I heard this amazing story about Miuccia Prada. She's an Italian fashion designer. She goes to this vintage store in Paris with a friend of hers. She's rooting around, she finds this one jacket by Balenciaga -- she loves it. She's turning it inside out. She's looking at the seams. She's looking at the construction. Her friend says, "Buy it already." She said, "I'll buy it, but I'm also going to replicate it." Now, the academics in this audience may think, "Well, that sounds like plagiarism." But to a fashionista, what it really is is a sign of Prada's genius: that she can root through the history of fashion and pick the one jacket that doesn't need to be changed by one iota, and to be current and to be now.
Čula sam ovu zadivljujuću priču o Mijučiji Pradi. Ona je italijanska modna dizajnerka. Ulazi ona u prodavnicu stare mode u Parizu sa svojom prijateljicom. Kopajući naokolo, pronađe jaknu od Balenciaga. Sviđa joj se. Zagleda je sa svih strana. Zagleda šavove i izvođenje. Prijateljica joj kaže, "Kupi je već jednom" Ona odgovara: "Kupiću je, ali ću je i replicirati". U ovom trenutku, akademici među vama mogu pomisliti, "Pa, to zvuči kao plagijarizam." Ali za osobu koja živi za modu ovo je znak genija Prade, to što ona može da iz istorije mode iskopa i odabere jednu jaknu na kojoj nema potrebe ništa promeniti, a koja će i dalje biti aktuelna i biti nova.
You might also be asking whether it's possible that this is illegal for her to do this. Well, it turns out that it's actually not illegal. In the fashion industry, there's very little intellectual property protection. They have trademark protection, but no copyright protection and no patent protection to speak of. All they have, really, is trademark protection, and so it means that anybody could copy any garment on any person in this room and sell it as their own design. The only thing that they can't copy is the actual trademark label within that piece of apparel. That's one reason that you see logos splattered all over these products. It's because it's a lot harder for knock-off artists to knock off these designs because they can't knock off the logo. But if you go to Santee Alley, yeah. (Laughter) Well, yeah. Canal Street, I know. And sometimes these are fun, right?
Možete se priupitati da li je moguće da je to što ona radi legalno. Pa, ispada da to, u stvari, i nije ilegalno. U modnoj industriji postoji vrlo malo zaštite intelektualnog vlasništva. Postoji zaštita robne marke, ali ne postoji zaštita autorskih prava, i praktično nikakva zaštita patenata. Sve što ustvari postoji je zaštita robne marke. A to znači da bilo ko može kopirati bilo koji odevni predmet bilo koga u ovoj prostoriji i da ga proda kao sopstveni dizajn. Jedina stvar koja se ne može kopirati je stvarna oznaka robne marke na tom konkretnom odevnom predmetu. To je jedan od razloga zbog kojih viđate logoe rasprsnute svuda po ovim proizvodima. To je zato što je mnogo teže za umetnike koji skidaju brendove da iskopiraju ovakav dizajn, zato što ne mogu skinuti logo. Ali ako odete u Ulicu Santi, da. Da. Ulica Kanala, znam. I ponekad su zabavni.
Now, the reason for this, the reason that the fashion industry doesn't have any copyright protection is because the courts decided long ago that apparel is too utilitarian to qualify for copyright protection. They didn't want a handful of designers owning the seminal building blocks of our clothing. And then everybody else would have to license this cuff or this sleeve because Joe Blow owns it. But too utilitarian? I mean is that the way you think of fashion? This is Vivienne Westwood. No! We think of it as maybe too silly, too unnecessary.
Razlog zbog kojeg modna industrija nema nikakvu zaštitu autorskih prava je u tome što su sudovi odavno odlučili da je odeća previše utilitarna da bi se na nju odnosila zaštita autorskih prava. Nisu želeli da nekolicina dizajnera poseduje plodonosne konstrukcijske delove naše odeće. I svi ostali bi trebalo da imaju dozvolu za ovu manžetnu ili za onaj rukav zato što ih neko već poseduje. Ali previše utilitarno? To je način na koji se razmišlja o modi? Ovo je Vivijen Vestvud. Ne. Možda za ovo možemo pomisliti da je previše luckasto, previše nepotrebno.
