I'm not sure you can truly claim ownership of a word, but you can certainly claim to have started a trend which uses a word, though whether we should consider that ownership I'm not particularly sure either.
I think a very important part of this equation is racialised, in that the transference of words across racial lines is becoming more common due to Tiktok specifically but more ambiently, the virtual melting pot of the internet. New phrases do not spring into being but pretty much all of the words that you've mentioned are used and/or popularised by Black youth because Black cultural production is seen as cool and edgy by the dominant culture (when it isn't being seen as vulgar or offensive) and there is an element of spectacle that becomes attached to them.
This is why the question of "owning a word" is complex. I consider this with the word "woke". Woke was a word that was appropriated across racial lines with a very specific slipstream of transference. White queerness adopts (or appropriates) the word through close proximity to Blackness, the word then becomes a blanket term for "social justice", a concept that is heavily scrutinised by the white right wing already and finally, in its stage now, it has begun to mutate as a word that has a negative connotation, akin to "insufferably virtual signalling" with a twinge of dog whistle within it.
Ownership of words presents differently to the Black demographic because ownership exists differently when you occupy Blackness. The exploitation of "on fleek" was lubricated, perhaps, not by the idea that "words cannot be owned thus we'll do whatever we want with this word" but more subconsciously as "nothing belongs to Blackness" which is obviously an impossible thought process to quantify yet one that Black people must contend with all the same, in ways we cannot ever predict. When Kayla posted her "on fleek" video, she had no idea that so many people would profit off from it–she was just existing how she exists. It is no coincidence that the two examples of eschewing credit both involve Black people.
Perhaps the question of "can you own a word?" becomes arbitrary when you actually look at the cogs involved, as it reduces and circumnavigates a core mechanism of the issue: how whiteness will lean towards exploitation when Blackness is involved. So perhaps, it is a question of, what is the proper way for the dominant culture to interact with productions–words, dances, etc–when they are not part of that culture, and furthermore, what is the best conduct - full stop?
Agreeed. I actually came in here to point out this, about GYAT. It's not a meme word even though it's been coopted as such and used in the wrong context. It's AAVE.
The key difference here between "on fleek" and "demure" is that "demure" is a real word within the English language that existed before someone said it on TikTok. She did not "create" the word, all she did was use a word that most people on TikTok hadn't heard before. Claiming you created a word, or own a word, just because YOU personally have never heard anyone use it speaks to a sentiment that younger generations are so disconnected from the world and from the history of their own language and culture.
I think that the creator of a word should ethically be compensated for any money made off of the word because it is their intellectual property. This can be enforced if the creator of a word issues a patent for any potential merchandizing with the word featured in it. Unfortunately this can only apply if the word is solely a neologism and not anything already existing, but this is reasonable. There should also be a time cutoff where if a word is older than a certain time, it could be patented as long as the meaning of the word is different. This ensures that if someone took an archaic word and gave it a new meaning it would be protected.
I'm not sure you can truly claim ownership of a word, but you can certainly claim to have started a trend which uses a word, though whether we should consider that ownership I'm not particularly sure either.
I think a very important part of this equation is racialised, in that the transference of words across racial lines is becoming more common due to Tiktok specifically but more ambiently, the virtual melting pot of the internet. New phrases do not spring into being but pretty much all of the words that you've mentioned are used and/or popularised by Black youth because Black cultural production is seen as cool and edgy by the dominant culture (when it isn't being seen as vulgar or offensive) and there is an element of spectacle that becomes attached to them.
This is why the question of "owning a word" is complex. I consider this with the word "woke". Woke was a word that was appropriated across racial lines with a very specific slipstream of transference. White queerness adopts (or appropriates) the word through close proximity to Blackness, the word then becomes a blanket term for "social justice", a concept that is heavily scrutinised by the white right wing already and finally, in its stage now, it has begun to mutate as a word that has a negative connotation, akin to "insufferably virtual signalling" with a twinge of dog whistle within it.
Ownership of words presents differently to the Black demographic because ownership exists differently when you occupy Blackness. The exploitation of "on fleek" was lubricated, perhaps, not by the idea that "words cannot be owned thus we'll do whatever we want with this word" but more subconsciously as "nothing belongs to Blackness" which is obviously an impossible thought process to quantify yet one that Black people must contend with all the same, in ways we cannot ever predict. When Kayla posted her "on fleek" video, she had no idea that so many people would profit off from it–she was just existing how she exists. It is no coincidence that the two examples of eschewing credit both involve Black people.
Perhaps the question of "can you own a word?" becomes arbitrary when you actually look at the cogs involved, as it reduces and circumnavigates a core mechanism of the issue: how whiteness will lean towards exploitation when Blackness is involved. So perhaps, it is a question of, what is the proper way for the dominant culture to interact with productions–words, dances, etc–when they are not part of that culture, and furthermore, what is the best conduct - full stop?
excellent nuance thank you!! you're completely right
👌🏾🙏🏾
Agreeed. I actually came in here to point out this, about GYAT. It's not a meme word even though it's been coopted as such and used in the wrong context. It's AAVE.
I just wish demure lasted, though. It was my favorite word 😭
The key difference here between "on fleek" and "demure" is that "demure" is a real word within the English language that existed before someone said it on TikTok. She did not "create" the word, all she did was use a word that most people on TikTok hadn't heard before. Claiming you created a word, or own a word, just because YOU personally have never heard anyone use it speaks to a sentiment that younger generations are so disconnected from the world and from the history of their own language and culture.
I read somewhere that someone *other* than Jools trademarked "demure" and sued her for using it. Messed up!
I think that the creator of a word should ethically be compensated for any money made off of the word because it is their intellectual property. This can be enforced if the creator of a word issues a patent for any potential merchandizing with the word featured in it. Unfortunately this can only apply if the word is solely a neologism and not anything already existing, but this is reasonable. There should also be a time cutoff where if a word is older than a certain time, it could be patented as long as the meaning of the word is different. This ensures that if someone took an archaic word and gave it a new meaning it would be protected.
solid ideas, I like how you address what to do with archaic words that are given new meaning
Peter the millenial, on fleek (meme video)