One famous quote of Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig claims that “[t]here is no art that doesn’t re-use.” In research, this principle is called “standing on the shoulders of giants” and meant to acknowledge that even the most original article largely builds upon previous achievements by numerous predecessors; a fact evidenced by an ever growing number of citations in current journal articles.
But what holds for the most pedantic researcher, namely that it is impossible to accurately give credit to all intellectual influences leading to an article, is even more true for novelists and musicians. In case of the former this regularly leads to heated debates about whether “borrowing” ideas or even passages from other books is mere plagiarism or some form of “intertextuality“. In Europe, for example, the Independent recapitulates at length the recent discussion whether the debut novel by German writer Helene Hegemann was plagiarism or “intertextual mixing“; in the second edition of her novel “Axolotl Roadkill”, Hegemann responded to critics by listing all her sources in an appendix.
Could it be that giving credit becomes more important when obviously building upon others’ works becomes both more common and more explicit? Developed particularly to allow mash-ups and remixing, all the different Creative Commons licenses, for instance, include the “attribution”-clause, which requires to give credit. In the realm of music, hip hop is probably best known for re-using – “sampling” – portions of existing sound recordings in creating new works. And again, giving credit is an essential part of hip hop culture, as was demonstrated by Eminem in his 2003 Grammy Award speech:
“I made me a little list of MCs that I wanted to name off that inspired me to, to bring me where I am today – cause honestly, I wouldn’t be here without them. So the list goes like this, and it’s not in this order, but the list is this: Run-DMC, the Beastie Boys, LL Cool J, Kool G. Rap, Masta Ace, Rakim, Big Daddy Kane, Dr. Dre, all of N.W.A., KRS-One, Treach from Naughty by Nature, Nas, 2Pac, Biggie, Jay-Z. Thank you, ’cause I learned from all of you. Thank you.”
Let me conclude with a stunning example of an extremely creative and original piece of work that exclusively builds upon existing works. In a way, it is intertextual plagiarism in form of an original remix. In the video below, the comment function of YouTube is used to credit the works it re-uses. Enjoy!
(leonhard)
governancexborders.com 
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 28, 2010 at 12:54
Crosbie Fitch
Lessig’s creation of Creative Commons licenses was infected by the notion of ‘authorial right’, that copyright is the author’s natural right, albeit not necessarily always to be maximised. This gives rise to the assumption that the author has a right to make demands of their audience in exchange for the restoration of their liberty to freely distribute it, hence “You must attribute me as author”.
There is, of course, no such natural right. That the author has been granted a privilege that empowers them (as a one man publishing empire) to demand attribution is a historical accident.
The natural right is to truth and this is possessed by all people as equals, it is not peculiar to the author. All have a natural right against impairment of their apprehension of the truth. A reader has as much right not to be deceived as to the authorship of a book, as a writer has the right for their work not to be misattributed to another.
So, if an author has any right concerning attribution it is against misattribution, and that can extend to implicit misattribution, e.g. through context. An author should also not be denied the right to identify themselves as the author of their work.
As you demonstrate, all works have in their provenance (at least indirectly) all the works the author has ever experienced. That these are not attributed is not a moral misdemeanour. The lie comes when the author claims 100% sole (or divine) inspiration. So no honest author does. An honest author is proud to admit inspiration and influence, and when another author’s work is more directly incorporated they have no qualms to attribute them – and where it is obvious (say wrt Shakespeare) may not attribute them.
A lack of attribution is not necessarily dishonest.
This is why I find Creative Commons’ use of the weapon of copyright to enforce attribution as unprincipled.
At the other extreme, it is primarily thanks to fear of copyright litigation that dissuades authors from making prominent their sources. So, if anything copyright dissuades attribution.
When you publish a work of art, your obligation is not to credit your influences and the authors of all the works you’ve derived yours from, but to avoid deceiving your audience as to the authorship of your work. Credit is a gesture of respect and is diminished through legal compulsion. On the other hand, dishonesty and deceit, or unwillingness to rectify neglectful or unwitting misattribution, should be remediable.
April 28, 2010 at 15:42
leonidobusch
Thank you for your remarks. I agree that a lack of attribution is not necessarily dishonest – but it definitely can be. And while I also agree that “credit is a gesture of respect”, this need not be diminished through legal compulsion. Therefore I do not think Creative Commons’ approach is “unprincipled” – not at all.
In the copyright world we live in, the attribution requirements of CC licenses are negligible compared to the freedoms granted with respect to normal copyright protection.
April 28, 2010 at 16:01
Crosbie Fitch
You do realise that it is the privilege of copyright that was GRANTED (by Queen Anne in 1710).
Licenses restore freedoms suspended by that privilege, they do not grant them. We are born with our liberty. It is not granted to us by authors, though it may be suspended by royal decree or illiberal government to favour commercial interests.
In this way, unlike CC, the GPL is principled in its attempt to restore as many freedoms unethically suspended by the privileges of copyright and patent as possible.
It is tempting to retain just a little bit of copyright’s power to compel respect from one’s audience and those who share or build upon one’s works…
December 1, 2011 at 12:22
(Self-)Plagiarism in Academia and Architecture «
[…] against Mark Antony (1st century BCE) to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code (see also: “Some Reflexions on Originality, Plagiarism, Intertextuality, and Remix“). What is still missing is a list of self-plagiarism controversies. In academia, the most […]