Now, those of you who are familiar with the logic behind copyright protection -- which is that without ownership, there is no incentive to innovate -- might be really surprised by both the critical success of the fashion industry and the economic success of this industry. What I'm going to argue today is that because there's no copyright protection in the fashion industry, fashion designers have actually been able to elevate utilitarian design, things to cover our naked bodies, into something that we consider art. Because there's no copyright protection in this industry, there's a very open and creative ecology of creativity.
Oni među vama koji su upoznati sa logikom zaštite autorskih prava, koja je da bez vlasništva nema podsticaja za inovacije, mogu biti iznenađeni kritičnim uspehom modne industrije i ekonomskim uspehom ove industrije. Ono o čemu hoću danas da pričam je to da pošto nema zaštite autroskih prava u modnoj industriji, modni dizajneri su mogli da prevaziđu utilitarni dizajn, stvari kojima pokrivamo naša gola tela, i stvore nešto što smatramo umetnošću. Zato što nema zaštite autorskih prava u ovoj industriji, postoji vrlo otvorena i kreativna ekologija kreativnosti
Unlike their creative brothers and sisters, who are sculptors or photographers or filmmakers or musicians, fashion designers can sample from all their peers' designs. They can take any element from any garment from the history of fashion and incorporate it into their own design. They're also notorious for riffing off of the zeitgeist. And here, I suspect, they were influenced by the costumes in Avatar. Maybe just a little. Can't copyright a costume either.
Za razliku od druge kreativne braće i sestara kao što su vajari ili fotografi ili ljudi koji prave filmove ili muzičari, modni dizajneri mogu koristiti delove rada svih svojih kolega dizajnera. Mogu uzeti bilo koji deo bilo koje odeće iz istorije mode i ujediniti ga u svoj sopstveni dizajn. Takođe su notorni po tome, znate, da se koriste duhom vremena. A u ovom slučaju su, čini mi se, bili pod uticajem kostima iz Avatara. Možda samo malo. Kostim se ne može zaštititi autorskim pravima, takođe.
Now, fashion designers have the broadest palette imaginable in this creative industry. This wedding dress here is actually made of sporks, and this dress is actually made of aluminum. I've heard this dress actually sort of sounds like wind chimes as they walk through. So, one of the magical side effects of having a culture of copying, which is really what it is, is the establishment of trends. People think this is a magical thing. How does it happen? Well, it's because it's legal for people to copy one another.
Dakle, modni dizajneri imaju najširu zamislivu paletu u ovoj kreativnoj industriji. Ova venčanica je ustvari napravljena od kašika. A ova haljina je napravljena od aluminijuma. Čula sam da ova haljina u stvari zvuči kao zvončići na vetru dok se u njoj hoda. Jedna od magičnih strana kulture kopiranja što ova kultura u stvari i predstavlja, je uspostavljanje trendova. Ljudi misle da je ovo čarobna stvar. Kako se ona događa? Zato što je legalno da ljudi kopiraju jedni druge.
Some people believe that there are a few people at the top of the fashion food chain who sort of dictate to us what we're all going to wear, but if you talk to any designer at any level, including these high-end designers, they always say their main inspiration comes from the street: where people like you and me remix and match our own fashion looks. And that's where they really get a lot of their creative inspiration, so it's both a top-down and a bottom-up kind of industry.
Neki veruju da postoji nekoliko ljudi na vrhu modnog lanca ishrane koji nam nekako diktiraju šta ćemo nositi. Ali ako razgovarate sa bilo kojim dizajnerom na bilo kom nivou, uključujući ove top dizajnere, oni će uvek reći da njihova osnovna inspiracija dolazi sa ulice, gde ljudi kao vi ili ja mešaju i sklapaju svoje sopstvene modne izglede, i odatle oni dobijaju puno od svoje kreativne inspiracije. Na taj način ova industrija je upravljana i odozgo i odozdo.
