<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;inspiration&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:04:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Creativity Through Collaboration: From Memes To Videogames</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121112/10572121020/creativity-through-collaboration-memes-to-videogames.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121112/10572121020/creativity-through-collaboration-memes-to-videogames.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With more and more internet adoption worldwide, collaboration and sharing as a genesis for creativity is becoming the norm. The marquis example is Wikipedia, of course, although we&#39;ve noted a general theory that great ideas can spring from <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100929/23272511236/good-ideas-come-from-sharing-random-collisions-and-openness-not-hoarding-and-bursts-of-inspiration.shtml">sharing and collaboration</a>, often leading to unexpected (but fun) results. That&#39;s one of the reasons it&#39;s so fun to see things like the following emerge (completely NSFW, unless you&#39;re employed by Dark Helmet Inc.):
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/I0-rVYuOgc0" width="560"></iframe></center>
<p>
Yes, that&#39;s the trailer for a new video game to be released shortly, and it was inspired almost entirely by an online group and the resulting internet meme the group produced. Included amongst <a href="http://www.redbull.co.uk/cs/Satellite/en_UK/Article/Dudebro-gets-real-Five-bizarre-games-inspired-by-021243281896903">this list of video games resulting from internet memes</a>, the entire premise of the game began with what was essentially a bitch-session online over how awful shooter game sequels are.
<blockquote>
<i>It all started with a joke on a forum. One NeoGAF forum user, annoyed with how lazy shooters had become, complained that he was tired of games like &#39;Dudebro 2: It&#39;s Straight-Up Dawg Time.&#39; It grew from there.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The phrase became a byline for tired, me-too games, but it was so absurd that it got people thinking. Soon, it had mock cover art and a storyline. Before long, a team of fans were working on an entire game, a 2D platformer, and it&#39;s on the way soon. It even stars Jon St. John, the actor famous for voicing Duke Nukem.</i></blockquote>
Apparently, somehow, the entire premise for what looks like a hysterical game was generated spontaneously online in a collaborative format, as was the trailer, cover art, and storyline. Now, it may quickly be pointed out by some that the end product of this creativity is subject to copyright by default, but that misses the point entirely. This is simply another example of how creation occurs and how sharing and exchanging ideas freely can produce an interesting project as well as a great deal of fun. As collaboration of this nature expands due to the ability of people to connect on the internet, the overall need to lock up ideas relative to creative output is going to weaken. There may still be some "artists" who create simply for monetary gain, but their ranks are lessening.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121112/10572121020/creativity-through-collaboration-memes-to-videogames.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121112/10572121020/creativity-through-collaboration-memes-to-videogames.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121112/10572121020/creativity-through-collaboration-memes-to-videogames.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-is-a-cool-story,-bro</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121112/10572121020</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:57:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>'Almost Anybody Can Have An Idea' -- Linus Torvalds</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120423/12555818614/almost-anybody-can-have-idea-linus-torvalds.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120423/12555818614/almost-anybody-can-have-idea-linus-torvalds.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>A constant theme here on Techdirt is that it's not the idea that's crucial, but the execution.  Here's <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/20/linux_founder_linus_torvalds_tech_prize/">someone who seems to agree</a>:

<i><blockquote>People like to idolize the "ideas" and "inspiration", but in the end, almost anybody can have an idea. Getting things actually done is where people stumble.</blockquote></i>

The person speaking those words -- Linus Torvalds -- certainly hasn't stumbled much.  <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.08/linux_pr.html">In January 1992, only about 100 people in the world were using his Linux kernel</a>, which he had written as a 21-year-old student in his Helsinki bedroom, on a PC with 4MB of RAM.  Twenty years later,  Linux sits at the heart of some <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/27/850k-android-activations-daily-300m-total-devices-says-andy-rubin/">300 million Android devices, with 850,000 more being added every day</a>, and runs <a href="http://www.top500.org/lists/2011/11">91% of the world's top 500 supercomputing systems</a>.
