Viral Creativity... is it real?

The old saying was that the secret to creativity was hiding you sources, but when you flaunt openly where you have taken the inspiration from ( or the case that I'm going to discuss, the picture, the video, the song from!) what does it mean?

Is it merely another rip-off or can you truely credit yourself as a creative person with something, though not exactly original, but still new? Where exactly do we draw the line when it comes to intellectual copy right?

This was something that I had briefly wondered about when the Indian Pop scene was overwhelmed with 'remix'es. But since the original creators/music directors/lyricists were all dead no one was around to question it. But it had set forth the thought, 'If the remix is more popular than the original song, then who gets the credit?' The original music director or the remix Dj?

Now with the overwhelming popularity of 'Kolaveri D' song and the million spin offs based on it, the thought has resurfaced. And it's not just wtk*, but thanks to youtube and similar video sharing sites, you have covers being done of almost all the songs by tremendously talented people. As much as I love Adele singing 'Rolling in the deep', I'm almost equally addicted to this little girl's version of it.

The voice is clearly the girl's, but the song is Adele's. If they decide to market this video, what would it mean... who's song would it be? In this case it's simpler because there are not many modifications in the song itself, so the song is still Adele's. But had Vazquez added another riff , a few more beats, changed the tempo entirely then added a rap stanza as well, would it still be Adele's?

Another question which has been bugging me - can the spin offs be taken as creative outputs themselves? They are clearly creative outlets but does that mean they can stand on their own as creative pieces, independent of the inspiration? Hmmm... I think I just got an answer for my own question. I dont think they can ever stand independently.

Had Picasso made his version of 'Mona Lisa', it would still be only a version of Da Vinci's work. Without that reference it would be hard to connect to the painting. We might appreciate the new perspective, but only because we know what the original is like. But if someone who did not know Da Vinci or his works, then would it matter to him as much? Or will he be able to appreciate it more without being burdened by all the implications of what it means to be 'Mona Lisa'?

Looks like I din't answer it after all! :-/ Anyways, Do you have a take on this?
Let me know!


*Why This Kolaveri