Copy Right and Remix Culture
Over the last 9/10 weeks I have been looking at remix culture,
which is what you get if you mix any clips together to create a new one
for instance the econ advert which is made completely form recycled film clips
as are many documentaries on natural disasters which use clips from the public domain (the general public) to show real life encounters from events.
However its not always this simple!
In fact there is so much controversy, debate and dispute surrounding it it can be extremely confusing.
There are parties for and against the usage of remix culture which is what I have been investigating before creating my own remix culture advert/film clip.
I will be posting research from the argument For and Against here on my blog however I will not be posting any of my research or own troubles in this investigation to protect myself from breaching these copyright laws and entering this dispute.
By keeping this information in a word document which will remain unposted I am complying with an act of fair use and cannot be sued!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There is an ongoing debate surrounding copyright, and how it may or may not be used, it’s a rather controversial subject due to creative users in effect stealing other peoples content which they have spend thousands of pounds on and which has taken ages to create and with someone taking your own work and posting it online,
ReplyDeleteWhen it is you posting pictures or movie clips sourced by say Google, you see it quite innocent and in your mind it’s just images and videos you’ve taken which everyone can access and see online anyway.
But when it’s your work posted all over other peoples sites whom you have not granted permission to you feel exploited and cheated and that something should be done to stop this especially when they haven’t even given you credit for the images.
So it’s a very edgy subject, and with sites such as YouTube, total recut, social networks, personal websites and blogs becoming more popular the argument is getting more and more heated!
ReplyDeleteThere are organisations on both sides fighting at every corner some I have looked into are ACID or (Anti Copying In Design) this company is out to stop the plagiarism and theft of work posted online or media from DVD and video which makes its way so that it is viewable to all. This “hard – hitting” group is committed to targeting users whom have committed the offence of in effect stealing the creative property belonging to others. Due to the thousands of registered users Acid is a well known logo throughout the creative and commercial industry and in their own words they are there to “protect our members from the potentially devastating financial damage” which is inflicted by those whom use video, photos or graphically generated images on sites with no permission. Taken from their online statistics Acid has to date managed over “300 settlements with over £3 million recovered in costs and damages” so they are one of the groups of extremists’ dedicated to this debate.
A case of this is the dilemma film maker Jon Else ran into when he had copyright clearance problems with “sing faster” his documentary on stage hands view of wagners ring cycle. He needed to cut and replace four and a half seconds worth of footage where part of an episode of cartoon the Simpsons had been featured by accident in one of the scenes where he was filming stagehands playing checkers while the opera was performed and a small TV was playing behind them with the footage of the Simpsons playing. For just the four and a half seconds of the footage Matt Goening demanded $10,000 for the feature rights. Because of this Jon Else took this scene out even though he thought it was an important part to the documentary.
ReplyDeleteThe EFF group is fighting on the opposite side, to protect the freedom and fair use rights of the public using commercial logos, video footage and images, they are there to in their words ‘preserve the internet’s open architecture’ which they say is critical to sustain freedom of speech. They protest that “if laws can censor you, limit your access to certain information or restrict use of communication tools then the internet’s potential will go unrealized, this is a fair point in that without sites such as YouTube sharing free videos and acting as a place for people to view footage the internet will never develop properly.
ReplyDeleteMany company’s use Digital Rights Management which is in place to lock the rights surrounding digital medias, but companies such as EFF say that the “DRM technologies do nothing to stop copyright pirates, but instead end up interfering with fans’ lawful use of music, movies and other copyrighted works.” Which is true in my eyes someone who gets charged against the copyright law for posting their favourite music band or singer as their profile image on instant messengers or social networks such as face book as a fan is incorrect prosecution, as they are using the photo as almost promotion which if anything would generate more money for the band and free advertising generating brand awareness, but if they console this then how is it fair to sue someone for creating a blog about their favourite band which is dedicated to them using their music as a backing track and selected images of the band. It’s a very thin line.
ReplyDeleteRemix culture has fallen heavily into this debate in that remix culture as it sounds is created of several video/movie clips to create a new end product. Company’s which are supporting this are the Creative Commons website and the TotalRecut website.
ReplyDeleteThe creative commons website hosts footage from film, video and imagery where the author of the content can decide on the rights surrounding their work, in their own words they “provide free licenses and other legal tools to mark creative work with the freedom the creator wants it to carry, so others can share, remix, use commercially, or any combination there forth.” So they are a tool to collect data from. Whereas Total Recut is a social network of which media is stored. Some of the media includes clips from big movies starring famous actors; this is very controversial in that movie companies such as Disney have created movies from their thousand of pound budgets and are now been ripped off by people developing them. people have been sued millions for this as it is illegal.
However the big companies don’t always win their law suit for instance Mattel (the creators of Barbie) tried suing Tom Forsythe for using transformed images of the Barbie dolls, the court found that his work was a parody – one kind of fair usage. So Forsythe could make images like Barbie, in fact the judge said the case was “objectively unreasonable and frivolous” so Mattel did not win the claim against Forsythe for what they thought was ‘unfair usage’ of their doll Barbie.
ReplyDeleteIn my own opinion I would say that copyright piracy is allowing the download of video files or clips off their own website rather than sharing them through a fixed website such as YouTube where they cannot be downloaded onto a computer. I think it is right to prosecute someone whom is distributing someone’s works for a free download when the original owner is selling it for a price or when such distributor is making a personal profit, for instance with music downloads or DVD downloads.
ReplyDeleteI would class downloads as piracy and everything else as promotion, for instance if a band is selling their newest release for £1.99 on I-tunes and then someone else who has a private website sells it for more or allows a free download this is copyright fraud as its costing the band and putting them out of pocket. However if a user is using their music as a backing track for their website I see this a promotion as when another user hears it and wants the download of the song they will have to purchase it from I-Tunes giving profit to the band. The same with you tube which suffers allot of grief in the media due to the controversial issue of allowing users to watch music videos online for free, but surely enough if Leona Lewis has one million views on YouTube it must be helping the sales of the records! And it’s keeping her in the lime light with her newest release this cannot be a bad thing as she will be getting more and more fans globally!
As far as photos, graphics and images are concerned I think it is up to the creator to protect them in the first place and not to then start arguing about it in court, they can print their name across the front like a water mark, they can embed code which stops you from right clicking on the image and saving it to the computer, I know there are ways for people to get around this but I bet half of the people whom take images don’t know how to divert themselves around this or simply can’t be bothered and will look elsewhere for an image. Maybe artists have to accept that there is no real way to protect their work once they allow it to venture off into the digital world via the web. Or rather than saying their work is copyright protected why not ask for copy left where you still get accredited for your work.
ReplyDeleteCopy left has no legal meaning but “allows the original author to be acknowledged”, whereas copyright “allows an author to prohibit others from reproducing, adapting, or distributing copies of the author's work”
Disney had a competition in 2007 allowing fans to create their own creations out of disney movies however famously contridict themselves due to creating monster law suits against people.
ReplyDeleteAn example of one of the remix cultures for disney is below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo
I will be creating my advert/movie clip either on animation, or as a music video/mash up
ReplyDeletemy favourite remix video seen is the fake Titanic 2 trailor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD4OnHCRd_4
enjoy! :)
so working here on out in a word document for copyright reasons