Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Fascinating story about the consequences of sharing your art in the Internet age

(1/9) > >>

JavaJones:

^ Movie Link ^

So would you be happy, upset, or both if this happened to you? I think I feel pretty much the same as him, if people are making a good amount of money from my work without compensating me that's upsetting. But I'm also a fan of the power for rapid iteration and "art evolution" that the Internet has. How to reconcile...

- Oshyan

mahesh2k:
Attribution, sharing doesn't help artists. Plagiarism is really nasty virus embeded in human DNA.

jgpaiva:
I watched the video up to the part where he said that National Geographic licensed his picture for the cover of a magazine.
Even though I do understand that people doing money on his work is terrible, he did also get some fantastic publicity out of it and ended up with a sell that he probably wouldn't have otherwise. I'm not sure if he is a victim in this story.

wraith808:
I watched the video up to the part where he said that National Geographic licensed his picture for the cover of a magazine.
Even though I do understand that people doing money on his work is terrible, he did also get some fantastic publicity out of it and ended up with a sell that he probably wouldn't have otherwise. I'm not sure if he is a victim in this story.
-jgpaiva (March 19, 2011, 12:51 PM)
--- End quote ---

So 1 paying gig with a picture makes him not a victim?  And what about the people who are taking credit for his work?  And beyond this, that sort of ignores the underlying problem- how many people are being taken advantage of to a lesser extent?

JavaJones:
I'm not even necessarily saying he's a "victim". It's the complexity of it that I find fascinating. On the one hand he got more exposure for his art, more interest in it, than most artists can ever hope to get. On the other hand the vast majority of it was *not attributed to him*. So from one perspective he gets the satisfaction of knowing that something he created is really appealing and resonant to people, and doesn't that make all of us happy? But then there's the credit issue - how important is that, and why? Is it that, had he been credited, he himself would be more famous and perhaps wealthy and successful? If people had needed to give credit, would the image have spread as far even? Not that there is an inherent limit on things once attribution is factored in, but in a theoretical world where attribution was required (and enforced somehow), the landscape does change.

Obviously all I have are questions, no real answers. I think it's partly or largely a personal thing. I'm still trying to decide if I'd be overall happy or upset! Which is again why it's so interesting. :D

- Oshyan

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page