Individuals, loved ones, and money-making entities have long since started the debate of who owns, or more precisely who they think should own, the rights to anything that can be pointed to or recalled from the past. There are numerous arguments of what a person can “own” from the past and to what extent that may be. I personally believe that no topic, idea, or creation of the past can, or even should, ever be fully be “owned” by an entity.
Saying that an event, idea, or creation is fully “owned” is like saying observers are not entitled to their experience or that the object of ownership exists inside a vacuum. Yes, copyrights can exist and singular profit markets can be created for something, yet the public will always have a hand in “ownership” as well. From the DH exhibits showcased in this class alone, the lack of ownership on the past is exemplified. Whether fair use, transformative content, parody, or educational aspects are utilized, this would take away “full ownership” of something. For instance, this class has seen how even heavily trademarked and copyrighted creations have multiple ways that they can still be utilized.
Throughout this class, we have been shown multiple works showcasing multiple forms of copyright and licensing ownership. For instance, Alison Martin created a fantastic DH project surrounding the sonics of gentrification within a DC neighborhood. This project is published under a creative commons and copyright of nonderivetives and attribution. We have also seen multiple archival-type websites that are more out of date, where their copyrights have expired and were under public domain. Even though these works have differing copyrights and may be under creative commons or public domain, they all have one thing in common; they can never be completely and fully owned. For instance, I may make an entire novel speaking on the effects and changes Martin’s project had on the NOVA and DC community. She/the copyright holders will still own the literal work that she accomplished, however the idea she created is now for the public’s use.
I have made my DH site open access, as I plan to use it for purely educational aspects; I believe that education should not be behind a paywall or harder to access and use for certain individuals. Similarly, I plan for my final project to be within the public domain. Since my project revolves around the history of Alzheimer’s Disease, and one of my main goals is further public awareness with less stigma, I want it to be as easily sharable as possible. I also have no personal issue with aspects of my work being utilized by someone else to help create their own, even if theirs will be for profit. Further, I wouldn’t feel comfortable personally profiting off of a mental health awareness project.
I don’t have any current concerns regarding copyright issues while creating my DH project. Though I am utilizing multiple sources, all under various forms of copyright, I know how I can and cannot use them. The largest concern was in linking art work of a past artist, however I was taught how to do so safely. As for overall limitations, I think my biggest struggle will be within my overall skill.s This is my first DH project and I am very new to a lot of the skills we’ve used so far; I am however, familiar with research and the topic I chose, so the majority of sources I find don’t pose any issues there. I know I want to make a timeline and/or map which will most likely be the biggest limitation in completing this project.