Authorship
- Started
- Last post
- 55 Responses
- ********0
@fresnobob;
"There is no devaluation, there is actually value being added through exposure. That is how art goes from being ideologically valuable to society to monetarily valuable, more people see it, thus more people want it, thus the price goes up."
This is similar in concept to a client saying "Please work for free - you can add the work to your portfolio. You'll get the exposure."
I think that if the imitator argues that exposure, without attribution, is a good thing, they're really just engaged in disingenuous posturing. They're trying to back up their bad behaviour with an excuse.
It sounds like the crux of the argument you've put forth is that "he didn't want to play ball, so they stole the ball to make good use of it". Maybe this works from a business point of view, but it's probably true to admit that it is, at least, rude behaviour - and also quite un-professional. Good business relates to maintaining good relationships with the wider community.
I'd actually argue that, in this case, the more an idea is used - the less value it holds. Simply because it's more likely to be seen as a cliché.
- ukit0
OK, put the high-minded theorizing aside for a sec (although I did find your comments interesting). You can sit around all day and argue whether something is "right" or "wrong" but that's always going to be subjective - and you'll never have the ability to force people to do something unless there's some legal basis for it. So what would be applicable in this case are things like copyright law, and patents.
For instance, you could imagine that someone who came up with a unique combination of technologies (displaying a screen which renders graphics that create the illusion of interacting with a live audience) could, in this country at least, file for a patent for that idea, and that's what technology companies do all the time with similar innovations. If you go back and watch the keynote where Steve Jobs introduces the iPhone, one of the first things he says upon introducing "multitouch" is "boy, did we patent the hell out of it" or something to that effect.
In O'Shea's case, this wasn't really on the radar - he wasn't doing this for commercial reasons as far as I can tell, and, given that he was basing his work off an open source project to begin with, it may not have even been possible. And really, there would be no need for him to do so because other artists in that community are not likely to try to steal his work - what would they gain from it, after all? Space150, on the other hand, didn't feel any such constraint, and it made perfect sense from their point of view to simply snatch the work and use it themselves without attributing anything to the original artist.
So how do you resolve that difference in approach between people who expect others to play by the (moral) rules and those who don't really give a shit about them? Maybe this whole "name and shame" process on the internet that we're engaging in now is the antidote to that - although, it's far from guaranteed to work given that a Vimeo thread isn't really going to reach that many people.
- fresnobob0
@ lukus_w
It is sort of similar, and it happens all the time. Sometimes this is called doing pro bono work. Sometimes this is also called being an intern. I worked for free for a few months as an intern, and you know what? That working for free got me a job after that, which allowed me to support myself monetarily, which then allowed me to do more work for free. Anyways, I'm not sure how that applies to this debate...
Mostly the crux of my idea was that if the director dude wasn't such a dick about the whole situation and no one really would have cared. (Just in some long winded way that probably didn't make much sense...)
- ********0
@fresnobob;
Sorry for the slightly sanctimonious tone of that last post. The idea of a larger company profiting hugely off the work of a someone who's developed an idea in the public domain, riled me. I think it might be as simple as that. Maybe my notion of 'fair play' is a bit naive.
Definitely agree with you that working for free can be a great way of gaining benefits in unexpected ways, and also agree the director could have approached the situation is much more constructive way.
@ukit;
"So how do you resolve that difference in approach between people who expect others to play by the (moral) rules and those who don't really give a shit about them? Maybe this whole "name and shame" process on the internet that we're engaging in now is the antidote to that - although, it's far from guaranteed to work given that a Vimeo thread isn't really going to reach that many people."
Perhaps the author could have put (precautionary) steps in place to deal with this in a way that was acceptable to him? It might be unrealistic to just hope that no one will pluck the idea up and use it.
If this is the case, maybe author education is part of a solution; allowing artists / designers to better use the law to ensure that derivative works are dealt with in a way that's acceptable to them. There's actually a huge spectrum of open-source licenses available, some of which deal with the possibility of work entering a commercial domain.
It seems that the balance of power is always skewed so severely towards corporations and large companies. They have the benefit of patent-law, and they have the opportunity to dip into the public domain and exploit it for their own gain. I think this is part of my main concern.
At least we're able to debate this kind of thing - and I think debate is the most useful response. Name and shame seems like a logical solution - but ultimately, I suppose it can be non-constructive. Brings pitchforks to mind ...
P.S. Apologises for the continued theorising (I guess I really can't help myself...)
- stewdio0
To just touch for a moment on the debate that inspired this thread on Authorship... It appears Mr. Nicholaus Goosen has edited his posts on Vimeo to appear less severe. (He was very unprofessional, aggressive, and downright nasty to Chris O'Shea and a host of friends / well-knowns in the community.) Here's the side-by-side comparison of Before and After his NG's editing. (I can verify the Before image because I have a PDF of the Vimeo thread from a few days ago.) Link to image on Flickr :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pix…Full-sized image :
- ha!ukit
- omfg********
- Wow. Looks like someone got a very stern talking-to from people whose opinions on the subject matter.Continuity
- stewdio0
Paul Graham explains why it's actually vitally important to "be kind" in business. (A more emphatic take on Google's "Don't be evil" mantra.) Because the context of the talk is internet start-ups you may have to wade through it a bit to understand the relevance.
- thanks for the video Stewdio!neonspice
- my boss's mantra: "fuck them on the way up, and they'll fuck you on the way down"kingsteven
- stewdio0
Little bump for the screen grab above of the *edited* Vimeo thread.
- Continuity0
As a coda to this whole story, it's good. I'd like to think that public pressure in response to dishonest or dishonourable behaviour (agency) actually _does_ produce results.
In the grand scheme of life and other, larger issues, the Hand from Above v Forever 21 is pretty small; I'd like to think, though, that on a grander scale, this incident of bad baheviour with resulting outcry and pressure would yield results for more important issues. BP, politics, et cetera, for example.
If there's a lesson to be learnt here is that - thanks to the internet - the collective public voice really _does_ matter, if heard as a single, strong thing. Activists of all stripes with a cause worth rallying round should take note of this.
I'd also like to think QBN had a fair bit to do with the outcome. :D
For a better tomorrow.®
- The Goossen thing was just an entertaining sideshow.Continuity
- stewdio0
I would also like to think that QBN played some small part in it—who knows. I'd be interested to know what precisely prompted QBN to delete that original thread. Just out of curiosity. It was spirited for sure, but it's hard to imagine that the content was more offensive than some of the other threads here. (So QBN mods, feel free to email me!)
For a better tomorrow ®
- Continuity0
A new addition to the original Vimeo thread, this time from the director himself:
'Hello.
I was wrong. I apologize for my actions.
I regret defending my opinions so personally and immaturely. I also did not enter this project with the intention of stealing somebody’s work, I now realize that the tone and aggressive attitude I took was inappropriate.
It is out of respect to this, and to the rest of the Vimeo community (of which I am very proud to be a part of), I removed most of my posts.
Again, sorry for any disrespect or offense.
Nick'
- ********0
The only thing to take away from all of this is that we work in an industry full of very snobby people who are full of themselves, and spent a majority of their day Googling themselves.
It's pretty sad. In my opinion, there's too many "inspiration" sites out there, and they water down the creative at-large. I can't even remember the last original thing I saw.
- ********0
You all suck!
Everything sucks!
Great insight there, chalk...
- ********0
I don't want to see more original things, I want to have more original (new to me) experiences.
- stewdio0
^ I wish I had a rabbit in a hat with a bat and a 6-4 Impala.
- ukit0
Wow, clearly he (Goosen) came down from the meth binge he was on