It is my opinion that the idea of an author as a single individual wholly responsible for the work he or she creates and deserving of total control over the representation, presentation and proceeds of their work, is a modern concept. When the value of authorship was measured in social renown, there was no need for copyright laws, indeed many well known artists had studios full of underlings to actually paint their paintings. Also, prior to the worldwide dissemination of ideas available since the internet has taken off, it was easier for authors to get recognition for their work and harder for others to steal. Now, anything that is put on the web can be copied by just about anyone else and presented without credit or even with false representation.
I understand that people don't want to have their hard work stolen and profits for their efforts going into different hands. However, I agree with the earlier ideas that authorship should be valued by social renown. The profit for being a successful author should be in their popularity and public opinion. With value allocated in this way it is possible for all people to be authors and for all works to be shared, recreated and remixed. I feel that authorship is not something to be set beyond the scope of the average person. The feeling that I am capable of great creativity and thought equal to that of published and printed authors makes me more confident in my abilities and willing to work hard. On the other hand, I feel that when authorship is set beyond the average man's scope it represses the creativity and abilities of average people simply because they feel that such things are beyond them. On the whole, I feel that people are more successful when the majority of the population feel empowered and capable, than if they feel separated from creative values.
No comments:
Post a Comment