The Fine Line of Attribution

New York City is home to many people who hold what we deem a "slash" career.  A lawyer - slash - English as a second language professor.  A bartender - slash - screenwriter.  I'm a real estate saleperson - slash - health coach.  Somewhere in there, you will see improvisational artists or actors or comedy writers, and all they want is to participate in an event or have their one big script gain traction.  Maybe make a little bit of money.  Maybe even get famous.  Or even just have that 15 minutes of fame and then fade away into obscurity.

The advent of social media in these careers should theoretically add another layer of immortality to their career goals.  But what we've seen is the scale get skewed in many different directions that still  cater to the big guy and allow people with not-the-best-of-intentions to profit from the creativity and property of the little guy who may or may not have the types of connections that the "big guy" has.

I've said for awhile that being a "blogger" is a dying art form (yes, I do recognize the irony as I write a blog post on it myself).  People are eager for all types of content, whether video, photos or microblogs.  Short, sweet, to the point in this electronic day and age where opinions and info are plentiful, and so is attention deficit disorder.  The blogs that we see with tons of traction or followers usually have a built in following, and many people who try to build their brand organically have to have an unusual mix of luck, timeliness...essentially, being at the right place at the right time.

Majoring in English literature and minoring in writing/journalism, I wrote a lot of papers, as one could imagine.  I always erred on the side of caution by maybe including too many quotes and attributing my sources to as many as possible in my footnotes.  I had a professor try to counsel me, but far it be for me to get expelled over something as simple as misrepresenting a quote or a source.

On social media, the only people who threaten your way of life by non-attribution or "plagiarizing" are the little guy.  And people can always get away with stealing digital property by claiming they "didn't know" or that "I thought we were cool and that I could use it."

I learned my first lesson long ago when I started my baseball blog.  I had a friend who had sent me a picture she had taken, and said if I wanted to use it, just be sure to give her proper attribution...which I did in a blog post.  However, I posted it as a link on my site too, where it wasn't really clear that it was hers.  She wasn't upset; she just pointed it out.  I quickly fixed it.  No harm, no foul.  I was lucky we were friendly; I was relatively new to the blogosphere, and this could've been career suicide for me. 

A few years ago, I noticed a fine line of attribution occurring on Twitter.  Twitter reactions are very real-time based, and I've mentioned several times on this site that I am a sports nut.  During a game, two people I follow (and I am actually very close with) had almost identical tweets, creating a name for a player in the process.  Later that evening, a prominent analyst on a sports network used the same line in his report.  Both of the tweeters (while I am sure they were not the only two who had used this moniker, it was just unique and very timely) mentioned that this reporter had taken their content.

I've had several people use my terms and wit, that I have repeated several times and use in my daily vernacular if I'm talking about my sports teams.  Sometimes people give me credit; some don't.  I am not trademarked.  It shouldn't bother me.  For the most part, it does not.  But recently I've had "discussions" with people who claim they were the people who came up with a line that I'm sort of synonymous with.  And I know this because each time I've used it, they were the first to say it was clever.  Now they're taking credit for it.  Since this is Twitter, unless you're immediately trademarking it or using it in other forums from long ago, it's your word against theirs.

"The Fat Jew" Josh Ostrovsky had a fallout this week.

And mind you, I am pretty small time! I do not have the following that say, the "Fat Jew" Josh Ostrovsky does.  I heard about this guy, probably from someone sharing one of his photos from Instagram, which are usually meme based.  Here is a guy who has 3.5 MILLION (yes, you read that right) followers on Instagram.  I don't know this guy from a hole in the wall.  He's everywhere in New York City, his likeness that is (I've seen him on Seamless web billboards, as an example, and he's been featured on NBC's Today show in addition to being interviewed by Katie Couric, influential in her own right).  With the mindless entertainment that a simple meme or photo can provide an audience, he seems to have really found his niche.

Not so fast.  A few days ago, several media outlets, comedians, improv artists and other creative types started lambasting Ostrovsky in the media, claiming that his memes and shared items are not his property and that he has made his empire on the backs of other comedians with zero attribution.  Essentially, we are going back to writing term papers in college, but this time with social media.  Attribution is important, and not crediting the proper creator is akin to plagiarism.  Except you cannot be expelled from the real world.  (The worst that happened was a creative deal with Ostrovsky was apparently pulled from Comedy Central, though both sides claimed this fell through before the creative accusations were happening).  The only claim he's had in the past with people claiming he stole their creative property was that an intern must have gotten it, or he simply "forgot."

