Even though this presentation was done in March 2007, it is still highly relevant to issues involving copyright and digital and online media.
After you watch the presentation, return here and add a comment about whether you agree with Lessig or not, and why or why not. Also, because we are near the end of the semester, the deadline for your comment is 11:59 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 5, which is last class day for the fall semester. Late comments will not be accepted for credit.
Remember, also, to include your first name, last name initial and class (MW class or Online class).
62 comments:
Lawrence Lessig put it perfectly by stating that digital and online media is the “literacy for this generation.” It’s how we speak and express ourselves. It is hard to see a creator's work being taken down or flagged for copyright issues just for including another creator’s material. A lot of the time they aren’t using it to try and pass it off as their own. But to recreate the content and present it differently. There is an Act called Fair Use which protects people who are not monetizing off work to be able to use other creators material without their permission. I just recently had to use that because of a documentary I was shooting for another class. I used football footage from ESPN and FOX. I would be posting it on YouTube without monetization which allows it to fall under the Fair Use act. However, it will probably be taken down automatically so I would have to file an appeal with the company. It is just a longer process than what it needs to be because of the strict copyright rules.
Lessig did have some strong solutions to help resolve the “laws that choke creativity.” He believes that artist creators should embrace others ideas and make work freely available. They should have the right to choose if it can be used for commercial or non-commercial. But the creators should have some sort of outlet to allow the creators to make that decision. Businesses and social media outlets need to all embrace this and help form some type of site to allow this information and accessibility of creator’s work. I agree with everything that he said in this TED talk. A lot of creators embrace the idea of other people creating different forms of art with their work. But they have no way to state if they legally approve of it or not. Just imagine the creativity and work that we could enjoy if these laws were changed.
I agree with Lessing in that artists should be more open to freeing their content to some outlets and creators. Specifically, for people who clearly don't make a profit or large profit from using their material. I think YouTube has embraced the mixture he mentioned, but more so in the past. This existed more at a time when videos weren't as subjected to copyright issues. In my opinion, the most important point he made was when he stated, "artist choice is the key for new technology." In order for changes to be made, I believe management and labels of artists need to look at the opportunities presented when people use artists work. Artists can gain more fans and followers when other people are allowed to showcase their work. I don't think we should criminalize creatives. A better system needs to be built so that artists are paid accordingly enough to where they can afford to free up their content.
I agree with Lessing in that artists should be more open to freeing their content to some outlets and creators. Specifically, for people who clearly don't make a profit or large profit from using their material. I think YouTube has embraced the mixture he mentioned, but more so in the past. This existed more at a time when videos weren't as subjected to copyright issues. In my opinion, the most important point he made was when he stated, "artist choice is the key for new technology." In order for changes to be made, I believe management and labels of artists need to look at the opportunities presented when people use artists work. Artists can gain more fans and followers when other people are allowed to showcase their work. I don't think we should criminalize creatives. A better system needs to be built so that artists are paid accordingly enough to where they can afford to free up their content.
Diamond P Online
MC 4301 MW 11:00-12:20
I think people should feel free to post what they want to post. So long as it doesn't conflict with any rules of society (such as advocating for the death of an individual or mob mentality). I understand now we have so many copyright laws some for the better and others not so much. Now we continue to have amazing stories told to us today through a wide variety of medias. Movies, novels and TV are prime examples of that. But after hearing this I wonder how many stories people had that didn't get published because of these copyright laws. If a person wants to tell a story without the need for compensation I say we let them. We shouldn't be scared of originality we should welcome it.
-Joe Robledo
Jailene P
Online
I do believe that people should be able to pst what they want to post without having the fear of them being punished for simply just sharing something. On blogs and social media, usually people who are sharing a photo or video are not making a profit off of it. People just want to be able to talk about content or works of art and it sucks that copyright laws sometimes will not allow that to occur. YouTube is a very good example of people integrating videos and or photos to talk about a subject, and again most times they aren't making a profit off of it. If people are making a profit off of the videos they are making on YouTube it rarely is just because of the photos or video clips they used, it's usually the whole product that is allowing them to make a profit.
Alyse G ONLINE-- I really liked the idea of the plane flying over a farm's property, and bringing in the question of if that air is protected, but that question was soon answered by the Court when they addressed transcontinental flights. I agree with him in that content creators should be open to making their content more available artists; and I really agree with the value of loving what you do but not for the money. Using other content to enhance your content (YouTube, for example, including parodies and such) is okay, but just as long as the creator of the song or content used is credited fairly.
