Hugh Mann's comment is the best here. I mean, imagine if every artist tried to be Girl Talk? It's just untenable. Yes, some critics laud this young author and Girl Talk for their work, but to promote their methods as the new model for creativity is foolish. These works can only have value as a commentary on works made through more traditional methods of creativity. Don't get me wrong, it is important commentary (though to be honest, I don't think Girl Talk is all that important, but I'm talking more generally here). But if this becomes the artistic norm, that value will be lost, and I fear we won't be left with much else.
@nastybutler77: Neither the aboriginal people nor Harold Thomas can be considered a non-profit group like Red Cross or Amnesty International, so to me your analogy seems ridiculous. Harold Thomas isn't even a group, he is a person. And in both examples you gave, you can bet that Google would ask the permission of the organization to do so. Google asked Harold Thomas and he said no. I really don't see where the outrage comes from.
Refer to monkytypist's comment above for a clearer explanation of the context and meaning of the flag. As you can probably glean from both the article and the comment, it is not simply about money. You can disagree with Thomas' decision all you want, but this is actually an example of what is good about copyright law, rather than a reason to scoff at it.
@nasch: I was responding to the implications made by Mike and some comments, where it was offered that this copyright claim was superfluous and Google should be allowed to show the image. Of course, Google did not infringe, it was a failed business transaction as you described. I have no problem with what occurred, I just was surprised that other people did.
The only issue I see is Google's presumption that they should receive creative content for free (as they initially offered), which is awful presumptuous for a corporation. It makes sense why they would try, but that still doesn't make it right.
Exactly, this is one of the points I was trying to make made more clear. Put aside the stuff I mentioned about colonialism (but still think about it!), this makes sense as a simple artist vs corporation story.
I can understand why people commented harshly about the artist, as Mike's original post accuses this man of keeping the flag all for himself. But the article clearly states that he allows its use for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, and the Australians who have commented have corroborated this. Google doesn't fall under that umbrella. Sounds like a basic Creative Commons license to me.
@nastybutler77: You're welcome, I'm glad you appreciate discussion. But your idea of exploitation seems to be based on degree, that there's a line that one crosses and suddenly there's exploitation. Any time someone's product is taken away from them and used by another party for commercial gain, they're being exploited. Google is a commercial entity (and yes, all these little actions such as cute Google logos add up to their success), and they apparently proposed initially that they take this artist's product without compensation. That would be exploitation.
I'm not suggesting that Google is a menace or some neo-colonial power, though they certainly could've been more tactful it seems. I am expressing a viewpoint that may have been taken by the artist, who as an aboriginal, is acutely aware of the history of exploitation of his people. He may have seen Google's expectation of using his work for free or on the cheap as an extension of that history.
Of course, it's an assumption, but so is the idea that he's just a greedy artist trying to get money. We don't really know the whole truth from the articles, I'm just offering an alternate view.
This is interesting, as an American I was unaware.
So clearly, this artist is not wholly blocking the use of the flag, he's just blocking Google's. And seeing as Google is a commercial entity, I don't see why that's such a bad thing. Isn't this one of the few good things about copyright?
To me, it sounds like he denied permission because he was offended by their initial request to use it for free. Which then made him more predisposed to reject their monetary offers. If a huge, rich corporation like Google approaches a creative worker and asks if they can use their product for free, I can totally understand how that could be viewed as insulting.
But we're assuming the the aboriginal people need or value this promotion. A big problem in a lot of the discussion on this blog is that it assumes that promotion, exposure, awareness, etc. is an end, and that it always has real value. In the case of a corporation with something to sell, we can more easily conclude that it sometimes does have value, but with a minority ethnic group it's a whole lot trickier.
Also, I don't think we all know the extent to which this flag is considered part of the aboriginal cultural heritage (it was only made in 1978, after all). I certainly don't, and it's perfectly possible than not a lot of value is attached to it by them, thus rendering this artist's decision to be a bit less tyrannical.
Well, by expressing dismay at the artist's decision to deny the use of the flag, and ridiculing his legal right to make that decision, one is implying that he should not have the right, and his cultural product should be used without his consent. I don't really see how that would differ from simply demanding.
I think there are some colonialist undertones here that you aren't picking up on. The fact that a commenter here thought the aboriginal people seemed like a "bunch of greedy bitches" just shows a complete ignorance of context and history.
Free culture is all well and good for those who've profited economically from their own culture for years. But to demand that the cultural property of indigenous peoples, minorities, and developing countries be free for use by western, FOR PROFIT companies like Google is arrogant at best (and that's being generous). It may seem like an information revolution to you, but to them it's just the same old song and dance (westerners taking their property and reaping all the economic benefits).
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by R. Hammond.
Re: Re-mixing as "powerful" cultural statement?
Hugh Mann's comment is the best here. I mean, imagine if every artist tried to be Girl Talk? It's just untenable. Yes, some critics laud this young author and Girl Talk for their work, but to promote their methods as the new model for creativity is foolish. These works can only have value as a commentary on works made through more traditional methods of creativity. Don't get me wrong, it is important commentary (though to be honest, I don't think Girl Talk is all that important, but I'm talking more generally here). But if this becomes the artistic norm, that value will be lost, and I fear we won't be left with much else.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about this article?
