FINAL PROJECT - Poster Remix: Fair Use

The Justification of TV Show Poster Remixes

Television is frowned upon in this day and age, but it’s also starting to become obsolete! Luckily there are new shows always coming out and capturing the attention of all audiences. The question is: What keeps them wanting to watch the show besides the characters and the plot? Some shows rely on their poster illustrations and in my opinion, that’s all that matters.

So for my remix project, I decided to create a few of my own TV show posters and place them on top of several other TV show titles that we all should know. The project itself is a short video explaining the TV show titles that I made and questioning whether my creation is against copyright or not. I approached it in a literal form; meaning that if I made a poster for the TV show, “The Walking Dead,” I would probably draw a tombstone with a pair of shoes on top of it. The illustration says the show title, but there are not any characters or any art from the actual show. So, is this wrong? In my opinion, I argue that it is an act of fair use.

I chose to do this type of remix project because I think that one’s own original artwork and creative ideas should be illustrated; whether it’s a TV show poster, a movie poster, or possibly a simple brand name.

In Unit 3, we talked about privacy, ownership, and copyright. I personally don’t think this project violates the copyrights of the TV shows I depicted. But really is “copyright?” It’s merely a form of protection given to authors or creators of ‘original works of authorship.’ In my case, I made simple derivatives of the artist’s work. However, will anyone be able to even guess what TV show poster I remixed? This brings me to the only exception to creating works like my remix project: Fair use. In its most general sense, fair use is copying any copyrighted material for a limited and transformative purpose. I believe I have exemplified a “parody” of certain TV shows and interpreted the show title in my own way. Because of the fact I didn’t utilize any real characters or show art, I didn’t violate any copyright laws regarding the specific TV shows. My remix doesn’t mock or ridicule the original, but it is a creative way to illustrate a TV show.

According to Chander and Sunder’s article, my approach to this project would be considered a “Mary Sue.” “The Mary Sue serves as a metonym for all derivative uses that challenge the hegemony of the original” (Chander and Sunder, 2007). ‘Mary Sues’ are all around us. This concept illustrates that people challenge the original work(s). If there were no challenges or a build off of a previous work, our culture would be at a stand still. At the end of the day, and to be on the safe, give credit where credit is due. That’s what fair use is all about. If you want your work to be under fair use, make sure you factor in these guidelines: “the purpose and character of your use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and sustainability of the portion taken, and the effect of the use upon the potential market” (Christen, Lecture Notes, Washington State University Professor). 

Blog #6 Important takeaways

Given the readings, I think that one of the most important takeaways is the concept of free vs. fair culture.  Copyright and fair use are really confusing subjects. The issues involving these two concepts can be puzzling, obscure or vague at times. Many people in the world think that if something is available for use on the internet, not used by anyone to make a profit, or out of print, then it is alright to use it and manipulate it in any way they want to. On the contrary, sometimes people think that they cannot use any copyrighted works at all without the permission of the original author, artist or producer. Neither of these points of view are correct. However, an increasing number of people want to provide others with the right to use their own work without being charged or having to get permission. So the question that is begged here is: When is it ok to use material that is not our own original work? For some people, the answer is never. Some artists never want their work to be built upon; and others consider it a tribute of sorts and allow it as long as they are credited properly. I believe that in any case, crediting the originator is a must. You can completely transform a song or the plot line of a movie to make it look nothing like the original; but in the end, the credit must be given to the person (or people) you got your crazy idea from. 