I agree with Lessing here, but I also understand protecting your own material. However, I do believe it can go to far and calls for some changes as it comes to intellectual property. I think the punishment should be reserved for those who rip off another individual for financial gain who intend to claim the work as their own. This is obvious, but I do think it should be easier to borrow material for those who have no intent on claiming the material as their own. There are instances of fair use where, as long as credit is given, the material is free to borrow. Unfortunately, with massive stars this isn't always the case as royalties are expected to be paid even if your intent was just to borrow and give full credit to the creator(s).
I liked that Lessing discussed how the tightening has and will continue to strangle creativity of the masses. I this happens, then you don't have the next artist that really pushes the envelope creatively. I believe creativity is massively important for our society and helps us to move forward artistically. Where do we draw the line? Lessing had a point when bringing up air travel and compared it to intellectual property. Who does the sky belong to? It can belong to just the farmers, but it belongs to everyone. This is the same thing when talking about creative space. It's just too regulate. Again, I'm not proposing that all material should be free to use (that causes theft of material), but we need a balance that will facilitate artists and individuals who continue to push the envelope and society forward.
William Skeen
Online M/W
This was an interesting video and I wouldn't have considered his argument if it weren't for him explaining it as clear as he did.
When I think of recreating someone's work, my mind goes straight to music. I think about artists remaking classic songs from decades ago, or copying cadences or flows from a specific iconic track. This makes music fun! In the same way it makes music better through the perfect amount of nostalgia, I'm sure that taking other works outside of music and putting a unique and individual spin on it makes artistry that much more rich and authentic.
With that being said though, I can only imagine what it feels like to dedicate a portion of your time and energy to a specific project and seeing people who sacrificed nothing, take it in one way or another.
Lessig makes an awesome point by mentioning that the evolution of technology has become the language in which most of us speak, and that if copyright issues penalize "copies",then really, everything is up for penalty in this day and age of copying culture. Overall, I agree with Lessig and I think it's because he so seamlessly made me understand his point.
Skylar Whinery MW
I agree with Lessig in that online creators should have more freedom of what they can use. Copyright should still be a law that we follow, but creators who still credit the source should not be flagged for copyright. Our generation is now learning everything from the internet and online media, which also makes it harder for us to find the information we need if everything is being flagged. Its one thing if someone were to take credit for a huge research project that you have dedicated your life to, but if its something as little as quoting someones article and getting flagged for copyright, it doesn't seem fair that we cant use it to make our topic stronger.
One tough thing that I have experienced with copyright was while I created videos on YouTube and using music from certain artist. It didn't take long for me to find out what copyright was because my first video was flagged 10 mins after I posted it. I now take the appropriate approach to it and contact the artist before I use their music now, but I always made sure to credit them multiple times. To me, if a creator like my self is not making any profit from using their music, then you shouldn't be punished especially if you credit them. All in all, online media has a lot of traps out there that can be considered copyright and it has become more scary to post anything that isn't your own thought.
Makensie Hinkle
ONLINE
I think Lessig said it best when he described digital and online media as the literacy of this generation. That's completely true in my opinion. But laws do make it impossible. For example, everything is so restricted. Say you post a video of you dancing on social media... Facebook will block it because they say it was copyrighted. It leaves no room for creativity.
I think one of the most important points of the lecture is that he recognizes that the younger generation is different that the older ones. The mindset that the same rules or laws apply to everyone is narrow-minded. The balance that Lessig is looking for I think is achievable, but the court system must be more updated about how the internet is used. There aren't often amendments to the systems that are rapidly changing and improving, making it hard to feel like the current laws aren't relevant. This is where the idea that young people disregard the law such as an ass, and I particularly enjoyed when he said you can't kill creativity, you can only criminalize it. It makes sense to me, because there have been many times that I've seen things punished for copyright infringement, and it is only getting more common with time. I haven't really considered it, but young folk these days create much more on a daily basis on average than the generations behind them.
Grant Langford MW Class
I agree with Lessig that artists should embrace making their work more available and that businesses should see this as opportunity to grow. The internet and social media is flooded with user-generated content and I believe it's rare to see posts that are 100% original. Look at meme culture: everything is a recreation from something else. However, a lot of user-generated content is now something new and creative, despite featuring works from other artists.
I liked the point Lessig made at the end about how you can't make kids passive, but they can be pirates. I think it's important to notice that in this day in age, being a pirate isn't necessarily a bad thing. Throughout the TED Talk, I was thinking about YouTube and how many creators have trouble even mentioning a few words from a popular song without getting in trouble. In comparison, Tik Tok users can sample all kinds of songs on their videos. I think the argument to consider is that if YouTube creators are monetizing their videos, should they be able to sing/play popular songs? And at what point will we see Tik Tok users monetizing their videos with popular songs playing in the background?
