Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property in the digital age is a tricky subject. According to Wikipedia, owners of intellectual property are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets. Intangible asset seems to be an oxymoron to me, intangible is defined as “not having physical substance or intrinsic productive value” and “hard to pin down or identify” and asset is defined as “something or someone of any value”. How can one, let alone the law, determine exactly what intellectual property is? Especially in Shepard Fairey’s case, how can one determine how one can interpret a photograph? It’s not like he claimed he took the photo, he merely used the likeness of the image to create his HOPE posters. The context of the two pieces of art are completely different and send different messages. I do understand where the AP and Mannie Garcia are coming from though. They were the inspiration behind Fairey’s work, but if they just inspired, should they get credit? And this is the problem with Intellectual Property in the Digital Age.

The blogosphere reminds me of a modern day Napster. There are millions of blogs out there and lets say half of these bloggers are not any type of digital media pros. They drag and drop images, logos, content, etc. on their blog but re-work it in a way that presents it to their followers as original or from their point of view. Like Napster, blogs are great for start up companies, brands, etc. especially when public opinion of the said product are agreeable because it generates good press and has the potential to boost sales. I feel the people have a problem with intellectual property when their content is used in a way that is unfavorable to the original intent. Like Napster, when content on blogs are used in an unfavorable people start throwing around legal terms and jargon because they don’t like the message.

I think in general, people are open to sharing intellectual property in the digital age as long as the message of the borrowed intellectual property is not harmful to the original owner. When the message changes and hurts or conflicts with the original intent, that’s when lawyers seem to get involved. But the great thing about the looseness of the laws, is that they can be interpreted in many ways. And I personally feel that sometimes, the best work and ideas are created from tweaking something that is already in existence!