</p><p>
The idea of writing a kernel for Richard Stallman's GNU operating system was obvious to everyone -- it was the key piece still missing. In fact, a year before Torvalds started Linux, <a href="http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd-and-linux.html">Stallman himself had begun working on a version called the Hurd</a>, along with a few fellow coders of his Free Software Foundation. 
</p><p>
Despite this impeccable pedigree, the Hurd is being used today by only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions running Linux -- further evidence that it's really not the idea, but the execution that counts.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120423/12555818614/almost-anybody-can-have-idea-linus-torvalds.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120423/12555818614/almost-anybody-can-have-idea-linus-torvalds.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120423/12555818614/almost-anybody-can-have-idea-linus-torvalds.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>obvious,-really</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120423/12555818614</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Bruce Springsteen, Another Pirate Remixer!</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/08413818131/bruce-springsteen-another-pirate-remixer.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/08413818131/bruce-springsteen-another-pirate-remixer.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>We recently wrote about the fact that Michael Jackson <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/01555317077/michael-jackson-pirate-remixer.shtml">copied</a> the bass line for his famous song Billy Jean from Hall &#038; Oates, who then admitted to having copied it themselves. Now, reader <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=gortomatic">gort-o-matic</a> points us to another legendary musician with a similar story. Bruce Springsteen, in his keynote address at SXSW, talked about how he <a href="http://kut.org/2012/03/highlights-of-bruce-springsteens-sxsw-keynote/" target="_blank">copied riffs from his favorite bands</a>, and encouraged young artists to do the same. (You can hear the relevant highlights at that link, or the entire keynote <a href="http://kut.org/2012/03/listen-bruce-springsteens-sxsw-keynote-address/" target="_blank">here</a>)</p>

<blockquote><em>For me, it was The Animals. ... "We Gotta Get Out Of This Place" had a great bass riff, you know it had that&mdash;[plays riff on guitar]&mdash;and that was just a clock, a clock marking time. [sings the first few lines] That's every song I've ever written. "Badlands", "Prove It All Night", "Darkness" was filled with Animals. Youngsters, watch this one. I'll tell you how it's done right now. I took "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood" [hums and strums the Animals riff, then transitions into his song Badlands]&mdash;It's the same fucking riff man. Listen up youngsters: this is how successful theft is accomplished.</em></blockquote>

<p>Okay, so he calls it "theft" which it really isn't, but I'm less bothered by that when artists are using it as a playful term for copying than when they use it to try to give false emotional resonance to infringement. The point remains the same: artists (and I don't think anyone can argue that the The Boss is not a bona fide artist) copy and build upon the work of others. Michael Jackson and Bruce Springsteen are high-profile examples, but they are just a drop in the bucket. Every artist, big and small, does the same thing. It's not being unoriginal, it's just how art works.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/08413818131/bruce-springsteen-another-pirate-remixer.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/08413818131/bruce-springsteen-another-pirate-remixer.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/08413818131/bruce-springsteen-another-pirate-remixer.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-almost-as-if-this-is-totally-normal-or-something</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120316/08413818131</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 07:40:13 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Kiwi Musician Says Public Domain Only Exists So You Can 'Rip Off Dead People's Works'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/04151318072/kiwi-musician-says-public-domain-only-exists-so-you-can-rip-off-dead-peoples-works.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/04151318072/kiwi-musician-says-public-domain-only-exists-so-you-can-rip-off-dead-peoples-works.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Here's a brief article from New Zealand, which suggests that part of the US's proposal for the TPP agreement is to extend copyrights across the various participating countries to life plus 70 years -- what it already is in the US, but 20 years longer than it is in many countries.  That's not too surprising.  However, what struck me was a <a href="http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/us-eyes-nz-copyright-laws-4771011" target="_blank">quote from New Zealand musician Ray Columbus</a> who appears to be in favor not just of extending copyright, but of wiping out the public domain entirely:
<blockquote><i>
"Some people believe in public domain. Why? Just so you can rip off dead people's works? That's pathetic." 
