The concept of intellectual property has become increasingly complex today, not in small part thanks to the Haus of Maus. With varying perspectives on the value and ownership of ideas. The Cambrian explosion of thought kick-started by the Enlightenment was pretty much spoiled when the first person said, “This idea belongs to me”; cue Thomas Edison, the Manhattan Project, and our current trench war for IP rights over colors and dictionary words.

Some of you probably would say IP law protects ideas in some way or provides for creators and their families through the power of elbow grease and creativity. But the truth is a lot murkier than that.

Allow me to elaborate.

I have been down an IP rabbit hole for the past few years. It all started with a now-obscure source mentioning how the Chinese innovation boom in the 90s and 00s was partly thanks to their perspective on ownership laws.

Back in the early 90s, America saw an influx of Chinese migrants the likes of which they hadn’t seen in a century. First-generation Chinese engineers, doctors, and lawyers came to the US in search of opportunity and a promising future for their children. And alongside them, came a huge influx of China’s rich history and culture, one that’s entirely different from the way Westerners had handled things so far.

Whether by design or happenstance, this migration profoundly impacted the Mainland’s development. As some of them returned to their homeland after completing their studies or achieving some financial success, these individuals shared the knowledge and expertise they had acquired, ultimately contributing to the construction of the manufacturing and technological powerhouse that China has become today. This transfer of knowledge and know-how was crucial in China’s swift ascent as a key contender in the global innovation arena.

Exactly how this happened has been widely reported and contended. Some call it a brain drain on American society, while others seek to emulate it under the banner of equal growth and opportunity for our newly globalized society. What remains is the fact that it worked. This influx of Americanized ideas combined with the mass workforce at China’s disposal led, to its credit, to the biggest innovation boom the world has seen in generations. Let me be clear, I wish to make no political statement on how this moment in time happened, or why it did. I just want to point out how incredible the results were for all parties involved.

This well-documented phenomenon is what I came to call the “Confucian” approach to intellectual rights. When your ideas and creations belong to the collective, your society can iterate and innovate in ways you just couldn’t ever dream of, were you setting out to do it yourself.

This notion seeded an interesting doubt in my mind. While I’m not confident enough to call it a better approach for our world as a whole, I can see where it could shine a new light on how ideas propagate, even in the Western creator countercultures and tamer Latin American countries such as my own.

To rid this concept of its political connotations, you could also call this way of propagating an idea the “Erasmian” approach to copyright. Reflecting its open nature and heavy bias for proliferation. We can analyze the general principles of both Erasmus’s and Confucius’s philosophies to find similarities that could potentially relate to the approaches to copyright I’ve named after them.

I can illustrate the concept of Erasmian/Confucian Copyright through the lens of two key principles that both Erasmus and Confucius championed:

1. There is a strong emphasis on education and knowledge sharing. Both thinkers valued education and the dissemination of knowledge, recognizing that learning and intellectual growth was essential for personal development and social harmony. This shared value suggests that they might have favored a more open approach to copyright, allowing greater access to creative works for learning and enrichment.
   

2. They both leaned on a deeply held respect for tradition and previous works; building on top of other people’s ideas is central to Erasmian humanism and Confucianism. These philosophies acknowledge the importance of building upon past generations’ wisdom and learning from previous scholars’ works. With this reverence for tradition, Erasmus and Confucius might have been more lenient toward borrowing and reinterpreting earlier works, which could translate to a more flexible and collaborative approach to copyright.

By weaving these principles into the modern understanding of intellectual property, the Erasmian/Confucian approach emphasizes the value of shared knowledge and building upon existing ideas, fostering a culture of collaboration and innovation that benefits society. This mirror-self of the Confusian/Erasmian take on why ideas have value can be seen at the forefront of innovation with strong and impactful causes like the Open Source movement, the rise of Creative Commons, and even a big portion of Web3 projects.

The Erasmian or Confucian approach emphasizes the collaborative value of building upon existing knowledge and fostering a collective conversation.

While on the other hand, we have more of the individualistic perspective that rules our current mainstream paradigm, which I came to call the Utilitarian or “Randian” view. This lens on IP prioritizes protecting a creator’s exclusive rights and the value you can squeeze out of originality. This approach places more importance on the individual creator’s control over their work, limiting access to and use of creative works to protect the creator’s exclusive rights and financial interests.

The Randian Approach is marked by the following:

1. Limited knowledge sharing: Access to creative works is restricted through paywalls, licenses, or other mechanisms that prevent the free flow of information and ideas.

