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.)

Ill Communication

When I worked in data management, there were terms such as "dynamic" and "static" to explain data sets.  We can almost use the terms to discuss friendships or any sort of relationship.  Heck, even personality types!

But let me ask a question: would you rather be a "dynamic" person?  Or a "static" person?  Meaning, would you like to adapt and change to the times...or would you just rather stay the same?

I guess on some levels, we can keep some of key qualities but adapt to the times.  Or constantly rethink a position.  However you want to look at things, we can look at things as being "active" or "passive."

Do you take an "active" approach or a "passive" approach to life?

Which leads me to my ultimate point.  I've noticed that since the "good ol' days" (which basically our only forms of media were of the mass approach like television, radio and movies...not the "social" media layer), people have been convenienced out of being personal.

Remember when you could go to the supermarket and ask your check out girl/guy or courtesy desk professional how their families were?  Even then, there were "lifers" in that industry, so you could build relationships and trust.  Nowadays, how many of us even chat with the people at the registers of a supermarket...let alone GO to one, since many stores are outfitted with "self" checkouts.  Even my coblogger and I were talking about how she uses a "gun" to scan her items, then just needs to bag her items and pay when she's all set (think of it as killing two birds with one stone).

Yet I think these conveniences for our busy lifestyles have infiltrated our personal lives.  We have seemingly dozens of ways to communicate.  Besides Ma Bell, there are even seemingly antiquated methods like "chat" or "messenger," but if you own a smartphone, there's texting, Kik'ing, Tweeting, and even emailing.

And there's Facebook. 

I've been on a Facebook cleanse since February.  There was no "over the edge" kind of moment.  In fact, I had just responded to someone in a message.  There wasn't an event or any major argument that set me off.  It just...felt like I needed to do it.

But I also had a revelation as I went off, and people started to ask me when I would return.

I'm not sure if I need to.  I feel as though I have a clear idea of what's going on with the people I care about.  I have kept my Twitter feed active, and there's some overlap there.  I am even Instagramming photos. 

But there's something else.  I felt as though I was being a passive friend.  And I think our culture of being convenienced out of being personal has allowed this to be "okay."

It's easy to drop a note on someone's wall to say "Hey, thinkin' boutcha" or "Happy birthday!"  Our culture has made it easy to never pick up a phone.  Even writing a letter or a written notes of thanks is foreign.

My friend has written a book on Table Manners, and how to integrate this into raising the next generation who will be pointing, clicking, gaming and no doubt texting at a very young age.  My fear for the next generation is that there will be NO ONE who chats or communicates by talking anymore.  In fact, think of how many families eat dinner at night and are attached to their smartphones.  I'm just as guilty.  I'll be at lunch and have my phone at the ready while talking to a guest.  Shouldn't my attention be focused on ONE person, the one I'm eating lunch with?

 Lastly, we live in a culture where calling someone to say hello is almost unheard of.  Just this past week, I decided to reach out the old fashioned way to talk to people.  I reached out to three friends, and even called someone who had a birthday.  Ironically, I wouldn't have known it was his birthday four years ago, when we reconnected on Twitter.

The sound on his voice was surprised...yet he was laughing because he said, "Man, I was just telling a story that I think you would appreciate!"  And he proceeded to tell me.  Now, maybe if I had reached out on Facebook, he might have told that story.  But the phone call was straight, sweet, to the point.

Shortly after my Facebook hiatus, I visited some friends down by where I grew up.  It forced me out of my comfort zone. I was able to make plans in person.  This is what I mean by being a less passive friend.  It's something that the technology driven environment has allowed us to do.

Think about how many people you know "online" whom you'll never ever meet in person.  Think about those you have meaningful relationships with in person, but you feel like you're enough in contact with them that you don't need to check in to see how things are.

Being off Facebook makes me wonder - hey, what's going on with these people?  It makes me be more available, and what I feel to be more of an active friend.

I'd rather be that dynamic person but wants to appreciate some of the simpler things in life.  I can adapt, but I don't want to be in a false sense of security in my relationships.

I want to be an active participant.

Fine Lines of Friendship

My esteemed co-blogger and I have made no secret that we met via social media channels and became friends (and co-bloggers) that way.

We also have friends outside of the social media world that we've known for years.  Take for instance the person I know outside of anyone in my family the longest in my life.  We met "traditionally" and then when social media became prevalent, we had another method of keeping in touch.

But what I've discovered over the years of this way of life is that the definition of friendship is perhaps a little broader than what we originally thought.  Indeed, the landscape may be changing as well.

So the literal Merriam-Webster definition of "Friend" is:
"a : one attached to another by affection or esteem b : acquaintance."

By sorts, the definition of a "Friendship" is:
"1: the state of being friends; 2: the quality or state of being friendly."

A few weeks ago, the friend I've known for over 30 years "deactivated" her Facebook account.  People do that to much fanfare usually, but sometimes those looking to get in touch with these persons who deactivate are left in arrears.

"OMG, did they delete me?"

"I'm dying to share this funny joke with them!"

"Is everything okay?"

Yet, with all these modes and channels of communications, we usually miss these announcements and take them very personally if we don't know what's going on.

