4 ms·
I know this is overly idealistic, but it seems to me that paying for "credit" (especially in terms of research) seems "wrong". I understand paying for ownership
by bashedly 11y ago
I know this is overly idealistic, but it seems to me that paying for "credit" (especially in terms of research) seems "wrong". I understand paying for ownership of the results of someone's work, or paying to state that the broader organization takes credit for the body of work produced by the employees. But for one individual to pay to personally receive credit for the output of another seems blatantly dishonest.
- prahladyeri 11y agoCopyright law deals with the situation you've mentioned in different ways in different countries. For instance, it is just illegal in Europe to transfer the credit of one's labor (or copyright). In the Americas, however, companies blatantly mention in the `TOCs` that they own rights over employee's all work. Of course, the extent to which the law is actually applied in Europe depends on the conditions of employment and whether the employees have the time and resources to wage a legal war against their employers.
- abandonliberty 11y agoThat's a very individualistic perspective. An opposite collectivist idealism can argue that all personal achievements rely on the support provided by companies, universities, societies, and countries (e.g. peace & safety). Ultimately, how much did the individual contribute? There's a middle ground where we need to encourage individual efforts, but I feel like our society is biased to not recognizing the efforts of the whole.