This is a very interesting and complicated topic in our world today. I appreciate the approach Lessig took to this TED Talk and how he encouraged me to start thinking more about my stance in creativity-restricting laws.
Nichole Black
MW Class
Isaiah Hinton, MW
The modern world is moving too quickly for the old laws to catch up. Just like the example you used in class about technology advancing too quickly for copyright laws, the people should be able to create and post what they want online in this new age. I liked Lessig’s quote saying, “You can’t these kids from using technology, you can only drive it underground.” This new generation will find a way to find the freedom to create new content and have their voice heard across the world. Whether it be legally or illegally. It’s up to this younger generation to vote and put people in office who will make these changes and break the shackles holding creativity.
I believe that individuals can post whatever they want without being punished. Nowadays, people who share a photo or video via social media are not making money anyways. It's simply for the likeness and sharing of a photo of video to your friends. Let's take YouTube, for example, Youtube is used for uploading and sharing videos, but for no money. If people are making money off of the videos they upload, 9/10 it is usually because of the entire content behind the video and not just the clips.
Ralston Green
M/W
Lessig had a great point by distinguishing amateur culture. He explained he did not mean amateur-ish culture, but a culture where people produce for the love of what they're doing and not for the money. I think this goes hand in hand with issues such as originality. It is important to protect your material, however you shouldn't concern yourself too much with others and their work. I feel like that is an easy way to even accidentally associate your work with others. I think things are going to progressively get better and keep evolving with content and creativity, but with this being said, rules and regulations also need to adapt to these changes along the way. Lessig had some very good responses to the issues of content stealing and originality.
Tatum Kosiara M/W
I agree with Lessig's overall point. The free sharing of content creates a healthy culture of creation and creativity that is often stifled by corporate interests. I understand the importance of protecting your original works, but the way the laws currently create an unhealthy environment in which intellectual properties are owned for basically two whole generations, limiting the creative potential of artists and creators and preventing creative discussions. Life plus 70 years is the result of corporate greed and not the result of encouraging creativity. These laws are outdated and should be loosened in my opinion. At this point, people create original works out of previously existing intellectual properties, essentially a new form of expression. Lessig makes this point very well in the video.
I believe Mr. Lessig made many valid points, and I agree with his argument. In the technological era that we live in, I do find it to be, for a lack of better terms, silly to punish those and hinder the creativity of those who recreate original works and incorporate them into something new and original. I feel somewhat passionate about this because one of my favorite songs as of recent had to get reworked by the artist due to them being penalized for using sounds and works that have been created before. After editing their track so that it followed guidelines, the overall sound is not the same and in my opinion does not sound as great. I now go to Youtube to listen to the original version of the song, and even then sometimes the videos get taken down due to violation. His argument is both progressive and nostalgic; I say nostalgic because the examples he used to strengthen his argument is the case of ASCAP and BMI. Overall the video was very enjoyable and informative.
Gage Neumann Online
Brian Deleon MW Media Law
I agree with Lawrence; the problem here, as I see it, is that of a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line between piracy and the lawful use of copyrighted materials? Clearly, the episodes of Bobs Burger spend up a little bit on Youtube violate copyright law . . . but does including a 5-minute clip of James Bond in a 15-minute long movie review violate the law? It is, after all, 33% of the video. It's really difficult to figure out, and I believe that the first step to solving this problem is to address its complexities and to define piracy and copyright laws more clearly. Only then can we begin to determine what is, and what is not, lawful use of copyrighted materials in user-generated content.
Compared to the past, the number of people creating new ideas from what we have seen/learned has decreased dramatically. I can definitely see the connection between copyright laws and this decrease. Since we are breaking the law if new innovations resemble copyrighted technology, many people will not develop or even express their new ideas. This has a negative impact on our culture and cripples creativity. Even though I support the copyright protection of original works, I believe that we need to develop a new way for people to use these established tools to make something of their own without the fear of breaking the law.
I agree with Lessig, many copyright laws due stifle creativity. There is a strong divide between either side. And both sides are extremists. The pulib should advocate for more neutral laws that are neutral. Laws that promote creativity on both sides of the divide.
Madison Williams
MW class
I definitely agree with Lessig's point in this video. Society has made it increasingly difficult to express your creativity in some ways with the extreme copyright laws. One thing that specifically comes to mind is that if you post a video on YouTube with even a 4 second clip of a song by a major artist such as Ariana Grande, your video will be immediately flagged and taken down for copyright. I find this rule pretty silly, many people work really hard on editing a video to post online only for it to be completely taken away because they wanted to put a fun little song clip in it. I agree that there should definitely be some kind of copyright laws in place to protect artists and other people who publish their creative work, but how far should we really be taking it? That is a question Lessig left in my mind after I listened to his speech.
