Protecting As Relinquishing: Creative Production & Publishing Online (Oh, The Anxiety!)

In response to some comments left on my previous post Post(Your)Secret(s)... I was similarly alerted, like the respondent, to some things I had not given much thought to or attention to in my discussion, namely intellectual property rights, online publishing and ownership of material, in this case actual-virtual. (Presumably, creative production online is covered UCC, defining a copyrightable expression as one that is fixed in a tangible medium of expression – I am sure, irrespective of whether people are still arguing over this, readers of this blog will agree, online publication/posting is in fact a tangible medium of expression).

It does appear that corporations are ripping ideas off individuals who publish them online, with a disturbing amount ease, or perhaps more to the point, identifying how easy it is to do so (the short answer here - simply because there is so much material published online). I think this connected to an interesting issue Samuels raises, although I should point out that she is specifically concerned with verbal ideation in her argument – “idea-mongers might hike out to very foreign parts, those not covered by the UCC, and have some very stimulating conversations…then use those ideas with absolutely impunity in their “works” " (372). This is similar to coming into contact, while browsing online, with an interesting, small creative project posted by an individual online that seemingly no one really knows about or one that is not apparently copyright registered .

I am going to refer particularly to the case of NBC claiming that in fact they were “inspired” by a film and not the online PostSecret blog project, for their new show Fears, Secrets & Desires (thank you Pareidoliac for pointing this article out to me). It is interesting that they are able to simply circumvent accusations by proving the idea for the show was planted before the PostSecret project began. Considering that they may have had any number of “ideas” for a new show in the mix before coming in contact with the project's website itself, so who is not to say that this effected the shape and form of a show they already had an “idea” for?

While I think this brings up several interesting threads for discussion, I am going not going to follow any of them here in this post. I will instead focus on a counter-comment that could be made in response to the occurrence of corporations “sourcing” (or stealing) their “ideas” from individuals, “[who] could be more protective of their intellectual property so as to commercialize for their own profit”. This points to a double-edged sword for many artists, writers, musicians and creative people who do publish their work regularly online, and would like to protect their creative output. Part of the attraction to the internet is its capacities to deliver “our” ideas or projects to the world. The more you present your idea to others; circulate and distribute – with your name as author/creator attached, the more likely people are to recognize/associate you with that particular idea or creative production. Thus the internet is a hugely efficient medium for achieveing this, capable of reaching a large number of people in a relatively short amount of time. This is illustrated by the following and publicity the PostSecret project has gained, it was obvious to many that NBC was ripping off them off, because many already knew about the project and recognise the recycling of its central idea.

However, on the other hand (ambivalence sets in…) I must acknowledge that which some find threatening, with an increased number of people who know about your idea or have come into contact with your project, there is an increased likelihood that some of those people will be so fond of your idea or project they will either claim it as their own or recreate something astoundingly similar.

I think that currently, from the sample of online creative projects & blogs I have been looking at, the circulation ideas and creative production online is more focused upon sharing and forming communities (and hopefully it will remain this way), rather than worrying anxiously whether someone is out to steal your ideas (I have not noticed many blogs that are actually copyrighted for example). I am not suggesting that this should not be a concern, but I do not think, therefore you should make your idea/project especially “marketable” (if you do in fact just intend to simply share a thought). For instance, those who participate in PostSecret project by contributing a postcard are not recognized individually (putting aside the fact that individuals would not want to be associated with the secrets they send and anonymity is crucial component of the project), they participate in order to contribute to and re-generate the art project, rather than protecting their individual intellectual property rights to the particular postcard they created.

The efficacy of putting energies into the actual project itself, and working to get your name attached to it, by distributing and circulating it (the internet offering this potentiality) is telling - especially as so many recognised the striking similarity between NBC's new show and PostSecret. I am not suggesting that intellectual property rights should not concern those who publish their ideas and work online, however I do not think it should be a reason not to publish, circulate or distribute ideas or work at all – the threat of someone potentially ripping you off should not overcome the sharing impetus to publish ideas or projects in the first instance. As Samuels points out, “ideas are “public” and once a good idea is exposed…” (361), and this suggests the only guarantee for the protection of your creative idea is to expose and publish, distribute and circulate the idea as that which is yours as widely as possible (Samuels 361).




~ Works Cited ~

Samuels, Lisa. 'Relinquish Intellectual Property'. New Literary History. Vol.33, 2002, 357-374.