</i></blockquote>
No, Ray, what's pathetic is not knowing how culture works, and the importance of building on those who came before.  Having never heard of Ray Colombus, I decided to look around -- and lo and behold, it appears that in his younger days Columbus recognized this.  An interesting <a href="http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/video/shes-a-mod" target="_blank">bio</a> of Columbus reveals that his band, Ray Columbus and the Invaders, was originally <i>a cover band</i> who copied their dance moves (and, yes, as crazy as it seems, dance moves can be covered by copyright) from American servicemen on leave in New Zealand.  Oops.
<br /><br />
Other bios note how strongly he was <a href="http://www.allmusic.com/artist/ray-columbus-the-invaders-p142000" target="_blank">influenced</a> by other artists, such as Elvis, Cliff Richard and the Beatles.  His one big hit, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsjF-vOqkSw" target="_blank"><i>She's a Mod</i></a>, is a cover song.  Yes, it was licensed, but apparently the changes they made to the song were basically to copy things from the Beatles. And that's fine, because the fact is, people build on culture.  It's not just about "ripping off" others. So it's rather hypocritical of Columbus to decry others for the same practice.
<br /><br />
What it comes down to is that poor Ray Columbus seems to think copyright is a welfare system because he apparently failed to invest wisely or plan for retirement:
<blockquote><i>
When 60s pop star Columbus suffered a stroke nearly four years ago, he was able to pay the bills because every time a song he has performed gets played, he still collects a fee.
 <br /><br />
"The performing fees I get give a dribbling of an income that's so important to artists." 
</i></blockquote>
How is that fair compared to most other professions?  The bricklayer who has a stroke isn't able to pay the bills because by collecting a fee every time someone uses a building he built.  No, the bricklayer and pretty much everyone else in every other profession has to actually save money and plan for their future.  What makes Columbus so special that he gets to skip over that part?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/04151318072/kiwi-musician-says-public-domain-only-exists-so-you-can-rip-off-dead-peoples-works.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/04151318072/kiwi-musician-says-public-domain-only-exists-so-you-can-rip-off-dead-peoples-works.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/04151318072/kiwi-musician-says-public-domain-only-exists-so-you-can-rip-off-dead-peoples-works.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>someone-send-him-a-copy-of-james-boyle's-book</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120312/04151318072</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Oct 2011 18:30:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Everything Is A Remix: The Matrix Edition</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111007/03221616247/everything-is-remix-matrix-edition.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111007/03221616247/everything-is-remix-matrix-edition.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=everything+is+a+remix">discussed, a few times now</a>, Kirby Ferguson's interesting <a href="http://www.everythingisaremix.info/" target="_blank">Everything Is A Remix</a> project.  He's now posted a new video... which isn't technically a part of the series, but was made by <a href="http://robgwilson.com/" target="_blank">Rob G. Wilson</a> to highlight <a href="http://vimeo.com/29996808" target="_blank">a variety of things in the movie <i>The Matrix</i></a> that appear quite similar to works in other movies:
<center>
<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/29996808?portrait=0" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen allowFullScreen></iframe>
</center>
What's especially neat is that nearly all of these examples were apparently <a href="http://www.everythingisaremix.info/everything-is-a-remix-the-matrix/" target="_blank">crowdsourced</a> by fans of the project.
<br /><br />
Of course, I'm sure some will point out that these are "inspirations" for The Matrix.  And some may be accidental or aren't really copies at all.  But I believe that's missing the larger point.  Clearly The Matrix was inspired by a number of other works, whether or not all of these things were accurate.  What the Wachowskis did with The Matrix was to take all those different influences and pull them together in a very compelling way with a very compelling storyline -- something I believe the Wachowskis are quite happy to admit.  This is the very nature of storytelling.  You build on the works of others.  Everyone does it all the time.
<br /><br />
In fact (rather amusingly), comic artist Grant Morrison, whose comic <i>The Invisibles</i> has been <a href="http://www.cracked.com/article_19443_7-classic-movies-you-didnt-know-were-rip-offs.html" target="_blank">mentioned</a> as an inspiration for <i>The Matrix</i> was once asked about how he felt about the Wachowskis building off of his work, and his response was that <a href="http://www.poormojo.org/pmjadaily/archives/002657.html" target="_blank">"they should have kept on stealing from me"</a> in making the sequels, so that the sequels wouldn't have been so "incomprehensible."
