02 May 2005
Creat!ve Content
Over the past decade the distinction between game producer and game player has blurred. Fans who actively play games regularly often find they are wanting to contribute to the content of the game. These creative urges result in new characters, new objects or new environments emerging into the game. This freedom of expression gives players a chance to taylor their indiviual identity into the game. Players receive a greater sence of presence which keeps players coming back to their personalised space. Players are therefor becomming producers. Sometimes the fans provide even more accurate information about the game than the game companies know. John Banks' articles on the Trainz - Auran experience exemplify this (Banks J. 2002). So if the fans are spending more time creating better game content than the graphic designers, shouldn't they be paid for their creations? Some fans donate their work for free in exchange for notoriety, and others sell their designs for cash. Problems arise when companies are profiting from freely donated fan content. Should the fans collect some of this profit?
A fair and just society would think that $credit should be given to where it is due. I personally believe payments ought to be given to those who have worked on your project, when the project is profitable. How the income is divided up is up to management. It is only hoped that the management is fair and just. Some companies will not allow you sell your own creations, if you have used theirsoftware to make it. Electronic Arts' EULA declares that any machinima created using the Sims characters is owned by them. It is difficult to define who owns what where creative content is concerned. If one were to create a character from blocks using 3D studio Max, then this would be accepted to be user owned. Yet if you were to make your image in the form of Mickey Mouse, then it would be an infringement of copyright. I wonder what would happen if you could create a Mickey Mouse character inside the Sims or in Everquest. Who would own that character then? Yet if Mickey is distorted enough, then suddenly it bypasses all the copyright laws and is considered unique.
The legalities on who owns creative content are set in old fashion laws made for producers of traditional media, like film and TV. With the relationships between producer and consumer changing, new dynamic ways of thinking are required to allow for creative projects to unfold. Legal blocks will only plunder such creative collaborations. Perhaps this is a turning point in the new 3rd generation of the internet. We perhaps need to embrace 1st generation ideals on free access to communal content, democracy and free speech. Ownership is a huge aspect of our capitalistic world. Perhaps it is capitalism that holds us back from collaborating - or interrelating - or sharing our knowledge. Is it that we feel that to give something away is to lose some power? Or lose some profit?I am not sure how easy it will be to change capitalism. The geeks who write open source code for everyone to use are certainly giving it a go. The problem is that the greedy corporations take free code and profit from it. Where is their moral conscience? (See Ian Bertram's Blog)
What we need is a new social order - a new religion - and a new way of sharing everything so that everyone prospers and everything is fair and just. I do not have this answer. But it is what we need. I will just go and sit in a cave for a bit and come back with the answers...
Perhaps society needs to get degenerate further with an increase in the divide between the rich and the poor, until the poor have had a gutful and fight back with a revolution. This revolution might be made over the waves of the internet, rather than with physical force. Much like the activist sites (www.indymedia.org) that make political statements and call for change. Free access to knowledge is manditory for development. Keep everything free. Invest time to create improvements. The old saying - Time is money - says it all.
A fair and just society would think that $credit should be given to where it is due. I personally believe payments ought to be given to those who have worked on your project, when the project is profitable. How the income is divided up is up to management. It is only hoped that the management is fair and just. Some companies will not allow you sell your own creations, if you have used theirsoftware to make it. Electronic Arts' EULA declares that any machinima created using the Sims characters is owned by them. It is difficult to define who owns what where creative content is concerned. If one were to create a character from blocks using 3D studio Max, then this would be accepted to be user owned. Yet if you were to make your image in the form of Mickey Mouse, then it would be an infringement of copyright. I wonder what would happen if you could create a Mickey Mouse character inside the Sims or in Everquest. Who would own that character then? Yet if Mickey is distorted enough, then suddenly it bypasses all the copyright laws and is considered unique.
The legalities on who owns creative content are set in old fashion laws made for producers of traditional media, like film and TV. With the relationships between producer and consumer changing, new dynamic ways of thinking are required to allow for creative projects to unfold. Legal blocks will only plunder such creative collaborations. Perhaps this is a turning point in the new 3rd generation of the internet. We perhaps need to embrace 1st generation ideals on free access to communal content, democracy and free speech. Ownership is a huge aspect of our capitalistic world. Perhaps it is capitalism that holds us back from collaborating - or interrelating - or sharing our knowledge. Is it that we feel that to give something away is to lose some power? Or lose some profit?I am not sure how easy it will be to change capitalism. The geeks who write open source code for everyone to use are certainly giving it a go. The problem is that the greedy corporations take free code and profit from it. Where is their moral conscience? (See Ian Bertram's Blog)
What we need is a new social order - a new religion - and a new way of sharing everything so that everyone prospers and everything is fair and just. I do not have this answer. But it is what we need. I will just go and sit in a cave for a bit and come back with the answers...
Perhaps society needs to get degenerate further with an increase in the divide between the rich and the poor, until the poor have had a gutful and fight back with a revolution. This revolution might be made over the waves of the internet, rather than with physical force. Much like the activist sites (www.indymedia.org) that make political statements and call for change. Free access to knowledge is manditory for development. Keep everything free. Invest time to create improvements. The old saying - Time is money - says it all.