Now, the fast fashion giants have probably benefited the most from the lack of copyright protection in the fashion industry. They are notorious for knocking off high-end designs and selling them at very low prices. And they've been faced with a lot of lawsuits, but those lawsuits are usually not won by fashion designers. The courts have said over and over again, "You don't need any more intellectual property protection." When you look at copies like this, you wonder: How do the luxury high-end brands remain in business? If you can get it for 200 bucks, why pay a thousand? Well, that's one reason we had a conference here at USC a few years ago. We invited Tom Ford to come -- the conference was called, "Ready to Share: Fashion and the Ownership of Creativity" -- and we asked him exactly this question. Here's what he had to say. He had just come off a successful stint as the lead designer at Gucci, in case you didn't know.
Modni giganti su najverovatnije imali najviše koristi od nedostatka autorskih prava u modnoj industriji. Notorni su po kopiranju vrhunskog dizajna kojeg prodaju po vrlo niskim cenama. I bili su izloženi velikom broju tužbi, ali te tužbe nisu dobili modni dizajneri. Sudovi su uporno ponavljali: "Nije vam potrebno više zaštite intelektualnog vlasništva." Kada pogledate ovakve kopije, zapitate se kako luksuzni top brendovi uopšte ostaju u poslu? Ako ovo možete kupiti za 200 dolara, zašto bi plaćali hiljadu? Ovo je jedan od razloga zašto smo ovde u U.S.C. organizovali konferenciju pre par godina. Pozvali smo Toma Forda. Konferencija se zvala "Spremna za deljenje: Moda i vlasništvo kreativnosti". I pitali smo ga upravo ovo pitanje. I evo šta je odgovorio. U tom trenutku, oslobodio se stege glavnog dizajnera u Gučiju, ako niste znali.
Tom Ford: And we found after much research that -- actually not much research, quite simple research -- that the counterfeit customer was not our customer.
Tom Ford: Zaključili smo, nakon dosta istraživanja, u stvari i ne baš toliko puno istraživanja, da kupac falsifikovane robe nije naš kupac.
Johanna Blakley: Imagine that. The people on Santee Alley are not the ones who shop at Gucci. (Laughter) This is a very different demographic. And, you know, a knock-off is never the same as an original high-end design, at least in terms of the materials; they're always made of cheaper materials. But even sometimes a cheaper version can actually have some charming aspects, can breathe a little extra life into a dying trend. There's lots of virtues of copying. One that a lot of cultural critics have pointed to is that we now have a much broader palette of design choices to choose from than we ever have before, and this is mainly because of the fast fashion industry, actually. And this is a good thing. We need lots of options.
Džoana Blekli: Zamislite samo. Ljudi na u Ulici Santi ne kupuju kod Gučija. (Smeh) Ovo je dosta različita grupa ljudi. I znate, kopija nikada nije ista kao originalni top dizajn, bar ne u smislu materijala, uvek su napravljeni od jeftinijih materijala. Ali čak i jeftinija verzija ponekad može imati neke šarmantne strane, i može udahnuti malo svežeg života u umirući trend. Puno je veštine u kopiranju. Činjenica koju kritičari kulture ističu je da nam je danas dostupna mnogo šira paleta modnih izbora nego ikada ranije. A to je zbog modne industrije. I to je dobra stvar. Treba nam više mogućnosti.
Fashion, whether you like it or not, helps you project who you are to the world. Because of fast fashion, global trends actually get established much more quickly than they used to. And this, actually, is good news to trendsetters; they want trends to be set so that they can move product. For fashionistas, they want to stay ahead of the curve. They don't want to be wearing what everybody else is wearing. And so, they want to move on to the next trend as soon as possible.