<br /><br />
The fear here is about overaggressive laws that block out this ability to be inspired and to pay homage.  As we've clearly seen, time and time again, there are lots of people who seem to think it's infringement to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110724/01370815220/ideaexpression-dichotomy-is-dead-judge-allows-photographers-lawsuit-against-rihanna-to-move-forward.shtml">pay homage</a> to the works of someone else.  It's ridiculous and shortsighted, but some courts agree, and the problem may only become worse.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111007/03221616247/everything-is-remix-matrix-edition.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111007/03221616247/everything-is-remix-matrix-edition.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111007/03221616247/everything-is-remix-matrix-edition.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>influence-and-culture</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111007/03221616247</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Is There A Difference Between Inspiration And Copying?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110718/02490115124/is-there-difference-between-inspiration-copying.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110718/02490115124/is-there-difference-between-inspiration-copying.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We were just talking about the extremely fuzzy border between <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110718/02155715123/what-ideaexpression-dichotomy-microsoft-sued-having-sorta-similar-commercials.shtml">idea and expression</a>, and how that leads to problems and the stifling of creativity.  Well, how about a similar discussion between "inspiration" and copying?  We hear this all the time.  Whenever we show widely accepted pieces of art that are actually quite similar to something earlier, defenders of copyright insist that this is fine, because it was just "inspired" by the original, rather than a direct copy.  But where's the border between inspiration and copying?
<br /><br />
Take this case, which was first called to our attention by <a href="http://c4sif.org/2011/07/at-what-point-does-inspiration-turn-into-copyright-infringement/" target="_blank">Stephan Kinsella</a>, in which photographer <a href="http://www.petapixel.com/2011/07/14/at-what-point-does-inspiration-turn-into-copyright-infringement/" target="_blank">Janine Gordon sued photographer Ryan McGinley</a> claiming that 150 of McGinley's images were "substantially based" on her own photos.  The site PetaPixel (linked above) has posted some of the "evidence," which should immediately make it clear how ridiculous this lawsuit is:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/oGQip.jpg" />
<br />
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/6NkLk.jpg" />
<br />
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/P2uBZ.jpg" />
<br />
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Wr1FU.jpg" />
</center>
Honestly, it's difficult for me to even say that McGinley's are "inspired" by Gordon's, let alone copies.  Yes, some of them cover similar subject matter, but is Gordon seriously claiming that only she has the right to show "a couple kissing passionately" if the "girl on the right has long silky straight brown hair and her eyes are closed"?  Separately, in that one, she highlights that the girl has high cheekbones, but I don't quite see how the high cheekbones are part of Gordon's copyright at all.  And the one of the guys jumping?  She's really claiming a copyright on the fact that arms are curving, and the <b>legs are in a v shape</b>?  I don't know if Gordon has looked at people's legs in a while, but they're all pretty much "in a v-shape" quite a lot.
<br /><br />
Gordon is apparently seeking $30,000  per infringement, which is the maximum statutory rate... though, to be honest, I'm surprised she isn't going for the full $150,000 by claiming these are "willful" infringement.  Either way, it's yet another example of how the state of "ownership culture" today leads people to think that they can lock up ideas, and anyone who does anything even remotely (perhaps very, very remotely) similar, somehow must owe them money.
<br /><br />
It's a sad statement on the state of culture today.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110718/02490115124/is-there-difference-between-inspiration-copying.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110718/02490115124/is-there-difference-between-inspiration-copying.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110718/02490115124/is-there-difference-between-inspiration-copying.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>I-think-so,-but...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110718/02490115124</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2011 08:57:33 PST</pubDate>
<title>Inspiration Comes In Many Forms: Did Usher Copy Homer Simpson?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110121/23124112776/inspiration-comes-many-forms-did-usher-copy-homer-simpson.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110121/23124112776/inspiration-comes-many-forms-did-usher-copy-homer-simpson.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This one is a bit old, and I had meant to write about it during the holidays, but got busy with some other stuff.  However, it's such an amusing story I can't resist writing it up, even if it's a bit late.  Apparently, some radio DJs noticed some <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/12/usher_vs_homer_simpson.html" target="_blank">serious similarities between Usher and will.i.am's new song OMG... with a Homer Simpson song from a few years back</a>.  Of course, you have to hear it yourself:
<center>
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="560" height="450" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xgCo5DVX3XQ" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
</center>
Of course, to be fair, this is a <i>really</i> simple song, and there's at least some chance that these songs were created entirely independently. Alternatively, it wouldn't be at all surprising to find out that someone had seen this <i>Simpson's</i> episode and without even remembering it, that little hook got caught in their mind, and was there subconsciously later on.
