Revised Polyvore Research Proposal

I am planning my research proposal on the positive aspects of 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.
Would defining exactly what a user will get out of this help ensure that no one is unhappy with the end result? I think if it were obvious where these definitions were there wouldn't be these authorship discrepancies. I also think websites should be held accountable for not having this information user friendly and readily accessible at all times.
How does this work with copyright law? If a multimedia source credits all original authors, does that somehow work its way around copyright law?
Is there a disclaimer section in the website and what are the laws or rules governing the appearance of the disclaimer or lack thereof?
Is there some way of doing this with music downloading and crediting original authors for good PR, as Polyvore does?
How did Polyvore get the rights to the images and links to the clothing on the retailer websites?
Can people claim as much of the art produced as their own in the artwork section as they do in the interior design/clothing section?
Do retailers have to pay to be featured on this website? Is this a subtle form of advertising to be featured as opposed to the blatant, put an ad on the website method?
Is this the evolving face of advertising or integrated marketing communications?
I would like to define exactly where authorship begins and ends in users submitting their own pieces. It seems that they still own their work to some degree after publishing it to the website, but the website can feature it and have other contributors make as many spin-offs as they want. Still the original receives credit in number of vies and favorites and sometimes contest winning features. So what do contributors agree to when they hit 'submit'? that the website can feature, emphasize, and publicize the work as little or as much as they want, but when it gets huge recognition, the creator still receives the money and recognition? Where is the line drawn? What makes this concept different from music downloading--could a deal like this be struck in other areas of more controversial multimedia authorship? for example, some people don't intend for their multimedia works to become famous or to receive so much recognition. could a deal like this apply to them? I would like to examine the applicability of this website to other situations and try to explain why it would work or what the other problematic situations need to change in order for this kind of mutual recognition to work.
If it cannot work, I would like to be able to explain why, as well.
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.