As a teenager, I had notions of being a film editor. My outlet for this ambition was to take video
of movies and TV shows and cutting the footage into themed montages set to
music. My goals in doing so were nothing
more than to build my experience and showcase my talent. I was aware that these videos probably couldn’t
be freely distributed. Platforms like
YouTube hadn’t truly taken off yet, but if I’d posted my creations on such a
site, they likely would’ve attracted copyright complaints. Jones and Hafner would say that I was
engaging in remix culture, by mashing up different media to create new content.
The practice of mashing up media is fed by, and feeds, the
social aspect of the contemporary “read-write” (as opposed to “read-only”) web
(42). The ease with which images, video,
and audio can be shared and edited has opened the creative process to a much
wider audience than the pre-digital world allowed. I’ve never physically cut film together in my
life; I “cut” video clips that came in computer files.
The ease of creativity has not been matched by an ease of
legal cover. In fact, as both Jones and
Hafner and Lawrence Lessig note, those who took creative liberties with
previous works have denied the same privilege to others. Lessig’s example is of the Walt Disney Company,
which was built on taking works that predated copyrights, and creating
derivative work and claiming it as their intellectual property. I take Lessig’s point that this is
hypocritical, but I also think it’s understandable. From Disney’s point of view, it’s not their
fault that the brothers Grimm didn’t have access to copyright laws. Disney, in turn, is simply using the power it
has to protect something that, if used without their consent, could compromise the
company’s image. I doubt you’d get
anyone from the company to publicly make that point, but I think that’s what it
comes down to: they don’t see a problem using a power they know they have.
Still, this is the beauty of Lessig’s idea of a creative
commons. Those who could exercise control over their creative works willingly won’t use that power, as long as further
use is done respectfully and credits the creator. This does still require that right to be granted. Lessig also brings up the example of George
Lucas, who is famously protective of his vision of his works being above all
others (until he sold the rights to those works to…oh, right). Would Lucas have licensed Star Wars under the creative commons if
it had existed in the 1970s? I’m not
sure. The power to protect a creative
work from all tampering is tempting, and if it’s available, it’s hard to turn
down. I don’t think the simple existence
of a creative commons will change the status quo. I think it’s more likely that the sheer volume
of mashing-up and sharability will overwhelm companies’ attempts at rigid copyright
enforcement.
Jones, Rodney H.,
and Christoph A. Hafner. Understanding
Digital Literacies: A Practical Introduction. London: Routledge, 2012.
I wonder how copyright will change in the future. It will need to adapt like previous technologies have. But as long as their is money tied to it, I don't think it will change. I'm reminded of a poem (When I am Old, I shall wear a red hat) that I designed and matted and framed as a gift for my sister. My sister had a friend who liked it so much, my sister let her copy it. I was a little put off because it was something that I made specifically for a my sister not her friend. The friend made a copy of the poem, she didn't recreate it herself. I guess this still kind of bothers me. Did she appropriate my work? I appropriated the poem. I didn't sell it, didn't make any money from it. No one will ever see it unless they are in my sister's office. What difference does it make? Any?
ReplyDeleteI am not sure why, but copyright in Germany is also sometimes less strict than it is here. At the university, we usually copy or scan all the texts we need and print them out for our use. We barely ever buy a book, unless we read it from the beginning to the end (which rarely happens). And even the professors do it. In fact, often it is them that make the scans available to us online. I was surprised when I came here and had to buy all the books. And books are sooo expensive. I am not sure why the American versions are often more expensive than the international versions. Does anyone else know? I have bought an international version of a book for around $30 and could have only rented the American version for around $100 or maybe even more.
ReplyDeleteTracy, I can also understand that you were upset with her friend making the copy of it...I have just wandered of a little in my mind and thought about what it would be like if people would actually see their own creations as gifts to the world, gifts that are for everyone. Maybe it would be easier to let go of them and let everyone that desires to have them do so. But maybe not, since sometimes, as it was in your case, it was something specifically created for that one person, something special that only should belong to her. I sometimes imagine this world where everyone would perfectly get along, yet of course this is wishful thinking :-)