Sorry, but what you posted clearly states they did not appreciate its use.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
@nastybutler77: Neither the aboriginal people nor Harold Thomas can be considered a non-profit group like Red Cross or Amnesty International, so to me your analogy seems ridiculous. Harold Thomas isn't even a group, he is a person. And in both examples you gave, you can bet that Google would ask the permission of the organization to do so. Google asked Harold Thomas and he said no. I really don't see where the outrage comes from.
Refer to monkytypist's comment above for a clearer explanation of the context and meaning of the flag. As you can probably glean from both the article and the comment, it is not simply about money. You can disagree with Thomas' decision all you want, but this is actually an example of what is good about copyright law, rather than a reason to scoff at it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
@nasch: I was responding to the implications made by Mike and some comments, where it was offered that this copyright claim was superfluous and Google should be allowed to show the image. Of course, Google did not infringe, it was a failed business transaction as you described. I have no problem with what occurred, I just was surprised that other people did.
The only issue I see is Google's presumption that they should receive creative content for free (as they initially offered), which is awful presumptuous for a corporation. It makes sense why they would try, but that still doesn't make it right.
Re: look at it this way...
Exactly, this is one of the points I was trying to make made more clear. Put aside the stuff I mentioned about colonialism (but still think about it!), this makes sense as a simple artist vs corporation story.
I can understand why people commented harshly about the artist, as Mike's original post accuses this man of keeping the flag all for himself. But the article clearly states that he allows its use for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, and the Australians who have commented have corroborated this. Google doesn't fall under that umbrella. Sounds like a basic Creative Commons license to me.
Re: Re:
@nastybutler77: You're welcome, I'm glad you appreciate discussion. But your idea of exploitation seems to be based on degree, that there's a line that one crosses and suddenly there's exploitation. Any time someone's product is taken away from them and used by another party for commercial gain, they're being exploited. Google is a commercial entity (and yes, all these little actions such as cute Google logos add up to their success), and they apparently proposed initially that they take this artist's product without compensation. That would be exploitation.
I'm not suggesting that Google is a menace or some neo-colonial power, though they certainly could've been more tactful it seems. I am expressing a viewpoint that may have been taken by the artist, who as an aboriginal, is acutely aware of the history of exploitation of his people. He may have seen Google's expectation of using his work for free or on the cheap as an extension of that history.
Of course, it's an assumption, but so is the idea that he's just a greedy artist trying to get money. We don't really know the whole truth from the articles, I'm just offering an alternate view.
Re: I'm shocked
This is interesting, as an American I was unaware.
So clearly, this artist is not wholly blocking the use of the flag, he's just blocking Google's. And seeing as Google is a commercial entity, I don't see why that's such a bad thing. Isn't this one of the few good things about copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To me, it sounds like he denied permission because he was offended by their initial request to use it for free. Which then made him more predisposed to reject their monetary offers. If a huge, rich corporation like Google approaches a creative worker and asks if they can use their product for free, I can totally understand how that could be viewed as insulting.
But this is just me interpreting the articles.
Re: Re: Re: What about this article?
But we're assuming the the aboriginal people need or value this promotion. A big problem in a lot of the discussion on this blog is that it assumes that promotion, exposure, awareness, etc. is an end, and that it always has real value. In the case of a corporation with something to sell, we can more easily conclude that it sometimes does have value, but with a minority ethnic group it's a whole lot trickier.
Also, I don't think we all know the extent to which this flag is considered part of the aboriginal cultural heritage (it was only made in 1978, after all). I certainly don't, and it's perfectly possible than not a lot of value is attached to it by them, thus rendering this artist's decision to be a bit less tyrannical.
Re: What about this article?
Mike's use of it, I believe, would qualify as fair use, as he is commenting on the content of the photo, and using it to illustrate his point.
Google's use would be considered to be a promotional use by a commercial entity, and treated the same as if they used an image in an advertisement.
Re: Re:
Well, by expressing dismay at the artist's decision to deny the use of the flag, and ridiculing his legal right to make that decision, one is implying that he should not have the right, and his cultural product should be used without his consent. I don't really see how that would differ from simply demanding.
Re: Re:
Google's quirky search page logos endear them to many users, and build up brand loyalty. How is that not an economic benefit?
I think there are some colonialist undertones here that you aren't picking up on. The fact that a commenter here thought the aboriginal people seemed like a "bunch of greedy bitches" just shows a complete ignorance of context and history.
Free culture is all well and good for those who've profited economically from their own culture for years. But to demand that the cultural property of indigenous peoples, minorities, and developing countries be free for use by western, FOR PROFIT companies like Google is arrogant at best (and that's being generous). It may seem like an information revolution to you, but to them it's just the same old song and dance (westerners taking their property and reaping all the economic benefits).