Moda, svidelo vam se to ili ne, vam pomaže da se projektujete u svet. Zbog brze mode, globalni trendovi se uspostavljaju brže nego ikada ranije. I ovo je dobra vest za trend setere. Oni žele da trendovi budu određeni kako bi razvijali proizvod. Za modiste, one koji žele da budu ispred trenda. Oni ne žele da budu obučeni kao i svi ostali. Stoga, oni žele da pređu na sledeći trend što pre.
I tell you, there is no rest for the fashionable. Every season, these designers have to struggle to come up with the new fabulous idea that everybody's going to love. And this, let me tell you, is very good for the bottom line. Now of course, there's a bunch of effects that this culture of copying has on the creative process. And Stuart Weitzman is a very successful shoe designer. He has complained a lot about people copying him, but in one interview I read, he said it has really forced him to up his game. He had to come up with new ideas, new things that would be hard to copy. He came up with this Bowden-wedge heel that has to be made out of steel or titanium; if you make it from some sort of cheaper material, it'll actually crack in two. It forced him to be a little more innovative. (Music)
I da vam kažem, nema odmora za modiste. Svake sezone, ovi dizajneri moraju da se namuče izmišljajući nove sjajne ideje koje će svi voleti. A to je, po mom mišljenju, vrlo dobar konačni ishod. Naravno da postoji puno efekata koje ova kultura kopiranja ima na kreativni proces. Stjuart Vajtzman je vrlo uspešan dizajner obuće. Puno se žalio da ga dosta ljudi kopira. Ali u jednom njegovom intervjuu koji sam pročitala, rekao je da ga je to nateralo da unapredi sopstveni rad. Morao je da smisli nove ideje, nove stvari koje bi bile teške za kopiranje. Smislio je ovu Bouden-klinastu štiklu koja mora biti napravljena od čelika ili titanijuma. Ako bi bila napravljena od jeftinijeg materijala, jednostavno bi se polomila. Kultura kopiranja ga je naterala da bude inovativniji.
And that actually reminded me of jazz great, Charlie Parker. I don't know if you've heard this anecdote, but I have. He said that one of the reasons he invented bebop was that he was pretty sure that white musicians wouldn't be able to replicate the sound. (Laughter) He wanted to make it too difficult to copy, and that's what fashion designers are doing all the time. They're trying to put together a signature look, an aesthetic that reflects who they are. When people knock it off, everybody knows because they've put that look out on the runway, and it's a coherent aesthetic.
I to me u stvari podsetilo na džez umetnika Čarlija Parkera. Ne znam da li ste čuli za ovu anegdotu. On je rekao da je jedan od razloga zašto je izmislio bibop taj što je bio prilično siguran da nijedan beli muzičar ne bi bio u stanju da ponovi taj zvuk. Hteo je da ga napravi malo težim za kopiranje. I to je ono što modni dizajneri rade sve vreme. Oni se trude da sklope prepoznatljiv izgled, estetiku koja odražava ono što oni jesu. Kada ljudi kopiraju brednove, svi to znaju jer to je pojava koju stavljaju na modnu pistu, i to je koherentna estetika.
I love these Gallianos. Okay, we'll move on. (Laughter)
Volim ove Galijanove haljine. Ok, idemo dalje.
This is not unlike the world of comedy. I don't know if you know that jokes also can't be copyright protected. So when one-liners were really popular, everybody stole them from one another. But now, we have a different kind of comic. They develop a persona, a signature style, much like fashion designers. And their jokes, much like the fashion designs by a fashion designer, really only work within that aesthetic. If somebody steals a joke from Larry David, for instance, it's not as funny.
Ovo nije različito od sveta komedije. Ne znam da li znate da se šale takođe ne mogu zaštititi autorskim pravima. Tako da kada su kratki vicevi postali popularni, svi su ih krali jedni od drugih. Ali sada imamo različitu vrstu komedije. Ona razvija ličnost, prepoznatljiv stil, slično modnim dizajnerima. I njihove šale, kao i radovi modnih dizajnera, rade jedino u takvom estetskom okruženju. Ako neko ukrade šalu na primer, od Larija Dejvida, ona nije tako smešna.