In some ways, the social media stuff has added a layer of friendship that I'm very grateful for.  I met my husband through them, and I can't say for sure that we would have met otherwise.  I just have no other way to know.  I know someone who reconnected with someone they graduated high school, and they are now dating! (they weren't very good friends otherwise).  You just never know.

Yet, at the same this has substituted the idea of calling someone to see what's going on or trying to find out what else is making them tick.  Too often, we substitute this for just writing on someone's wall and communicating via "Inbox." 

We blame the dumbing down of our culture on reality TV, and 24-hour news cycles have almost given us too MUCH information, exposing biases and not really giving us slanted information to tell us how to think.  Have friendships become more disposable as a result of social media?

That same friend I referred to that I've known forever...she has some stories about some people who got upset about a miscommunication on Facebook and never spoke again.  Friendships that were solid outside of this layer that became almost narcissistic to a degree.  "OMG ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT ME?" 

On the other hand, people who didn't know each other outside of these channels, met and otherwise found they didn't have much in common...does that make their friendship less valuable or valid, for that matter?

The answer on one hand, is almost, who gives a shit?  A friend is a friend is a friend, right?  On the other hand, there are plenty of people who are your "online friends" in name only, and have no intentions of ever meeting you outside of the safe cyberworld where committal is little.  (See, I just made that up, catchy isn't it???).

In the meantime, I still find one item prevalent in these relationships.  That people will still one another for granted, the same nosy people will dig for the information they want, there will be the obsessive people, the people who care very little or those who will find a way to keep in touch with you, even when you are taking a "Facebook break."

Friendships may have gotten another level, but the complexities behind them are still in our faces whether we like it not.  They take work and understanding and not necessarily in that order. 

The Catch-22 of Self-Promotion

Catch-22: A logical paradox arising from a situation in which an individual needs something that can only be acquired with an action that will lead him to that very situation he is already in; therefore, the acquisition of this thing becomes logically impossible. Coined by Joseph Heller in book by same name.

Twenty years ago, if someone told you about this new contraption called the "world wide web" and that your business needed a website, chances are, you would have thought that person crazy and sent them packing. Today, we all know that if a business does NOT have a website, they are anything from bogus to out of touch to secretive...all recipes for disaster in creating a successful business model.

Add the term "social media" today, and you probably get the same looks.  I can't tell you how many people I discuss blogging and Twitter, among others, with business owners in this area, and they are shocked that they need to add yet another layer of marketing/communications to their business model.  There, in and of itself, lays many paradoxes in a successful business.

A business can create a Facebook "Fan" Page, which essentially gets followers, yet the number of followers one has doesn't necessarily mean that "quantity" is better than "quality."  If you create a fan page and have a huge hoopla behind it, then neglect it, chances are your clients or "fans" will lose interest and go someplace else for their info.  Same could be said for Twitter or other social media layers in promoting one's business or self. 

But then comes the Catch-22 of business.  I mean, at the end of day, all businesses are trying to promote ourselves and our business and what other products/services we are trying to sell.  But how do you try to sound like you're not trying to do all that?

Several blogs I know and follow are guilty of the shameless self-promotion.  I have a friend, as an example, whom I adore but his Twitter antics are legendary.  Generally, when he publishes a blog post, everyone and their brother/cousin/uncle gets a link to it.  It's legendary in that I find if I get notice that it's published, I tend to read it before he can "spam" with it.  Yet, it's something I think about -- we tend to do the same things for self-promotion just to get "page views."  But at the end of the day, is it really just a glorified pissing contest?  "I get more page views than you do."  Kind of silly, especially when we are not truly selling a product.

But then apply that to business.  I am on an email distribution for a social media "university" of sorts, and I decided to sign up for a webinar.  The course was scheduled for an hour and a half, and the first half hour I guess was the real "meat" of the deal.  However, they blew through the first half hour, then spent the next half hour promoting what THEY could do to help you.

Granted, I didn't pay for it, it was a free webinar.  So one could argue that you get what you pay for.  On the flip side, they just literally came off telling us that a tool like Twitter could be used for certain things, but not for "spamming" either links to the site, or sounding like a press release.  Which is exactly what they did after telling their listening audience NOT to!

No wonder so many people/business owners are reluctant to do a social media layer.  They wonder what's in it for them!

It's not that I didn't take anything away from it.  I mean, at the end of the day, we use social media for different purposes.  This could be for education, or following our favorite actors and actresses, getting updates from our favorite media outlets, and to converse with friends and family about common interests.  I often tell business people that you get what you put into Twitter, as an example.  If you find that Twitter isn't useful and that you're wasting time on it, chances are...you are!  But it's obviously the next layer of marketing that is essential in survival in business. 

Yet, building your own buzz is a Catch-22 in social media.  You have to follow several people, and make your mark by being accessible while answering and asking several questions in the field you are promoting yourselves in.  Learning and staying abreast of the newest technologies.  At the same time, you can't overtly "self-promote" like my friend can do.  Although the people he is respected in the community take it with a grain of salt, there are others who think that self-promoting is a turn-off. 

So which is it?  Can it be both ways?  If you're in social media for whatever reason, chances are you've hit the Catch-22 of self-promotion too.  It's a pain in the ass, but a necessary evil in today's technology.  Which is in and of itself, a Catch-22.

Oy.