Cailey Craig, (MW 11am class)
Joshua Altemus - Online. I agree with Lessig that the current state of copyright law needs another look. The format for making money by producing content has shifted from unit sales to ad sales. Every production company now sells their content to streaming services rather than creating millions of CDs to ship out to the local Walmarts. Since there is no longer a worry about losing potential CD consumers to content available online, it is time to reevaluate the strengths of copyright law to determine if it is even protecting anyone or if it is just a needless burden. As there has long been fair use for traditional media, there could now be fair use for the many different types of content produced on YouTube and similar sites. As Lessig noted, I'm not encouraging wholesale piracy, but I do agree that creativity has always been the art of (re)creating existing content.
Our generation today is completely different than our elders, which shows in Lessig’s Ted Talk, and so is our advanced world. The advancements of our ‘modern’ world is racing at a speed which makes it for copyright to keep up. I personally agree with Lessig when he mentions that our advancements is creating more creativity in people, and that there should be updated rules with MORE freedom, and less restrictions. This especially in online news, as we depend on digital media constantly. Sharing creativity and encouraging others is limited, and personally I find that not okay. This does not mean I’m FOR someone using someone else’s work themselves ‘’claiming’’ its theirs, because in no way is that right and whoever came up with something should receive 100% credit and recognition for it. However, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be shared to encourage others and for others to learn from it.
Pernille Rudolfsen
Online Class
I agree with Lessig's stance on copyrighting and the evolution of creativity. As technology advances it will cause new ways to create and therefor require new rules. (Just like the dilemma of when planes were invented and "trespassing" over land) I believe if someone takes something that someone else has made and remixes it creatively it should be viewed as something new. That's not to say the original shouldn't be credited. There is an abundance of content that is actually based on something else. Lessig made a good point to have creators let their work be used more freely for non-commercial use. It starts with businesses and creators to allow for creativity to flow more easily. His view on the topic is in favor of a more open and creatively flowing world.
Adri S. Online
I personally feel that an artist should be more willing to let their work be used more freely. So, I agree with what Lessig has to say about this topic. Growing up taking art classes I was always told it wasn't "copying" if you were inspired by someone else's work if anything just give credit where it's due and mention who inspired you. Everything is so saturated nowadays that is hard to find completely original ideas. I don't think people should take offense if their work is used to recreate something else. It just means it was just that much more impressive.
Monica Silva
Online
I agree with what Lessig had to say about this topic. I think artist should allow people to use their works for non-commercial purposes because it encourages creativity. I think copyright laws are too restrictive and limit people's voices, there need to be some rules and regulations but they just need to be revised to better fit the modern times and technology. Just like the "trespassing" of airplanes over farm land and that law had to be updated.
Ragan W. M/W 11:00 am.
Amanda L (MW 11am)
I agree with Lessig that the more technology that is being produced, the more things are being created. It's crazy to think that in today's world, anyone can have technology skills that were once seen as very advanced. The software is available to anyone, so it makes it that much easier to copy people's work or recreate it. Copyrights these days can be really restrictive, especially when using songs for videos or recreating them. I understand that it uses less creativity than it did to create the song, but I also believe that people want to recreate or design the songs because they love them. It almost shows a sense of promotion when more people want to recreate your work. However, some of the content produced by people isn't in the best interest.
I think if we came up with some regulations with content, it may help more original ideas come back to life, rather than recreating ideas that have already been established.
I agree with what Lessig said for the most part and enjoyed watching as well. I feel like people could be a little more informed on copyright laws because most of the time it's not intentional. However, making people aware of the consequences that come from stealing someones work is very important. I do agree with other students as well, copyright laws are too restricted now a days. I feel like using someone else's work is okay as long as you give credit to the original creator. I've definitely used YouTube as an example before because they are seriously strict with copyright issues. People could use a song and put in their bio "I do not own copyrights to this music" but their video will still be flagged and taken down. Social media as well, one person will post something and someone else will post the same exact post maybe because they thought it was funny or whatever but then get attacked for stealing someones content. I read Amanda L comment and I 100% agree with her last comment, "I think if we came up with some regulations with content, it may help more original ideas come back to life, rather than recreating ideas that have already been established."
