Posted in my website 🙂 check it out! I created a GIF that I worked really hard on!
The assignment was:
Create an image, GIF, video, and/or piece of audio that reworks a quote and/or image found in any of the linked essays from reflection 7 & 8. Think about possibly creating a poster that uses an image and quote. Or create a video or audio remix that samples from the Andy Baio and/or Larry Lessig talks. Or maybe come up with something on your own that is inspired by these discussions. In your post, remember to use links to reference texts incorporated in your work as well as give context to the work.
I chose the part to create a GIF of my own that was inspired by the discussions.
After reading about two artist dealing with copyright issues I am a bit perplexed. Both artist decided to revamp a photo, they both get lawsuits, but only one isn’t found guilty of copyright use. This image is taken from Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory movie. It is one of the most revamped images online to […]
After reading about two artist dealing with copyright issues I am a bit perplexed. Both artist decided to revamp a photo, they both get lawsuits, but only one isn’t found guilty of copyright use.
This image is taken from Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory movie. It is one of the most revamped images online to make a meme. I was inspired to make this poster because what exactly is fair use? In the article it stated “Everyone thinks they know what fair use is, but not even attorneys, judges, and juries can agree on a clear definition. The doctrine itself, first introduced in the 1976 Copyright Act, is frustratingly vague and continually being reinterpreted.”
If there is no clear definition of “Fair Use” then why must people undergo a lawsuit and in some cases lose the case. Who is a judge, or an attorney to say whether something is considered fair use when there is NO clear definition!! That is what really grinds my gears. Last time I checked Judges, Juries, or Attorneys do not have art degrees. Maybe a few do on the side, but you get where I am coming from. Having a vague unclear law is setting people up for unfair court cases. The artist Andy Baio had to end up settling out of court, while Richard Prince walked out a free man with no dent in his bank account.If the fair use concept is constantly being reinterpreted, can you imagine how many people this unclear law has negatively affected ?
I understand the reasoning behind copyright. It is to protect the creative rights of the artist. They worked hard to create whatever it is that they did. I feel like if someone uses another artist’s work then they should give them credit for it.
In the the article Baio stated “If you’re borrowing inspiration from any copyrighted material, even if it seems clear to you that your use is transformational, you’re in danger.” I agree because some people are very proud of what they created. Seeing it transformed into something else by another artist is a punch in the gut. They see it is as someone trying to take credit in a way off of their work.The worst feeling to an artist is seeing someone else get recognition or some sort of attention due to their work that has been morphed.
In that article that dealt with Prince it stated that, ” The lower courts interpreted this to mean that, in order to make fair use of Cariou’s photographs, Prince must “comment on Cariou, on Cariou’s Photos, or on aspects of popular culture closely associated with Cariou or the Photos.” I do not really agree with that. I feel like as long as Cariou got some sort of photo credit, it should be fine.
After reading both articles I feel as if fair use is not working. Both artist were in the same situation. I feel like they both technically did the same thing but only one of them got off. I would change copyright law and fair use by where all you have to do is give credit to the original artist. If you give credit to where its due, you should not have any legal troubles.
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 […]
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.