Who can say what is original?

It seems that the heart of the issue in "Cultures and Copyrights" is one's perception of originality.  Brown mentions a "spark of individual genius that informed Western high culture".  I think it is a slippery slope to begin drawing a line between original and derivative artwork.  Western civilization is also deluding itself if we think that we are in some way immune to outside influence, or that our work is more unique than that of other cultures.  I saw Gregory Macguire speak last year for the Charlotte Zolotow lecture.  He gave a compelling argument for the pervasiveness of remixing.  The author of Wicked, Macguire certainly "borrowed" from existing work in the creation of the Wicked Witch's backstory.  Macguire had also recently completed a book on Maurice Sendak's work and demonstrated how much of Sendak's work drew from classical art.  I also think of such artists as Margaret Kilgallen and the Clayton Brothers whose styles are heavily influenced by folk art.  The fact that remixing is rampant should not preclude copyrighted status for these artists or for aboriginal artists.

Boyle's comments on authorship supports my thinking on originality.  He says that authorship necessitated the "author creating something entirely new--not recombining the resources of the commons".  But then he acknowledges that no work of art is created in a vacuum, or as he puts it, "out of thin air".  Because art and literature and film are influenced and inspired by existing works, I see a great argument for artists to share and allow remixing in order to maintain the flow of new artwork.

 I had not previously considered that someone has made an intentional move to allow for development at each stage of media expansion--radio, television, cable television--by making exceptions to the copyright laws.  These copyright exemptions necessarily promote growth, but the enforcement of copyright also encourages creation and growth.

Litman proposes that a creator first finds a market, and then finds a way to make a profit and protect copyrights.  That reminds me of the way HeLa cells found their market, first as shared material between scientists, then as the basis for polio research.  It was not until the cells were highly sought after by scientists that HeLa was copyrighted and marketed.  I still have mixed feelings about the copyright and sale of human materials--I suppose it has to do with my discomfort with the business of science.  Science, like art, is something I would like to think of as purely for the betterment of humanity, but I understand that money must play a role.  Certainly I would like my artist and musician friends, as well as the scientists whose work will better my life, to be able to make a living!

I am excited about the possibilities for both profit and collaboration that Creative Commons could provide by abolishing the need for copyright exemptions by putting the power to share creative work in the hands of the creator.  Admittedly, the people using Creative Commons licenses who come to mind are not necessarily out for immense monetary gain.  However, from what I understand from Kristen's presentation, there is no reason why an artist/developer should not be able to use Creative Commons licenses while also sustaining a profit.

 

I had a personal experience with Creative Commons this past summer in Japan.  When visiting a museum exhibit of Yuichi Yokoyama's in Kawasaki, we were pleased to discover that the artist had protected his artwork under a Creative Commons license allowing for photography barring only commercial use.  I have come across other similar provisions on Flickr photo streams. 

It occurs to me that in our time when the internet is saturated with art and music, it is not to a creator's advantage to hold their works too closely.  As we discussed in class, it benefits both the artist and the greater culture to have artwork available to view, share, and remix.