With great power comes great responsibility.  And regular Joe Schmoes like Ostrovsky are all of a sudden given a boatload of power in social media.  And unfortunately, it translates into real dollars lost for those whose creative property is stolen without attribution.

I've seen this first hand in sports blogging.  I've seen regular guys come to great power by creating online products that fans use religiously.  Yet, if the owners of these sites are called into question with unethical practices, they'll use the same excuses thrown around by Ostrovsky, either blaming an intern, promising to take down the questionable item on their site, or using the phrase, "I'm just a fan like you" (meanwhile, they make money off the same fan machine their passions do).  Meanwhile, with great power, the responsibility of appeasing someone who does not have same power they do is not something they prioritize.  "Regular fans" do not have the back-up of millions of fan followers or more back-up in the form of profits that the people they steal creative works from do.

A passionate baseball fan and photographer I know who travels a lot to different stadiums has had several run-ins with powerful figures in the social media universe.  She is very gracious about posting her work via social media forums; however, very recently she has taken to task several of their influences when they've taken property of hers and have redistributed it without proper attribution.

This has happened several times, and because of the influence of the user, her work was recirculated without her permission or credit to the original author.  And as we all know through social media, it becomes very much like that old school shampoo commercial.  "I told one person, and they told one person...and so on, and so on and so on!"  It gets tough to give original attribution, and then we have cautionary tales like Josh Ostrovsky.

And so on, and so on, and so on...(source: old shampoo commercials)

For the original poster, it becomes a question of misappropriation, which happened to my baseball buddy.


As for the likes of Josh Ostrovsky or the powerful members of the sports social media whom I know, they'll walk away scot-free without a care in the world.  Ostrovsky's scandal even got him MORE air time on the Today show, where he said he was going to make things "right."  The reality is, he's barely lost any followship, and I'm sure his likeness will not disappear from the billboards that get his name around.  

I'm not sure there is a reasonable and workable solution for this right now because the numbers on the Web are certainly larger than we can ever imagine.  I'm a big believer that we should be a little more kind to each other, and the Internet has certainly served as a way for people sitting in their underwear in their mom's basement to grow a set of virtual balls that allows them to say things they'd never ever say in real life.  Proper attribution is one way to do this.  If I see a cool picture or funny meme, you better believe I'm going to be extra careful in giving proper attribution.  

With great power comes great responsibility.  That doesn't just occur in Peter Parker's world with his Uncle Benjamin, but when you realize a piece you are sharing doesn't necessarily belong to you, be sure to give credit where it is certainly due.

(And PS - it looks like Stan Lee might have pilfered that power/responsibility from somewhere else.  How appropriate.)

"Her" and the Network Socialization of Relationships

We all have them...friends...and "friends."  We talk about them in present tense.  We laugh at their jokes.  We share silly memes with them.  We interact for the same interests, like sports teams, television shows or even social/political beliefs.

If you're an active person on Facebook, we all categorize friends in certain manners.  We have family, former schoolmates, next door neighbors, coworkers.  But we also have the exclusive "online friend," which is a growing subset of our population and a real relationship.

It's occurred to me that the next level of human interaction and relationships is online.  That's not necessarily groundbreaking, that thought.  But what's  fascinating to me is that when one has an "online friend," it's just as important and weighted in high value to the people involved in these interactions.

Therefore, I've come to the conclusion that one can't discount the "online friend" or "online relationship" phenomenon anymore.  The online friend is almost an exclusive category now to those as our networks expand ever so greatly and rapidly.

Yet, I can't help but wonder, if this is just systemic of the growing isolation that's pervasive in our lives.  

*******************************************

Anyone around here seen Her yet?

I saw it in the theaters last year, and the subject matter fascinated me (let alone the people story the movie followed).  I won't give away too many spoilers, but the general synopsis is well-known.  The story is about a relatively ordinary man who lives alone and strikes up a relationship with his operating system, who calls herself "Samantha."  We find out that the protoganist, Theodore (played by Joaquin Phoenix), has had intimacy and relationship issues in the past.

Yet, I couldn't help but wonder...with the advent and importance placed upon online relationships, how far off are we from having relationships with our operating systems?

