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 caught on to this daily create a few days ago which asks you to search Google’s database of U.S. patents, find an interesting image and turn it into a vintage blueprint. Love it! I’ve been working on an old piece of work (—->) so I had ray guns on my mind. Searching for the specific […]
I caught on to this daily create a few days ago which asks you to search Google’s database of U.S. patents, find an interesting image and turn it into a vintage blueprint. Love it!
I’ve been working on an old piece of work (—->) so I had ray guns on my mind. Searching for the specific phrase ‘ray gun’ I found this 1942 patent # 2,294,558 for a light ray gun. It’s basically an improvement on a the penny arcade mechanical gun games that use light sensors. The “ray gun” is basically an enclosure around a light bulb and the trigger acts as an on-off switch. Hooker’s particular improvement was to add a shutter that would block the light between trigger pulls preventing the afterglow of the bulb from causing accidental activations of the light sensor. I posted my blueprint, but also decided to make animated version heavily manipulating these light bulbs.
I also discovered this really cool archive of penny arcade and amusement park games. They have lots of photos and even include some images of the guts of games. Check out this 1970s FBI shoot-out gun which basically operated on the same principals of Hooker’s 1942 invention. You can see the sensors and the electronics all stacked up.
“Copyright is a permanently fixed of the original work in some form that can be received or heard. Only the copyright owner has the right to use their work. You have to have permission from the copyright owner to use their content or you’ve broken the law.” Copyright laws are in play to give credit where credit is due and to ensue that ideas and pieces of work aren’t stolen or given away to others to make money that isn’t theirs.
Laws are put in place for a reason, although I don’t agree with all of them and like Larry Lessig said, “we’re constantly living life against the law.” Copyrights are good for the people who create the work such as art, music, writing, etc. Those are all things that in my opinion are works of art and can’t be duplicated. However, thus far my experience in the journalism world has opened my eyes to copyrights that I find to be a little absurd. I worked for an entertainment website for short time that took facts from other articles and then rewrote them in their own words, which is ok. But using other people’s photos that are blasted all over Instagram, Facebook and other overly populated social media sites are NOT ok to use in such article.
Its hard for me to believe in laws such as these for those reasons and I think that Lessig has a valid argument, in that we should be recreating from what other people have made. Eventually that work will evolve forcing our generation and society to grow in a major way. Creativity feeds off of other creativity and we’re constantly learning from one another by conversations and personal displays of character, however we’re prohibited from copyrighting those. I’m not saying get rid of the law all together because I would want my work, should it ever be recognized, to be called my own. We need to find a balance as mentioned in the video of giving credit where it is due but allowing the youth to play with our own ideas to form visions of their own.
Next Monday I’m really excited to start teaching with Ryan Seslow for the first time. I’ve been lucky to work with Ryan on a bunch of projects, recently my favorites being GIFFight and Animating Transit. We’re going to combine two sections of CT 101 Digital Storytelling, which is inspired and still heavily influenced by the […]
Next Monday I’m really excited to start teaching with Ryan Seslow for the first time. I’ve been lucky to work with Ryan on a bunch of projects, recently my favorites being GIFFight and Animating Transit. We’re going to combine two sections of CT 101 Digital Storytelling, which is inspired and still heavily influenced by the #ds106 course at the University of Mary Washington.
I took a break from teaching this course for a year, anyone that has taught a version of ds106 would understand :). But the time away has been well spent. Last year I participated in a faculty study group centered around the reading of Maryellen Weimer’s Learner Centered Teaching. One of the key practices Weimer speaks about is the changing of the balance of power between the student and teacher. She understood that:
…the way I controlled students and their learning processes might be a detriment, or that the way I was teaching might benefit me more than them.
And when teacher control is the focus of learning:
In reality, the balance of power in the classroom favors students. They can render teaching pointless by not learning.
This last statement was a real kick in the stomach. Students can and will not learn out of spite. They are literally so offended by the way you are teaching, out of protest students give no effort.
Most faculty respond to a lack of effort by students as their lack of focus and ability – some students are just not college ready. But Weimer asks faculty to instead look in the mirror and she simply suggests they look at what they are not doing in response to the lack of learning happening in your classroom.
I’ve always appreciated the way ds106 has given students a certain level of control by allowing them to choose from a vast array of assignments in the ds106 assignment repository as well as contribute assignments as well. Last semester after a frustrating start teaching a sound production course, I decided to point the finger at myself and make a change. I asked for help from my students. We collaboratively came to an agreement of how we might together reach the learning objectives of the class. Including ideas I hadn’t imagined for a basic production class, like micro-internships with friends that make music, what a good idea!
So what I’m learning and more importantly I hope to improve upon is how to give my students more power over the classroom. And make sure I’m creating an environment that they feel comfortable doing so. Their desire, the fire to learn that’s inherent, is breathed.
Hopefully Ryan and I will find new ways to work with our students and discover surprising turns in an already free-form course. But this post is a nod to Jim’s #wire106 version of digital storytelling at UMW. Even with their focus on The Wire this semester I bet we’ll find some points of convergence. Maybe host a cage-match styled GIF Fight?
Oh and this fire breather is from the first episode of season one of The Wire and inspired by unnecessary explosions.
So I saw a tweet from Sava which was simply a single emojicon. A vehicle which was a while-driving-safe-texting-wink to her entering the radio city. But I really didn’t know that at the time. I just saw the little car in the tweet. And I was about to reply tweet with some random emojicons, finding […]
Silence of the Lambs
So I saw a tweet from Sava which was simply a single emojicon. A vehicle which was a while-driving-safe-texting-wink to her entering the radio city. But I really didn’t know that at the time. I just saw the little car in the tweet.
And I was about to reply tweet with some random emojicons, finding it would be funny to respond with a bunch of arbitrary pictograms. But all of a sudden I was reminded of the four icon challenge, one of the early ds106 assignments which asked you to represent a film with four ‘iconic’ images.
So instead I called to the ds106 storytelling folk, hoping they might be interested in playing a spontaneous version of the four icon challenge via Twitter using only emojicons.
And I was so pleased to see the quick, righteous, and correct answer guessed by Dani Paradis (who I met at opened13). The four icon challenge was reduced to two emojis – shower head and kitchen knife = PSYCHO.
Next Dani laid down her challenge.
In the midst of trying to concoct another emoji movie challenge, Lauren Davidson jumped in and rang the winning bell with E.T. Yes the emoji movie guessing game was building a little audience so cool! And Lauren was gracious enough to take the next turn.
Which Dani quickly answered, and hit the iceberg with – Titantic. Lauren followed with another challenge.
Four ladies, the Union Jack, a microphone, and the world. Hmmmmm…. No clue. Dani? No clue either. Swoops in Eric Domond an unapologetic Spicy Girls fan with Spice World.
And from there the game enjoyed a lovely thirty minutes or so of inspired quiz show like engagement. Figuring how you might use the limited palette of emojicons to represent a movie. I think about twelve or so challenges were put out there and by the end the pictographs were getting really interesting–
Why the parenthetical?
And frying an egg in a pan plus a diamond ring?
Breakfast at Tiffany’s