Pixelopia

|

Here we are again, not visible even to Google yet, but running around shamelessly without a trademark.

If this image below proliferated to 30 million actual viewings and became "common", what most likely would still be missing  is attribution to the initial source. But even with such attribution, most of the 30 million viewers would still not know whether the "initial source" was the distributor, the producer, or the developer. And for most of them, the feeling would be "who cares!"

This pits the property-based idea of a value chain against the knowledge-based idea. In the knowledge-based arena, a network that engenders commonality of awareness brings a "Darwinian" brutality to the assessment of what something is worth, beyond the control of property-owners.

artdotdotdotcom logo 2008 B.jpgThis image (the artdotdotdotcom logo picture), which is close to being a "commercial", is a case of something currently rare (the logo) representing something not known to be special (this website). Through some conventional treatments, the same picture could be marked with something extra that would then mean "this picture officially represents something intended to be special".

At that point, some question would arise as to whether the mark-enhanced picture would itself be more valuable too, because it has a job if not also perhaps an owner.

Some people answer yes; but these marked things tend to come with restrictions. And ironically, just when the picture's exposure and distribution has become most useful through the mass reckoning and propagation, one is usually required to have permission to display the picture. Permission is imposed in order to prevent "mis-use" of the representation -- although it really isn't representative unless the viewers decide to agree that it is -- by not using some other image in its place -- which amounts to granting the picture an artificial "respect".

Without commercial law, web-based networking, or netcasting, typically promotes the notion that anyone is allowed to show something, and that anyone is allowed to see something. But then, property law puts something in between the originally unfettered show-ers and see-ers .

When a picture is provided that has a primary purpose of representing limited conditional access, it is militant if not ironic that this same picture then rides the very network that it wants to constrain. The picture really means that there should be a privileged relationship between a provider and a receiver; and meanwhile, the picture doing the representing is not even offering itself as the desirable deliverable, but instead merely a sign. I think it would be inevitable that eventually network audiences would decide that they don't like some official logo, and decide as a crowd to replace it with one of their own choosing -- just like we have already chosen to call Canon or Minolta photcopiers "xerox" machines just because we prefer to.

Naturally, this makes me want to take that unmarked picture and use it mainly just to represent itself before someone else gets their hands on it. The project, then, would be to legally and graphically trademark the picture, and then distribute the marked picture as widely as possible with intent to represent the immediate availability of the same picture without the trademark (in other words, the way you already have it here on your copy of the webpage).

And, I further thought, "then, charge people a fee to, in effect, remove the trademark" by taking paid orders for non-trademarked copies. To shore that up, the unmarked picture would of course have to be removed from the page you're reading now.

But on final thought, let's forget the whole thing.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by published on June 13, 2008 2:27 AM.

The aesthetics of labor was the previous entry in this blog.

Imagining Images is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.01