Now, the other thing that fashion designers have done to survive in this culture of copying is they've learned how to copy themselves. They knock themselves off. They make deals with the fast fashion giants and they come up with a way to sell their product to a whole new demographic: the Santee Alley demographic.
Druga stvar koju su modni dizajneri uradili da bi preživeli kulturu kopiranja je da su naučili kako da kopiraju sebe. Oni sami skidaju svoje brendove. Praveći dogovore sa gigiantima brze mode, pronašli su način da prodaju svoj proizvod novoj grupi ljudi, ekipi u Santi ulici.
Now, some fashion designers will say, "It's only in the United States that we don't have any respect. In other countries there is protection for our artful designs." But if you take a look at the two other biggest markets in the world, it turns out that the protection that's offered is really ineffectual. In Japan, for instance, which I think is the third largest market, they have a design law; it protects apparel, but the novelty standard is so high, you have to prove that your garment has never existed before, it's totally unique. And that's sort of like the novelty standard for a U.S. patent, which fashion designers never get -- rarely get here in the states.
Neki modni dizajneri će reći: "Samo u SAD nemamo nikavog poštovanja. U drugim zemljama postoji zaštita naše umetničke kreacije." Ali ako pogledate drugo i treće najveće tržište u svetu, ispada da je ponuđena zaštita ustvari bez uticaja. U Japanu, na primer, za koji mislim da je treće najveće tržište na svetu, postoji zakon o dizajnu, koji štiti odevne predmete, ali standardi za novitete su toliko visoki, da morate dokazati da vaš odevni predmet nije nikada ranije postojao. Da je u potpunosti jedinstven. Ovo je na neki način standard za novitet za S.A.D. patente koji modni dizajneri nikada ne dobijaju, i retko ga dobijaju ovde u S.A.D.
In the European Union, they went in the other direction. Very low novelty standard, anybody can register anything. But even though it's the home of the fast fashion industry and you have a lot of luxury designers there, they don't register their garments, generally, and there's not a lot of litigation. It turns out it's because the novelty standard is too low. A person can come in and take somebody else's gown, cut off three inches from the bottom, go to the E.U. and register it as a new, original design. So, that does not stop the knock-off artists. If you look at the registry, actually, a lot of the registered things in the E.U. are Nike T-shirts that are almost identical to one another.
U Evropskoj Uniji otišli su u drugom pravcu. Vrlo niski standardi noviteta, bilo ko može da registruje bilo šta. Ali uprkos tome što je u pitanju mesto nastanka brze modne industrije i što postoje mnogobrojni dizajneri luksuzne robe, oni ne registruju odevne predmete po pravilu i nema puno parničenja. To je stoga zato što su standardi za novitete preniski. Bilo ko može uzeti nečiji ogrtač, odseći desetak centimetara sa kraja, otići u EU i registrovati to kao novi, originalni dizajn. Tako da ovo ne zaustavlja umetnike koji skidaju brendove. Ako pogledate registar pažljivije, veliki deo registrovanih stvari u EU su kao "Nike" majice, skoro su identične jedna drugoj.
But this has not stopped Diane von Furstenberg. She is the head of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, and she has told her constituency that she is going to get copyright protection for fashion designs. The retailers have kind of quashed this notion though. I don't think the legislation is going anywhere, because they realized it is so hard to tell the difference between a pirated design and something that's just part of a global trend. Who owns a look? That is a very difficult question to answer. It takes lots of lawyers and lots of court time, and the retailers decided that would be way too expensive.