When if all information was free? Think about it! Everything that a person can search or create…absolutely free of charge; with no repercussions. I think that the world would go nuts; wouldn't you? Especially if everyone gave up on copyright in today's age; no one would have rights to anything. Whatever your neighbor can create is yours and whatever you can create belongs to your neighbor. That doesn't seem fair, right? What is the point of making something new if it's just going to be remixed the next day and stolen right out of your hands? A comment from the  "Does Information Really Want to be Free?" article said, "Culture is a dynamic process. It should not be fossilized with rigidly enforced rules about what is and what is not permissible" (Christen, [Auldclootie], 2012). Remix culture is a very sensitive subject being that there are TONS of DJs who create mash-ups sampling from several musical artists. However, I personally have never seen a mash-up with a song that wasn't credited to the proper artist. So is the dance music industry finally becoming a calm venue where you can use any song in your mash-up? Or will there be a random point in time where someone's going to stop the creator from creating. There has to be multiple creators. If one person makes something and no one else was able to build off of it, then what would our culture be? The truth is this: WE WOULD HAVE NO CULTURE! There wouldn't be anything to look back on. The original artists wouldn't be given tributes if there were not remixes and mash-ups of their songs. The fact that remixers credit the original artist keeps the original creation at bay. On the other hand, if everything was a free-for-all, the originator would soon be forgotten. There would be no original creator and all of us would be "fake."

What would the culture of the future look like if we continued to use music in the same was we do and remix in the same way every time? How would today's age be different if we still had to deal with copyright problems from the past? These are excellent questions to ponder. The concept of culture is what stuck with me throughout the whole semester. Culture doesn't have to be  music; it's movies, standard customs, books, papers, photos and other types of multimedia. After watching the "RIP a remix manifesto," I was even motivated to go out and remix something; because I can! 

The video below explains why the code for fair use in online video got created, and how the code can help you create online videos that illustrate fair use of copyrighted material.

  

Copyright School

A pretty useful video I stumbled upon. Talks about how to reverse getting your video taken off of YouTube. (counter-notice)

Simple Representation of fair use

Fair Use logo

This is an interesting, yet creative logo.

Blog 5

FAIR USE IN MUSIC

The song that I chose for this blog is Daft Punk's "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger." This song title is very common and I personally don't think that if anyone has these words in their song, they're not stealing; unless you're Kanye West, in which case, you are stealing. In the music video on whosampled.com, Kanye depicts Daft Punk, themselves, and repeating their song title, "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger." Kanye's song, "Stronger," is in no way, shape or form an innovative creation. With the use of Daft Punk's title, I'm assuming there was some sort of collaboration between Kanye and Daft Punk. I mean come on, I would have tweaked the sample just a little bit. Kanye just overlapped the sample, slowed it down and provided rap lyrics. I could have made a song called "Harder," which talks about how hard work pays off in the long run. Kanye decided to just use the word, "Stronger" (how original). Is it a coincidence? I think not. The ego of Kanye is really big, but the creativity he has is small. I have seen Kanye and Daft Punk perform together before, so I'm hoping that he got permission from them. In any case, it would be considered stealing otherwise. Being that Kanye didn't take the sample from Daft Punk and create something brand new with it, I personally don't believe it's under fair use. However, Kanye most likely got permission.

Despite Kanye's poor creativity skills, there is another song that intrigues me. This song is the Blsck Eyed Peas', "Boom Boom Pow." There's a line in this song where one of the members says, "harder, better, faster, stronger," however, the line after that was, "texting ladies extra longer." After hearing this, I don't think that there was anything flawed by the black-eyed peas. The member of the group was simply rhyming with their subsequent lyric. In this specific case, I don't think the use of "harder, better, faster, stronger" is creative nor original. It's not like the words, "harder, better, faster and stronger" are copyrighted. There are songs that mention those words and I have heard about a big lawsuit coming from Daft Punk at all. Because of this, I think it's covered under fair use. I'm not sure if the black eyed peas had to credit Daft Punk, but I personally don't think that they have to because they're  just using the words to rhyme with. I believe anyone should be able to use that sample in their song; it's just four simple words. It's like like they took the entire melody of the song and put it on replay while they start rapping over it...(*cough* Kanye *cough*)

Intellectual Property

BLOG POST #3

 Social media has been around since humans began to talk. One of the first signs of human social media was cave wall paintings. Some of the earliest forms of social media were not digital. The word media means a medium of cultivation, conveyance, or expression. Media is also a plural form of medium and a medium is a particular form or system of communication. Some of the earliest forms of social media were primitive and did not involve a computer, but did involve some type of technology to convey the message. All living things communicate to each other in some way or another, but humans leave lasting impressions intentionally. A fossil leaves an impression, but it doesn't do it on purpose or do it by using technology. Communication and networking are vital to our survival and our history.

