Fair use is the language of the internet where some copyright material may be used as long as it is following certain guidelines. The most important factor is that the copyrighted work is being transformed into something different and if the purpose of the recreation of the work for commercial, educational, etc use. The other factors are the amount of the copyrighted work taken for usage, the effect of the potential market, and lastly the nature of the copyrighted work. These are the four things the law looks at when dealing with copyright issues.

Andy Biao a software developer was sued for allegedly under technicalities of copyright infringement.  He used an album cover that was at a lower resolution than the original and pixelated. In essence I do think he was guilty because he did proceed to make a profit using the album cover for the face of his product. He states that anyone can be sued who has used copyright material but “Combined with vague standards, the result is a chilling effect for every independent artist hoping to build upon or reference copyrighted works.”  His statement speaks to the fact that work that is original has every right to keep it’s originality from being tampered with and claimed by someone other than the originator. If Andy Biao had been, and this is what I mean from my previous blog post of creativity being true to you, because than he would’ve been able to recreate this image in a different way than changing the colors or resolution. One could see the frustration with seeing something you love and want to be attached to it but it is OK for inspiration and he could have just as much posed himself as the guy in the album cover or to just put a saxophone on the cover, the fact that was a photograph of another artist, made it seem as if he wanted in on the profited image. However innocent it was, and I do believe he was innocent in doing it for the mere love for Miles Davis, it was still someone else’s work an exact replica aside from the few tweaks, because the meaning is the same thing for the standpoint of I the viewer.

In another case done right on fair use, was from an artist Richard Prince. He was used by another photograph for using his photographs. Although this is true, Richard Prince’s recreation of the photo was just that, a recreation. For safety measures “the court mentions that even Andy Warhol potentially wouldn’t have been safe from the ruling”, which I found particularly interesting because of the visual it gives us. He recreated copyright images of Campbell’s soup but recreated it in personal expression to him. Defining what Campbell soup meant in terms of our consumer society. In the image of Richard Prince he has completely transformed the looks of the original image creating a different idea that comes to mind.

If I ruled the world I would allow the copyright laws to be in place. I feel that it is useful for us to protected because ideas are a freedom of expression and those who can put that out there into visuals and real life forms deserve the credit. I am all for creative expression but the law seems to present a loop hole, in which you can change a few things in an image as long as it is being transformed into new meaning. There, you can not feel that all the good ideas are already taken because you cannot reinvent the wheel but only improve it. You wouldn’t want the same wheel in different color so to speak but that same wheel with different tracks and performance is another type of wheel. If that doesn’t make sense just take it in from the terms of digital storytelling, Where you can create gifs, the freedom of expression and images are being recreated to mean something else. Even though it isn’t an original idea it is in terms of creation which is still your work that you would want credit for creating.


By brittg

Nature is the true mother of art

CT101 Digital Storytelling