What do you think of artists using other artists’ work to create their own? Where does allusion and creative reuse end and plagiarism begin? Or is pure originality a myth anyway? There are lots of examples in this article, but try to use some of your own in your response. (Perhaps, for instance, one of those tunes which were copied from Western songwriters and given Czech or Slovak lyrics instead…)
Maybe I should I have a third or fourth thought about it, but in my opinion originality exists. Since I myself am a musician and I create new lyrics, melodies and songs all the time, I cannot agree with Ben Greenman, who said that everything comes from somewhere and with Jim Jarmusch who said that originality is nothing and non-existent. On the other hand I agree with something that has been said in the reactions to this article. That “something” is the pointing out of the fact that we sometimes unconsciously create a product that is very alike to a product that already exists. But since this is a coincidence and not intention, my claim that originality exists stays untouched. But what if somebody intentionally takes lets say a melody from some song to make it his own? I’d say he should be punished, the author of this article would probably rejoin saying “We’re beyond that phase now, let them steal, guilt will haunt them down so they won’t be able to sleep!” So is it me that’s too conservative, or did the author move after long and deep contemplation towards the wrong side?
ReplyDeleteWell first of all we have to make it straight that the author covers a great area when talking about originality, art and thefts. This way I can find in his article both points in which I agree and disagree with him. I am very disposed to his view on the issue in the first two paragraphs, where he well concludes that we’ve deeply embraced our entitlement to theft and that the culture of appropriation has become enormously pervasive. But everything beyond that breaks the thin ice on which he is standing. In my opinion the right to own copyrights to a unique work that you’ve created should never be taken away from you. If we anyhow decrease the amount of factors the copyrights protect, even if we do it because in nowadays advance of technology it is hard to control them, the authors will no longer have the motivation to create something unique. This takes me to the point where I can clarify why do I think originality exists and why I do think it’s not me that’s too conservative, but it’s the author who moved towards the wrong side.
If we give all the people in the world a pencil and tell them to draw a tree, I can promise you that every one of them will draw the tree differently. We are all different, that’s why we are all original and that’s why originality exists. To conclude I think it’s not me who’s too conservative, but it’s the author who moved towards the wrong side, because at the end of the article he made an absolute devaluation of author’s copyrights role by saying “Sure, you can steal all you like, go right ahead, but can you sleep at night?” Not to mention that one’s copyrights should be just as much of a private property as one’s car or house.
Branislav Skocek IB3
Authenticity and originality. These two words have recently been used when accusing someone of copyright abuse. Legislation of every country explains what procedure must be followed when using someone else’s ideas or thoughts. However, what does the term someone else’s idea mean? I must agree with the author of this blog post when considering authenticity of the original. How can we say that someone owns a particular idea if we cannot tell if someone did not have it sooner? Moreover, it is possible that two people get the same idea at the same time which is a matter I am sure everyone is familiar with. Has it never happened to you that you said exactly the same thing with someone else at the same time? Everything that appears in our minds must have come through our senses first. If we did not have any, we would have nothing to think about. And since two different people could have been at the same place or in similar situation, it is possible that they will get the same idea. In other words, it can happen that two works of art will seem very similar without the authors knowing about it.
ReplyDeleteBut I am not quite sure about the idea of intentional copying in the art, because it is very hard to tell when one has crossed the line. Does copying from a book mean using the same connection of two words? The same sentence, or the same plot structure? There is theory connecting to this issue, namely that everything was already said and done and the population of today is only rediscovering all of it. Some might argue that it is completely ridiculous. However, no one has proven yet that it is wrong. And until they have not, I find talking about copyrights of no use. I see it only as something that was established because of the financial side of the art.
