Ahhhh. Fair Use. In all its forms…
Spoooooky November 11, 2009
eople were being exposed to music that they barely had time to remember, because the huge volume of recordings and the small amount of time to absorb them presented to the proto-modernist listener a kind of soundbite mentality.” I think this serves as a warning. It isn’t even about sound. Link your pages too much and you loose your reader. It is a fine line between linking to expand your readers’ knowledge and linking to the point that you loose them in a tangent. For example…DJ Spooky –> Hitler Video –> Der Untergang –> Magda Goebbel –> Goebbel murder/suicide –> what were we talking about again?
he result is an immense repository – an archive of almost anything that has ever been recorded.” To me this begs the question, what else is there to talk about? And if you do decide to risk it and create a scholarly webtext, you had better be original. Because if what you have to say is too bland, too long, too outdated, too ANYTHING, you’ll lose your readers.
n our day and age, the basic idea of how we create content in our minds is so conditioned by media that we are in a position unlike any other culture in human history: Today, this interior rhythm of words, this inside conversation, expresses itself in a way that can be changed once it enters the “real” world.” I think this speaks to that while a scholarly online work must have a sense of credibility and restraint, there are relatively more options as how to convey your meaning. Scholars are no longer bound by white paper and black ink; margins that can only be so wide and a header which must contain A, B, and C. Now there is the opportunity to really get behind what you’re thinking through tasteful flash, website design, and subtle font choices.
Itube, YouTube, We All Tube! November 11, 2009
Part of what makes the Fair(y) Use Tale so important is the the use of YouTube. Since it’s creation in 2005, YouTube has provided an outlet for home grown creativity. While maybe in yesteryear a creative young soul might have enough money to buy a second hand camera, shoot a short film, he was limited to showing it to his friends. While mass production techniques had been applied to almost every other area of life…no one was thinking about mass production of creativity. And I’m not talking about Mass Production Model T style where you can have it in any-color-as-long-as-it’s-black production. I’m talking sheer volume. Because, say that kid does manage to get a second hand camera. He’s got to know what to do with it. He needs to know how to edit, how to splice film, run a projector, make copies…what ever it is that he has to do to get that film in viewable form. Now…pshhht. Most (if not all) PCs and Macs come standard with video editing software. With a few video clips and some easy dragging anyone can create a short film, and with the click of a button, open it up to the critique of millions.
And this opens up a new dialogue of creativity, legality, and the movement of technology that a Fair(y) Use Tale tries to discuss. It is of almost negligible importance that Faden created this video for his class. His real intent was to post it on YouTube. Not only an example of time, skill, effort–it is utterly relevant. Here is a video that has the perfect combination of elements to make it a viral sensation, and it is speaking to those people who use YouTube for its intended purpose: user generated creativity. I would argue, and I think Faden would agree, that the idea of policing YouTube for anything other than outright copying of movies, films, tv shows, etc is ridiculous. Therefore the application of copyright is ridiculous.
The other can of worms that this video (and what it represents) so deftly pries open, is what it means to be creative anymore. It is an idea that Paul Miller (DJ Spooky to many) refers to in his essay Loops of Perception. The idea that nothing new is created, just “remixed”; adapted to exist in a new time and age. To use my previous example of The Thief and the Cobbler and Aladdin: first, there was an oral tradition in the Middle East, and one of the stories was of the poor tailor’s son “Alāʼ ad-Dīn” which was Anglicized to Aladdin. Eventually, new media caught up to the spoken folk tale and it was written down to be included in the book A Thousand and One Nights. After this it continually shifted forms. Soon, we get The Thief and the Cobbler, which, granted has made some significant changes but any one can see that its foundations are in the original story. We have some cross pollination of animators and suddenly you have some very similar characters to be found in the hit Disney film, Aladdin. Great, so we have a rip off, of a rip off, of a rip off. Where is this going? Well, now, on YouTube you get things like this. So who owns it? The creator fingolfin897? Disney? Mirimax? The poor goat herder a thousand years ago who came up with a tale to entertain his grandkids? Rather hard to decide isn’t it.
Recycled Work November 5, 2009
I think that it is fairly well known that Disney not only takes ideas from other sources but that it recycles its own work as well. Here are some Youtube clips that make it abundantly clear. More after the jump.
Why Disney? November 2, 2009
Part of the rhetorical act of the “Fair(y) Use Tale” is the use of animated Disney characters. While adding a sense of familiarity to a rather foreign subject they are also a slight jab to Disney. While Disney is famous for its protection of its characters, it is also famous, or rather, infamous for “borrowing” plots, characters, and ideas from other sources. Two of the most blatant ripoffs come from Aladdin and The Lion King two of Disney’s most well known tales. Let’s break it down, after the jump, starting with Aladdin vs. The Thief and the Cobbler.