I would say that my biggest take-away from this unit is that the cultures that emerge aroung SNSs are varied. While some social networks cater to those who have met each other and have interacted in some way, shape or form in the past, other social networks are geared towards strangers who have multiple things in common according to Boyd and Ellison's article on Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship (Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship).

A smaller take-away would be that technology is advancing rather quickly. With all the updates and new models of cellphones and software coming out, you need to be up to date with it or else you'll be left behind. The iOS 7 update is a prime example. Apple's iPhone and iPod touch announced its new iOS update; everyone was excited and couldn't wait to see what was new. Needless to say, there were plenty of internet and connection issues when the update launched because tons of people were downloading the update at the same time using the same connection. After the initial craze, there are, yet, people who still have the previous version of iOS. I personally know someone who thought it was too complicated and didn't download the update. As a result, some time later, that person was starting to have problems with their current applications because they weren't running with the new iOS 7 software. This is a prime example of how technology can blow past you if you don't “get with it.”

The Information Age is a period in history characterized by the shift from traditional industry to an economy based on information computerization. As a result of this, the internet was born. Social media is a way for people of all ages to gather in a tech-based communal area and chat, share ideas (socially or professionally) and stay in touch. Social media can do a lot for us besides passing the time. Another take-away from this unit was from Gladwell's article, "Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted" (Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted). What I got from reading is that when there's a problem going on the society, the internet is the place to share it. A lot of people spend hours online everyday. “With Facebook and Twitter and the like, the traditional relationship between political authority and popular will has been upended, making it easier for the powerless to collaborate, coördinate, and give voice to their concerns.” Why is social media, something that is looked down upon for its lack of educational advancement, so powerful? The reason is that information is like a snowball; the more you roll it and push it along, the more it expands and spreads. All it takes is one tweet or status update. The person behind the screen can emit an emotion that is misinterpreted or over-exaggerated. In any case, our words typed on a keyboard are powerful and in order to cater to those who are connected to us on SNSs, we have to be cautious but at the same time persevere to get the word out to those who may or may not support us.

In the end, it's all up to us. When it comes to social media and spreading the word, we can't be a bystander. We can't rely on the next person to “do something about it.” Social media and the information age is raging along. If we don't pay attention and if we don't ACT, we too will be left behind in what has already been an active technological advancement period. 

Blog Post #2 prt. 2

The social media usage from the MADD organization is pretty normal. They have what I would expect on a front page of a organization such as this: social network links. The social media provides victims with the opportunity to connect with those affected by drunk driving. They make sure that you are always able to connect with them no matter what page you're looking at.

I don't agree with Gladwell about social networks being weak ties. Yeah, one can "like" a page and just forget about it tomorrow, but to say that that's what all social networks are like is a total generalization. Social networks are meant for one reason: to "network." SNSs have done harm to some, but people are forgetting everything that social media has changed for the better. 

Mirani makes a way better argument. Networking is there to only keep people aware and up-to-date. That's all that we need. Not to say that everyone's lazy, but it only takes one person to start a social media revolution.  

Online activism matters by getting people's attention, getting them excited and motivated to make a change to not only their society, but the entire world. Without activism, people can get away with anything without discipline. 

Social Media Revolution

We are relying on social media to fight our wars and solve our global problems. I thought this was a pretty powerful image illustrating what's happening today.

From Food Stamps to Billionaire? (Fondling with Facebook)

I'm not gonna lie, when I saw this title, I thought that this was just another stupid article about someone winning the lottery or something to do with investing really well in stocks.

Turns out...I was slightly right! Facebook is clearly trying to take over social media; and while some may think that they already have, I feel that Facebook's flaws outweigh their successes.

It wasn't a surprise to me that Mark Zuckerburg wanted to gobble up another person's successful creation...

I just thought this was an interesting article about, yet, another attempt of Facebook trying to "showoff."

