11 February 2012

On Copyright Infringement: A Redaction

If you checked in with the blog on Friday and then again some time before now (I don't know why you'd visit twice, but you probably have your reasons), or your Google reader is reflecting a post you can't seem to click on, you'll have noticed that I pulled my "Hip to the Chip" post down and you might be wondering why.

In my initial enthusiasm for such a novel new tool, I didn't really stop to consider the type of impact that the application might have on artistic expression and/or copyright. I didn't stop to consider anything at all, really, except that it was super-cool and that now I could create colour palettes à la Design Seeds and similar, all by myself. And that right there is exactly the problem.

One of my key take-aways from the BlogPodium symposium was the importance of crediting. Of course, I've always known that crediting is important on a surface level and I've always been diligent about citing my sources for any images that I use on the blog that aren't my own. But as I confessed in my recap, I'm not always diligent about tracking down and citing the original source, and given the sheer volume of information contained on the world wide web, any piece of original (and often copyrighted) work is just a hop, click and a jump away from complete disassociation from its creator. I'd like to reiterate that it's not ~ and has never been ~ my intent to cheat anyone from the recognition they deserve, and in my recap I committed to eliminating any fast-and-loose play with artistic material within the blog, and to drilling down to (and properly respecting) the original sources.

Enter "Chip It!" and it would appear, after further consideration, that I dropped the ball. As I said, in my enthusiasm to play with (and share) such a cool new tool, it didn't occur to me that the program itself might infringe on copyright or artistic license.

Now, please understand: I am accusing Sherwin-Williams of nothing and, as I am a huge fan of not being sued, am casting exactly NO aspersions on the company or their professional integrity.  I hold they and their products in the highest regard. What I am saying is that I don't understand the issue thoroughly enough to be promoting the application on the blog.

My goal for Money Pit Love is to remain completely apolitical, if you will, and when I read further on the issue, in particular a recent posting at Design Seeds' {fresh news}, I realized that my extremely limited understanding of the application itself, its relation to artistic material in general and specifically of the potential complications created by such a tool, made it inappropriate for me to promote on the blog. Again I reiterate that this is not a judgement of the tool itself, and I will likely continue to "chip" my own images and others which are available for public consumption and are not restricted by copyright or similar. I've simply decided it's better that an endorsement of the application not remain on the blog.  So to those who visited on Friday and again this weekend and were maybe confused, there's my explanation in a nutshell (if that nutshell could hold 5 lengthy paragraphs), and my apology if any confusion ensued.

I'll have many more house-related updates to share with you next week (I'm cracking the whip around this place and all the inhabitants ~ the under-voting-and-drinking-age ones included ~ are buckling down and getting to work, despite their collective protests) but until then, please enjoy these lovely colour palettes, all via the brilliant Jessica Colaluca at Design Seeds. If you haven't visited her website, subscribed to her Facebook page or pinned her beautiful work (with appropriate credit, of course!) you should.

... What are you waiting for?

     ... Go NOW.

          You're welcome.