“We can't make our kids passive again, we can only make them pirates . . . is that good?” (Lessig 2007)
In this presentation Lessig describes the 20th century as a time where creativity was displaced. Historically our society was based on a "Read Write" culture but in the 20th Century we evolved into a "Read Only" culture - a culture where we consumed media content but do not participate in the creation of it. (Lessig 2007)
In the 21st century we see this Read Only culture challenged by new media which allows for a return of the Read Write culture or in the terms of Jenkins a "Participatory culture" where we not only consume media but we also create it. We not only "Read" but we also "Write" and we do so by creating user generated content and distributing it through social networking sites such as YouTube. (Lessig 2007)
As Lessig points out, Copyright law blanket covers all unauthorized use of content as criminal and as such dampens the creativity of a generation who creates art from snippets of other peoples content (such as creating vids, mashups or remix). While he acknowledges that copyright law has its place it should be changed to allow for this form of expression and suggests Creative Commons as a pathway towards decriminalization. (Lessig 2007)
In Australia the creator of a work is the copyright owner, (unless there is a signed contractual agreement that states otherwise) - copyright is not something that is applied for, but is something that exists at the time of creation (Ownership of copyright 2006). As such works cannot be copied, reproduced or reused without the creators permission.
There is a Fair Dealings clause that allows people to use snippets of copyrighted material for “research or study, criticism or review, parody or satire, reporting news, or professional advice by a lawyer, patent attorney or trade marks attorney”(Fair Dealing 2008) but this is a legal defense that can be used if sued, it is not a legal right to prevent one from being sued (dangerousnerd 2007).
As Collins states in his article – fair use can be manipulated by large companies who use their media presence and financial advantage to send a message to the general public about sampling their products (Collins 2008). They do so by suing samplers who then need to fork out money to defend themselves under the terms of “fair use”. The large sums media companies sue for put fear into samplers – they can either take down content before it goes to court, or face the possibility of loosing great sums of money in the court system.
Creative Commons on the other hand takes the guess work out of using other peoples content as allows the creator of material to stipulate whether or not it is OK for people to copy, sample, re-use or reproduce a work. It succeeds where fair use fails as it clearly communicates the terms of which the works can be used. There are 6 standard licences, which vary in restrictions. The most relaxed licences allow people reuse, alter and distribute works for both private and commercial purposes while the most restrictive allows only for the sharing of a work. All licences stipulate that the originating creator must be acknowledged (About the Licenses). A comprehensive list can be found on the creative commons website.
Overall I believe creative commons to be a good thing but it is a voluntary system that applies only to those who are willing to share. It does not address the issues of media companies hording content or their manipulation of the legal system to prevent creative re-use of it. Therefore participation by media institutions seem unlikely due the the economic benefit they receive from their current business model.
Although the TV show I am going to remediate (Gavin and Stacey) does not fall under creative commons licensing I should be able to avoid infringing copyright due to fair use. Dangerounerd states in their YouTube video “You cant copyright an idea…you can only copyright the form an idea takes”(dangerousnerd 2007) therefore I am free to remediate the storyline. I can also use small snippets of dialog from the show and change their form from spoken word to written text so long as I reference the source (as you would when writing an essay). Overall I am creating the remediation for educational purposes, which falls within the guidelines of the Fair dealing exceptions of Australian copyright law. If Baby Cow productions (owners of Gavin and Stacey) do try to sue me I should have grounds to win - so long as I can afford the legal fees in the first place!
About the Licenses. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ (accessed 9/10/11).
Collins, S. 2008. Recovering Fair Use. M/C Journal 11 (6). http://lms.curtin.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_43148_1%26url%3d (accessed 28/9/11).
dangerousnerd. 2007. A Fair(y) Use Tale. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UycH2HvBRd4 (accessed 28//9/11).
Fair Dealing. 2008. Australian Copyright Council Information Sheet G079v05: 6. http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/ (accessed 28/9/11
Lessig, L. 2007. Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity. TED.
Ownership of copyright. 2006. Australian Copyright Council Information Sheet G58. http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/ (accessed 9/10/11).
No comments:
Post a Comment