Is it sad that the first thing I thought of when I saw this slide show was “music publisher lawsuit”? With Beethoven, though, I think you’re clear.
Oh, and did you see Lawrence Lessig with his new book Remix on the Colbert Report last Friday? Well, if you didn’t, you can’t watch it on YouTube, which is sort of sharply illustrative of the issues at hand considering the topic and the fact that Lessig issued a remix challenge using the segment itself as source material.
The interview was not that exciting aside from Stephen’s on-air remix of the book with his Sharpie, but the intellectual property/usage/rights issues were some of the same ones that continually poke at my brain, so I was engaged. In my own endeavors, I don’t want to screw other people over, but technology has changed the playing field even if it hasn’t yet clearly changed the rules of the game we’re playing.
For instance, I took a picture to illustrate this post from the NYTimes website without asking for permission. I did it to illustrate a bit of what Lessig was talking about, but I feel guilty about having done it, which is how my mom and the Catholic church taught me to identify that my actions are wrong. Does it matter that the only reason that picture would be here is 1) to attract attention the article it links to and 2) to make this page more intellectually interesting and attractive? I could argue that this post is simply “added value” and does not devalue any of the original content in any way. We have to think about how the digital age has changed the idea of copies and distribution, but not money, of course, and that’s generally where and why things get confusing and uncomfortable. These days the copies and the distribution come practically free, but the content can cost a fortune in blood, sweat, or actual cash to produce, and that tends to make people nervous and protective. The NYTimes would hardly have cared about my little xeroxing escapades at Kinkos, but should they care about my blog? I can argue that it harms no one, but should that matter? What if they don’t like people like me who write about arts and culture and don’t want to be associated with my “brand”. Is that enough? Can this stand on a “fair use” argument, or are we pushing our luck and our common morality trying to justify such actions with that one?
I like the idea of a creative commons, but I’m not sure I feel that participation should be mandatory. But if participation isn’t mandatory, big guys like Viacom and the NYT won’t/can’t/don’t have to waste their time with small fries like me. This can take the thinking in a few directions. The one I can really throw my support to is the “too bad, make your own” argument because it might actually lead to even more and higher quality creative output. If I can’t use your picture, I might create an even better one to fill the void. However, then I create in my own sandbox, and there’s no drawing a mustache on a metaphoric Mona Lisa anymore.
This reminds me of what I’ve been reading. Maybe there’s room for open source art as there is open source software and open source R&D (research & development) – read Wikinomics by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams to see what I mean. I haven’t thought this through at all (the art part), but maybe someone else will be able to. 🙂
Of course, I’m being a little obtuse. You’re talking of images (for online content, etc), not necessarily art. I just read “art” into it because that’s one of my obsessions. In any case, Wikinomics implies (so far, I’m only 3 CDs into the 10-12 total) that collaboration can create new value, and I’m just trying to see how far the concept can go.
It’s a tough question, but I like that it’s being asked. The ease with which copies are made, combined with the remaking (i.e. remix) of appropriated objects speaks to concepts of authorship. Who is the author, anyway? In academia, I’ve seen the word simulacra employed to describe copies without an original. It’s used a lot in hip hop music, or other styles that use lots of samples. Perhaps we are all authors, each recreating everything we see and hear both as we experience them and in retrospect.
From another perspective, appropriation can result in abuse and misrepresentation. Musicians like Steve Reich and Peter Gabriel have been criticized for their use of samples of African music because of the exploitative results. Along such lines, several articles (Lysloff, 1997; Feld, 2000) outline a trend of musical appropriation in which Western musicians sample the music of Bambuti, a collection of peoples historically identified with by the term “pygmy.” While artists praise Bambuti culture and music, little money comes back to the Ituri rainforest natives. In such cases, musical appropriation leads to economic exploitation. Sometimes, however, such collaborations benefit multiple parties.
My point is that copy, remix, piracy, and appropriation are problematic. As far as your question about the use of the image, Molly, I find it unlikely that the New York Times can actually be “harmed” by your copy. I think that copyright requires a case by case evaluation, though I suspect this is hugely impractical. In any case, no single solution can address the myriad dilemmas addressed here.