2. Strong emphasis on originality: This perspective prioritizes the creation of completely new and unique works, potentially downplaying the importance of building upon or reinterpreting previous works, except when you’re the IP owner, that is; in which case you’re incentivized to beat that dead horse till the last penny drops.

3. Strict legal enforcement: This perspective is well known for being overly litigious, with stronger legal protections for creators and more stringent enforcement of copyright laws, as well as penalties for those who infringe upon the rights of creators.

4. Focus on commercial interests: In this approach, the primary motivation for protecting creative works could be to maximize financial gain for creators and rights holders, possibly at the expense of broader access and knowledge sharing.

In today’s digital landscape, our society likes to think of itself as collaborative while placing a premium on being “disruptive” and the uniqueness of creative works. This focus on individual achievement and proprietary ownership can sometimes overshadow the importance of other people in achieving these goals and the community in the creative process. As a result, creators may feel pressured to constantly innovate and produce novel content at the expense of engaging in meaningful dialogue with their peers and building upon the rich tapestry of existing ideas.

I am not here to sell you this utopian dream of free-flowing ideas. However, I consider it important to set the underlying contrast when we explore other people’s crucial roles in pursuing our missions. Community, collaboration, and creating a support network aren’t just nice-to-haves in the digital creator’s journey; they’re the main drivers that push a “talented individual” past the boundaries of their ego and into real impact. There is no changing the world without touching your neighbors’ souls first, and that’s something many of us seem to wince at the mere thought of.

Coming back from this IP principles rabbit hole, I hope you’ll now understand that my main point isn’t simply singing the praises of collaboration and unbridled creativity. Instead, I am looking to point out how digital culture is in stark contrast to how our creative industry has been set up. You see it daily in the DAOs and online collectives we participate in. The value of community creation, your role in helping shape something bigger than yourself, and even the way funds are currently distributed speak volumes of the hypocrisy and antiquated systems lying under the floorboards of our collectivist pipe dream we call the internet.

And it all starts with the way we’ve been looking at the creative act. The myth of the lone genius.

The pervasive image of a solitary creator, toiling away in some dusty apartment to create their masterpiece has long dominated our understanding of the creative process. We’ve been captivated by stories of brilliant artists, inventors, and visionaries who, against all odds, single-handedly transform their fields with unique insights and talents. This romanticized view of creativity has been deeply ingrained in our culture, shaping our expectations and aspirations.

However, the reality is that creativity rarely, if ever, thrives in isolation. The notion of the solitary creator neglects the essential role that community, collaboration, and connection play in the creative process. By perpetuating the lone genius myth, we inadvertently undervalue the power of togetherness and the importance of engaging with others in our creative pursuits.

An idea led solely by one person can only go so far, constrained by the limits of that individual’s perspective and experiences. Without the input and collaboration of others, the idea may never reach its full potential or have the opportunity to be refined, expanded upon, and transformed. The richness of creativity is often unveiled through collective efforts, where diverse viewpoints come together to uncover new dimensions and possibilities that a single mind might struggle to achieve.

This is not to say that individual efforts are without merit, but rather that the true power of ideas is unlocked when they are shared, examined, and built upon by a community of engaged minds. As the idea grows and evolves, it gathers momentum, much like a snowball rolling downhill, gaining mass and strength from the contributions of those who have shaped it. This collaborative process amplifies the impact of the idea and enhances the growth and development of each participant as they learn from one another’s experiences, expertise, and insights.

This point is never clearer than in Emily Dickinson’s work:

“Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all,”

To think these lines would’ve never made it to our days. The story of Emily Dickinson serves as an illuminating lesson on what’s lost when you don’t share your creations and the consequences of not allowing ideas to grow through other people. Dickinson, one of America’s most renowned poets, was known for her reclusive nature and reluctance to share her work. As a result, most of her poems remained unpublished during her lifetime.

Not until after Dickinson’s death did her sister discover the vast collection of poems she had written secretly. These poems, eventually published posthumously, revealed the depth and range of Dickinson’s poetic genius. If only she had been more open to sharing her ideas and collaborating with others during her lifetime. Imagine the droves of people her work and genius may have inspired while she was still alive.

While it is true that every creator has the right to decide whether or not to share their work with the world. I beg to disagree. As hard as it may be, as vulnerable as you may feel, you and I owe it to the world to share what resonates deep within our hearts. Not solely for the accolades and the laurels but to inspire the people who come after us.