<br /><br />
Either way, the real question should be: does it really matter?  I mean, it's <i>amusing</i>, but is the world any worse off if Usher and will.i.am did blatantly copy Homer Simpson?  Even if you don't like one song (or the other), copying doesn't do anything to harm the original, and obviously the Usher song is really quite different in overall tone and intent.  The two are hardly competing.  When this story first came out, lots of folks were quick to slam Usher and will.i.am -- and it may seem easy to mock them for supposedly copying a cartoon character -- but music is all about inspiration and creating and building off of a variety of influences.  If one of those influences happens to be Homer Simpson... is that really such a problem?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110121/23124112776/inspiration-comes-many-forms-did-usher-copy-homer-simpson.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110121/23124112776/inspiration-comes-many-forms-did-usher-copy-homer-simpson.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110121/23124112776/inspiration-comes-many-forms-did-usher-copy-homer-simpson.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wow-wow-wow</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110121/23124112776</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:19:54 PDT</pubDate>
<title>John Mellencamp: Takes From Others, But Refuses To Give Back</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100903/11330910896.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100903/11330910896.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We recently wrote about John Mellencamp's complaints about how the internet and file sharing are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100818/02113210661.shtml">destroying</a> the music business.  While the actual evidence suggests something entirely different, what may be even more interesting is Mellencamp's rather blatant hypocrisy about such things.  One of our commenters, coldbrew, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100902/11542110882#c94">points us</a> to an interview with Mellencamp from a year and a half ago, where he <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=102517146" target="_blank">gleefully explains how he not just takes inspiration from the works of others</a>, but he claims "ownership" over their works in a sense.  The interviewer asked about Mellencamp's process for writing a song, and he responds:
<blockquote><i>
Well you know, as I've matured as a songwriter, <b>I realize that if it's out there, it's mine</b>. You know, everything I see and hear, I don't care if Shakespeare wrote it, or Tennessee Williams wrote it, or if Bob Dylan wrote it, or I see it on a sitcom. <b>If I hear words, they're mine</b>.
<br /><br />
And so I will take ideas from anyplace, anywhere, anytime, and life has become a song to me. I'm always looking for a song.
</i></blockquote>
Now, obviously, he's talking in a symbolic way, but the stark contrast shows a rather incredible sense of entitlement.  Basically, everything is "his," and nothing can be anyone else's.  He wants to take possession over anyone else's work, but refuses to give back, and claims that others doing a similar process are somehow "destroying" his own work.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100903/11330910896.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100903/11330910896.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100903/11330910896.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sad</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100903/11330910896</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 6 Jan 2010 22:04:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Copyright Sillyness: Can't Take Photos Of Artwork That Was Built On The Works Of Others</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100106/0308467632.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100106/0308467632.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Clive Thompson has a blog post about how he took a photo at a Canadian art gallery of his son staring at a painting, after noticing how similar some paintings from a hundred years ago were to some modern paintings done by a friend -- and recognizing that both were actually inspired by a third school of art.  He notes that he was able to appreciate the old paintings much more (despite having seen them years ago) because of his understanding of his friend's more recent paintings.  And immediately after snapping the photo, <a href="http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/2010/01/i_wasnt_suppose.php" target="_blank">he got in trouble for it</a>, as the museum said it had to block photographs for copyright reasons.  As Thompson explains:
<blockquote><i>
It reminded me of a point often made by folks who fight overly-aggressive copyright laws: All new art is based on art that came before, so copyright law ought not to be too rigid. If you can't remix and resample and re-use art -- after a reasonable term of exclusivity for the original creators, who in this case are long dead -- then culture dies. More subtly yet, </i><i>our appreciation for earlier art</i> dies if our contemporary artists cannot easily plunder the styles and content of their forebears.
