LEARNING PORTFOLIO
The readings from this module very much bought to my attention how I was going to undertake the remediation task without incurring problems with Copyright and Fair Use. As my use of the genre of a television program, remediating to a blog for this task had been decided upon, it made my think more critically and creatively about how I would get around the problems as noted in the summaries of the readings.
Whilst this remediation task is only hypothetical and I can easily remove it from the internet once MED104 is completed, it made me ask myself what if I was in the position that I had to create media content for my job? How would I get around any problems faced with Copyright and Fair Use? How far could I push the boundaries before I would incur the potential of legal action?
SUMMARIES FROM THE READINGS
Collins gives a brief overview on what is Copyright and Fair Use, looking at the historical perspective dating back to 19th century England to the present, as well as examples on how these are used.
When looking at the definition of copyright, The University of Reading describes this as “Copyright is a property right which subsists in virtually every kind of work (written, printed, electronic), as well as in the typographical arrangement of published editions, and in sound recordings, films, broadcasts or cable programmes. Copyright protection is automatic, giving control of the right of copying to the authors/creators or to their assignees/transferees” (The University of Reading. 2010).
As well as explaining what is “Fair Use” or as Collins writes, “Fair use is a safety valve on copyright law to prevent oppressive monopolies” (Collins, S. 2008). This article briefly explores the impacts of copyright and fair use and what this means to current users when they explore the web and create content using Web 2.0 technologies and digital media.
This article demonstrates what can happen when copyright, web 2.0 technologies and user generated content collide. The Holden Lenz YouTube video of the child dancing to the Prince “Let’s Go Crazy #1” and the subsequent legal action by Universal (the copyright owners) created media coverage both online and offline and demonstrated that whilst it appears that the copyright owners were only acting in the best interests of the artist and copyright it may have backfired against them with publicity making the video hugely successful and viewed on YouTube and led to a “less than reverential opinion of Prince and Universal” (Collins, S. 2008) by internet users.
After reading the Don Tapscott book “Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration changes everything”, I found this article by Steve Collins had many similarities to Tapscotts writings about the roles of the consumer and the producer, or “prosumer” as Tapscott writes, in the production of web content and online media.
At the end of this article in the references I noted that Collins has detailed some excellent links for further exploration on this topic.
In the Youtube video “A Fair(y) use tale” (dangerousnerd. 2007) the Disney Corporation is used as an example to define how copyright and fair use operates, and explains copyright laws. Such topics as copyright definition and how “only the copyright owner has the right to use their work” (dangerousnerd. 2007) are expressed by using Disney characters as examples.
It also advises that it is forbidden to use copyrighted works without the permission of the holder of the copyright and if permission is not granted by the copyright holder or owner then there is the liability of legal action that can be taken against the user. When exploring the question of what things can’t be copyrighted, Dangerousnerd notes that “books, plays, music, dance, movies and pictures, and you can’t copyright an idea” (dangerousnerd. 2007).
The video also looks at copyright and the public domain and explains that copyright can only be used for a fixed time of 14 years giving the copyright owner or holder time to make enough money. It goes on to elucidate that after this time it can go into the public domain making itself available for use by any person. Items within the public domain is free for use as this video advised that our culture is one that creates idea and that for new ideas to be formed works created earlier need to be build upon. This is necessary for a living and thriving society. The antithesis to this is that it states that copyright is now getting longer and in some cases may now last a lifetime.
When viewing the explanation of fair use the video details this a being limitations on copyright and explains that there are ways for copyright to be broken. For teaching, news reporting, parody, and critical comment a small amount of work may be borrowed for use. Users should demonstrate the for fair use to occur rules such as the nature of the work, amount of the work borrowed, the commercial impact – of which does not change the original work, are followed.
The video creator used the example of Disney in this video as they as a global organisation use their power to intimidate anyone who takes a Disney copyright work. In order for fair use to be acceptable then this YouTube movie will have legal protection.
In the Lawrence Lessig TED talk, the discussion dialogue centers around user generated content and the topic of its use in business. Lessig goes onto explain when in 1939 the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) raised the rates for their works to broadcasters (ASCAP. 2010), the majority of these broadcasters moved their business to the non-profit-making performing right organisation, Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI) where public domain works were given away free to subscribers (BMI. 2010).
The internet is the tool that allows and empowers us to give rise to user generated content, creating and producing culture and subject matter for love rather than for monetary gain. Lessig uses examples of user generated content, taking a song and video and mixing it into something different. The Jesus the musical video, remixed to a Gloria Gaynor soundtrack then re-edited, created a humorous video and musical mashup.
It is noted that the sounds and our way of life and traditions that we are immersed in our daily lives can be taken to an online format, remixed and as Lessig notes “become tools of speech and how our kids speak and think” (Lessig, L. 2007).
When discussing the architecture of copyright and digital law, Lessig noted in this video that “every single use of culture produces a copy and therefore requires permission and therefore makes you a trespasser” (Lessig, L. 2007). He also goes on to detail that there has not been a revolution or uprising protesting against this law as yet, thus common sense has not yet triumphed.
There appears to be growing hostility from both positive and negative sides to this copyright and digital law which seems to be fought at every possible opportunity. The opponents to the law challenge their opposition in rejecting the copyright laws with the battlefront taking place on websites such as YouTube where content is regularly taken down as it is deemed to be breaching these laws. Interestingly whilst these so called breaches of the law have been taken down they are not forgotten. The website www.youtomb.com preserves screen captures of videos removed due to copyright complaint (YouTomb. 2010).
Government policy makers are not doing much to fix this issue and what is needed is balance for both sides of this argument for and against these laws so that all sides are satisfied with the outcome. Lessig notes that a solution could be the “artists and creators embrace and choose that their work available more freely, eg freely for amateur not commercial use with business embracing this opportunity and build a culture of more free and less free working together” (Lessig, L. 2007)
