Saturday, October 26, 2013

Copyrights and Wrongs

Online content, like centuries of content before it, continues to be a conundrum when it comes to ownership.  How many words strung together, or notes in a tune, or frames in a set of pictures constitute something unique and intact and most importantly: proprietary.

When it comes to this issue, I take a wide berth around any possible dangers.  Basically, this means that I credit all of the resources that I use directly to furnish my work and I never plagiarize.  I think this is a wise approach to the issue, however it's never that easy, is it?

There seems to be a thin line between being inspired by something and just ripping it off for your own purposes.  Most of the classic rock from the '70s was apparently stolen from minority blues artists who never were compensated for their work. But does this mean that Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones are thieves? Or that they somehow don't deserve the credit and fame they achieved?
If I am inspired by Monet to paint blurry, oddly colored water lilies, how much of that idea is stolen and how much credit does a long dead artist deserve?

I don't think there are a lot of easy answers to these questions but, in my case, better safe than sorry!

1 comment:

  1. I agree with you. Ownership of material and ideas is sometimes very confusing. I wish I could say that I always give credit when using other's materials but sometimes I am not quite sure who to give credit to! I also try to stay away from those grey areas but sometimes it is just too easy to grab whatever I need....copyrights be damned! Glad to learn about Creative Commons!

    ReplyDelete