Can One Claim Ownership To An Idea
If an inventor produces a new invention does he recognise or create that idea, did that idea have form prior to his conception of it?
I would argue that ideas exist in the collective unconscious that are recognised. I believe there are innovative people who recognise ideas that no-one else has seen. The owner can claim to have discovered them AND it could be argued that the discovery reveals the Form in the World of Ideas to put it in Platonic terms and the inventor can claim to have revealed the Form if not to have created the Idea so therefore he cannot claim ownership of the Idea but he can claim to have discovered it.
In terms of music, artists use their personal creativity. The meaning of a song is possibly to be understood in terms of an artist putting his meaning onto a sequence of notes, however it is a matter of contingency that the artist has any rights over that sequence of notes and can claim ownership of them through copyright law. However it can be asked whether the artist has the right to claim ownership over a sequence of notes just because he has used them first in a song or whether anyone should be able to use them, as the musical scale belongs communally to everyone to use as they wish. However it could be argued that notes have no meaning until used in a song and that is when they have value and the artist creates that value and therefore can claim ownership to the idea that value signifies. The counterargument may be that the artist just recognises the potential value that already reside in the notes and belong to everyone and gives them a personal emphasis. However it is evident that an artist should be recognised for his creativity and just as a sculptor can be celebrated for moulding clay he didn’t create, a musician should be celebrated for creating music out of the potential of notes and sound that belong to everyone. Possibly one can conclude that the musician can claim ownership to the personal emphasis associated with that sequence of notes and possibly this would prevent others from interpreting the sequence of notes differently as it could be said that this would be abusing the rights the original musician had by putting his personal emphasis on it.
In the special case of sampling, the DJ does not interpret the sequence of notes of the original musician differently but uses them as a sample. Some would say that DJs do not abuse the rights of the original musician by using their work as samples. If one believes that artists just recognise the potential value in notes which belongs to everyone, one may concur with this. However common sense would suggest that the artist claims ownership to the piece of music by virtue of the personal emphasis associated with the sequence of notes and therefore has a say how that piece of music is used and whether a DJ has the right to sample it in a new track.
In terms of art, artists can create a work of art such as a painting and they can claim ownership to their creation. However it can again be argued that artists are a medium for their inspiration and they recognise ideas rather than create them. A lot of the creativity of art could be seen as artists putting their personal emphasis on a representation of reality. However the movement of surrealism demonstrated how art could be more of a creative force and could create reality rather than simply represent reality. Surrealism was analogous to existentialism but within Art. Using rules defined by the artist, the artwork can be appreciated and the rules are of essential value as well. Modern art has evolved as a creative expression within art as well. I would argue that within art, man can be creative and claim ownership to ideas.