IP for whom?

The Washington Post is running a story today about how commercial companies - including the TV networks - are using photographs without permission -- Hey, Isn't That . . . :

Under the banner of "intellectual property," record labels warn you not to bootleg their songs. Hollywood studios warn you not to download their movies. Intellectual property has lately seemed the concern of corporations trying to protect the artist from the grabby public.

But in an increasingly user-generated world where the public is the artist, sometimes it's the big boys who get grabby. And the questions that arise are about ownership, but they are also about fairness, and changing culture, and ultimately, the search for authenticity.

As the story goes on to say, some of the images are protected under Creative Commons, which allows use if attribution is given, but may or may not prohibit commercial use. (For the record, this blog is covered under Creative Commons - free use with attribution but no commercial use.) But as they point out:

In some ways the more interesting question for this corporate breed of photonapping isn't "Is it legal?" but rather, "Why does it sting so badly?"

The answer of course is that the corporations are doing the same thing that they blame others for doing (and often for the same reasons). In a number of the cases presented, it appears to be individuals used material off the internet without thinking about the copyright issues. If it is out there, it must be ok, right?

All of which points to a need for both better understanding and education of intellectual property -- and not just in the "lock it all up" mode of some -- and a better set of rules. Hats off to Creative Commons for their work in raising awareness of the issues and their innovative approaches to the protection/utilization balance.