I am planning my research proposal on the positive multimedia authorship interactions on Polyvore, the fashion website few people have heard about that I bookmarked and outlined for class. For those of you who hadn't heard me talk about it, this website collects images from fashion magazines, artwork, photos, and catalogs, and links them all to its website, including prices and source. Users then browse the images and combine them into ‘sets,’ which other people can view and rate. I've never submitted one, but I've created several, and it's addicting. Sometimes the pieces are so good a magazine will choose to use the set as a feature, in certain cases giving money to the creator of the set and lots of publicity for the company or companies with the items in the set. Most of the less costly pieces end up selling out, and the creator at the very least becomes the featured person on the website's homepage. I would like to use it as a model for mutually beneficial multimedia authorship procedures. I really think the website is a win-win for all parties involved: the business contributes the clothes and the images which people see through this website and purchase, the users take those images and collaborate them into a collage of art, which they receive credit and acclaim from peers and sometimes from magazines for, and the website receives the hits as a kind of hub reference for fashion and creativity. I would plan to go into a great amount of detail on that process and then apply it to a real world example of this process not working--illegal music downloading like Napster or Morphius, for example, YouTube, or perhaps Facebook. By comparing what works to what doesn't work, perhaps I could outline possible solutions for creative websites like these. I also want to tie this into law—how to implement a creative website using other original works without violating copyright laws.
The most intriguing thing about this is that I think it provides a yes and no answer to Sandy's question of 'Is it possible to remix something so that it becomes entirely yours?' by answering, 'Well, it's my remix, but the components are someone else's.' It is the best of both worlds.
References:
1. The Cheeseburger Network. I Has A Hotdog: Loldogs N Cute Puppies. http://ihasahotdog.com/. 09/10/2009.
2. Olandoff, Drew. “That’s Not What I Ordered…” Blame Drew’s Cancer! Proudly Partnered With Livestrong ©. http://blamedrewscancer.com/. 09/10/2009.
3.100 Word Stories…Keep It Brief. http://podcasting.isfullofcrap.com/. 09/10/2009.
4. FOX Forums. House Fan Fics (PG13 or Under). http://forums.fox.com/foxhouse/messages.
Hey, Sarabeth!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the site when you talked about it in class--I'd not heard of it before, but I've seen sets like that in magazines like People and 17. Does the site have specific guidelines for what you can/are allowed to use, or is it one where you can use anything you've seen on the web? Once a magazine wants to use a set, do they ask the site's permission, or do they go straight to the author?
I remember you talking about this webpage in class and it looked like the concept was really interesting in terms of collaborative multimedia that includes not only people but businesses as well. If you are going to connect this idea to law, make sure you check out the site's terms of use or policies. Good luck (we just ran out of time, haha)!
ReplyDeleteI feel like your topic fleshes out the idea of using ideas to create new unique works, and at the same time recognizing the influences on that new piece. It definitely adds a whole new cooperative level to sharing ideas, building on those ideas, and creating new ones. Typically one party creates and benefits directly from that idea, while another party has to completely reinvent the idea before any sort of gain can be made. --I definitely like this look at cooperative and joint benefits in sharing ideas.
ReplyDeleteNice post, i appreciate your efforts which you have done to share information with others.
ReplyDeleteDissertation Proposal