4 ms·

Humor is crowdsourced now. If it’s not upvoted/reposted enough it’s not funny. And like that Key & Peele skit, it doesn’t do you well to insist that you creat

Humor is crowdsourced now. If it’s not upvoted/reposted enough it’s not funny. And like that Key & Peele skit, it doesn’t do you well to insist that you created something if someone else makes it popular https://youtu.be/k1tsGGz-Qw0 https://youtu.be/k1tsGGz-Qw0 (but seriously though, appropriating something without credit is not cool.)

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Politicians don't credit their speech writers and no one seems to care about that -- so appropriating things seems fine in some circumstances? Artists don't, in general, credit the architects of buildings they draw, nor the gardeners or horticulturalists who make other scenes they might paint/draw. Singers don't credit the creators of life stories they write ballads about. [IMO the politician is not there as themselves, they're a corporate body really, they can represent views that honestly they wouldn't hold because their backers -- financial, moral, political, or otherwise - hold those views. The problem with that is they don't identify the corporation they represent, IMO they really should be giving traceable credit for all of their inputs.]
- Razengan 7y ago
  > IMO they really should be giving traceable credit for all of their inputs. This is an argument in favor of an AI-based government.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    How is that?
- oarsinsync 7y ago
  > Politicians don't credit their speech writers and no one seems to care about that -- so appropriating things seems fine in some circumstances? Credit can be in other forms, e.g. monetary payment. I don't get public attribution for work completed for my employer, my bank account does get credited each month though.
- criddell 7y ago
  > Politicians don't credit their speech writers and no one seems to care about that -- so appropriating things seems fine in some circumstances? That's typically a work for hire though. When I load up Photoshop and click on About, I don't see a list of all the developers that wrote the code. I think speech writing is the same thing.
  - panic 7y ago
    Older versions of Photoshop do show such a list in their about menu. For example, here's CS4: https://i.imgur.com/33i24Sk.png https://i.imgur.com/33i24Sk.png
    - criddell 7y ago
      I'm guessing that was a courtesy move on Adobe's part. I can't imagine those people retain any rights to their work on Photoshop.
- GrumpyNl 7y ago
  Most sitcoms use the same story lines, just in different setting.
  - JadeNB 7y ago
    Most stories use the same story lines.
- dahart 7y ago
  > Politicians don't credit their speech writers and no one seems to care about that -- so appropriating things seems fine in some circumstances? Yeah, the circumstance is called explicit permission. Appropriating is the wrong word here, the speech writers agree to this, and may also get paid, as others pointed out. It’s completely different than using someone else’s work without permission. > Artists don’t, in general, credit the architects of buildings Why should this be considered a valid analogy to using someone else’s work? The artists drawing a building aren’t borrowing the building plans to create another building, they’re drawing it and stopping with the drawing. That’s completely different from using someone’s work directly.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

Politicians don't credit their speech writers and no one seems to care about that -- so appropriating things seems fine in some circumstances? Artists don't, in general, credit the architects of buildings they draw, nor the gardeners or horticulturalists who make other scenes they might paint/draw. Singers don't credit the creators of life stories they write ballads about. [IMO the politician is not there as themselves, they're a corporate body really, they can represent views that honestly they wouldn't hold because their backers -- financial, moral, political, or otherwise - hold those views. The problem with that is they don't identify the corporation they represent, IMO they really should be giving traceable credit for all of their inputs.]

Razengan 7y ago
> IMO they really should be giving traceable credit for all of their inputs. This is an argument in favor of an AI-based government.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  How is that?
oarsinsync 7y ago
> Politicians don't credit their speech writers and no one seems to care about that -- so appropriating things seems fine in some circumstances? Credit can be in other forms, e.g. monetary payment. I don't get public attribution for work completed for my employer, my bank account does get credited each month though.
criddell 7y ago
> Politicians don't credit their speech writers and no one seems to care about that -- so appropriating things seems fine in some circumstances? That's typically a work for hire though. When I load up Photoshop and click on About, I don't see a list of all the developers that wrote the code. I think speech writing is the same thing.
- panic 7y ago
  Older versions of Photoshop do show such a list in their about menu. For example, here's CS4: https://i.imgur.com/33i24Sk.png https://i.imgur.com/33i24Sk.png
  - criddell 7y ago
    I'm guessing that was a courtesy move on Adobe's part. I can't imagine those people retain any rights to their work on Photoshop.
GrumpyNl 7y ago
Most sitcoms use the same story lines, just in different setting.
- JadeNB 7y ago
  Most stories use the same story lines.
dahart 7y ago
> Politicians don't credit their speech writers and no one seems to care about that -- so appropriating things seems fine in some circumstances? Yeah, the circumstance is called explicit permission. Appropriating is the wrong word here, the speech writers agree to this, and may also get paid, as others pointed out. It’s completely different than using someone else’s work without permission. > Artists don’t, in general, credit the architects of buildings Why should this be considered a valid analogy to using someone else’s work? The artists drawing a building aren’t borrowing the building plans to create another building, they’re drawing it and stopping with the drawing. That’s completely different from using someone’s work directly.