Freenet Discussion

Hello All!

Just got a very interesting comment on The Freenet Philosophy from SuperForester Chucka Stone Designs:

Chucka Stone Designs said...

"I am an artist. I fiercely protect the work I do as my own because it is how I make my living. Without that "stamp" how would anyone know that I am an artist? Furthermore, without that "stamp" how would anyone know I am the artist who created the "work they enjoy"? I, as a person am not for sale even though my work is."

I totally agree. Here is my response:

Jackson said...

A very good point.

As technology progresses, we will be constantly re-evaluating older ways of doing things. The internet has for the first time in history provided us with a means for the transmission of ideas/media from person to person, with little or no accountability to the original creators of the ideas/media.
So in this brave new world, how can we ensure that our artists are compensated for their creations?
As the internet has shown, there simply is no way to ensure this...

This is why we at SuperForest try to approach the idea of "environmentalism" from a moral stance, i.e. is is impolite to use/copy an artists work without offering some form of recompense.

If I may ask, what is your art form? How are you compensated for it now? What would you do if you found out that someone was copying your work and selling it?
Would your response be different if the pirateer were another individual artist, or a large company?

This is a fascinating discussion and I would love to know more.

Thank you for taking the time to comment!

-Jackson"


This is a very sticky area. On one hand, we as informed citizens must be able to express our viewpoints and exercise our right to copy/parody existing works, but we must also be able to personally reward those artists whose work we see as valuable.

In other words, we need total anonymity mixed with personal accountability. Not easy bedfellows.

For instance, what if I decided to draw a comic book that featured Mickey Mouse as the main character? According to the Bill of Rights, I should be allowed to do this.
So, I draw my comic, and have Mickey saying and doing things that perhaps are distasteful to Mickey's parent company. Should I be allowed to sell this work?

I think I should be.

Should Disney be compensated by my use of their mouse?
I think they should be. I don't think they have to be, but I think it would be morally correct to offer them a slice of my "Renegade Mickey" comic book pie.

Okay, so I've made a work of art based on another work of art and am now in the process of offering a piece of the profits to the original owner.
Some vengeful soul decides that the piece I'm offering is not enough!

They hack my account, and change the percentage I was offering to Disney from, say, ten percent, to one hundred percent.

Now ALL profits from "Renegade Mickey" are going directly to Disney, and I, the artist of the property am seeing none of it.

Is this right?

Some would say: "Absolutely, you stole from them and are simply getting what you deserve."
Others would say: "No way, no ideas form in a vacuum, and everything is based on an earlier, less-refined incarnation. You should be allowed to profit from your work."

Sticky, sticky, sticky.

What, morally, is the difference between putting Michelangelo's Pieta on a t-shirt and putting Renegade Mickey on a t-shirt? Both original artists are long dead.
And what morally is the difference between just making one shirt and wearing it around town, and making 100,000 shirts and selling them online?

Is there a difference?

And what if I personally did not make any money from the sale of the Renegade Mickey t-shirts? Perhaps I simply routed all proceeds to a woman's shelter, or homeless youth outreach, or Club Penguin (which is owned by Disney.)

Where exactly is the line here?

Either ideas/media is free to use once exposed to the zeitgeist, or it isn't.
Either one is legally obliged to compensate an artist whose work you are copying, or one isn't.

Should we be legally required to compensate for the use of ideas/media? If so, who should be doing the overseeing? And how does the overseeing take place? Who has the right to oversee everything you or I create?

Remember: You cannot copyright an idea. You can only copyright the form that that idea takes.

So Disney can copyright Mickey Mouse, but if I draw Mickey Mouse, then that Mickey is mine.
And If I draw Mickey doing things that Disney feels is unsavory, then tough, it is my First Amendment right to do so.

Here's a copy of the 1st Amendment: (which I copied from usconstitution.net)

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There you have it.

If I want to draw Mickey Mouse getting drunk and swearing, I can do it. If I want to sell copies of that image, I can do it. If Disney has a problem with it, it's well within their rights to express dismay, or outrage, but they cannot legally stop me from expressing myself, or from profiting from that expression.

So, to Chucka Stone Designs, if someone wants to copy your art and profit from that, they are expressly allowed to by our beloved constitution. They might be jerks for doing it, but you are then within your right to point out to the entire world (via the internet) what jerks they are, how your original art is superior to their knock-offs, and to use the friction of experience to create further media.

Democracy demands that we are able to freely parody and criticize. And since the line between parody and complete copying is such a grey one, we must allow that all copying is a form of parody.

This is the difference between the movie Tron, and the sweded version of the movie Tron.

Here's the original lightcycle scene:


And the sweded version:


Interesting, no? One is a shot for shot copy of the other, and yet their difference is unmistakable and undeniable.

I must be able to draw Renegade Mickey without fear of reprisal from Disney or fear of someone assuming my identity and using it to wreak havok.

We as citizen caretakers of Democracy must be able to express ourselves without fear of reprisal, whatever form that expression takes.

That is the very essence of Democracy. To decry it is to object to all that makes America the incredible place it is.

What are your thoughts on this?

Love to all,

Team SuperForest



Special thanks to Chucka Stone Designs for prompting this discussion, to Walt Disney and his collaborators for creating such compelling and timeless works of art, and to the creators of the U.S. Constitution, which is a masterpiece.

This discussion was prompted by the release of Freenet 0.7, an application that allows the user total web anonymity, and by Air Pirate Funnies, a 1971 comic book that featured among other things, Mickey and Minnie Mouse consummating their relationship while in prison and dabbling in illegal drug use.