Ali ovo nije zaustavilo Dajen fon Furstenberg. Ona je upravnica Saveta modnih dizajnera Amerike, i rekla je svojim članovima da će obezbediti zaštitu autorskih prava modnim dizajnerima. Prodavci su na neki način prigušili ovaj zahtev. Mislim da ovaj zakon neće stupiti na snagu. Razlog je taj što shvataju da je jako teško reći koja je razlika između piratizovanog dizajna i nečega što je deo globalnog trenda. Ko poseduje izgled? To je komplikovano pitanje za odgovoriti. Potrebno je puno advokata i puno vremena u sudu. A prodavci su odlučili da bi to bilo preskupo.
You know, it's not just the fashion industry that doesn't have copyright protection. There's a bunch of other industries that don't have copyright protection, including the food industry. You cannot copyright a recipe because it's a set of instructions, it's fact, and you cannot copyright the look and feel of even the most unique dish. Same with automobiles. It doesn't matter how wacky they look or how cool they look, you cannot copyright the sculptural design. It's a utilitarian article, that's why. Same with furniture, it's too utilitarian. Magic tricks, I think they're instructions, sort of like recipes: no copyright protection. Hairdos, no copyright protection. Open source software, these guys decided they didn't want copyright protection. They thought it'd be more innovative without it. It's really hard to get copyright for databases. Tattoo artists, they don't want it; it's not cool. They share their designs. Jokes, no copyright protection. Fireworks displays, the rules of games, the smell of perfume: no. And some of these industries may seem sort of marginal to you, but these are the gross sales for low I.P. industries, industries with very little copyright protection, and there's the gross sales of films and books. (Applause) It ain't pretty.
Znate, moda nije jedina industrija koja nema zaštitu autorskih prava. Postoji dosta drugih industrija koje nemaju zaštitu autroskih prava, uključujući prehrambenu industriju. Ne možete zaštititi recept zato što je to skup smernica, to je činjenica. I ne možete zaštititi izgled i ukus čak ni najjedinstvenijeg jela. Ista je stvar i sa automobilima. Bez obzira koliko šašavo ili sjajno izgledali, ne može se zaštititi vajarska skica. To je utilitarni faktor i u njemu je razlog. Isto je i sa nameštajem. Previše je utilitaran. Mađioničarski trikovi, oni su takođe upustva, slično kao i recepti. Nema zaštite autorskih prava. Frizure, nema zaštite autorskih prava. Softver otvorenog koda - ovi momci su odlučili da ne žele zaštitu autorskih prava. Mislili su da će biti inovativniji bez nje. Jako je teško dobiti zaštitu za baze podataka. Tetovaže - ni oni neće zaštitu, to nije dovoljno kul. Oni dele svoje stvaralaštvo. Vicevi, nema zaštite autorskih prava. Vatrometi. Pravila igara. Miris parfema, ne. A neke od ovih industrija vam se mogu učiniti na neki način marginalnim, ali ovo su bruto iznosi prodaje industrija sa niskom zaštitom autorskih prava, industrije sa vrlo malo zaštite. A ovo su bruto iznosi prodaje filmova i knjiga. (Aplauz) Nije lepo.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
So you talk to people in the fashion industry and they're like, "Shhh! Don't tell anybody we can actually steal from each other's designs. It's embarrassing." But you know what? It's revolutionary, and it's a model that a lot of other industries -- like the ones we just saw with the really small bars -- they might have to think about this. Because right now, those industries with a lot of copyright protection are operating in an atmosphere where it's as if they don't have any protection, and they don't know what to do.
A kada pričate sa ljudima u modnoj industriji oni vam kažu "Pst! Nemoj nikome da kažeš da u stvari možemo da krademo jedni od drugih. Posramljujuće je." Sa druge strane, ovo je revolucionarno i predstavlja model za druge industrije, kao ove koje smo upravo videli sa stvarno malim stupcima, oni bi mogli da razmisle o ovome, zato što, upravo sada, te industrije sa puno zaštite autorskih prava rade u okruženju u kome nemaju praktično nikakvu zaštitu. I ne znaju kako da se odnose prema tome.
