Bruce:I totally agree with you in that with digital technology and the Internet we have changed how music is produced and distributed. This also applies to images as well. How easy is it to Google or Bing the image you need? You can even filter it to find larger versions that you can use in print. There are sites where you can legally obtain images and songs such at iclipart.com and Creative Commons. In CC though we have to limit the use to education without requesting permission. iclipart allows you to use their work in advertising, etc. for a yearly subscription fee. As we move forward, I think these laws will need another glance and perhaps a revision or two.
"Week 1 Blog Number 1---Copyright Laws http://brucemonth11blog.blogspot.com/2011/05/blog-number-1-copyright-laws.html?showComment=1304800365699#c4371100222132605395
I am a fanatical user of http://creativecommons.org/ , but even there one must be cautious. Just because an image is available does not mean it is usable. Often one must check with the image's owner to view the CC license agreement. My experience with CC is that usually the owner allows for free usage (including image manipulation) as long as you do several things: 1) Give proper attribution, 2) Give proper tittle, and 3) Make some kind of statement in which the image's owner is viewed as endorsing the content of your production.
I also like to use old film and video footage. It is fun to view and adds a nice creative bump to any video project. Older black and white footage is especially cool to use in more modern pieces. Its retro look even adds a bit of humor. I have used stock footage this way in several FSO projects. A great place to locate stock footage is at Internet Archive http://www.archive.org/ This site provides a vast array of older films that are bow in the category of public domain. Public domain is great stuff because there is absolutely no worries whatsoever about any ownership infringements.
I did like the 10 copyright myths. I always used to laugh when someone would tell me, "But I'm not selling it." I could never convince these people that the issue was never about sale, it was about unauthorized duplication of any kind.
As to the content of the film, Good Copy, Bad Copy. I'm not sure where my thinking is on this. I have never really considered it before. I tend to believe someone's property is someone's property, regardless whether it is physical or intellectual or creative. I have strong feelings about people being overly subjective about someone else's possessions. I understand the need for the free exchange of ideas. But to freely exchange a creative piece that is the direct product of someone else's s efforts and talent? Well, I just don't know. This feels like a slippery slope to me. I have the impression we are trying to over-intellectualize what is at the core a moral issue. Maybe that's why it feels slippery to me. It feels like a lot of people seeking for a way to justify a presupposition.
As the one executive stated, "You need copyright law as an incentive for people to create." Also, I have read that the era of the 'professional' musician is on the wane. The digital technology and the Internet have completely changed how musicians produce and distribute their creations. We may be seeing a major shift in how music is consumed by its listeners.
But I have to hear and read more before I can speak intelligently about the issue. "
I also like to use old film and video footage. It is fun to view and adds a nice creative bump to any video project. Older black and white footage is especially cool to use in more modern pieces. Its retro look even adds a bit of humor. I have used stock footage this way in several FSO projects. A great place to locate stock footage is at Internet Archive http://www.archive.org/ This site provides a vast array of older films that are bow in the category of public domain. Public domain is great stuff because there is absolutely no worries whatsoever about any ownership infringements.
I did like the 10 copyright myths. I always used to laugh when someone would tell me, "But I'm not selling it." I could never convince these people that the issue was never about sale, it was about unauthorized duplication of any kind.
As to the content of the film, Good Copy, Bad Copy. I'm not sure where my thinking is on this. I have never really considered it before. I tend to believe someone's property is someone's property, regardless whether it is physical or intellectual or creative. I have strong feelings about people being overly subjective about someone else's possessions. I understand the need for the free exchange of ideas. But to freely exchange a creative piece that is the direct product of someone else's s efforts and talent? Well, I just don't know. This feels like a slippery slope to me. I have the impression we are trying to over-intellectualize what is at the core a moral issue. Maybe that's why it feels slippery to me. It feels like a lot of people seeking for a way to justify a presupposition.
As the one executive stated, "You need copyright law as an incentive for people to create." Also, I have read that the era of the 'professional' musician is on the wane. The digital technology and the Internet have completely changed how musicians produce and distribute their creations. We may be seeing a major shift in how music is consumed by its listeners.
But I have to hear and read more before I can speak intelligently about the issue. "
No comments:
Post a Comment