The real threat to intellectual property are not new modes of distribution, but rather the blatant recycling — or better yet — the blatant regurgitation of preexisting works without regard for their original context. Nuances in duration and expiration in copyright (and it’s reform) don’t mean a thing if culturally we are aren’t equipped to reject false creativity. What’s the point of protecting something if we can’t agree on what’s worth protecting in the first place?
I want to “talk” about this conceptually — from the standpoint of a maker — in hopes of illustrating how lessening copyright restrictions and increasing distribution is ultimately better for cultural output. This would reject locking up icons, symbols and motifs in order to increase the public’s orientation towards original works of merit.
Here, Charles M. Schulz’s Charlie Brown and Matt Groening’s Bart Simpson are married to produce artist and designer Ethan Buller’s new collage. A highly sophisticated and playful illustration that — in the transparency of it’s references — becomes a NEW cultural product that (lucky for me) visualizes my very point. And, in doing so, is also illegal.
I would like to propose Kesha’s Tik Tok as the [legal] counterpoint to my argument that, like many things American, blatantly co-opt other global symbols that are then re-introduced back into pop-culture in order to produce commodity without thanks for the works original intention.