URL: http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140220175451-108843352-is-whatsapp-worth-19bn-it-is-to-facebook-and-here-s-why?trk=tod-home-art-list-small_1 

Tumblr Infographic

MADD vs. SADD (sl)Ac(k)tivism

I compared the Mothers Against Drunk Driving organization to the Students Against Destructive Decisions organization. From a first glance, I immediately can see that SADD doesn't really use a lot of social media to project their cause. It's more of an organization that tries to lure the customer to the website and hope that they find out what to be educated on. I've noticed that a lot of good information about SADD is hidden within links. Its overall view is pretty broad while MADD gets to the point. As a DTC major, I like to find information as soon as possible. MADD has an ideal homepage with everything you need to know. It has pictures and descriptions of events that you can get involved in, links that take you to where you need to be instead of an irrelevant link and it's just generally more informative than other organizations. Your connection to social media is also on the homepage just in case you're the type of person who is into digital media or likes to be notified about events via social media; like me! Long story short, the MADD homepage has all you need, with little obligation to explore more thoroughly to find the answers to your questions. The SADD organization is...well, SAD. It's like a corn maze and you may just get lost if you don't know where you're going or what exactly you're looking for.

 

Blog Post #2 prt. 1

After browsing through my group's organization, I noticed that they have a blog. My group chose to 
research MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). The blog that they had on their site showcases a 
call to action about keeping the streets safe and has different stories about teenagers who died in car crashes because of drunk drivers. I feel that with this blog, users are able to share it with others even if it is only through email. However, there are other ways that this organization aims to get the word out: social media. On the home page, they have an option for you to get involved, stay connected via email and learn more about the organization by connecting to Facebook, Blogger, Twitter and LinkedIn. Using these social networks, they will reach a great number of people; and they have! So after reading about what this organization is about and what they do/have done, I do agree that online activism matters. Sending letters to people or putting ads in the newspaper isn't enough. With technology getting better every year, it literally is the best way to get people's attention and make a bold statement about what you want to accomplish.

Filter Bubbles

I'm starting a project on 'Filter Bubbles' and I am pretty interested on the topic. The concept of 'filter failure' sort of relates to this. I thought it was a good topic to discuss.

Here's the link I viewed of the TED talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsjQLB_jTBA 

After watching the TED talk, I thought it was pretty interesting. What I got from it was that we all want privacy and we all filter some of our results. However, there are cookies that are saved wherever we go on the internet and we are limited to the results we get back when we search something on Google or Bing. Filter bubbles are creating an isolated safehouse for each individual person. In the TED talk he said that two people could search for the same thing and get totally different results. When I first heard that, I thought it was ridiculous. After being introduced to that knowledge, I was finally skeptical about the internet in general and what I put out on the net.

Searching the web is something that we do to communicate or research a topic. We are unaware to what or how much information is being filtered. I think Pariser is telling us to beware because the more we filter, the less connected we are. He says that we need the internet for just that reason. We need to have some control and if we don't, we're going to be consumed by technology and be stuck in a "web of one." I think to improve online filter bubbles, companies need to allow the user to know what is being passed through the cracks of the internet every time they search for something.

If we don't become more aware and companies don't take action to let web users know what is being passed through web searches, society will come to a stand-still and each individual person will not be able to connect with others as conveniently as they should. Filter bubbles will cause a digital divide that is so great, that our own families will become disconnects with one another.

Blog Post #1

Given the readings you've done so far this semester, what are the most important takeaways? List and describe any terms, concepts, issues, or questions you feel are crucial to these first three weeks.

Thinking back on the last few weeks this semester, I think that one of the most important takeaways is that technology isn't all that bad. After reading the article, "It Takes a Village to Find an iPhone," it is clear that social media can help rather than harm. This is just one story, however. There are countless others that explain that technology can do a lot of harm, but I think that we need to acknowledge technology's successes with the same energy as criticizing it when it helps us. In addition to Shirkey's article, I think that the concept of race is another important issue to discuss. I never understood how race and technology related to each other, but given the context of a story like the one about the "lost" iPhone, I believe that race was definitely an issue. I can definitely see how a person's race and class can make someone think that they don't deserve the latest and greatest technology such as, Apple products.  