Mylika Granvle
ONLINE
Bailey Brown MW Class
I like knowing I am living "against the law" as a young person. I know Lessig is trying to argue that we need to teach our children and businesses how to control content from being misused without proper representation but I think he seemed to dramatize it quite a bit. I feel like if this was made today he would've just used a full slide show of Baby Yoda memes. I agree with him that our culture is shaping our common sense ideals towards content. The daily content we see on social media drives what we talk about at lunch or what we retweet to our friends. I agreed with his spiel on content influencing culture but I am not sure I agree with his closing argument about teaching our kids how to use common sense.
MW Class
I agree with Lessig on the topic. The extreme copyright laws are restricting to people who just want to be creative and express it through the internet. I personally have made go-pro videos from my vacations and used published songs from artists as background and tried to post them to Facebook, and because the music isn't mine, Facebook flags the videos and won't let me post it. It's extremely frustrating because I am not being a pirate or claiming the music to be my own. I 100% agree that there should be laws in place to protect people's hard work, but I feel that at times it gets taken out of proportion. Just like the law that changed with the planes flying over the farm lands to fit current times, the copyright laws need to change to fit modern times.
Morgan B, MW
I really enjoyed watching this video, it opened my mind to different ideas. I agree with Lessig in some extent, but I also understand why artist/creators want to protect their work. Lawrence Lessig thinks artist and creators should “choose their work be made available more freely.” This would be a great idea because people would be able to modify and create new things without having to worry about copyright issues. Of course this is only okay if it is used for non-commercial purposes. Now days, it is much harder to be creative without being penalized on certain platforms like YouTube. For example, there are many creators who take little snippets of certain songs or even remix these songs, but their videos still get taken down for using songs that do not belong to them. I believe we need a better system so that people who want to use their creativity will not get punish. This will start once artists make a change and decide to open up their work.
Lessly L.
Online
This video was a great explanation of how copyright has is being used in an era of creativity. I would have to agree with everything that Lessig covered in this piece, now I understand that the artists and creators need to make their money from the work that they produced and it isn't totally fair that someone steals their art and uses it for financial gain. Lessig wanted to make it clear that it shouldn't be considered stealing if a person takes a said piece of art/music and puts their own creative twist on it, thus creating a different style to that certain piece of art. He makes a great point by bringing up the history of aviation and regulations of airspace and how that has changed since the creation of the airplane. We need to adapt to the always changing times around us just as we have in the past, there is a vast area for growth and creativity people can have with the technology we have today. The government should not be afraid to let people create.
Eric Whaley, MW
I do believe people should be able to post repurposed content online without the possibility of being punished(on the 1t offense) or the content being removed with no warning. Repurposing someone else content into your own perspective to provide various ideas and viewpoints should not be something we restrict unless the new message is creating chaos or terror. Of course using someone else material in order to cause a chaotic scene like yelling fire in a movie theater or calling for acts of violence. There are two main points that I think will help the potential possibility of changing copyright laws. The first is that freedom is something that is highly valued in the United States; and the second is that younger generations are heavily involved in user generated content and do not abide by copyright laws. There are many avenues for young people to recreate, edit, and turn content into humorous pieces of work and therefore many of them let their creativity flow and ignore potential copyright issues on social media. I would assume the original creator would be content with their work being spread to more people as long as they were given credit and tagged in the repurposed piece of content.
William Weir M/W
I understand why artists want to protect their work. I would want to protect something I put a lot of time and effort into as well because I don't want someone else profiting off of my work. But I do believe, however, that people should be able to use someone else's content if they credit the original creator. If someone is using someone else's content for noncommercial purposes then I think it could spur some healthy creative moments. I liked that Lessig mentioned today's "copy culture" and that he recognized that a lot of young people today are content creators just looking to put a creative spin on something. He recognizes that we are not the generations before us, we are our own generation, creating our own things. I would think a lot of creators who have made an original piece of content would be fine with their work circulating due to someone else's creation as long as it is properly attributed to the original creator.
Kayla Cowling
MW 11:00 a.m.
Ty Raymond MW 11AM
I agree with what Lessig said about more content creators being open to having their content be available for free use. I think the original creator should always be credited, but at the end of the day content creation should be done out of pure expression. Nowadays, everybody is trying to find a way to profit off of any content outlet you can name from Instagram to Youtube. We should allow people access to as many resources as possible to maximize creative potential.
The idea of changing, elevating or adapting an original piece of work to a modern personalized level seems perfectly normal to me. Referencing other' work stimulates creativity and drives inspiration. I understand that original creators work really hard on their work and seeing others using it as their own can make them feel robbed. However, I feel there is something special about creating something interesting enough that consumers can so intensely feel they have to rearrange or build upon it. Ultimately, I agree with Lawrence Lessig. "Artist choice is the key to new technology." They shouldn't run away from these opportunities, they should run towards them. Creators should feel encouraged to contribute into a free neutral space where others can appreciate their work and share it in their own way. We need creative people in the world and we should want to inspire each other. "Read-Only Culture" is not something that would work in the modern world and I'm glad we have evolved from that.
