. Towse, R. 2007. “The Singer or the Song? Developments in Performers´ Rights from the Perspective of a Cultural Economist.” Review of Law and Economics 3 (3): 745–766. doi:10.2202/1555–5879.1158. Towse, R. 2016. Copyright and Music Publishing in the UK. In Rizzo, I. and Towse, R. The Artful Economist. A new look at Cultural Economics. Springer. Tschacher, Wolfgang, Bergomi, Claudia, and Tröndle, Martin. 2015. “The Art Affinity Index (AAI): an instrument to assess art relation and art knowledge.” Empirical Studies of the Arts 33 (2): 161–174. Doi: 10.1177/0276237415594709. Vartanian, Oshin, Navarrete, Gorka, Chatterjee, Anjan, Brorson Fich, Lars, Gonzalez-Mora, José Luis, Leder, Helmut, Modroño, Cristián, Nadal, Marcos, Rostrup, Nicolai, and Skove, Martin. 2015. “Architectural Design and the Brain: effects of ceiling height and perceived enclosure on beauty judgments and approach-avoidance decisions.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 41: 10–18. Waterton, E. and Smith, L. 2010. “The recognition and misrecognition of community heritage.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 16 (1-2): 4-15. doi: 10.1080/13527250903441671. 23 Webb, B. 2007. “Partners in creation.” Contemporary Music Review 26 (2): 255–281. doi: 10.1080/07494460701250908. Weiner, R. G. 2004. “Copyrights and Copywrong: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity.” The Journal of Popular Culture 37 (3): 536–539. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3840.2004.084_4.x. Werck, K. and, Heyndels, B. 2007. “Programmatic choices and the demand for theatre: The case of Flemish theatres.” Journal of Cultural Economics 31 (1): 25–41. doi: 10.1007/S10824–006–9026–3. Westbrook R., and Olivier R. 1991. “The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction.” Journal of Consumer Research 18 (Juin): 84–91. Whyton, T. 2020. “Space is the place: European jazz festivals as cultural heritage sites.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 26 (6): 547-557. doi: 10.1080/13527258.2018.1517375. Endnotes 1 This article uses perceived value as an approximation of cultural value (Heredia-Carroza et al. 2021). It follows Anderson (1993, 2) who defends: “to value something is to have a complex of positive attitudes toward it, governed by distinct standards for perception, emotion, deliberation, desire, and conduct”. When it comes to appraising perceptions, it generates a sense of a valuation. As acknowledged by Klamer (2003, 10) “while valuing something can be a spontaneous process, evaluation involves the conscious reflection on the reasons for a valuation”. 2 Flamenco was included in the UNESCO Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2010. 3 Spectator is understood as the person influenced by their inclinations and willing to invest valuable possessions (time and financial resources) in their participation in live performances and/or recordings (Werck and Heyndels 2007, Heredia-Carroza et al., 2020). 