<br /><br />
The irony here is that the instant after I snapped this picture, the security guards of the Art Gallery of Ontario raced over to (politely) warn me that I wasn't allowed to take pictures. Why? Well, some art galleries disallow photos because flashes can damage paintings, a prohibition that makes total sense. But my iPhone doesn't have a flash. No, the Art Gallery of Ontario prohibits photographs of artwork because of copyright restrictions.... It's even more daft when you consider that I'm basically doing free promotion here.You want people to visit galleries? Well, surely one good way is to let visitors take and post photos of their little kids spellbound by major works of art.
</blockquote>
Many copyright defenders continue to insist that nothing is "lost" by stricter copyright rules, but you can't always quantify what never happens -- and Thompson does a good job showing how overly restrictive rules can, in fact, limit how we learn or appreciate art, by flat out limiting new ways that people can get exposed to works.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100106/0308467632.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100106/0308467632.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100106/0308467632.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>can-only-copy-once?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100106/0308467632</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:30:06 PST</pubDate>
<title>The Myth Of The Original Content Creator</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090207/1742223684.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090207/1742223684.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few people have directed my attention to copyright lawyer Mark Fischer's <a href="http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20090130_mark_fischer_on_copyright_in_the_digital_age/" target="_new">review of Larry Lessig's most recent book, <i>Remix</i></a>.  The review is worth reading -- and there are some points on which I agree with Fischer -- particularly with the near impossibility of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081207/2239253051.shtml">separating</a> commercial use from non-commercial use.  While Fischer seems sympathetic to the idea that there are some problems with copyright law, he keeps going back to one central idea that is the core of his problem with Lessig's book: that allowing others to remix content without getting permission potentially harms the "original creator."
<br /><br />
This is a myth that is all too often found in IP law -- both in patents and in copyrights.  This concept of the "original creator" of a piece of work.  All works are built on those that came before.  All works are inspired by and use bits and pieces of what they've learned or what they've seen, heard and felt.  Pretending that there is a true original creator who deserves credit, money or control is a problem -- because it means <i>no</i> new creative works could be done without getting permission.  That would be a tremendous hindrance on creation -- rather than progress (as the Constitution intends).
<br /><br />
But because of this false belief in an original creator, Fischer creates some tradeoffs that don't really occur.  Specifically, he notes:
<blockquote><i>
If we move toward making content free for copying, distribution and remixing, the professional creators and their distributors will have an even tougher future. Erosion of the copyright system comes at a price. If we have to choose between encouraging original creativity and remixing, why not err on the side of encouraging the originators?
</i></blockquote>
There are multiple problems with this statement.  It makes the assumption that allowing free copying of your works makes it harder to earn money.  Yet, that's not what we're seeing at all.  Those who put in place <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090201/1408273588.shtml">smart business models</a> have found that it's even easier to make <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090120/1942463468.shtml">make a lot more money</a> than in the previous method.  Erosion of the copyright system does not come at a price.  It merely changes the business model around, and opens up tremendous new opportunities.  And that's for <i>everyone</i> because it makes the process of building on the works of others easier -- and since <i>all</i> creativity really does come from building on the works of others, then creativity has the ability to flourish.