There is a difference in copying work for financial gain and recreating for expression. I think it's unfair to limit fair use of material. I agree with Lessigs idea of balance with a private solution. Artists should consider embracing this opportunity and allowing their content to be available more freely. Not for commercial use, but for the support of creativity.
Laura, N (MW Class)
A lot of what Lessig capitalized on was really insightful and were concepts I'd never really pondered over. One of my favorite points he made was in regards to the corrupted architecture of law that has produced the presumptions that recreating work is illegal, despite the work originating from a place of love for their craft and not on the basis of commercial use. He made an argument in that every single use of culture produces a copy, and current law is not only outdated but inhibiting the child that lies in each one of us, the child that creates for joy. My favorite quote of the talk was when Lessig said "private solution looks to legalize what it is to be young again." And I'm in full agreement with his suggestions about newly-founded laws as well as creators both deciding to free up their works enough to allow others to build, recreate or re-invent on top of them. Artist's choice is key, and Lessig made this apparent. We live in a democracy and these stringent laws with copyright protections belonging to just about every creative work makes me forget this. We absolutely have to do better and set a more realistic, liberating expectation for future generations...to have fun and channel their creativity without a lawsuit weighing on their shoulder.
Charlize Figueroa
M/W 11:00 a.m.
In Lawrence lessig’s Ted Talk he explains digital and online media the way it affects life today. It’s a way of expression and allowing personal creativity. People should be able to post and create anything that they want as long as no action is taken. Copy write laws are great because they allow people to put their name on something and trust it is theirs, but I believe people should be more open to allowing their work to be shared and critiqued.
Brooke Perryman
MW 11am
Lawrence Lessig's TED Talk was very interesting as he had many points to the evolution and issues with personal creativity. It sticks out to me that this is from 2007 and more than a decade letter this is still a common discussion. The transition from read write to read only culture is something I wish more people were accepting of. As a society, people struggle to transition, so when an opportunity comes with online media to go back to a read write culture, I feel they are still less accepting. Content creation from anyone is great for exercising free expression. Looking at the examples Lessig gave, it's funny how MySpace is on there. Today, Twitter runs current events. Across the globe, people connect and share valid information in one of the fastest ways possible. I think it's exciting to think about a time when people who grew up with social media and technology will be the older group. Will they be supportive of new ways? History tends to repeat itself, but never has technology been this advanced that I wonder how future decision makers will affect free expression and creativity.
Sonia Garcia
MW class
After watching the TED talk, I have to agree with Lessig's view regarding content and artists. I think allowing your content to be open to other creators will, in the end, gain you more popularity and fans. I know several Youtubers that do this already, and I even discovered some Youtubers because of content featured in someone else's video. Didn't we advance technology because we referenced several other studies made by different researchers? We built on top of what was already discovered, and either made it better or we found something new. Maybe the same could be said for art. It is disappointing that people fear a lawsuit now-a-days. For example, the singer of Breaking Benjamin sued all his old band mates because they allowed another singer to sing parts of the verse to Diary of Jane. The band released the re-edited song for people to hear, and long story short, Breaking Benjamin is now full of different members.
Michael Sandstrom
Online Class
Tabitha Ratliff
MW class
I Agree with Larry Lessig when it comes to his views on intellectual property. I am part of the younger generation that he spoke of as growing up using technology every day. When I had a Myspace and a Tumblr you could go to Google and search for pre-made layouts that you could just copy and paste. There was always a little disclaimer at the end of the code stating that it was created by an individual and the credit was not to be removed. Now as a teenager I figured there was not anyone who could stop me from doing so, therefore, I would remove that disclaimer. Since the code was free, I figured I wasn’t doing any harm.
I feel like it’s somewhat similar when I take dance videos with music on in the background but give no credit to those artists. Facebook and Instagram will sometimes flag my videos and let me know that I don’t have the right to use that music, but I continue. I feel like a lot of us do something like that, only because in today's society it’s inevitable. I feel like artists and creators should be more open and freer with their content. The internet has grown at an amazing rate and will continue to do so if lawmakers take action to stifle the creativity that comes from it, then in return, they are stifling a whole generation.
