Nov 14, 2008
Los Angeles, Ca
I had a discussion with a friend of mine via IM yesterday about Intellectual Property and its applicable laws protecting it. Then last night, as I was slugging my way through The New Yorker, I noted a book that is mentioned in the “Briefly Noted” section of the magazine.
The book is called “Remix” by Lawrence Lessig,
“As Lessig, a law professor at Stanford, sees it, if intellectual-property law is left as it is an entire generation will be criminalized. He argues that the ways in which young people break copyright laws help them to become the sort of people we want them to be—creative and collaborative. Kids today are simply not going to give up downloading music and using copyrighted material in YouTube videos: they belong to a culture for which “remix” is “the essential art.” Lessig’s proposals for revising copyright are compelling, because they rethink intellectual-property rights without abandoning them. He argues that hybrids that combine the “commercial and sharing” economies can create value for both sides (as Harry Potter fan sites and Lostpedia have done); indeed, one problem is media companies’ appropriating the work of fans without returning the favor. “When both benefit,” Lessig writes, “how do we say who is riding for free?”
I believe that as artists and creators we should be able to benefit from the “art” that which we create. After all, this choice of a life is a gamble, there is no guarantee that you will ever be successful, or even be able to pay your rent in the life time in which you spent creating the “art.” But I think certain amount of content should be available for “free” for other users to amend, absorb and repatriate into something new, even if the new “art” is unlike the original at all. Which brings to mind the Creative Commons model and or how NIN offers tracks of their songs for download without charge online and you can remix and re post to be shared by other fans.
As I wonder about this model of “collective creating” and how I could incorporate it into my life as an artist – slightly difficult since my primary medium is rather “fixed” – I came up with an idea. What if a collaborative process was offered, I could either provide digital files of a selection of images, or actual prints, and a small group of artists (working in both photography and other mediums) utilized the “base” in which I have provided and do what they will to it. Then we will have collectively created something new.
But here is where the sticking point in Intellectual Property Law begins – who would own that piece of new art that is created? Or do all participating artists goes into this with the agreement that we are all owners of the new art?
Does the idea of “ownership” only truly matters when there is a perceived value for the “object”?
Art does have value. Radiohead proved that the fan will pay for the music by independently releasing their last album with the “pay what you will” system. NIN gave away its latest album for free online – Trent Reznor said “This one is on me!” I paid for the Radiohead album because I wanted to be heard that art has value. I happily accepted Trent’s download and respected him all the more for acknowledging the fans who have supported him for nearly 20 years.
Is it the corporation in between who will rake in the largest profits from our angst and demented dreams that we have a problem with then?
I don’t have the answers to any of these questions. But I am excited about the idea of “collectively creating,” think I will buy Lessig’s book and see his opinion on IP laws, and believe that the more we give the more we will be given in return.