@Petra
ReplyDeleteBefore I got to the point when you started talking about the “everything was already done and said theory” I agreed with everything you have said. The reason why beyond that point I can’t agree with what you say anymore is because I am one of those “some” who might argue that the “everything was already done and said theory” is completely ridiculous. Nonetheless, also because I find talking about copyrights important even if we don’t prove the theory wrong and also because I don’t think copyrights were only established because of the financial side of arts. First of all, copyrights are a protection of private property just as any other protection. Let me give you an example: If you own a house and you have the corresponding documents to that house, nobody can take that house away from you, unless he legally shows you he’s the owner of the house. The same counts for arts. Every piece of art belongs to the one who created it and who owns the copyrights to it, unless somebody lays before him the same piece of art with copyrights to it. This way just as there will be no second legal owner of the house, there also will be no second legal creator of the song Yesterday by Beatles, no second legal creator of the poem Raven by Edgar Allen Poe and no second legal creator of the drawing Guernica by Picasso. You get my point? Unless you won’t show me another Yesterday, Raven or Guernica, unless you won’t show me that these pieces of art are duplicates, I will consider the “everything was already said and done theory” as unsubstantial and talking about copyrights as important. To conclude it is also important to emphasis on the issue of copyrights, because they weren’t only established because of the financial side of arts, but because they play the most significant role when proving if somebody’s work is unique and only his or whether it is stolen or copied.
Branislav Skocek IB3
@Brano:
ReplyDeleteI probably did not express myself quite clearly. All I am saying is that the idea of copyrights seems to be a bit vague. I just cannot see how a human being should own a thought. It is not anything like cars or house. If you own a car, no one else can own the same one. Someone surely owns a car that looks just like yours and has the same properties, yet it not the same one. But if two independent people possess the same thought... How do you decide who should own it? I do not agree with your comparison of cars and ideas as these two are two completely different concepts.
I understand your point of view, you said that the fact that the results of any artistic activity are similar does not matter, if one of the artists was not copying. But how can you prove that anyway? In addition, it is difficult to define what copying means. If two songs consist of the same chords, but the rhythm is different, did someone copy the selection of chords? That is why I do not think so much of the concept of copyrights.
And lastly, do you, personally, as an artist really need a piece paper to feel the satisfaction from creating something? I believe you need it only to be able to sell that work of art as your own. And that is why I still think money is behind the whole copyrights system, despite your persuasive arguments.
@Petra
ReplyDeleteWell first of all I’d like to express myself about your questioning, whether an artist really needs a piece paper to feel the satisfaction from creating something, and about your proclaim that money is behind the whole copyrights system. I strongly believe the first priority for an author (for example of a scientific product) is recognition, prestige and admiration. These factors shape the world at least as much as money. Let’s not forget that a scientist doesn’t carry out his researches and experiments only in order to get money; but mainly because of the curiosity and passion for the observations and discoveries. If it wasn’t so, we’d still be dealing with prehistoric life styles. Nevertheless, together with the fact that curiosity and passion take humans further, combines the fact that if we discover something, we want to gain prestige, recognition and admiration for it. I mean it’d be unmoral and unethical if somebody would appropriate the results of for example the experiments of Madame Curie’s breaking down of atoms. Behind these results there is decades of studies, researches, trials, mistakes and eventually hard work. After all, patent offices in the 19th century were established also in order to protect unique creations like this and not only in order to protect ones earnings for such creations.
This takes me to your next statement i.e. a human is unable to own a thought. I believe the uniqueness of a thought often precedes hard work or a unique idea and that’s why I believe a human can own a thought. Let me give you an example: Before James Watt invented the steam engine he often observed his housewife at cooking, focusing on one phenomenon; the steam from the pot was lifting the top. This became an impulse for the usage of steam and inventing the steam engine; an invention that moved the world via the industrial revolution a big step forward. Though for centuries housewives all over the world knew that steam lifts the top of a pot. It is a thought that all of us can have, but please lets acknowledge that the unique thought which preceded a unique idea belongs to Mr. Watt.
And so it is with combining chords or notes when composing a song. Hundreds of people can know some chords or notes and put them together in various ways, but something as unique as for example A Little Night Music by W.A. Mozart can be created only by one. Could we tolerate somebody who in order to appropriate this masterpiece would make out as its author? Looking at this question I must ask another: Is there anybody left who still doubts about the role of copyrights and definition of copying?
To conclude I would like to add a personal experience. Approximately a year ago I too had the chance to compose and record a CD. It included seven songs with my own melodies and lyrics. Even if its primary purpose was to serve as a project for school and I knew I won’t earn a single cent on it, I still brought it to SOZA (The Slovak Performing and Mechanical Rights Society), because I liked it and I wanted everybody to know that all the songs on it are mine. In this modern world it’s very easy to steal and appropriate the creativity and ingenuity of others, but that does not mean that this kind of stealing should be tolerated and considered as correct and right.
Branislav Skocek IB3