Director Spike Jonze made the movie seem futuristic without being too deliberate in letting us know just how many years he predicted a relationship between a human and an operating system would occur.  Yet it seems as though it could be happening right under our very nose. A major plot topic was on how Samantha knew everything with which Theodore had interest, which is why I think exclusively online relationships are intriguing and most of all attractive to people.  By the same token, people with online relationships are free to be whoever they want to be in other forums.  Forums, which, one may not be aware of.

Without a face, body language or the pressure of vis-a-vis interaction, people can expand themselves to be who they want to be without the responsibility of a real living, breathing human relationship. 

As I watched the movie, however, I saw so many parallels between online relationships and mostly the emotional interaction between people.  To some, it's almost as if we're all having relationships with our operating systems.  We chat and send messages on our computers.  We text and Kik and WhatsApp others from our phones.  Some of these types of relationships have been going on for years.  The idea is nothing new. 

Last year, right around the time Her was in the theaters, Daniel Jones wrote about the very topic of online emotional relationships in the New York Times.  He claims that not only does technology alter "our romantic landscape," he has a term for these individuals who rely on these relationships: "Soul Mate in a Box" (or "Smiab" for short).

Prior to seeing this movie, I have seen technology play out as a third party for many "relationships," which I use as a term very loosely.  I guess I'm kind of a traditionalist in that I still think that the face-to-face interaction is weighted a heck of a lot more.  Yet I get the value of an online relationship.  I have a very good friend whom I've never met face-to-face but we've collaborated on podcasts and talked on the phone several times.  Of course, I'd feel our relationship would be more "legit" had we ever met in person, and that will come in due time.

Yet, at the same time, I know there is a certain subset of the online population that I interact with who are perfectly fine with never meeting in person.  It used to upset me, because you know, "how convenient" that I am going to be in your hometown and we've talked about meeting for over five years.  And you have a family emergency that has you out of town that same time.  Now, I really don't mind.  I guess I've come to the conclusion that there are people who will just be an exclusively online relationship for me.

Yet, I've seen so many people put so much stock in their virtual relationship, that they go through a true sense of loss if something happens to end it, as we see in Her. I'm quite sure anyone who reads this knows someone who has been in a virtual relationship like this, or at the very least has either been a party to one or participates in one.

I've had a few ideas as to why these seem so prevalent, as Mr. Jones elaborated on in his column.  One theory he had was the idea of a physical relationship being more "work" than an online relationship.  People don't have to put too much effort into being physically present (and yes, that does take a lot of work).  And while individuals are making themselves emotionally available, there's not a ton of maintenance going on there.  Say a few nice words, put the other on a pedestal and get to go home by yourself at night.

I feel like technology has allowed those of us who prefer or don't mind being alone (I'm a proud introvert) stay that way.  As an example, women tend to be emotionally available and can be more vulnerable or receptive to an emotional online relationship.  Remember, folks, the biggest erogenous zone is the brain (thank you Jackie Treehorn).  This was evident in the scene in Her where Theodore and Samantha "consummate" the relationship.  Though when presented with an opportunity to use a surrogate proxy to have a physical relationship, Theodore couldn't do it.

It makes me wonder how many of these relationships wouldn't go the distance.  Sure, we've heard of online relationships being very successful.  There are just some relationships that serve to be just "online."

Like the catfish.  Remember a few years ago the story about football player Manti Te'o? He was involved in a scheme that an online personality lured him and made him believe that his online counterpart was involved in a fatal car accident, and it made the news because his grandmother had passed away as well that same week.  It was found to be a farcical relationship that he went public with later.

Why does something like catfishing occur?  You'd think in this day and age, we'd be less trusting and even more questioning of an online presence's motives.  I guess at the root of it, we try to believe the best in people, and those stories happen to "other people."  Plus, it's easy to believe you know the "real person" behind the curtain.  When the reality is, we don't even know if this person who may present themselves to be female is EVEN a female...because they've never met.  And how convenient they do not like posting pictures of themselves?

Then there's the "emotional cheat," as I like to call it.  I think the disconnect happens once again because of gender perceptions.  Women are seen as emotional beings, men physical.  If there's a man who is not getting his emotional needs fulfilled by his significant other, guess what?  There's a woman he's never met and doesn't need to service on a physical level willing to meet those needs.  Women have been seen as more apt to "fall" for the other in an emotional relationship, while it may be seen as collateral damage to the male in the relationship.  There's no actual physical interaction...who exactly is being harmed?