4 Expert implies the person who through training and collected experience (Holbrook 1999) whether by studying or practising their occupation has a high level of artistic acquaintance (Bourdieu 1984). Therefore, for the aim of this research, the experts are 59 566 6.45 1.19 1 7 Ability to feel flamenco (2.2.11) 104 6.37 1.37 1 7 562 6.52 1.13 1 7 Make others feel flamenco (2.2.12) 104 6.12 1.55 1 7 Statements about the performer 538 5.86 1.55 1 7 Choice based on the performer (3.1) 101 5.72 1.48 1 7 564 6.24 1.24 1 7 Turn the performance into a work of art (3.2) 108 6.46 1.04 1 7 561 5.62 1.57 1 7 Success/failure of the work (3.3) 108 5.44 1.46 1 7 563 5.94 1.38 1 7 Active participant in creation (3.4) 107 6.01 1.27 1 7 566 5.57 1.58 1 7 Main figures (3.5) 106 5.79 1.21 1 7 538 6.15 1.33 1 7 Essential (3.6) 99 6.43 0.98 1 7 Survey question code in parentheses Own sources Table 3: Descriptive statistics without missing values Spectators Experts Obs Mean SD Min. Max. Variables Obs Mean SD Min. Max. Creative agents valued 586 5.08 1.68 1 7 Cultural heritage (2.1.1) 110 4.55 1.78 1 7 586 4.33 1.81 1 7 Author (2.1.4) 110 3.68 1.75 1 7 586 5.62 1.66 1 7 Performer (2.1.7) 110 6.11 1.21 1 7 Aspects of the flamenco work valued 586 5.32 1.50 1 7 Harmony (2.1.2) 110 5.37 1.40 1 7 586 5.91 1.30 1 7 Rhythm (2.1.3) 110 5.65 1.37 1 7 586 5.85 1.29 1 7 Melody (2.1.5) 110 5.57 1.40 1 7 586 5.43 1.49 1 7 Lyrics (2.1.6) 110 4.97 1.53 1 7 586 6.00 1.35 1 7 Distinctive element (2.2.1) 110 5.88 1.19 1 7 586 5.67 1.44 1 7 Technique (2.2.2) 110 5.54 1.30 1 7 586 5.82 1.42 1 7 Improvisation (2.2.3) 110 5.43 1.38 1 7 586 5.36 1.52 1 7 Consistency of the performance (2.2.5) 110 5.53 1.39 1 7 586 5.35 1.62 1 7 Innovation of the performance (2.2.6) 110 5.24 1.50 1 7 586 6.32 1.29 1 7 Ability to produce emotions (2.2.9) 110 6.42 1.09 1 7 586 5.66 1.51 1 7 Generate reflection in the spectator (2.2.10) 110 5.46 1.59 1 7 586 6.39 1.24 1 7 Ability to feel flamenco (2.2.11) 110 6.11 1.50 1 7 586 6.46 1.21 1 7 Make others feel flamenco (2.2.12) 110 6.37 1.33 1 7 Own sources Table 4: Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis Spectators Experts Feelings Virtuosity Composition Elements Variables Feelings Virtuosity Composition Elements 0.8147 0.2565 0.2155 Ability to produce emotions (2.2.9) 0.8085 0.157 0.1897 0.7079 0.2281 0.2061 Generate reflection in spectators (2.2.10) 0.7413 0.1702 -0.0312 0.8632 0.2304 0.2229 Ability to feel flamenco (2.2.11) 0.7932 0.1787 0.2207 0,8792 0.239 0.244 Make others feel flamenco (2.2.12) 0.8023 0.0859 0.3756 0.4681 0.6393 0.2396 Distinctive element (2.2.1) 0.3795 0.6278 0.1814 0.3422 0.7018 0.1965 Technique (2.2.2) 0.0192 0.7688 0.1934 0.3884 0.6823 0.2881 Improvisation (2.2.3) 0.1291 0.7858 0.2097 0.2115 0.7416 0.2111 Consistency of the performance (2.2.5) 0.4851 0.4866 0.0724 0.1915 0.8152 0.1353 Innovation of the performance (2.2.6) 0.2129 0.8011 0.0041 0.1828 0.2941 0.7053 Harmony (2.1.2) 0.1322 0.0971 0.8051 0.2963 0.2106 0.7748 Rhythm (2.1.3) 0.2463 0.0302 0.834 0.2985 0.1812 0.8419 Melody (2.1.5) 0.1487 0.2827 0.8195 0.1695 0.1036 0.7041 Lyrics (2.1.6) 0.3036 0.115 0.4829 6.76612 1.31861 1.13158 Eigenvalue 5.23831 1.68661 1.46155 52.05 10.14 8.7 Percentage of Explained Variance (%) 40.29 12.97 11.24 70.89 Total Explained Variance (%) 64,51 χ²=5140.724 Bartlett’s sphericity test χ²=696.747 gl. 78 gl. 78 Sig. 0.000 Sig. 0.000 0.902 KMO 0.803 Own sources Table 5: Construct reliability and validity Spectators Variables Experts L α AVE R2 C. R. L α AVE R2 C. R. 0.8982 0.671 0.89 Feelings 0.8395 0.619 0.867 0.8147 0.6638 Ability to produce emotions (2.2.9) 0.8085 0.6537 0.7079 0.5012 Generate reflection in spectators (2.2.10) 0.7413 0.5495 0.8632 0.745 Ability to feel flamenco (2.2.11) 0.7932 0.6292 0.8792 0.773 Make others feel flamenco (2.2.12) 0.8023 0.6437 0.8715 0.516 0.841 Virtuosity 0.7488 0.496 0.827 0.6393 0.4086 Distinctive element (2.2.1) 0.6278 0.3941 0.7018 0.4926 Technique (2.2.2) 0.7688 0.591 0.6823 0.4655 Improvisation (2.2.3) 0.7858 0.6175 0.7416 0.55 Consistency of the performance (2.2.5) 0.4866 0.2368 0.8152 0.6645 Innovation of the performance (2.2.6) 0.8011 0.6417 0.8274 0.576 0.844 Composition Elements 0.7085 0.562 0.832 0.7053 0.4975 Harmony (2.1.2) 0.8051 0.6482 0.7748 0.6002 Rhythm (2.1.3) 0.834 0.6955 0.8419 0.7087 Melody (2.1.5) 0.8195 0.6715 0.7041 0.4957 Lyrics (2.1.6) 0.4829 0.2332 L=Loadings; α= Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients; C. R.= Convergent reliability Own sources Table 6: Model Fit Spectators Experts 66.258 CMIN 29.38 2.761 CMIN/df 1.088 0.98 GFI 0.95 0.945 AGFI 0.898 0.916 CFI 0.977 0.963 TLI 0.961 0.055 RMSEA 0.028 Own sources Table 7: Structural Model Results Spectators Experts Direct Effect B S. E. t p Hypotheses Direct Effect B S. E. t p 0.085 0.085 0.026 1.981 ** Cultural Heritage → Feelings 0.033 0.033 0.051 0.369 0.369 0.097 0.097 0.026 2.249 ** Cultural Heritage → Virtuosity 0.059 0.059 0.051 0.644 0.644 0.458 0.458 0.022 12.563 *** Cultural Heritage → Composition Elements 0.442 0.442 0.048 5.175 *** -0.036 -0.036 0.023 -0.891 0.37 Author → Feelings 0.055 0.055 0.051 0.612 0.541 0.008 0.008 0.023 0.192 0.85 Author → Virtuosity 0.215 0.215 0.051 2.383 ** 0.124 0.124 0.019 3.594 *** Author → Composition Elements -0.036 -0.036 0.048 -0.422 0.673 0.273 0.273 0.022 4.211 *** Performer → Feelings 0.353 0.353 0.075 3.903 *** 0.235 0.235 0.026 5.457 *** Performer → Virtuosity 0.245 0.245 0.075 2.686 *** 0.154 0.154 0.026 6.385 *** Performer → Composition Elements 0.119 0.119 0.071 1.388 0.165 0.234 0.234 0.044 7.68 *** Feelings → Flamenco Work 0.21 0.21 0.097 2.878 *** 0.571 0.571 0.045 18.469 *** Virtuosity → Flamenco Work 0.556 0.556 0.096 7.659 *** 0.235 0.235 0.046 7.335 *** Composition Elements → Flamenco Work 0.15 0.15 0.096 2.059 *** -0.026 -0.026 0.092 -1.474 0.14 Age → Flamenco Work 0.057 0.057 0.1 0.766 0.444 -0.046 -0.046 0.036 -0.777 0.44 Sex → Flamenco Work 0.014 0.014 0.225 0.187 0.852 -0.028 -0.028 0.041 -0.817 0.41 Education Level → Flamenco Work 0.064 0.064 0.188 0.864 0.388 -0.038 -0.038 0.033 -1.148 0.25 Knowledge of Flamenco → Flamenco Work - - - - - Own sources