Saturday, October 29, 2011

Wk 1 Peer Comments: Rosetta Cash

MAC Week 1-BP1: CopyRight or Wrong
Copyright law seemed very straightforward. But then I watched Good Copy / Bad Copy and discovered that it truly depends on your perspective and literally where you are in the world. We tend to think of things as being applicable universally and then we step outside of our borders and see that others have a different take on what is legal and what is not.

The words “pirate” and “piracy” popped up a lot in the documentary. When I hear the word “pirate” I immediately think of poor, oppressed people trying to finds ways outside of the designated norm to improve their conditions. Looking at the producers of remixed music in Brazil and how they don’t really make any money from the remixed CDs they create, the artist don’t make any money but they have these huge parties where their remixes are played. I found the aspect of remixing fascinating and the perspectives of the people who are involved is that they see what they do as an art form and creative expression.

Fair Use makes an attempt to find a solution by setting parameters on minimal use of copyrighted materials under specific circumstances. But they make it clear that legally it is a “defensible position” and not a “right.” Some saw the need to create the “Fair Use Best Practices Document.”

Larry Lessig and Creative Commons seem to have found a better solution to the copyright issues. Especially the copyright infringement issues that are encountered by the multitudes of young people who remix music. Creative Commons attempts to forge a balance between artists whose works are protected by copyright laws and the youth who creatively use copyrighted works to remix them using digital technologies. CC allows the artist to determine how his product can be used by others and allows those digitally creators to legally operate within those parameters. A step beyond Fair Use.

As I consider myself an artist and a talented, creative person, I want my intellectual property protected by copyright in every way possible. I think the Creative Commons solution is a viable and equitable solution for those who want to share their creations but still have some control over how they are used.

Meesh Capeesh said...

Rosetta, glad your feeling the wonderful possibilities of Creative Commons licensing! It has truly been one of the best work a rounds of protecting yourself and commercializing your work if need be. Have fun with it!!

Wk 1 peer comments: Mike Dunn

MAC BP_01 - Copyright Issues
While reviewing copyright issues for Media Asset Creation I was reminded of my first experience with copywriting. I have been a songwriter since my teens but I never thought of copyrighting my work until I started making money with music. After I released my first record I joined the American Society of Composers Authors and Publishers. I started learning the bones of music copyright out of necessity. Copyrighting is certainly a large topic and introducing the myths of copyright can provide a solid base to what can and cannot be copyrighted.

Media industries have changed extensively in the past decade along with attitudes towards ownership. While we can all agree that media creators should be compensated fairly for their work many users have abused or ignored this concept with the availability of illegally acquired media. Publishers who have grown with the technology have found success. One significant example would be the subscription model used by Netflix and Spotify. The artist has to make the choice regarding how their work can be used, we have seen growth in this realm by the Creative Commons license.

In the Good Copy/Bad Copy I was immediately taken by the mention of Girl Talk. I have been a fan of Girl Talk for a couple years and I consider what he does to be artistic and original while he uses its and pieces of copyrighted works. As Sir Isaac Newton said we are "Standing on the shoulders of giants". Perhaps this is just a new way to take a creation to "the next level". I was also reminded of the work of Shepard Fairey and his famous HOPE creation for the Obama campaign. I still have much to learn about this minefield of legality called copyright law but these videos have certainly brought me closer to a workable understanding.
Posted by Michael P. Dunn at 10:58 AM

Meesh Capeesh said...

Mike, copyright can be an absolute mine field but really it could all be so simple. For musicians our work in trying to police the commercial product from mechanicals has shifted. Fans now want to feel a real bond with the artists, with the consumers and the creators.

Take a look at the link below, I think you'll find it interesting.

Wk1 Wimba

The first Wimba session of the Media Asset Creation was very enlightening. The fruits of our labour are finally coming to ripen! Though the prospect is a little daunting I am ready to fly the coop. The thought of actually submitting the CBR project was not one I had actually taken seriously till now. Even though the deadline for SxSW EDU has passed I am still eager to participate in the conference and get prepared for next year. In the meantime I am very excited to share my ideas not only in the USA but to take what I have learnt back home to the UK.

Wk 1 Reading: Copyright Issues pt.1-3: What's it all for?

Welcome to my first blog post for the Media Asset Creation course. In this post I will discuss copyrighting issues in this day and age. I watched a few different videos and read a few different articles. What I was surprised to notice was that there was little to no mention of the issue of moral rights in the USA. According to The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK) there are a number of different rights associated with work creations. Moral rights, which is one of them, is the right to object to the derogatory use of works. For example, if a piece of music was is in a pornographic movie, the owner can contest the use of the material on moral grounds. Though there are in fact many differences between UK and US rights, I’m afraid that it may take days to comb through them.

Why is it that more often than not it is these giant companies that want to sue the smaller party over copyright infringements. Have they really paid their dues? How many legendary jazz artists were just paid as session musicians? These musicians who never see pennies worth of royalties . . . I ponder. As the Swedish gentlemen said in the documentary Good Copy Bad Copy, what gives the big US Corporations the right to enforce their ideals and laws on other territories yet so unabashedly disregard those of other territories?

We are in an age where the World is at our fingertips. Even though the USA is the biggest exporter of popular culture it is by no means the ruler of the world. More and more we are expanding, experimenting, creating and remixing. And so the beauty of Creative Commons licensing allows us to safely share our creations without the big bad wolf coming after us. I just hope that great works of art, film and music do not become lost in the memory of days gone by because of licensing. A funny point here was that the company I worked for actually tried to get copyright permission to use the MLK speech in the course books but couldn’t get permission. Why would they deny the use for educational purposes? Should we then think about where the priorities lie for these licensers? Is it to better society or better their profits?

If you want to know a bit more about UK IP issues please follow the link below.