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.)
Tags: awareness · video · viral · youtube4 Comments
web 2.0, blogs and social media
March 21st, 2008 by
Meet Up- Jul 3, 2008: Social Media for Business at New Cavendish Street campus of Westminster University
- Jul 9, 2008: Project Management at New Cavendish Street campus of Westminster University
- May 27, 2008: Beers & Innovation: Coming of Age at Orchid (formally CC Club)
- May 27, 2008: NMK Beers & Innovation: Coming of Age at The CC Club
- Jul 8, 2008: Information Visualisation at London South Bank University (Keyworth Street)
-
My Employer
The views expressed on this blog are the author's own and are not to be taken as those of NMK.
4 responses so far ↓
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.