The complicated layer of technology and relationships is a prevalent theme here at CDV.  It's something that is not going away, but it needs to have the respect of something as important, destructive but also character building and enhancing as a real life face-to-face meeting.

I can't discount the fact that I have met some of the most important people in my life online, even my husband.  I can say with an absolute certainty that I am not sure if I could have met other people whom I consider friends without the social networking level.  It's important to me, and certainly something I have a healthy appreciation for.

But when people rely on technology too much for forming their relationships, then it becomes a real life problem, like it did in Her.

Isolation

Someone, who didn't own a smart phone let alone have interactions on Twitter or Instagram or Facebook, once told me that when history looks at this period of time, it will be looked upon as the "decline of civilization."

I found it funny because while I didn't know this person well, the reason I was in this setting was because I knew the majority of folks at this event THROUGH social media.

This gentleman's argument was that while we were at a social function, most of us were either taking pictures or attending to items on social media.

I saw his point, though I disagreed with it.  Social media, warts and all, has brought a lot of joy in my life.  It's kept me posted on world and current events, and has put me more in touch with distant family members and friends. 

The point was, we were in a social function setting...but we were attending to our smartphones.

Yes, he said, when history looked at this period, they would see the decline of civilization.

In some ways, social media has taken things too far, but in others, it's made us better people.  Perhaps more understanding.

Yet, if someone was an introvert, hermit-like or isolated to begin with, I think that social media can unintentionally amplify those behaviors.

Then, there is the advent of the selfie.  Selfies are officially defined as:

"A photograph that one takes of oneself with a digital camera or a front-facing smartphone, tablet, or webcam, especially for posting on a social-networking or photo-sharing website."

Selfies can be fun.  Heck, Ellen Degeneres put selfies on the map at the Oscars last year, infamously taking one and posting it during the actual ceremony.   We can get in a group of friends and make funny faces.  It's also a safety issue.  If I'm in a touristy place where I don't know a lot of people, and I want to take a pic of myself, I'd rather take it myself than worry about some dishonest person try to take my phone.  

How many times have we joked that "I need longer arms, lol!" to take a photo?  

Well, fret not folks...because earlier in 2014, the selfie "stick" was born.

VOILA! A selfie-stick!

A long arm type of device that you can put your phone or point-and-shoot camera, selfie sticks have popped up all over.  

And my question is...why?  Why is this needed?

And I guess it was something that's needed, because I see them everywhere.  EVERY.  DAMN.  WHERE.

I saw that at a fall conference I attended.  I see them on the streets.  I saw them all over New York City from tourists.

I admit, I have been known to take a selfie at times if I didn't exactly trust another person in the area to my own picture with my camera or phone.  Now, the selfie stick not only takes away the awkwardness of asking a total stranger to take your photo...

It also increases the isolation that the gentleman I met over a year ago warned us all about.

Think about it: selfie sticks aren't just used for groups of people who "need those longer arms - lol!"  It's for people who are traveling on their own or want to keep themselves isolated, if not for protection but to reduce their human interaction to a further degree.

A few months ago, my husband and I were going to the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade which runs right through our neighborhood in New York City, and a few tourists asked if they could follow us, as they wanted to go where the "locals" went.  We were happy to oblige.  We found out that they were visiting from the United Kingdom, one of their travel companions had broken his foot a few months earlier and couldn't get around as well as he wanted, and they didn't want to be "annoying tourists." 

These folks could have minded their own bees wax, taken selfies themselves or just been "annoying tourists."  Instead, we had a nice time answering these folks' questions (and trust me...I know from **annoying tourists**), and chatting them up.  

We'll probably never see them again, but that's not the point.  Instead, we were able to give these folks some survival guide tips that they can share with their friends who make the trip over as well.  Or they could go back to whatever city they were from, and tell them about the "brilliant New Yorkers they met" (I'm making that up of course).

It used to be that we'd go overseas or be social for just that...the social interactions that add a layer to our lives.  The selfie stick allows more tourists and visitors to keep to themselves, thus leaving the social interaction part dormant.

Also, you look like a jerk.

Selfies were coined for the teenager making duck faces in their bedroom, and they have kind of taken on an irony of their own.   The selfie stick is just another layer to add to a self-perpetuating culture of selfishness and isolation, which is antithetical to what the social media movement is trying to achieve.

I see what the gentleman was saying about the decline of civilization...I don't believe it to be true.  But what's next in this culture of isolation...talking to one self on social media?  Well, I guess we do see that sometimes.