The Act October 28, 2009
When Eric Faden produced the video A Fair(y) Use Tale for the Media Education Foundation his motives were two fold. First and foremost the video is an educational piece about Fair Use. He strives to discuss what Fair Use means, what is and isn’t Fair Use, etc. On the surface a purely esoteric endeavor. But he also succeeded in making this dry subject entertaining to the point that it has received over 7 million hits on YouTube.
First I think it is important to dwell a minute on the fact that he used a video at all. Because this is an academic pursuit he easily could have written a paper for a journal, an article for a magazine, or any matter of “old” media. If he had pursued an approach more in line with “new” media, he could have created a pod cast or a blog. All of these things–while getting the message out, are dry, boring, and in this new Google age, probably wouldn’t have gotten read or listened to.
Instead he created a video–an entertaining video. So I feel the next thing to consider is the way he produced it. Instead of a dry video lecture, he strung together snippets of Disney films. Each Disney character says one or two words–sometimes an entire phrase, but never much more than that. The resulting video, while choppy and in places difficult to understand, is indeed entertaining and keeps the viewer engaged for all 10+ minutes. I doubt few people would have taken ten minutes to read an article on Fair Use. I can barely sit still long enough to read the Wikipedia entry on Fair Use let alone a dry academic article.
So, to recap, we have a tech savvy professor creating an entertaining video about Fair Use. Great. So what? Is the rhetorical Act that he created this video at all? Or that he posted it on a site known for creating viral video phenomenon? Or that he used extremely well known characters from a major corporation known for “borrowing” ideas? Well–it’s all of these things. He created the video with the intention to educate his students, but why pass up an opportunity to educate millions instead of hundreds? By making such an entertaining vehicle for a lesson on Fair Use he almost had to put it up on YouTube, a site known for removing content due to copyright violations, big and small. The fact that he uses this video to poke fun at Disney is merely icing on the cake. Disney is well known for savagely protecting their recycled work and continuing the illusion of innovation in their films.
But the Act is also what the video in and of itself represents. Faden has created a piece that effectively questions what it means to copyright material. Or, if not what it means, then certainly the (supposed) benefits to copyrighting. And there are benefits. If you produce an original work, you should receive recognition and payment for the use of your creativity. But at what point is it no longer original? Should all pieces of a work be considered “original” even if they have been so tweaked and retooled as to barely resemble their original content? It is a continuous battle between the copyright and the copyleft. For now, I think I will stick to the copymiddle.
Rhetoric Organization October 28, 2009
- Act: Top layer: Posting of youtube video A Fair(y) Use Tale, Subsequent Layer: Questioning of the institution of copyright
- Agent: Top: Eric Faden professor at Bucknell University, Subsequent layers: people posting mash-ups, homages, fanfiction etc
- Agency: Faden created a mash up more or less of Disney clips to speak about fair use and then disseminated it on a sight known for producing viral video phenomenons. Disney can’t do anything about it as it fits the parameters for Fair Use
- Scene: Initially for a class but then posted to you tube.
- Purpose: I think there was a dual purpose of teaching people about fair use in a manner they would find familiar and entertaining and at the same time satirize Disney who blatantly “borrow” ideas.
So What? October 27, 2009
Why should we care about copyright?
–Copyright issues are plaguing media outlets as more and more sites count on citizen journalists. Those journalists who do get paid need a way to be paid for their stuff
–Illegal music downloading has become extremely popular, mostly because it doesn’t make sense to buy a CD any more. I think there is a bigger issue here though. Through digitization of music, the advent of itunes, and the rise of the indie band, I think more people are becoming exposed to more music. When you had to carry multiple objects to listen to your music, you are going to naturally limit your selection. But now you can carry thousands of songs on one device. This opens up a world of possibilities. But–start doing the math. If you buy a new ipod which holds 40,000 songs and you pay $.99 a song…well…it certainly ads up. If I paid for all of my music I would have, to date, spent $3,820 on songs.
–With youtube becoming so popular, where do we draw the line between fair use and copyrighted material? I don’t think all those people who did their own interpretations of “Single Ladies” paid Beyonce Knowles for the rights to that song. But should the prosecuted for violating copyright? Of course not.
–Where do fairuse and copyleft come into play? Should more things be available to the public? Some one is producing the material–shouldn’t they get paid for their work?
Go deliver a dare, vile dog October 12, 2009
I thought about writing this blog in a Lipogram in honor of the members of the Oulipo…and then I realized my vocabulary isn’t nearly big enough, nor am I clever enough to do that. The idea that you can change one thing and suddenly have something completely different (the remainder being constant) is not new yet at the same time, it isn’t something one notices very often.
Things Cent mille milliards de poèmes reminded me of:
-Madlibs
-Run Lola Run
