Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts

Monday, 6 February 2012

Content Sharing

This weeks activity had me create a meme using other peoples work  and distributing it to an online community via the university blackboard, all without breaking any copyright laws. The term Meme was new to me, and was described as "a cultural idea that's perpetuated" (Leaver, 2011) but once examples were given such as LOL cats, I realised I was very familiar with the concept - with  fail images, and  remixes and Mashups such as the Bert and Ernie tries gansta-rap youtube videos.

Basically a meme is a running joke that goes viral over the internet and that anyone can join in on. Memes are easy to create using "remixable elements" and are spread via social media or email etc. They perpetuate as they are passed around, new people add new images or text video or music and keep the joke running  until it runs its course and a new one starts (Leaver, 2011).

So here is my masterpiece where Ive jumped on the  “motivational poster” bandwagon 


After posting the pic on the blackboard I received a comment from a fellow student who stated that she liked that the poster was my "own creative work" which is something I found interesting as neither the image, the words, the layout or the original concept are mine.

The photo called "funny foot" was taken from flickr and belongs to Evelyn Giggles in 2009 who has licenced it under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 (Generic).  Creative commons (CC) were developed in 2001/2002 (History) and are a set of copyright licences that allow owners of works stipulate what they will and wont allow other people to do with their works. As current copyright law stipulates that it is illegal to use the work of someone else without their permission, CC allows people to give permission easily and efficiently and promotes sharing of content. There are currently 6 different types of licences that vary in their degree of restrictions.

The Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 licence allows me to reproduce, remix and even use the photo "funny foot" for commercially if I wish as long as I attribute it to the original owner. Therefore I have used the image and added a reference. It was not my mind that was creative enough to produce it but I can use it.

The words are also not mine, just common vernacular which could breach copyright as they are similar but not the same as the lyrics to the song "when your smiling" After some research I found that this song was created by Cliff Bruner in 1938 and is in the public domain, meaning that it is OK for me to use it as well.

Finally the layout and the idea are not mine either. These types of inspirational poster memes have been doing social networking and email loops for quite some time, so much that the website BIGHUGELABS has created simple and easy to use software that you can create these memes in within seconds allowing for the easy perpetuation of the joke, that is easily recognisable not just by its humer but also its black and white basic layout and design.

Therefore the only originality was the combination of the elements... remixed to create something new, whilst also fitting into the common theme of the meme. 





History.  Creative Commons Retrieved from http://creativecommons.org/about/history

Leaver, D. T.(2011). Content Sharing. Web Communications 101/ 501 Retrieved from http://dbs.ilectures.curtin.edu.au/lectopia/casterframe.lasso?fid=691872&cnt=true&usr=not-indicated&name=not-indicated

Sunday, 5 February 2012

Content Sharing: Copyright


What does copyright mean to you?
Do you think copyright locks creativity away from the public?
What are your thoughts on Creative Commons licences?


I believe the similarities between Avatar and Pocahontas made it through without breaching copyright because, they are similar but not the same. As stated in the YouTube video A fair(y) use tale by dangerousnerd (2007) you cannot copyright an idea – but you can copyright the form it takes. Therefore there can be a million movies made that follow a similar storyline, just as long as the visuals are different and the dialog is rewritten.

I also think there is a vast difference between piracy and remix / mashups etc. Copyright to me is a necessity, as it should protect creatives and businesses from their works being illegally copied and mass distributed for financial gain to someone who does not own it. Remix / mashups and memes etc to me are different though, as they are often produced for fun, or by fans to connect with the media texts that they connect with and have become a part of their lives. Furthermore we now have the tools, readily and easily available to use that allow us to easily remix the works of others and I believe there is a great deal of creativity that is lost if we cannot do this. Copyright laws as they stand today judge creative types that dabble in remix and those that commit mass producing piracy as the same, and I don’t think that is fair.

I agree the idea tjat Creative commons licenses are a “convenient and great way to share content with others” (Burgon, 2012) but as they are voluntary, I doubt they will inspire the likes of Disney to freely release their content for reuse while the current laws work so well in their financial favor. They are only good for those of us who like to share.





dangerousnerd.(2007). A Fair(y) Use Tale. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UycH2HvBRd4