Whilst I fully understand the link between copying (or inspiration) and evolutionary innovation - none the less, those who directly copy others work and save themselves not only a great deal of time, effort and money off the back of it but earn commercially from it without so much as an acknowledging to the originator least of all a shre in profits, should question not just their etiquette but their ethics.
The practice of licensing was created to enable one party to innovate from another party and improve, add features and so forth whilst remunerating and recognising the effort of the first party.
If first mover innovators efforts are just used as a blueprint for others without recognistion and reward - the first movers will become less and less - and then where does that leave innovation and societal progress?
All it takes is etiquette and ethics to ask permission to use someone else's work, perhaps collaborate and or license or profit share to enhance innovation.
There is no excuse for outright copying and commercialisation off of another party's efforts, time, money, expertise, knowledge, creativity.
The human principles of etiquette and ethics are already in place and likewise the commercial mechanisms such as licensing.
If Nina Palin's artwork was a derivitive works of others works she is morally and legally obliged to ask permission to use others works, including anothers parties music - which could be licensed.
There is nothing to prevent Nina from innovating having been inspired by others works and choosing to present them in a new way. There is just an obligation to credit the inspirational sources and ensure she has their permission to utilise their work in a derivitive work. And if she earns a profit from the derivitive works to consider whether a % of that profit is rightly due to those she was inspired by and whose original works she used to obtain a commercial profit.
So there are no barriers to evolutionary innovation just an etiquette and ethics obligation.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Maxine Horn.
Etiquette, ethics & evolution
Whilst I fully understand the link between copying (or inspiration) and evolutionary innovation - none the less, those who directly copy others work and save themselves not only a great deal of time, effort and money off the back of it but earn commercially from it without so much as an acknowledging to the originator least of all a shre in profits, should question not just their etiquette but their ethics.
The practice of licensing was created to enable one party to innovate from another party and improve, add features and so forth whilst remunerating and recognising the effort of the first party.
If first mover innovators efforts are just used as a blueprint for others without recognistion and reward - the first movers will become less and less - and then where does that leave innovation and societal progress?
All it takes is etiquette and ethics to ask permission to use someone else's work, perhaps collaborate and or license or profit share to enhance innovation.
There is no excuse for outright copying and commercialisation off of another party's efforts, time, money, expertise, knowledge, creativity.
The human principles of etiquette and ethics are already in place and likewise the commercial mechanisms such as licensing.
If Nina Palin's artwork was a derivitive works of others works she is morally and legally obliged to ask permission to use others works, including anothers parties music - which could be licensed.
There is nothing to prevent Nina from innovating having been inspired by others works and choosing to present them in a new way. There is just an obligation to credit the inspirational sources and ensure she has their permission to utilise their work in a derivitive work. And if she earns a profit from the derivitive works to consider whether a % of that profit is rightly due to those she was inspired by and whose original works she used to obtain a commercial profit.
So there are no barriers to evolutionary innovation just an etiquette and ethics obligation.