![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jrtomThey're taking the hobbits to Isengard! (Flash; high res version)
This is funny (and short enough not to be annoying). It's also caused me to think more about solutions to the whole "derivative works" problem.
There are a few reasons that I can think of why a "content creator" might want to restrict the creation of works derived from her creations.
(1) She doesn't like seeing her work "corrupted" by derivation, or otherwise mocked.
(2) She doesn't want to lose money to those that would buy the derivative works instead.
(3) She put a lot of effort into creating the original derivative work, and feels that someone that just did a tweak or two should not simply "freeload" off her work.
(There's also an issue of representation, of course: regardless of how similar a derivative work is to the original, the derivative work should both (a) clearly label itself as derivative and (b) indicate the source(s). But this is a separate issue that I won't address here.)
My answers to the above concerns would be...
(1) Too bad. Deal.
(2) This is a legitimate concern. However, it doesn't trump everything. If the derivative work is superior (which can be defined in a number of different ways) then there's something to be said for the derivative work being preferred. More on this below.
(3) Also a good point. Let's consider some examples, in increasing order of my contribution.
* I take The Wizard of Oz and add exactly one frame to the movie--say, duplicating the previous frame.
* I come up with the idea of creating a movie from the first 45 minutes of the video track that uses Dark Side of the Moon as the soundtrack.
* I use clips from the movie in a film project of my own that tells a narrative of my own devising using clips from several movies.
* I create a movie called "The Wiz" based on an "African-Americanized" retelling of the original story.
In each of these cases--with the exception of the first--I've contributed something that arguably entitles me to compensation (if I sell the result, anyway). But as I understand it, in each case (with the possible exception of the last) I'd (a) have to get permission from the creators of the work(s) from which mine was derived, and (b) either it's "fair use" and the creators of the original works get nothing, or it's not and I can't sell the proceeds.
It seems to me that this sets up an adversarial relationship between myself and the original creators. It's also worth asking what the right answer should be if I create something based on something that is itself a derived work--if I create A based on B, and B is itself based on C, what are C's rights and benefits?
My most recent line of research (which will, if it comes together, be the core of my PhD dissertation) has been on coming up with principled ways of answering just such questions as this in the context of events such as communication (emails) or collaboration (coauthoring/citation of a paper). One of the basic ideas is that the amount of "credit"--in this case, money--assigned to B for A's derived work should be defined as the amount of impact that B's creation had on A's. Another is the idea that the buck need not stop there, i.e., some of the money that B receives from A can go to C, and so on.
"Impact" is intentionally vague; it can be defined in a number of different ways depending on the context (and the stakes). In the context of artistic creations, one way of defining it would be to ask a panel of randomly selected citizen judges to each rate the impact of B's work on A's, and define the impact to be the aggregate. As a very simple example, if the panel decided that A's work was 70% derivative of B's, 70% of the proceeds from the sale of A's work would go to B. (If B's work had previously been judged to be 40% derivative of C's, 40% of the sales from B's work, as well as 40% of the proceeds received by B from the sales of work derived from B's, would go to C...and so on.)
The point of all this rigmarole would be to change the motivations involved such that derived works were actually beneficial to the creators of the original, to the extent that the works were derivative--while retaining the motivation of creators of new works to be original.
I'd be very interested in getting feedback on this.
This is funny (and short enough not to be annoying). It's also caused me to think more about solutions to the whole "derivative works" problem.
There are a few reasons that I can think of why a "content creator" might want to restrict the creation of works derived from her creations.
(1) She doesn't like seeing her work "corrupted" by derivation, or otherwise mocked.
(2) She doesn't want to lose money to those that would buy the derivative works instead.
(3) She put a lot of effort into creating the original derivative work, and feels that someone that just did a tweak or two should not simply "freeload" off her work.
(There's also an issue of representation, of course: regardless of how similar a derivative work is to the original, the derivative work should both (a) clearly label itself as derivative and (b) indicate the source(s). But this is a separate issue that I won't address here.)
My answers to the above concerns would be...
(1) Too bad. Deal.
(2) This is a legitimate concern. However, it doesn't trump everything. If the derivative work is superior (which can be defined in a number of different ways) then there's something to be said for the derivative work being preferred. More on this below.
(3) Also a good point. Let's consider some examples, in increasing order of my contribution.
* I take The Wizard of Oz and add exactly one frame to the movie--say, duplicating the previous frame.
* I come up with the idea of creating a movie from the first 45 minutes of the video track that uses Dark Side of the Moon as the soundtrack.
* I use clips from the movie in a film project of my own that tells a narrative of my own devising using clips from several movies.
* I create a movie called "The Wiz" based on an "African-Americanized" retelling of the original story.
In each of these cases--with the exception of the first--I've contributed something that arguably entitles me to compensation (if I sell the result, anyway). But as I understand it, in each case (with the possible exception of the last) I'd (a) have to get permission from the creators of the work(s) from which mine was derived, and (b) either it's "fair use" and the creators of the original works get nothing, or it's not and I can't sell the proceeds.
It seems to me that this sets up an adversarial relationship between myself and the original creators. It's also worth asking what the right answer should be if I create something based on something that is itself a derived work--if I create A based on B, and B is itself based on C, what are C's rights and benefits?
My most recent line of research (which will, if it comes together, be the core of my PhD dissertation) has been on coming up with principled ways of answering just such questions as this in the context of events such as communication (emails) or collaboration (coauthoring/citation of a paper). One of the basic ideas is that the amount of "credit"--in this case, money--assigned to B for A's derived work should be defined as the amount of impact that B's creation had on A's. Another is the idea that the buck need not stop there, i.e., some of the money that B receives from A can go to C, and so on.
"Impact" is intentionally vague; it can be defined in a number of different ways depending on the context (and the stakes). In the context of artistic creations, one way of defining it would be to ask a panel of randomly selected citizen judges to each rate the impact of B's work on A's, and define the impact to be the aggregate. As a very simple example, if the panel decided that A's work was 70% derivative of B's, 70% of the proceeds from the sale of A's work would go to B. (If B's work had previously been judged to be 40% derivative of C's, 40% of the sales from B's work, as well as 40% of the proceeds received by B from the sales of work derived from B's, would go to C...and so on.)
The point of all this rigmarole would be to change the motivations involved such that derived works were actually beneficial to the creators of the original, to the extent that the works were derivative--while retaining the motivation of creators of new works to be original.
I'd be very interested in getting feedback on this.