Free Culture: How Big Media Plagiarizes Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity

Digital plagiarism, where individuals copy and use someone else's work from the internet without proper attribution, is multifaceted and sheds light into various ethical, legal, and educational areas of concerns, complexities and universalities.

In the realm of digital arts, the concept of plagiarism transcends the traditional boundaries of unauthorized copying or theft of ideas. Instead, the digital art community often operates on principles of collaboration, remixing, and transformation, where artists build upon each other's work, creating new pieces that may incorporate elements of the original creations. This process is both a form of homage and innovation, reflecting a unique culture where duplication can serve as a foundation for superseding and contributing to the original work.

To a certain degree, institutions of any sort, empowered by any copyright act, demanding to follow any of their plagiarism standards are to a degree demanding from their students to give up on their originality, as needing to submit 'original' articles back to the moloch who adamantly requests to stick by the rule of plagiarism and copyright acts. And in the same way, they are thus silently stealing their way away from their students, or creative creators.

Duplication as a Creative Act: Yess!

• Remix Culture: In digital arts, remix culture is prevalent. Artists frequently take existing works and modify them, creating something new and often unexpected. This act of remixing can be seen as a conversation among artists, where duplication is not merely copying but an essential part of the creative process.
• Collaborative Evolution: Works of digital art often evolve collaboratively, with different artists contributing their unique perspectives and skills. Duplication in this context is a starting point for further development, where the original work's essence is retained even as it transforms.

Attribution and Acknowledgment

• Ethical Considerations: While duplication and transformation are widely accepted in the digital arts, ethical considerations about attribution remain paramount. Acknowledging the original creator's contribution is essential, as it respects their creativity while allowing the new work to stand on its own merits.
• Creative Commons Licensing: Many digital artists use Creative Commons licenses to share their work, explicitly allowing others to use, remix, and build upon it, provided that the original creator is credited. These licenses facilitate the legal and ethical sharing of digital art, promoting a culture of contribution and respect.

The Role of Community Norms

• Community Standards: The digital art community often has its own set of norms and standards regarding duplication and collaboration. What might be considered plagiarism in a traditional sense can be acceptable and even celebrated within these communities, provided that the work adheres to community expectations of attribution and transformation.
• Open Source and Sharing: Similar to open-source software, many digital art projects embrace an open sharing ethos, encouraging others to contribute, modify, and redistribute. This approach challenges conventional notions of ownership and plagiarism, favoring a model where collective creativity leads to richer and more diverse expressions of art.

Legal and Ethical Boundaries

• Balancing Rights and Innovation: Navigating the legal and ethical boundaries of digital art requires a balance between protecting artists' rights and encouraging innovation. While duplication and transformation are integral to digital arts culture, they must be approached with a clear understanding of copyright laws and the rights of the original creators.
• The Gray Areas: The line between inspiration and infringement can be thin in digital arts. Determining when duplication crosses into plagiarism involves considering the originality of the new work, the extent of transformation, and whether the new work detracts from the value or audience of the original.

In summary, digital plagiarism in the arts, especially where media artists contribute to and supersede each other's work through duplication, reflects a complex interplay of creativity, collaboration, and respect for originality. This ecosystem thrives on the principles of remixing and transformation, where the boundaries of copyright and conventional plagiarism are continually navigated and redefined.

Collective Basis of Knowledge and Creativity

The critique against institutions that view the use of collaborative tools, such as AI, as a form of plagiarism, and thus potentially damaging the ethos of collaboration and open innovation, raises important points about the nature of creativity, ownership, and the evolution of ideas in the digital age. This perspective highlights a fundamental tension between traditional notions of individual authorship and the emerging realities of collective creation and knowledge sharing enabled by technology.

Foundation of Collaborative Tools: Collaborative tools and AI technologies are built upon the collective knowledge of humanity. These technologies synthesize vast amounts of information, ideas, and patterns of thought contributed by countless individuals over time. They embody the principle that knowledge and creativity are cumulative and evolve through shared efforts.

Contrast with Institutional Policies: Some educational and creative institutions maintain strict policies against the use of AI and similar collaborative tools, labeling their use as plagiarism. This stance reflects a traditional view of originality, emphasizing the sole authorship and discrete ownership of ideas. However, this view can be at odds with the inherently collaborative and derivative nature of creativity, where ideas build upon one another over time.

Impact on the Concept of Originality

The emergence of collaborative tools challenges conventional definitions of originality. In a world where AI can synthesize new creations from existing works, the line between original and derivative work becomes blurred. By penalizing the use of these tools, institutions may inadvertently uphold a narrow view of originality that neglects the inherently collaborative nature of creative processes.

Ownership of Ideas: The resistance to collaborative tools and the labeling of their outputs as plagiarism could be seen as an attempt to maintain control over the rights to originality and creativity. This stance not only overlooks the collective origins of these technologies but also restricts the flow of ideas, potentially stifling innovation and the dynamic evolution of knowledge.

The Role of Acknowledgment and Attribution

Central to the debate is the need for appropriate acknowledgment and attribution when using collaborative tools. The ethical use of AI in creative and academic contexts involves transparently citing the role of these tools in the creative process, thereby respecting the collective contributions while also recognizing the individual's role in directing and shaping the output.

