Alejandro@Oxford

Following from my previous post, I'd like to continue discussing about the value of shared content. Simplifying, I divide sharing in two: original and remix . The first is when we share content without changes, and the second when we change it adding new elements. In the first, the value for the author lies on the attribution, that is, if the shared content is properly attributed, the recipients will recognize the producer and if they like the content they will probably search for more from the same author, for example, by going to his website. Yet even when it is not attributed, value can still emerge, for if the "consumer" (or user) likes something she will be interested in looking for its author/s, it is what we can call a search for the origins or the genealogical effect of sharing. Something similar happens when we share remixed content. It might happen even more intensively in this case, for the appeal of the origins is more intriguing, therefore, more entertaining. Let me illustrate this with three examples: Canaletto's Rialto Bridge, the Colbert Report and Shepard Fairey's Obama Hope poster. Let's start from last to first, Fairey's Obama Hope poster. A couple of weeks ago, AP alleged that "Shep" had infringed the copyright of the original photo used in his poster. Shep, in turn, fought back suing AP, with the help of the Fair Use Project at Stanford and Lawrence Lessig, to defend himself about their accusations arguing that the use of this picture is protected by the Fair Use Doctrine . Meanwhile, the photographer who actually took the picture, Mannie Garcia, said that he does not want to fight over the use of the image. If my argument is true AP has managed very badly this issue. For if instead of trying to get some pennies directly from Shepard they would have used from the beginning the fact that he is using one of their pictures to attract people to their websites, other products, or whatever manner other people can think, they would have then benefited in many better ways from this remix. People see Shepard's picture and ask to themselves if it is drawing or a real image, with the appropriate tagging, labelling and promotion this enhances the value of the original image for it grows beyond itself to contagiate other symbols and people's imagination. Mannie Garcia is probably already benefitting from it. What about Colbert Report? On January 8, Lawrence Lessig went to the Colbert Report to talk about this new book Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (which I still have to read!). During the interview, Colbert dared the audience to NOT remix his words and image "I repeat, DO NOT remix this." Obviously, he was calling for just the opposite. In a matter of hours (perhaps minutes) he was remixed and remixed again. Videos remixing Colbert's words on YouTube count tens of thousands of viewers. The following week Colbert call to "NOT remix his audiobook, particularly the most interesting parts." If there is someone who has understood the value of remixing is Stephen Colbert. His show gets now to audiences that would have probably never thought of watching him. The success is immense. Ironically, I cannot offer you the video of the original interview, because it is protected by copyright laws outside the US! Instead, I embed the video of one of the most popular remixes. And the video of his own remix he made the following week. Finally, you may ask what this has to do with a Venetian painting. Canaletto is the great painter of Venice. Among many others he has a beautiful painting of the Rialto Bridge in Venice. Anyone that sees this painting wishes to visit the city and stroll over this bridge. This painting adds great value to the bridge and to the city, it is I think a representation but also a remix of the bridge's image that makes the viewer search for its origins, its genealogy to discover more about something she enjoys. In sum, sharing and remixing adds values to the original image, I believe this can be applied to all kinds of intellectual products, be it text, music or image based. Yet the value added to it by sharing and remixing is not static, it is dynamic. With this I mean that it changes with time according to the actions of the original author. Because this value is based on a genealogical effect, the user must find something he enjoys when goes in search of the origins. If AP stops offering relevant news, Mannie Garcia does not take any more good pictures, Stephen Colbert stops being funny and Venice becomes a dirty and smelly city, the value of the origins of sharing and remixing will quickly disappear.