In Lessig's Ted Talk, he discusses user generated content and why it's necessary for creativity. Although the Ted Talk dates back to 2007, I believe he makes a good point in that these new forms of technology, or user generated content is a good way to allow regular people to share their ideas without the intention to capitalize. The content is made for the sake of making and sharing, the result of these actions: connection. He stresses that copyright stifles expression and it makes sense that he is one of the founders of Creative Commons. He managed to create a safe space for creators to thrive in and work around copyright law. As a creator, I agree whole heartedly with his statements and I also enjoyed the subtle "shade" or criticism he through towards law and commercial use. I genuinely believe he is advocating for folks to create freely, without fear of feeling like their work might be taken down.
Genesis H, Online
I agree with what Lessig is saying in his Ted Talk, because technology is making it easy to communicate in different ways. Technology continues to change in many different ways, and more and more people are getting getting their hands on technology, making content easy to produce. Artist and creators shouldn't be angry about such things as remixes because throughout life, every sound, saying and etc. can be traced back to someone different. As a creator you have to realize that someone is going to have the same idea as you because that how the world works. I am not for someone our right stealing the content word for word, but if someone can put their own spin on things and create something new out of the old, why not let them succeed.
Williams, Josephfer
MW
Nathanael Lorenzo
MW 11:00 a.m. class.
Copyright has always been a strange beast, especially so in the past 10 years of the internet. Around 2010, the internet entered what I consider its modern age. Despite the internet generating massive amounts of content and extremely successful careers since the '90s, it wasn't generally considered a staple of modern life until then.
With that change, copyright became an even more narrow window of "safety." Content is now being made at greater quality, in bigger quantities, and much of it analyzes and breaks down mainstream content of the past.
Should a student have to pay a musician for using a recreation or adaptation of their music in a student film? Well... it used to be that answer would change if they were submitting it to a film festival or pitching it for distribution by a major publisher.
But now, that student can upload their film to youtube... where it will probably be taken down because a 50-minute video contained 20 seconds of a song.
Copyright was instituted to protect artists from having someone else profit from their work... but it's obvious that the student's movie wasn't designed to steal money from the song's creator.
Still... the artist deserves payment for their creation, right? By claiming the video for copyright infringement, the artist gets all revenue from the student film. Do they deserve it all?
This is where our copyright laws have become outdated.
Because now... nearly three generations are all interested in making content. Whether it be movies, music, vlogs, makeup tutorials, etc. And all of them are putting a unique spin on old content.
I think so long as the original artists/creators are credited in the reimagining of their work, newer creators should be allowed to create.
It's funny to be hearing about this because I was one of those kids who grew up making AMVs and creating things for no other reason than passion. Back in the early days of YouTube, I adored seeing all the ways people could take one specific thing--maybe a TV show-- and recreate it in their own ways. Making this kind of content was never about redistributing for money-- it was for the sake of fun, for the sake of expanding creativity and building skills.
I do, however, understand the struggle YouTube specifically has been having with copyright.
There are plenty of YouTube videos out there that are simply just a song directly uploaded and unaltered, which I'll call "lyric videos." The existence of lyric videos encourages people to watch and download them on YouTube instead of purchasing or streaming the song in a way that benefits the record label, which hurts business. YouTube tries to strike down those videos, but what about the videos using a song alongside edited video, like an AMV? Those creative videos aren't made to bypass the music industry, so I wouldn't think they deserve to be taken down.
However, the YouTube algorithm is far from perfect-- it can't differentiate lyric videos from creative videos using copyrighted material. So, from there, it becomes a discussion about whether these lyric videos truly hurt or don't hurt the music industry, or whether copyrighted songs are MOSTLY used for amateur expression over piracy and profit. I personally agree with Lessig on this issue, but I think that's a no-brainer, considering I grew up as one of those kids he discussed. I liked his idea of letting artists choose to loosen copyright of their intellectual property. It's a good start, and I think many artists would be on board for the sake of creative expression. The record labels are the real pushovers.
Lauren Rabalais
M/W
Olivia Chaney
Online
I agree with what Lessig states throughout his TEDtalk. Everyday technology is continuing to innovate and people are able to come up with new ways to recreate something that was once created. Creators and artists should be able to create and post content without the fear of their work being considered unfair use or violations. People simply tweet, blog, and photograph things that interest them daily and there should be room for them to openly express their appreciation or dislike of something. If someone blatantly uses already created content and attempts to claim it as theirs or profit off of it then this is where legal action can possibly take place. As long as individuals aren't claiming the rights to something that's obviously not theirs, I see no harm in them discussing it freely through their expression.
Dylan Knight
MW 11 AM
I agree with Lessig. Ultimately, the automatic removal of content thought to have violated copyright law is damaging to the creative space. By removing assets that others create that would be willing to share their work publicly, the government has a hand in an aspect of the creative process that they should have no say in. The younger generations are growing up in a digital age and are being conditioned to believe that they are not allowed to craft a “remix” of another’s work. As Lessig said, this is a hindrance to the development of creativity from a young age. By implementing artists choice, the creative industry can aid a generation to achieve a level of creativity that would otherwise be unattainable.
