 |
| photo by Mike Colletti |
Trina Dralus: My thinking during Good Copy, Bad Copy:
While viewing Good Copy, Bad Copy I became aware of the conflicting opinions I have on the topic of copyright issues. I began to wonder how I really feel. I have always felt that the artist should maintain credit for the work they have developed. I also feel that the artist should be compensated for his or her work. However, I often wonder how much of the compensation actually goes to the artist and not the record label and so forth. I am also left wondering why copyright laws prohibit the public from building upon the ideas of others. This current generation has grown up with media at their fingertips. Why not allow them to use text, film, etc. to learn about their past and have a voice in their future as was stated in Good Copy, Bad Copy (2009). I thought this idea was brilliant. This is how these students learn. Why stifle this learning? Why not build upon the great ideas of the past to create a powerful idea for the future?
My mind was also opened during the section that discussed the Nigerian philosophy about copyright. This theory believes that copyright should not be about getting people for using work, but should be about using work legally and paying the artist for the work they have done. They don't have piracy because of this philosophy. The public pays the same for something new or something copied. So why copy it? This makes so much sense to me. The artist is compensated for his or her work and the public can then use this to create work of their own.
This idea allowed me to be very open to the idea of blanket licensing. This would allow for credit to the creator while still allowing open creativity. Money could still be made as the point of marketing was brought up. Marketing is what makes the money, not the copyrighting. Again, this makes perfect sense to me. So this can make copyright issues a nonissue. I wonder if that day will ever come?
While viewing Good Copy, Bad Copy I became aware of the conflicting opinions I have on the topic of copyright issues. I began to wonder how I really feel. I have always felt that the artist should maintain credit for the work they have developed. I also feel that the artist should be compensated for his or her work. However, I often wonder how much of the compensation actually goes to the artist and not the record label and so forth. I am also left wondering why copyright laws prohibit the public from building upon the ideas of others. This current generation has grown up with media at their fingertips. Why not allow them to use text, film, etc. to learn about their past and have a voice in their future as was stated in Good Copy, Bad Copy (2009). I thought this idea was brilliant. This is how these students learn. Why stifle this learning? Why not build upon the great ideas of the past to create a powerful idea for the future?
My mind was also opened during the section that discussed the Nigerian philosophy about copyright. This theory believes that copyright should not be about getting people for using work, but should be about using work legally and paying the artist for the work they have done. They don't have piracy because of this philosophy. The public pays the same for something new or something copied. So why copy it? This makes so much sense to me. The artist is compensated for his or her work and the public can then use this to create work of their own.
This idea allowed me to be very open to the idea of blanket licensing. This would allow for credit to the creator while still allowing open creativity. Money could still be made as the point of marketing was brought up. Marketing is what makes the money, not the copyrighting. Again, this makes perfect sense to me. So this can make copyright issues a nonissue. I wonder if that day will ever come?
@Trina
I was also torn between the two sides of the issue while watching Good Copy, Bad Copy. On the one hand, I understand the protection of an artist’s intellectual property, whether it is film, music, dance, art or design. I remember a case from the Mass Media class I teach, regarding Philo Farnsworth vs. RCA, during the days of television’s infancy. Farnsworth invented one of the vital components that made television work, and his idea was used by RCA without permission. While he eventually won his case, the financial hardships caused by the court proceedings left him a broken man, while RCA went on to be the major force in television development. You can’t help but feel sorry for him.
On the other hand, letting new artists work with ideas already developed to create something different is an important part of the development of society. We are always trying to invent a better mousetrap, as the saying goes. As I said in my original blog post, there is a direct relationship between the telegraph and the television, even though you might not think so on first glance.
What is needed is an understanding among all the creative forces out there, without the lawyers and without the courts getting involved. It is amazing that the most developed country in the world can’t figure that out, and that “third world” countries like Nigeria and Brazil can. So I agree that some form of blanket licensing makes the most sense. It will make copyright issues a non-issue; however, I am not holding my breath until that day comes.
No comments:
Post a Comment