Copyright

Copyright is a sensitive issue. Often times one may not even realize when they are in violation of it. Ever make a movie where one of your characters is sitting behind an Apple computer? What about a character driving up to the camera in a Volkswagon Beetle. If you show the logo, you are in direct violation of copyright. Using the sources provided for us, I will discuss the issue of copyright in all facets of digital media.

Following in the footsteps of Radiohead's 2007 release "In Rainbows," Issa, a popular female musician decided that she would release her music using the "pay what you want" business model. This was intended to be a criticism against industry regulation and the steps in which the records company have taken in its ongoing quest to end piracy. Do I find this business model to be sound? In some ways, yes. Issa knows that many of her fans will download it on the internet anyway, and this way her music is now available to a wider variety of people who may then ultimately buy tickets for her concerts thus increasing the volume of her tours. It is both a testament to her love of the medium and a sharp criticism of studio politics and interference.

Next, is a video by a band called "Atomic Tom," who after having their instruments stolen decided they would hold a free concert on a subway using applications from their cellphones as instruments. While I do not believe this was intended to be interpreted as "next generation marketing" or forward thinking, it is an interesting tidbit that shows how technology now allows us to perform our everyday tasks from literally anywhere on the globe. It also shows how they have included new media into their lives.

The next video is an exploration of the cosmetic products sold to consumers and what damaging chemicals they put inside them. This expose is interesting because it displays the power of YouTube as a 21st century watchdog Bernstein and Leeland could have used when they were cracking open the Watergate scandal. YouTube has eliminated much of the privacy that used to exist and has become a hotbed for both protesters and conspiracy theorists alike. Type in the words "9/11" and "inside job" and you should be in at least a few dozens videos.

Wikipedia is the subject of the next video which displays the page for "remixes" and the history of the remix. Beginning in Jamaica during the late 60s and early 70s, the "remix" is an art form that is completely reliable on new media. It is done with computers and could not have been around until before this big technological boom. While I admire it, I do not hold it in the same regard as a rock band or an orchestra.

Next, is an article of "fair use," or appropriating something one has borrowed in a way that does not infringe upon withstanding copyrights. Fair use is a complicated issue and one that features many, many loopholes. From reading this, I've learned to ALWAYS consult those you will be borrowing from even if you think you are staying in the bounds of the law because it is extremely difficult to be absolutely sure in situations such as these.

A "creative commons" license, or a permit allowing one to use copyrighted material is a relatively new idea that is once again quite tricky. Creative Commons are in place to allow artists to use material if it is absolutely necessary or educational purposes. It is a very strong step forward in closing the divide that exists between creator and consumer.

Next is a graphic novel which tells the story of a documentary filmmaker struggling to navigate through the loopholes and confusion of copyright and creative commons licensing. This is an interesting story in that it is an accurate potrayal of what this process is actually like. It shows the uninitiated what to expect when they enter this complicated process.

The next article is perhaps the most interesting of them all, entitled, "American Lawbreaking." Lawbreaking attempts to bring to light the fact that we all infringe on copyright laws everyday of the week. Anytime we burn a CD for a friend, host a public screening of a DVD at our house or upload a video with a Beatles song in it, we are breaking the law. However, considering these are so minuscule and insignificant in the landscape of crime, law enforcement officials choose not to enforce it.

The next video we watched "Right Wing Radio Duck" is an example of an education montage. New media allows us to take two videos of disparate content and combine them to create an overarching opinion or mood for a piece. Here, Glenn Beck is combined with the image of rambunctious cartoons to get an idea across. This is a fascinating new medium to create both satire and in many ways, manipulation material and is a product of the new Digital Age.

Lastly, the final artist tells the story of how remix artist, Pogo, known for his gibberish remixes of classic animated films, was sued by Disney for copyright infringement. I am at loss to say how Pogo using their clips is unlawful, but alas, it is. He seeks no compensation and is strictly using it to get his name out there. It is very sad that he cannot be allowed to do this. Nonetheless, this article is still a fascinating example of the complicated issue that is copyright.