Week 1 Reading: Copyright Issues

Yung6 [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) 

or CC-BY-SA-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Week 1 Reading Blog post: Copyright Issues

As a creative person, and someone who is almost always creating, this is not my first time reading, researching and thinking about copyright laws and issues. 

I remember my first real foray into researching copyright was in high school, senior year. 

I had gotten a very nice film SLR camera (Canon!) for christmas and was bursting with creative ideas. I had an idea for a specific direction i wanted to go with my photography, and i wanted to create a website to share these creations with. 

My combined love of molecular biology and photography led to the creation of "Double Helix Studios". 

At the time, I had big plans for my photography (as always, life got in the way and I had to put it aside for a long time. I am just now getting back into it) and wanted to maintain my own website, promote in art shows and websites, and of course protect my images. 

But before i put all this on the web, I wanted to make sure i wasn't stepping on someone else's toes first. 

So I began research into what copyright was, how it applied, how it could be defended, and if anyone else was using the name Double Helix Studios.

I knew that i didn't really know much about copyright, and i knew already that there were many misconceptions about how it worked. But i didn't quite realize what i was in for. 

It was like going down the rabbit hole. 

Fair use, public domain, use of the copyright symbol, benefits of registering, likeness, intent, common usage… all things I found myself discovering, questioning, and researching further. 

It didn't take long to become overwhelmed. 

To this day, I'm STILL not 100% on how it all works, or if i'm inadvertently infringing on someone else's copyright (although I haven't found any thing yet). 

I did find out some useful pieces of information that have helped me since then, many of which are mentioned in the videos we watched. 

For example, it was reassuring to know that technically, all of my photos are copyrighted the second i create them. Registering isn't necessary, but it helps for legal purposes. It was also both interesting and confusing figuring out whether or not i might infringe on someone else's trademark if they use the name Double helix Studios for a product or service that was totally unrelated to photography. 

Even after watching the videos for our "Reading", i'm still not sure. 

(Trademarks are a whole 'bother mess to look into)

I really liked that there was a video for what *can't* be copyrighted. This was the first thing I looked into myself when i started my own research. Although it seems like common sense, i've come across many people who don't understand these (seemingly) basic ideas.

Especially in the internet age of communication, I've seen many, many conversations and debates rage online about copyright law (often in conjunction with conversations about piracy and intellectual theft), where many of the discussions revolved around incorrect information.

In many of those conversations, people who seemed intelligent and well spoken, were making huge leaps of logic based on completely erroneous information, often misunderstanding what was and wasn't able to be copyrighted.

In fact, I've seen most if not all of the "10 big myths about copyright"  used in these conversations/discussions/debates. 

This is especially true for "public domain". 

There are so many misconceptions about what is and what isn't public domain, and how public domain works. 

As more and more people are using the internet, apps, and media to create their own new media (youtube videos, songs, etc), I think a good understanding of copyright, and attribution is even more important.

As a teacher, i see many students who simply don't understand how important attribution and permission is, and how serious it  can be if they don't properly attribute something they've used in a creation.  The "if I don't charge for it", "public domain" and "Fair use" and "Re-mix" arguments are things I hear from students frequently. 

Often my students are (or are very good at pretending to be) clueless when I tell them how serious their use of someone else's material in their work is, and how serious the consequences can be. 

On the other hand, the complexity of the law makes it very daunting, and discouraging to burgeoning artists.  

It's been said there are only 10 stories to be told. Everything is a retelling and remake of something else. 

In some way, this is true. Is anything *truly* original anymore?  it can be said that everything is inspired by something else. 

So is anything created technically infringing someone else's copyright?

Of course this isn't quite true, but it can be easy to get overwhelmed and confused. 

And this is an important note that the  "Top 10 myths" video addresses, although briefly. 

In the EMDT program, we touched on the idea of copyright, and using royalty free images, in creating our educational media. But the information has been here and there, sporadically addressed in a few courses, but never more than a sentence or two, often in the role of "don't use copyright images" or "use royalty free images, but with attribution".

And honestly, even in this program, I've heard different and conflicting pieces of information. Even on the Masters level, information is uncertain, and muddled. 

For a program that focuses on the creation of new media, I think it would especially beneficial (dare i say necessary) to include an official course, or at least lesson plan (in the first month or two) on this topic. 

I guess you could say this week's reading IS our lesson in copyright. The videos/reading for this week has been the most comprehensive, and consistent lesson experience i've had so far in this program.

But at this point, it seems too late. We've spent 11 months creating media, with a vague understanding of what is acceptable in terms of using others images/sounds/etc.  I think it would be more useful,on an educational and even legal level, to be exposed to these readings/videos/lesson in our first month of the course. 

I have to admit, it's kind of a wake up call to realize that, as educators, we aren't 100% sure of the basics of copyright and fair use. 

On the subject of fair use, while I thought the "Fair(y) Use" video was cute, and interesting (although I found the jilted nature of the speech distracting in many places), how does the video itself factor into copyright and fair use?

The Fair(y) Use video alludes to the idea that the clips used fall under fair use because they are small amounts used for educational purposes.

 But in the video where Prof. Bustillos discusses fair use for education, he mentions about how a small bit can of material can be used for teaching. However, for teaching, if the lesson can be made without the copyrighted material, the copyrighted material should not be used. 

Well, although the Disney video is cute, those pieces weren't necessary to make the lesson's point. A video about copyright laws could have been created without using copyrighted works. So does this make the video still ok?

Is that question "can this lesson be taught without copyrighted material" a legal one, or just a "common sense" idea?

A video teaching about copyright/fair use, that is unclear on whether it's own use of copyrighted works is allowed. How ironic. 

And now I find myself in same situation I was, those years ago in high school: the more i research and read and educate myself on copyright, the more questions and uncertainty I find I have!

It doesn't help that many copyright laws are becoming obsolete, or outdated in their use.  Our methods of creation, types of media, and access to media have grown and changed rapidly in the past 10 years. it's difficult enough for the average person to keep up with this growth, much less the law. 

But, it's an important thing that i think the public, and law makers need to look into and consider. Not only are our copyright laws in desperate need of an overhaul and restructuring to reflect today's world, but they are in even more desperate need of being streamlined and simplified.

Until that happens, I think it's especially important, as students, and the public in general have quicker and easier ways to create, distribute, share and access creations,  for colleges, and even high schools to start integrating copy right/attribution classes into required curriculum.