I was totally taken by surprise by this one.
(A little further research has revealed that it was created by WCRS, and that there is some controversy over the originality of the idea. What a shame.)
Recent Comments
- The Guardian Zeitgeist, pretty interesting attempt...
- Why Most Popular metrics are bad, and how displayi...
- Taming the Spirit of the Times | twopointouch http...
- Why not visualize how users interact with news? Gu...
- Why not visualize how users interact with news? Gu...
Recent Reading (del.icio.us)- KDPaine's PR Measurement Blog: AVE, WMC? Does any of it really matter? Forrester doesn’t think so
- Social media reality check 2010 | 21st-century PR issues › Paul Seaman's online review
- QuirksBlog: The iPhone obsession
- The Internationalization of Social Media | Brian Solis
- Online Database of Social Media Policies
- The Big Picture "All the Stats" Total View to Mobile Industry, 2010 Edition
- Convert PSD to Wordpress with Divine. Convert Photoshop to Wordpress theme
- 8 Simple Steps to Growing a Quality Twitter Following | Social Media Examiner
- Edge 311 - Charles Leadbeater on the Cloud
- Economist.com - social networking supplement PDF download
So was I and my wife…. also happened to meet one of the guys behnd the campiagn yesterday too!
This is one of the unfortunate side effects of copyright. It inhibits attribution because attribution appears to admit copying.
The thing is, there’s nothing ethically wrong with copying (it’s suspension by copyright is just a revenue mechanism, an unethical one), but there is something wrong and disrespecful about taking the credit for someone else’s work (even if by implication through omission of attribution).
Copyright needs to be abolished so artists are free to copy each other and uninhibited about giving each other the respect and credit they deserve.
Well, if there’s original IP that’s been taken, then the creators of that need to get paid.
I have no problems with copying. Profiting from someone else’s creativity is a different matter, though.
To me, it’s about who gets paid. And that should be everyone involved in the act.
If I weave Fred a basket, sell it to Fred, and Fred then profits from its sale at a higher price, do you have a problem with Fred making a profit? Or perhaps you wouldn’t if Fred paid me a share of that profit?
I believe there are some efforts afoot to ensure that artists share in the profits from resale of their works, especially where considerable profits are made, e.g. in oil paintings.
Perhaps a similar move will be made in the field of digital artworks?
As for myself, I have no problem about anyone making a profit from my or someone else’s work (as long as they have already paid for that work). I feel it is up to the artist or their agent to determine how much effort they will expend to maximise the sale price of their work, but once sold, no further entitlement should exist for a share in resale profits (unless perhaps a share in loss also exists).
One can always sell 90% of something, i.e. leaving a 10% charge in the sale contract. This would allow the vendor to retain a 10% share of the property and enjoy 10% of profits on sale. However, to make this compulsory would violate the vendor’s human rights to sell 100% of one of their products.