By sharing our work, we engage in a dialogue that transcends time and space, connecting us to generations past and future. Our creations become part of an ongoing exchange of human thought, emotion, and expression and have the potential to spark new ideas, perspectives, and creative endeavors in others. In this sense, our decision to share our work is not just about personal gratification but about our creations’ broader impact on the world.

Ultimately, our willingness to share our work is a testament to our belief in the transformative power of creativity and its potential to bring about positive change in the world. If that’s not the most beautiful calling anyone could strive for, I don’t know what is.

I once stumbled upon an intriguing article that discussed how creativity often flows in pairs. This concept was exemplified by some of the most renowned duos in history: Jobs and Wozniak, Lennon and McCartney, Marie and Pierre Curie, The Eames design duo, and many more. These pairs were able to bring out the best in each other as they shared ideas, perspectives, and expertise while also challenging one another to push their limits and strive for excellence.

This symbiotic relationship demonstrates that the creative process can be greatly enhanced through collaboration and mutual support, much to the dismay of the “lone geniuses” who are keen to believe their ideas sprout out fully formed. Embracing this understanding can help you appreciate the immense value of building a strong network and engaging in meaningful dialogue with peers.

History is filled to the brim with remarkable collaborations and intellectual exchanges that have led to groundbreaking innovations and artistic triumphs. Behind every so-called “lone genius” is a web of connections, influences, and support systems contributing to their success. These connections may be other creators, mentors, peers, or even family members who have significantly shaped the creative journey.

The truth is that creativity is a deeply social and collaborative endeavor. Ideas are born, nurtured, and refined through conversations, feedback, and the exchange of diverse perspectives. By recognizing and embracing the importance of community and collaboration, we can challenge the myth of the solo creator and create a more accurate and empowering narrative of the creative process.

I’ve struggled with this notion myself. Not because I’ve believed even for a moment that my work alone could ever reach the heights I’d want for it, but because I’ve been constantly met with friction when trying to bring people into my dream in a way that allows them to take ownership and feel like participants rather than spectators.

The challenge of cultivating a sense of ownership and a community lies in finding the delicate balance between exploration and growth. While our current moment in history has placed a lot of weight on the word “Community,” what they’re trying to describe is alignment.

At their core, those who delve into the same creative space or ideas from various perspectives already form a tacit community. I would feel the same camaraderie and common pursuit with many of my Web3 peers as if we shared an office or a cause. Even if there is no “Kairon” community to speak of, my alignment with the people surrounding me allows me to shape my stories through their voices just as well as any formalized movement would. The task, then, is to create an atmosphere that fosters open communication and to do so in a manner that feels authentic rather than exploitative.

It is essential to the creative act to consider how you questioning your surroundings can spark deeper connections; and how these connections can, in turn, ignite the flame of collective creativity.

Instead of viewing your community as a series of isolated individuals, or a way to channel people in service of your own goals, we must recognize the intricate web of relationships that form the foundation of a thriving creative ecosystem.

In this light, the true essence of a creative community is revealed. It is not merely a collection of people with shared interests but a dynamic entity that emerges from diverse perspectives, insights, and ideas.

You’re standing undisturbed and tranquil at the edge of a serene lake, reflecting the world in perfect stillness. As you cast a single pebble into its calm surface, ripples radiate outwards from the point of impact. These gentle yet persistent ripples create a pattern of interconnected circles that grow, intersect, and expand, transforming the once-still waters into a mesmerizing dance of motion.

Such is the nature of creative communities when individuals unite in a shared pursuit of inspiration, support, and challenge. This interconnected dance of ideas generates a resonance that reaches far beyond the initial spark, forging an environment of empowerment, inclusivity, and growth. As the ripples intersect and amplify one another, they give rise to a vibrant pattern of innovation, fostering an ever-evolving landscape of diverse and dynamic creativity.

In the same way that a solitary pebble can initiate a mesmerizing display of motion upon the waters, the collective endeavors of creators can reshape the creative world. By nurturing a robust network of support and embracing the power of collaboration, you too can ignite a ripple effect that reverberates throughout the artistic landscape, transforming it into a rich and resonant space that thrives on the exchange of ideas and the unity of creative minds. All you need to do, throw that first pebble to disturb the placid waters.

When you care about an idea so deeply that you feel other people should follow it, your task is now to let go and allow others to explore it in their own ways. Only by captivating the minds of these first believers can you end up sparking something that outlives you in all the right ways.