Attribution

[Cramulus]

again, it depends on the media. There are times when attribution is extraneous.

Off the top of my head --
The one line meme bomb database, & the document "101 ways to make everybody's day weirder"
would look awfully cluttered if you attributed each one liner to someone.

Or this guy from the PD -- I personally like this page better without the "This illustration was borrowed from a zig-zag wrapper" attribution.

[Cramulus]

I'm also thinking of Jay Z's album liner notes

which may attribute the blues guitarist he sampled

but they don't attribute that the blues guitarist stole that riff from some other jazz musician,

who in turn stole that riff from Son House

or that Son House got it from old cottonpicking songs

[Cain]

True.  But, and let's be honest, has anyone on the site demanded their memebombs be attributed to them?  AFAIK the only thing people have applied this to is essays and creative writing, and since the OP is talking about attribution on this site, it seems fair to talk about it in those precise terms, instead of nebulous possible objections.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

again, it depends on the media. There are times when attribution is extraneous.

Off the top of my head --
The one line meme bomb database, & the document "101 ways to make everybody's day weirder"
would look awfully cluttered if you attributed each one liner to someone.

Or this guy from the PD -- I personally like this page better without the "This illustration was borrowed from a zig-zag wrapper" attribution.

Yeah, I agree - as I have already stated - that memebombs and the like are pretty trivial.

Rants are a different matter.  In fact, if I crosspost a psycho letter, I only use my own portions of it, unless I get permission from the other contributor(s), in which case I call them off as co-authors.  

[Freeky]

I don't fully understand the sweating of blood and intense feeling of acknowledged ownership over a created work, but that may be linked to the fact that I'm not creating anything of value.

That right there is the exact phrase that's needed to help you understand. It's the creating, see, that makes it someone's own, makes it theirs. Of course if someone else wants to use it, the original creator would want a say in where it was used, and how, and whether or not it gets changed in any way. A message can get seriously twisted and used against your purpose, if someone took it and changed a few words and plastered it all over the net, or could use it in a slanderous way, and so on.

[Captain Utopia]

Considered it, and don't care, for a couple of reasons.

1.  I don't want my work "derived" ("improved") by anyone who doesn't consider attribution a fair and easy (hell, it's FREE) solution, so that won't be an issue, and

Fair enough.

2.  How would I get "credit" for it, if it's "derived" without attribution?

By creating a hilarious shitstorm if attribution/acknowledgement is refused upon request. Because people seem to have this trigger with regards fairness which makes artistic plagiarism a guaranteed "hot story", which in turn leads to greater publicity.

Think of this as a suggestion in relation to recent changes I perceive in the media landscape, that's all. I'm certainly not trying to tell you or anyone else what they should or should not be doing with their works.

ITT at least.

[Richter]

Opions seem to differ.  Peronally I cite / give props for ideas not my own.  I mention they're not my own if I can't recall.  Simply, if it's not my original thinking, it's a lousy move to act like it was.  Some ideas I will come upon when someone else may have first.  I will amend as necessary when I see proof.  (some ideas or turns of phrase occur at multiple sources and all.)  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Considered it, and don't care, for a couple of reasons.

1.  I don't want my work "derived" ("improved") by anyone who doesn't consider attribution a fair and easy (hell, it's FREE) solution, so that won't be an issue, and

Fair enough.

2.  How would I get "credit" for it, if it's "derived" without attribution?

By creating a hilarious shitstorm if attribution/acknowledgement is refused upon request. Because people seem to have this trigger with regards fairness which makes artistic plagiarism a guaranteed "hot story", which in turn leads to greater publicity.

Think of this as a suggestion in relation to recent changes I perceive in the media landscape, that's all. I'm certainly not trying to tell you or anyone else what they should or should not be doing with their works.

ITT at least.

Sooooo...the idea is that I LET my content get stolen, so someone can presumably bust out the guy who stole it, which will mean it will get loads of attention?

Fuck that.  If I need gimmicks, then I'm not writing anything worth reading.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think it depends entirely on the main objective of the author.

I see no reason not to attribute. I don't have a problem with people that require it. I think FP made a couple correct points.

If the author considers the specific words and phrases to be a work of art, then attribution and don't fucking-cut-it-up may be in their best interests. If the author wants the maximum dissemination of his ideas then requiring attribution would probably not be as important to them and could slow down the spread of the idea.

Also, he makes a point that the Net is making plagiarism less relevant, simply because it can be easily found... for a fun experiment, take two good lines from a TGRR rant and paste it into Google...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Bfd&q=%22+America+is+secure%2C+the+economy+is+great%2C+and+you+have+tons+of+stuff+to+watch+on+teevee.++And+JFK+and+Lee+Harvey+Oswald+both+died+natural+deaths+in+1963%2C+and+everything+has+been+great+since+then%2C+anyway.++Just+grab+a+beer%2C+turn+on+American+Idol%2C+and...%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think it depends entirely on the main objective of the author.

I see no reason not to attribute. I don't have a problem with people that require it. I think FP made a couple correct points.

If the author considers the specific words and phrases to be a work of art, then attribution and don't fucking-cut-it-up may be in their best interests. If the author wants the maximum dissemination of his ideas then requiring attribution would probably not be as important to them and could slow down the spread of the idea.

Also, he makes a point that the Net is making plagiarism less relevant, simply because it can be easily found... for a fun experiment, take two good lines from a TGRR rant and paste it into Google...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Bfd&q=%22+America+is+secure%2C+the+economy+is+great%2C+and+you+have+tons+of+stuff+to+watch+on+teevee.++And+JFK+and+Lee+Harvey+Oswald+both+died+natural+deaths+in+1963%2C+and+everything+has+been+great+since+then%2C+anyway.++Just+grab+a+beer%2C+turn+on+American+Idol%2C+and...%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

WTF?  Well, that ain't the first time.  I believe I shall have to dash off a short note to young Ms Portia.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Her site seems to be down/archives only.

[Captain Utopia]

Her site seems to be down/archives only.

It seems to be up now. Looks like she attributed it to you, and provided a link back to the BIP. She hot-linked the image too which would be more foolish had she any actual readership.

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

FAIR USE:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fair+use

[Captain Utopia]

FAIR USE:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fair+use

?

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

Woops, wrong link. Here you go:
http://tinyurl.com/6xecpz