"Authorless" Authorship and a Suggested Model for the Digital Age

We've talked a lot about the producer/consumer continuum in this class, and all the people in between the two extreme points of that line. Are there some things that shouldn't have an author?

I guess that depends on how you are defining "author." I still maintain that if the basic alphabet of the created work is wholly comprised of and dependent upon the copyrightable, trademarked work of others, I should at least expect a sharing of authorship.

In my work experience, the companies I've worked for have deemed my graphics work as not really my authorship, and I've been fine with that. For me to create graphics for electrical distribution, paper production or on-the-job safety, I needed the input of others' work and had to comply with the requests of the producer and the script, which in turn relied upon standard practices in the field as well as requests from clients that certain content be included.

I don't have any problem that my name didn't feature somewhere in the videos, web products, CD-Roms or DVDs my work appeared in, as the entire existence of these products was for training purposes, with pragmatic goals, specific procedures to follow and cited outcomes for the learners. Granted, now and again the companies I worked for might have hired a director who added a great deal of originality or distinctness to the vision of the script, but again, the directors were "work for hire," and this "distinctness" or originality wasn't a necessary ingredient to the product so much as the procedures and information the products were sold to convey.

Toys and generally household appliances don't seem to have authors with household names, although James Dyson and Dave Oreck might be attempting to change this climate. I'm not sure what makes vaccuum cleaners rising over the rest of the world of appliances, but perhaps this is the beginning of things to come.

And speaking of changing climates, since much of my studies revolve around the music industry, there is much that has changed in the ideas around authorship and ownership within the music industry since the introduction of digital files. A new model is definitely needed as consumers no longer feel a responsibility to pay for the recorded music they listen to. I think the best model that was suggested has been by Bob Lefsetz, a former entertainment lawyer who has worked for years in the old model of the industry. He maintains in his blog "The Lefsetz Letter" (and for the most part I agree) that if the music is strong enough to attract an audience, the musician now needs to get closer to his/her audience-- through concerts, a web presence and direct contact (e-newsletters, blogs, personal videos, etc.)-- in order to communicate to their audience.

If musicians wish to maintain some sort of control or pass on intentionality to their listeners, this is more possible with a closer relationship. They need to stay in the industry for the long haul (this is to help maintain and develop their audience) and offer the sale of bodies of their work at concerts. Otherwise, the song will become a disembodied, decontextualized file that floats on its own or is shared from listener to listener and no connection is established. Of course, is it a disaster if the song be removed from its author or cohesive body of work? That's not for me to decide. Maybe it isn't...

I'm just speaking to those artists who might want to keep some of the control, intentionality and connection that was possible with the pre-digital model of musical authorship and distribution. If that's important to you, then you can no longer hide behind your distributor and expect the same compensation, because your distributor now may be 100's or 1000's of young people copying and sharing your work with their friends.

I'm wondering where record labels or distribution houses will be in a few years, as musicians can create recording studios with desktop software on their laptops with ever-increasing quality. Lefsetz suggests that gone are the days when stadiums are filled with a new act (I don't think he's looking at Hannah Montana as a serious musician but rather a corporate commodity or theatrical production), but he maintains those artists who can stay in the game and keep their audiences engaged across years stand the greatest chance of expanding their audiences and keeping them loyal.

My guess is that in a few short years, those who have been to a Hannah Montana concert may only sheepishly admit that they did so.