Encouraging a Culture of Sharing: By embracing collaborative tools within an ethical framework that values attribution and contribution, institutions can foster a culture of open sharing and collaboration. This approach not only aligns with the origins of these technologies but also promotes a more inclusive understanding of creativity that values collective input and innovation.

The tension between traditional views of plagiarism and the use of collaborative tools like AI highlights a broader cultural shift in our understanding of creativity, ownership, and the collective basis of knowledge. Institutions that resist this shift risk undermining the very principles of collaboration and open innovation that have driven human progress. By reevaluating policies and attitudes towards these tools, we can embrace a more nuanced view of originality—one that recognizes the intertwined roles of individual creativity and collective contribution in the digital age.

Creative Commons (CC): Flexible Copyright Licenses

Creative Commons (CC) represents a nuanced approach to copyright and content sharing that directly addresses the concerns and opportunities highlighted in the discussion about the collaborative nature of creativity and the use of tools like AI. It is an embodiment of the balance between individual rights and the collective good, offering a flexible framework for the use and sharing of creative works.

Creative Commons provides a range of licenses that allow creators to specify the conditions under which their work can be used by others. These licenses range from the most permissive (allowing any type of use with proper attribution) to more restrictive (allowing no commercial use or derivative works), giving creators control over how their work is shared and adapted.

By offering a structured way to grant permission for the use and modification of works, CC licenses encourage the sharing and collaborative improvement of creative outputs. This framework supports the ethos of building upon existing knowledge and creativity, which is at the heart of the collective, from which collaborative tools and AI have emerged.

In a Creative Commons context, originality is not solely about creating something entirely new from scratch but also about how existing works can be transformed, remixed, or built upon in innovative ways. This perspective acknowledges that all creative work stands on the shoulders of what came before, aligning with the notion that creativity is a collective endeavor.

Central to all Creative Commons licenses is the requirement of attribution, ensuring that original creators are acknowledged, which addresses ethical concerns about the use of collaborative tools and AI in creative processes. This requirement fosters a culture of respect and recognition for the contributions of others.

Creative Commons and the Ownership of Ideas

By making it easier for creators to share their work and for others to build upon it, Creative Commons licenses challenge traditional notions of the ownership of ideas. They facilitate a more democratic approach to creativity, where access to cultural and educational resources is broadened, and the barriers to innovation are lowered.

The philosophy behind Creative Commons aligns with the view that ideas and creativity emerge from the collective. It implicitly rejects the notion that institutions or individuals can claim exclusive ownership over the "originality" in a way that bars others from contributing to or benefiting from the cultural commons.

Creative Commons is a direct response to the evolving landscape of creativity, collaboration, and sharing in the digital age. It offers a legal and ethical framework that respects individual rights while promoting the collective growth of knowledge and culture. In the context of discussions about collaborative tools, AI, and the nature of originality and plagiarism, Creative Commons serves as a pivotal model for how we might navigate the complexities of creativity and innovation in a way that honors both the individual’s contributions and the underlying collective ethos from which they spring.

The Paradox of Demanding Originality

• Expectation of Originality: Institutions, be they educational or otherwise, often require submissions (such as articles, papers, artworks, etc.) to be original. This requirement is in place to encourage independent thought, creativity, and the generation of new knowledge or artistic expressions.
• Conformity to Standards: At the same time, these institutions enforce strict guidelines to prevent plagiarism, grounded in copyright laws and academic integrity policies. These guidelines mandate that submitted work must not only be original but also clearly delineate and reference the ideas and works of others upon which they might build.

The Conflict with Originality

• Restrictions on Creativity: The critique posits that the strict enforcement of these guidelines can inadvertently stifle creativity. The necessity to navigate and adhere to the complex web of copyright rules and plagiarism standards can place constraints on how freely students or creators can explore and express their ideas, potentially leading them to self-censor or avoid certain avenues of creativity.
• The Irony of Originality Demand: There's an irony in demanding originality within a framework that, by its nature, limits the ways in which one can engage with and build upon existing knowledge and creative works. Originality often involves reinterpreting, remixing, or building upon the ideas that came before, a process that can be hampered by overly rigid interpretations of plagiarism and copyright.

The Notion of "Stealing" Away Originality

• Impact on Creators: By enforcing these standards, institutions could be seen as "stealing" the opportunity for true originality from their students or creators. This perspective views the strict adherence to plagiarism and copyright rules as a form of taking away the creative freedom to explore and innovate without fear of inadvertently crossing an invisible line.
• Silent Implication: The statement suggests that this process happens subtly or "silently," with the implications of these standards not being fully acknowledged or discussed. It raises questions about the balance between protecting intellectual property and encouraging the free flow of ideas and creativity.

Reflection

This perspective invites a reflection on how we can foster an environment that truly promotes originality and creativity while maintaining ethical standards and respecting intellectual property. It challenges institutions to consider whether their policies and practices might inadvertently hinder the very innovation they seek to encourage and how they might better support a culture of open, fearless exploration and expression within the boundaries of integrity and respect for others' work.

In summary, the critique calls for a nuanced approach to plagiarism and copyright standards—one that recognizes the importance of fostering originality and creativity as much as it emphasizes the importance of respecting existing works and the rights of their creators.