When I found out that there are a whole bunch of industries that didn't have copyright protection, I thought, "What exactly is the underlying logic? I want a picture." And the lawyers do not provide a picture, so I made one. These are the two main sort of binary oppositions within the logic of copyright law. It is more complex than this, but this will do. First: Is something an artistic object? Then it deserves protection. Is it a utilitarian object? Then no, it does not deserve protection. This is a difficult, unstable binary.
Kada sam otkrila da postoji zaista puno industrija koje nemaju zaštitu autorskih prava, pomislila sam, koja je tačno logika iza svega? Trebala mi je slika, a advokati vam neće dati sliku. Tako da sam ja napravila jednu. Ovo su dve glavne, na neki način binarne opozicije u okviru logike zakona o zaštiti autorskih prava. Stvari su dosta kompleksnije od ovoga, ali poslužiće svrsi. Prvo, da li je nešto umetnički predmet? Ako jeste, zaslužuje zaštitu. Da li je to predmet koji je utilitaran? Onda ne, ne zaslužuje zaštitu. Ovo je teška, nestabilna dvojnost.
The other one is: Is it an idea? Is it something that needs to freely circulate in a free society? No protection. Or is it a physically fixed expression of an idea: something that somebody made and they deserve to own it for a while and make money from it? The problem is that digital technology has completely subverted the logic of this physically fixed, expression versus idea concept. Nowadays, we don't really recognize a book as something that sits on our shelf or music as something that is a physical object that we can hold. It's a digital file. It is barely tethered to any sort of physical reality in our minds. And these things, because we can copy and transmit them so easily, actually circulate within our culture a lot more like ideas than like physically instantiated objects.
Druga je: da li je to ideja? Da li je to nešto što bi trebalo da se slobodno kreće po slobodnom društvu? Nema zaštite. Ili je to fizički utvrđen izraz ideje, nešto što je neko napravio, i što zaslužuje da bude posedovano neko vreme i zarađuje. Problem je u tome što je digitalna tehnologija u potpunosti preokrenula logiku ovog fizički utvrđenog izraza nasuprot konceptu ideje. U naše vreme, ne prepoznajemo knjigu kao nešto što stoji na polici ili muziku kao nešto što je fizički objekt koji možemo uzeti u ruku. To je digitalna datoteka. Ona je jedva povezana sa bilo kojom fizičkom realnosti u našem umu. I sve ove stvari, zato što ih možemo kopirati i prenositi toliko jednostavno, kruže u okviru naše kulture više kao ideje nego kao fizički postojeći oblici.
Now, the conceptual issues are truly profound when you talk about creativity and ownership and, let me tell you, we don't want to leave this just to lawyers to figure out. They're smart. I'm with one. He's my boyfriend, he's okay. He's smart, he's smart. But you want an interdisciplinary team of people hashing this out, trying to figure out: What is the kind of ownership model, in a digital world, that's going to lead to the most innovation? And my suggestion is that fashion might be a really good place to start looking for a model for creative industries in the future.
Ova konceptualna pitanja su uistinu dalekovida kada se bave kreativnošću, ili vlasništvom i dozvolićete mi, ne želimo da se ovim pitanjima bave samo advokati. Pametni su. Ja sam sa jednim, on mi je dečko. Ok je. Pametan je. Potreban je interdisciplinarni tim koji bi ovo razmrsio, u pokušaju da se dokuči koji će model vlasništva u digitalnom svetu voditi ka najviše inovacija. Moj predlog je da bi moda mogla biti dobro mesto da se počne potraga za modelom kreativnih industrija budućnosti.
If you want more information about this research project, please visit our website: it's ReadyToShare.org. And I really want to thank Veronica Jauriqui for making this very fashionable presentation.
Ako želite više informacija o ovom istraživačkom projektu, posetite web sajt ReadyToShare.org Želea bih da se zahvalim Veroniki Hauriki za ovu modnu prezentaciju.
Thank you so much. (Applause)
Veliko hvala.