authorless and ownerless

What does it mean for something to be authorless or ownerless in today's world?

To answer this question, first I'd like to consider this question in a historical context. Ong's theory of primary orality along with Havelock and McLuhan consider the use of narrative in pre-writing cultures. Instead of stories being authored, they are inspired. In the case of the Ancient Greeks, we still talk about a writer's muse even today. A story was ownerless, since it was the culture as a whole that "owned" the story. And the story changed to meet the needs of the community. For example, Ong points to an example from an isolated African tribe whose 5 princes changed to 3 princes over a century or two to reflect the current conditions of the tribe as their geographical territory shrunk over the years.

What it means to be authorless and ownerless in today's world means something altogether different. As opposed to those authors who have chosen to be anonymous over the years or relinquished their ownership through time or intent, I would argue that to designate something as authorless and ownerless requires a great deal more effort. The Software Linux provides us with an excellent example of what it takes to ensure the authorless and ownerless status of something as well as an alternative model of authorship and ownership.

According to the website Linux Online, "Linux is written and distributed under the GNU General Public License which means that its source code is freely-distributed and available to the general public."

The idea behind freeware, which could be applied to other areas as well, is that one copyrights something and then offers EVERYONE the license to copy, alter, and distribute the product. Also inherent in the copyright is that anyone wishing to copyright their modifications can only do so if they also allow the same distributed rights. You can read more about Linux and the specifics of their copyright provisions at the link above,

authorship and ownership

This week in our readings and in the prompt for our blog post, we have been challenged to consider the question of authorship and ownership, specifically in reference copy right laws and cultural property.

McLeod, Gains, and Nesbit all take a look at the intersection of culture, technology, legal and what it means to be author as defined by each sector as well as the way that they interact and interfere with one another. I believe that the hip-hop and rap traditions of sampling music provides an interesting case study of these areas. Culturally, the hip-hop artist enjoys considerable esteem as an author/composer of new songs based in part on older melodic lines. In essence, their practices date back to older traditions of song-making where a bard drew from a common pool of themes, phrases, and melodies to create and recreate.

Advances in technology have enabled artists in this area considerable power in creating new and disseminating their works and, as these technologies become more commonplace, we can encounter a range of authors of varying ability through the Internet and other genres. It is in the dissemination of their work that we really encounter the legal issue. When a new song created from the borrowing from others is shared with a few friends, it is no big deal. However, when that song is released for profit and sold or even handed out for free but seen as a threat to the profit of the original work, then legal action often follows.

Thus, we end up with a definition of authorship that seems to be based on cultural, technological, or legal grounds, but only rarely do we find examples that hold up across all areas. Despite dictionaries, questions of authorship seem more likely to be resolved moment to moment instead of bowing to an external standard.

Personally, I believe that authorship through copyright must somehow be limited in time and space if we hope to maintain fair compensation for the investment of labor into the creation of new cultural symbols. In the absence of fair limitations that recognize fair use, I believe that after a time the court of public opinion rather than the court itself will begin to address these issues.

musings on culture and corporate authorship

This week's readings on Disney and the question of corporate authorship really challenge one to reconsider the idea of authorship and its relationship to larger cultural circles. So,

What is corporate authorship?

The only answer I can come up with is to envision authorship as occurring on a scale. At one end, we have the solitary genius that attempts to resist all popular (perhaps current) influence on his or her work. At the very least, attempts to resist conscious influence of others (i.e. critics, fans, and those pesky cultural intermediaries).

At the other end of this imaginary spectrum, we have corporate authorship and the example, from the readings, of the Disney juggernaut. It is obvious that the Disney corporation authors multiple forms of media with reoccurring certain themes of childhood. This takes care of the authorship, but what makes it corporate authorship?

I'd argue that what makes for corporate authorship is that a corporation, made up of many individuals, operates as a distinct discourse community. These corporate discourse communities share a common language (speak a similar jargon) and share in the history of the corporation. This is not to discount the influence of Walt Disney himself, for it was certainly significant in establishing the corporation culture; but, even as the corporate culture influences the employees, so the employees, as they contribute to the corporate products, influence the culture as well. Furthermore, whereas it may be possible to better distinguish an individual author's output, with corporate authorship it is all but impossible to distinguish the line between internal cultural intermediaries (corporate employees) and the artists and writers."

For a little more perspective, let's take a look back at the issue of film authorship. Although films are assigned an author, generally the director in America, I would argue that on a scale of authorship an individual film is closer to corporate authorship. Those working on a film share a common language and participate in the subculture of film-making. However, each modern film represents only a "temporary" sort of corporation, which lacks a long shared history and a certain amount of stability in its members. In contrast, the studio system of bygone years is probably closest to the corporate authorship ideal.

On a side note, I wonder how much of a modern director's authorship and reoccurring themes is due to their ability to re-hire and work with many of the same individuals over time? For example, the (successful) work of Kevin Smith (director/writer below-right) is marked not only by the reappearance of certain themes (e.g. comic books, weed, relationships), but also by a "relatively" consistent staff of assistants and actors. In contrast, his other work as an actor etc. has only recently (in my uneducated opinion), begun to gain notice outside of his trademark production and roles (silent Bob-left below) .