Web 2.0 and the dissolution of intellectual property

[sandra_lanimil]

I’m working towards being a professional in the communication and design business. This means I am kept up to date on the trends in the media world. One of these trends - the next huge one - is nicknamed Web 2.0. It’s already a tired term, but it basically applies to social media (such as, for example, Livejournal, MySpace, forums, etc etc.).

Comments

[shecrows]

you, darling, are my idol.

[sandra_lanimil]

And you are the most damn enlightened, tolerant, beautiful and creative 17 year old I've met in my life. It's a privilege to know you.

[shecrows]

you give me entirely too much credit. entirely too much.

i love you, stupid.

[sandra_lanimil]

i call 'em as i see 'em, sillyface. ♥

i love you, idiot.

[unsubtle]

Here via photogene... and to be honest, whatever your personal philosophy on the subject is, it still comes down to respecting someone else's work. And the fact that "We're not starving in Darfur" doesn't change anything about respect (sorry it's just kind of a peeve of mine when this is used as a defense). I'm also somewhat disturbed that you are encouraging people to steal more icons that aren't yours.

And I'd disagree about whether it matters. In music, for example, it's pretty sad when people love an artist "so much" but are unwilling to shell out the $10 to support them.

[unsubtle]

Would this free-for-all apply to your writing? Your art? Your character personalities? Maybe to you making an icon is an easy five-second process, but to someone else it could mean a lot. I know a lot of friends and artists who spend an incredible amount of time and energy making beautiful icons. I guess I don't see the big deal about crediting someone else's work, such a small gesture that means so much to the person who made it. K, I'm done now.

[sandra_lanimil]

It isn’t personal philosophy. It’s a matter of fact in the media/communication world that this is how the broad mass of users behave today and it will only become more prominent in the future.

On the matter of respect; I’m not advocating actively not crediting - I am advocating a frame of mind in which it isn’t hugely important whether or not credit is given, because half the time it probably won’t be. I doubt these people you speak of who spend time making icons are crediting the professional photographers who have taken the pictures they’re working with? In spite of the fact that it’s arguably a hugely greater creative achievement to be, say, a fashion photographer than an amateur iconmaker. This is also where perspective comes in - to my mind, coming down like the wrath of heaven on someone who doesn’t credit you for an icon shows a rather narrow and petty frame of mind. Personally, I have better things to do with my life and time

[unsubtle]

Hm. I'm not sure what to say, because half of this discussion is a normal discussion and half is sneaking in jabs at me and those who might agree with me. So I think I'm just going to move along.

[purple_chalk]

So what are your thoughts on the Lexicon?

[sandra_lanimil]

The HP lexicon?

[purple_chalk]

I'm very curious. Does this sweeping Art Is Free sentiment extend to works where someone intends to make money off of someone else's idea?

[sandra_lanimil]

I talked about that in one of the other comments. As soon as there's money involved, there's legal grounds for persecution. And if you're asking my personal opinion, no, I don't think it's smart or creative or admirable to make money off someone else's idea. I do think that it gets done a lot, nevertheless, and that the definition of when you're imitating and when your idea is original is very greyzone.

How does that relate to the lexicon?

I also think you've misunderstood my sentiment. The intention here is to advocate tolerance and an innovative and non-possesive attitude towards the new medias, not carelessness.

[arrivee]

here via cami photogene.

as much as i agree 100% with what you said, there is one fine line i have an issue with: art.

art is shared, restructured and re-shared again and again among artists. so, if a fan creates a quality piece based off of harry potter, they have no legal claims to this because rowling invented the plot, characters and world, right?

... john william waterhouse based many of his paintings off of fairytale characters and fantasy images. should he have no recognition because his ideas sprung from something that "already existed" rather from his own head? works based off literary and bible stories are numerous. pop art found inspiration in soup cans.

art, literature and music do not simply spring up from the ground. anyone who thinks so is a fool.

it is of course different over the web, but very similar in some respects. acts of plagiarism and stealing have become easier to do and get away with now, i guess.

(and just to clarify, i'm not disagreeing with you.)

[sandra_lanimil]

Smiles. And I am not disagreeing with you at all. Nor am I contending that a fan could create a brilliant and creative piece of art based on Harry Potter. Or Lord of the Rings, or anything else. And my appreciation of it wouldn't be lessened by that at all. As you say, art always comes with a history and I think that's a very important insight to keep in mind.
In relation to what prompted me to make the post, though, I've yet to see icons that I'd consider art in and off themselves.

art is shared, restructured and re-shared again and again among artists

This is one of the reasons that I am very much in favour of the web 2,0 concept and interested in the possibillities it offers. I am of the opinion that it's healthy for creativity to be shared, and that there is much inspiration to be found in doing so.

As I also already said, I think it's plain stupid to take someone else's creative work and pretend it's yours. Noone likes a liar.

Great comment. Thank you. :)

[arrivee]

i know. it's just a frustrating topic for myself. i find it even difficult to talk about.

in fact, in our art room, it's encouraged to take photographs from the web and see if we can incorporate them into our own art in some way. we're told to try and change it and make it our own, but it becomes our own through personal interpretation. photographs that will be painted or inked are no longer the same. it's not like i'm taking the actual photograph and claiming it as my own.

there are too many and too few rules now.

[sandra_lanimil]

I get that. And making something your own is an incredibly creative exercise. I work with that myself in my studies, I know how difficult it can be, how challenging.

Yes. And the web, by it's nature, is a chaotic space. Even if there rules made, it's very difficult to enforce them, which makes it a rather fascinating object of study; by and large, the 'laws' that apply on the net are the ones the users themselves agree to enforce.

[uncapher]

yeah man. i completely agree, and i think it's amazing. i think it's a total revolution and i get giddy thinking about the implications

[sandra_lanimil]

Thank you. I deeply appreciate your point of view, and share your delight in the opportunities for creativity and innovation the new medias present for people with an open mind.

a radical new approach to how money is made

just, the images from that sentence. Wonderful. Lovely to 'meet' you.

[shecrows]

you are awesome, danny boy.