Another good takeaway was our discussion about the Google algorithm. I think it's important that we "wake up" and realize that our web surfing isn't all that private. Why are we seeing ads on Facebook that we are interested in? One may say that they never even looked up that certain product. The system of the search engine is a biased one. In any case, we all want to find what we are looking for with the least amount of clicks as possible. What I'm inferring is that Google noticed this demand and probably tweaked their algorithm to where it doesn't matter what you search, the most popular and favorable results will show up on the first page. No one will be willing to travel to the 10th page of results to find something. Thinking about this issue gets me to ask, "How different are we from each other?" Given the technology in today's day and age, we are all connect in one way or another. Our acquaintances may not be mutual, but through multiple people and/or sources, we know each other. That's the power of technology right now. 

Our discussion on the history of information is another good takeaway. I think that EVERYTHING is information; our sense of smell, taste, touch, hearing and sight all give us information. It's amazing walking around campus now that I have this knowledge of acquiring information. It's hard for me to walk from point A to point B without seeing several people on their phones/iPods. I am a victim of this, however, but I do not have an addiction; which I find quite disturbing. It's one thing to quit a video game because you've been playing too long, but it's a completely different story when you quit your job because you've been playing too long.  There are multiple ways to acquire information. A lot of these ways doesn't have to involve technology. Being that we are so immersed in the technology life as of late, I don't think it will be possible to find alternatives. Kids will still be playing video games, adults will still be scheduling their lives on their iPhones. However, if we take some time to interact with each other to talk about technology face to face, the time we take talking to each other through a screen can be decreased significantly. 

Given the above stated reasons, one can conclude that technology has definitely affected us in a negative way because most of us base our whole life on it. Nonetheless, we should also give light to the fact that technology has created a positive impact on us and has given us the advancements to accomplish great feats. 

Internet 101

In short, we should study the internet because it's new. It's a brand new way to have people participate in their culture. I believe the internet is something that is worth studying because it's the main platform where people go to put on sort of a "private" persona. People meet each other online and can stay in contact with them for years, but sometimes they will rarely, or never, see them in person. Also, search engines like Google collects information about us, so they will know what exactly we like and what we would want to see in a search result. What is keeping people so immersed in such a medium? How are people staying connected in such a vast open area like the internet? Will the entire internet be transformed and conform to just...Google?

To me, web sphere analysis is all about getting/wanting to know about the internet in general. It's about finding out why and how our society is using the web and who they are using it with/for.Today, almost everyone is getting their information or interacting with other people via websites. That's the only way one can search using the web. In regards to social media, I think that this methodology can and already has been incorporated in its analysis.

Change is always going on; whether it's with social media, or digital media. The nature of Social Networking Services (SNSs) is to find an easier way to obtain information that would otherwise be hard to find. With websites like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, the CEOs and founders behind those companies are already on their way to making things easier to obtain; if they aren't already there! So, I guess there wouldn't be much to change. With SNSs, people can coordinate a simple search and find a specific person in the social media pool on the internet of millions of people.

The dynamic nature hasn't changed greatly within the SNSs. As far as advancement goes, it has changed tremendously. Comparing sites like Myspace to Facebook is like comparing the first PlayStation console with the new PS4. The essence of the web or the "link" may direct users to other sites that they don't want to be directed to. Mistakes like misdirection, turns people off and forces them to limit their associations with social networks or totally eliminate them from their lives. In result, that particular social network will consistently produce multiple updates trying to improve the user experience. However, as we've seen with Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, Inc., not a lot of people approve of all the changes.

Looking at the outcomes of the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, SNSs are almost automatic in regards to getting information out to the people. Some may say, "What's the point of the news on TV or Newspapers?" As far as a comparative study goes, a lot of similarity would take place being that both events were devastating for Americans.

In the end, it would be hard to get information out to other people when it happens in real time....or would it? What happens if the internet shuts down? Are mail carriers going to receive millions of letters containing 1 sentence that a teenager would've otherwise messaged to someone on Facebook? Would phone bills skyrocket because smartphone applications are no longer useful? Why should we study the internet? Simply because...the internet constantly studies us...