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.)

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. 

The Passion of the Teenager

Since when have teenagers (or "tweens" for that matter) become so influential?

Most don't work.  As far as consumerism goes, they are at the mercy of their parents or guardians for stimulating the economy, with allowances and all that jazz.  Years ago, my mother worked for a company that did tween and teen focused makeup lines.  It was seriously one of her biggest sellers.

Teens set the trends, and I'm baffled as to why and how.  Yet it seems the next bastion of teen influence is going to be in social media. 

Seems to them the almighty Facebook has jumped the proverbial shark. 

(Of course, I'm showing my age by using that reference.  But that's besides the point.)

I've gotten older and crankier as time has gone on, but I have to say I agree with them.  I'm on my second Facebook detox of this year, and I have to say, I am not eager to get back.  Quite frankly, it's been too distracting.  Sure, I can just not log in, and no one in any way is forcing me to stare blankly at my iPad, and comment on my friends' pictures.  But if I don't have the temptation, I won't go on.  And it's been great! 

According to research done in previous years, Facebook was the king of all social media to teens, Twitter was behind.  With the advent of Instagram, and almost it's instant gratification to a degree, Twitter has emerged as a more popular medium.  I can get behind that, I suppose.  Instant gratification is easy to understand. 

Yet, there's a simple reason why teens are flocking to these alternatives to Facebook: expression.

“Teens who used sites like Twitter and Instagram reported feeling like they could better express themselves on these platforms, where they felt freed from the social expectations and constraints of Facebook,” the (Pew Research) report said.

It's hard enough being a teenager these days what with peer pressure, school stress and feeling like living in fish bowl.  Facebook can be too much of a good thing, expression-wise and getting noticed.  For a culture that thrives on ADD activity like Twitter, Facebook may be too slow of an instant gratification process. 

Expression is something else to consider.  I had a lot to say, but really no outlets when I was a teen.  I don't know if Facebook would have been good for someone like me when I was a teenager.  But getting a constant flow of info, like Twitter or visual like Instagram. 

There's also the element of hobbies and activities.  Sites like Tumblr, Twitter or Instagram can be easily customized to get tailored info for what interests you - the true definition of user-generated news. 

So what is the real issue at hand?  Are teens really that influential?  Or is their leaving Facebook an epidemic?  It could be, because it seems that what made Facebook unique and special isn't so much anymore.  I often said that when Facebook was new, it was great.  Then it grew, and it's more of a sounding platform of businesses and a place to share memes.  We could go elsewhere for that.  There seems to be a gravitational pull of mini-sites to take away what we like about Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and make that the focus.  I like the photos and info sharing.  I can keep in touch with my friends in other ways. 

Facebook used to be one giant distraction.  In 2013, there are multiple elements to distract us.  That's the ADD culture I am used to. 

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.