As young kids, I learned that everybody is rightful to control the use of their possession. Keeping it, giving it away appeared simple. Though as adults, we find ourselves in situations attempting to traverse in a world that is physical and virtual, where intellectual issues concerning property possession are far much complex. Most of what is ethical and unethical have to do with the law of dishonest appropriation. Whereas rules governing appropriation and attribution struggle to maintain and add transparency in our fast developing world, ethical investigations are essential in the process.
Academically it’s clear that no one is allowed to plagiarize papers. The question arises, would we identify the artists and musicians who copy or learn their craft by prominent predecessors thieves? David Cope, a professor for music and computer science, initiated a computer program which produced original structures in Mozart, or Bach style, though it’s not. Two CDS have now been produced and sold with the absence of legal action since the copyrights of the original individual expired a long time ago.
Another instance, Composer Oswald formed using the previous record works models sound mixtures. He, therefore, appealed that the sound mixtures were first compositions. He recorded all the sources but was denied permission to use them. Recording firms filed complaints, and eventually, his album was destroyed.
Ethically, using other people’s intellectual property for their benefit without the owner’s permission is stealing. Appropriation is much complicated. Appropriation can entail borrowing of ideas, sounds, pictures and symbols from other people. We can claim that development in architecture, art, and music would be impossible without integrating significant growth of past skills.
At times appropriation is justly allowed though at times it’s not. For instance, most of the governmental buildings and banks appropriate architectural features from the ancient Greek for example columns and capitals, to show images related to democracy, freedom and wealth. On the other side contentious situations of ethnic appropriation, for example, the Native American symbols such as the Washington Redskins logo.
In appropriation, if you want to use something belonging to another person you should not use it without the owner’s permission. If it’s not possible to request for a go-ahead, ask yourself how you can expect the creation to be made use of. Should it be endorsed if it was your own? Therefore if ownership is subjective to debate, the application must be subjected to a systematic, ethical analysis to find out the problems appropriation may cause and whether they are justified.