<br /><br />
So, let's get rid of this myth that there's some "original content creator" and that said "original content creator" needs to be "protected."  Neither point is true.  Every content creator is building on the works of others, and there are plenty of business models that can be put in place easily that don't require "protection" at all.  It may be more difficult for someone who makes their living helping enforce those protections to see it, but we're seeing it every day.  Why block off all those innovative new content creators just because of a couple of myths?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090207/1742223684.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090207/1742223684.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090207/1742223684.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what's-original?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090207/1742223684</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:12:29 PST</pubDate>
<title>Directors Admit They 'Steal' Ideas... But Most People Recognize That As Inspiration</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090203/0304073621.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090203/0304073621.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.uglyshz.com/blog">Jon Lawrence</a> points us to an article in Variety where a bunch of movie directors admit that they <a href="http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=awardcentral&#038;jump=contenders&#038;id=dga_awards&#038;articleid=VR1117999259" target="_new">often look to other movies for ideas to "steal" in making their own movies</a>.  Of course, they don't really mean "steal."  They mean that they use the ideas of others for inspiration and to build off of in creating their own films.  Yet, these days, when there's been an ongoing push to make people think they can own ideas and concepts, that line between good ("inspiration") and bad ("stealing") seems to keep getting pushed further and further back, for no good reason at all.  If people recognized that there's no real line at all, and being inspired by someone else to copy them is actually a great jumping off point for new art, we'd have a lot fewer silly lawsuits.  I'm reminded of a passage in James Boyle's <a href="http://www.thepublicdomain.org/"><i>The Public Domain</i></a> where he quotes Ray Charles on copying other musicians:
<blockquote><i>
I knew back then that Nat Cole was bigger than ever. Whites could relate to him because he dealt with material they understood, and he did so with great feeling. Funny thing, but during all these years I was imitating Nat Cole, I never thought twice about it, never felt bad about copying the cat's licks. To me it was practically a science. I worked at it, I enjoyed it, I was proud of it, and I loved doing it. He was a guy everyone admired, and it just made sense to me, musical and commercial sense, to study his technique. It was something like when a young lawyer--just out of school--respects an older lawyer. He tries to get inside his mind, he studies to see how he writes up all his cases, and he's going to sound a whole lot like the older man--at least till he figures out how to get his own shit together. Today I hear some singers who I think sound like me. Joe Cocker, for instance. Man, I know that cat must sleep with my records. But I don't mind. I'm flattered; I understand. After all, I did the same thing.
</i></blockquote>
Yet, these days, if you sound too much like someone else, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081205/1146593034.shtml">you get sued</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090203/0304073621.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090203/0304073621.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090203/0304073621.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what's-the-real-difference?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090203/0304073621</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:30:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Yes, Artists Build On The Works Of Others... So Why Is It Sometimes Infringement?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090130/0239533581.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090130/0239533581.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Following on our story the other day about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090125/1907073531.shtml">copyright questions</a> concerning the "appropriated art" that became the iconic Obama campaign poster, the Wall Street Journal has an interesting article exploring <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123319795753727521.html?mod=WSJ_TimesEMEA" target="_new">the fine line between derivative works and transformative works</a> in the art world.  As you probably know, derivative works (e.g., making a movie out of a book) are considered copyright infringement, but transformative works are not.
<br /><br />
Of course, how you define a transformative work is a big open question.  The article doesn't discuss it here, but for some unexplained reason, courts have mostly determined that there is no such thing as transformative works in music -- so sampling is mostly seen as infringement.  The article, instead, focuses on visual artwork, though, where courts have ruled in different ways, depending on the artwork -- leading many to consider this to be a "gray area."
<br /><br />
It probably won't surprise many, but to me the whole concept seems silly.  The history of creativity has <i>always</i> included the concept of taking the ideas of others (those who influenced you) and building on them.  That's the history of storytelling.  It's the history of joke telling.  It's the history of writing.  It's the history of music.  It's the way art is created.  And that's a good thing.  Art never springs entirely from 100% original thought.  It's an amalgamation of what else is out there -- <i>put together in a new way</i>.  What's even more ridiculous is that, in almost every one of these cases, it's difficult to see how the "original" complaining artist is even remotely "harmed" by the follow-on artists.  If anything, it's likely that the later art would only draw more attention to the original artist.  It's just that we've built up this ridiculous culture of "ownership" of ideas, where people think that someone else doing something creative by building upon my work is somehow "stealing."  It's a shame, and it's incredibly damaging to our cultural heritage -- which, of course, is exactly the opposite of what copyright law is supposed to be about.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090130/0239533581.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090130/0239533581.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090130/0239533581.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-called-inspiration</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090130/0239533581</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>