2015 has seen the rise of things like meme culture, Vines, and the Snapchat effect – all trends directly correlated to the merging of youth and technology. With the advent of Instagram and similar apps, internet culture has become a virtual playground, where creatives both young and old are creating bona fide cultural forms of art that are beginning to blend into the worlds of advertising and corporate business. It’s hard for the world to keep up with the speed of the digital media environment, and what passes as a law or regulation today may become completely obsolete by Friday, thanks to the breakneck speed with which the internet bends and morphs. As such, the concept of intellectual property becomes exceptionally blurry when talking about one’s creative rights to things like memes, GIFs, and video clips. By the time the ink dries on today’s rules for sharing content created by others, a new app appears on the market that totally changes the game, and sometimes those who suffer the most are the young people – many of whom are of color – immersing themselves in online forms of expression that are being co-opted for financial gain by others.

In a fascinating examination of this phenomenon, Fader’s Doreen St. Felix puts forth the following: “Young creatives are using social media to shape the culture we consume. But what happens when they don’t own their work?” Her story is initially framed around one girl, a 16-year-old who took to Vine, the video-sharing platform, and whose words became an internet sensation. Specifically, her use of the term “on fleek” to describe her eyebrows (fleek=highest level of dopeness/popularity) became a cultural and generational phenomenon, and pretty soon it became a household name, at least for the millennial and Generation Z demographic. Eventually, superstars like Ariana Grande adopted the phrase, and well…the use of fleek was on fleek. As St. Felix shares, even global companies like IHOP used the term in ad campaigns, wherein which lies the rub: is that 16-year-old purveyor of youth culture owed any financial or intellectual property rights for her contributions?

But that’s just one example, whereas the trend of intellectual and creative appropriation in the digital era is far from an anecdotal experience of a few. Tracing ownership to something that’s gone viral is almost always impossible, just like it’s impossible to trace ownership of many jokes. Where would you even begin if you wanted to find out who invented “why did the chicken cross the road?” Add to that the fact that many of the online phenomena which become recreated and appropriated begin with the creativity of a young person of color, and the disadvantage becomes magnified. For example, everyone from Jimmy Fallon to Hillary Clinton referenced the Nae Nae in 2015, a reference to a song created by a young person of color. But there has been little – if any – acknowledgment of the monetary claims to the trend’s dominance in popular culture belonging to the artist (Silentó). Profits from the songs and impersonations aside, what about the countless memes, GIFs, and Vines that have been created and shared based on that song? Should the original artist be recompensed for its repeated use by others, even if not in its original song form? This is not at all a new phenomena, per se. Cultural exchange has followed human civilization throughout history, perhaps first in things like cuisine and language. However, St. Felix argues that those who feel that “the speed and relative borderlessness of the internet makes cross-platform, global dissemination seem like a consequence of tech” are suffering from “a convenient amnesia.”

St. Felix cites an article published by the Guardian earlier this year that argues for the much-deserved credit due to young people of color who contribute so greatly to the cultural, lingual, and comedic language of today’s world. In it, Guardian writer Hannah Giorgis says these contributions add up to a “21st century meta-language” which St. Felix says gives way to “dances, songs, memes…that are compelling enough to make the leap from the producer’s specific context to even the most corporate of marketing campaigns.” As she further argues, “intangible things like slang and styles of dance are not considered valuable, except when they’re produced by large entities willing and able to invest in trademarking them.” What makes it even easier for the creators of viral content to lose ownership claims are facts hidden in the legalise of platforms like Snapchat and Vine. Technically, once a user uploads content to those apps and similar sites, the content belongs to the platform. A copyright lawyer quoted by St. Felix shares that “copyright law and intellectual property in America does not follow the creative production of artists. Rather, it protects the interests of companies.” For example, the video below of Hillary Clinton doing the “Nae Nae” has been viewed more than one-million times, giving “The Ellen Show” valuable traffic and giving big businesses like Visa an impetus to advertise on her show and YouTube channel. Is any of that money owed to artists like Silentó?

There is much to celebrate about the internet, particularly when it comes to its role in providing young people an outlet for self-expression. The web offers up an endless space in which creativity can be showcased, and anonymity online allows for those who would otherwise refrain from sharing their art more willing to so. Its global platform ensures that creativity is seen and appreciated by millions, but all of these positives exist within the confines of the argument put forth by St. Felix. Expressing one’s creativity is beautiful, should be encouraged, and should never be censored. However, the corporatization of our youth’s ideas should not be allowed, especially at the expense of those who inspire the conceptual components being used for profit. How can we work to prevent such things from happening? Is it the duty of the person creating and uploading content to trademark it, or does that only set the stage for too much of a focus on online propriety? Would forcing users to stake a claim to each and every image or video uploaded to the web stifle creativity?

Read: “How Corporations Profit From Black Teens’ Viral Content” by Doreen St. Felix at Fader

Related: Keeping It Real: How A Facebook Policy Is Changing The Name Of The Game