The analogy of pilots needing to have permission to fly over private lands makes the topic cut and dry. It is a mindless hinderance to have such dense regulation on works that could fall under fair use, and it is a restriction that is harmful. This is the language of the young generations. Creating works that are individualized from other’s creations with permission should not be an offense, rather a celebration of freedom.
Alisa Pierce
MW 11 a.m.
I understand the concern over strict copyright law, but I feel a lot of sympathy for small and unknown content creators. I've seen artwork stolen countless times from online artists who unfortunately lose money as their artwork is printed on shirts and sold by companies who don't pay the artists or even cite them. And that's with copyright law! I want the internet to be a free marketplace of ideas, but not at the detriment of artists and content creators.
I definitely agree with Lawrence Lessig. He took the words right out of my mouth when he said that the key to new technology is giving artists a choice. There should be some sort of even playing field where creators are allowed to take inspiration from something without being flagged as a "trespasser." But there should also be a limit to how much inspiration creators are allowed to get from others in order to protect the owner of that idea.
Errin Phou
MW
I agree with Lessig completely! I also think that there is a very important note to keep in mind when deciding what is copying and what is this "read write" culture. It is important to not simply use content in whole and used for profit but rather used for recreation. This is mainly because I also find the auto take down method too extreme but he makes a solid point that copy write is completely disregarded in a lot of ways today. The only part of his talk that makes it difficult for me to see this coming to fruition is the need of acceptance from a majority of artists. However, there is certainly a growing demand for change in regards to copy write laws when we think about the criminalizing factor of it all.
Axandria Shepard
Online
This topic is extremely difficult and two-sided, like many aspects of modern society and technology are. I agree with Lessig's point that copyright laws can infringe on people's ability to express their creativity. However I also believe that artist's should be given credit and be able to own their intellectual property. Creativity is often defined not as the creation of something new, but rather a new combination of things already in existence. Therefore, artists should mostly recognize the need to share and collaborate in order for creativity to continue and evolve. If I had to choose what was more important; copyright laws or the freedom to create, I would choose freedom.
I agree with Lawrence Lessig. I believe everything evolves, nothing changes completely. Strict copyright laws doesn't help creativity, it destroys it. It almost feels unconstitutional. What comes to mind when I first think about this topic is YouTube and its algorithm. YouTube said one of its missions is to give everyone a voice but what is two different voices try to sing a similar tune? It's difficult to find the fine line between protecting the artist vs. restricting content.
Lesslie Median
Mw class
I agree with Lawrence Lessig, I think that people should have to right to remix or create whatever they want with out the fear of being punished by something like copy right. But I also do believe that a person should get credit of somesort for the work that they have done. Creativity is making up something that is new and unique in some sort of way, even if it means recreatioing something that was already made. But the creativity should not be punished as long as some credit was given.
Sarah A. MW
I agree with Lessig. Of course no one should claim someone else's work to be their own, but artists should be open to sharing their work for noncommercial use to remix and build on. Especially with platforms like Youtube, Twitter and Tik Tok being popular in the younger generation, remixing work has been a big part of our culture and continuing to be. Copyright is a touchy subject, but the way content is consumed and produced has changed and adapting how we restrict usage of certain content to promote creativity is important! The most important part is having the artist consent to use their content in my opinion.
Matthew F (M/W)
Overall, I agree with many points Lessig covered in his presentation. His take on kids in today’s society using digital technologies as tools for creativity to form a language of speech is spot on. With access to digital content and culture so easily obtainable it is abundantly clear that kids will continue using copyrighted material and incorporating it into the creation of something new. And I agree based on the structure of the legal system and copyright law, that these children are technically being considered as lawbreakers. Lessig’s comparison of the idea of “trespassing” between amateur use of copied material and airplanes playing over someone’s land puts in perspective how we judge and define as a criminal offense. With each generation comes new technology that challenges humanity to recalibrate their understanding of certain aspects of life. Just as airplanes flying over someone’s land is now not considered trespassing, the amateur use of copyrighted material should not be either. As long as it is not used for profit, it’s ultimately a harmless, innovative, and natural cycle in human’s creation of art.
Hope Jenkins MW
It is hard to disagree with Lessig, whenever he makes such a strong and cohesive argument. As you have mentioned in class, technology opens a new area of media law that raises questions that have more than just one answer. The internet is mutually beneficial for artists and users. We have always heard the term "there's no such thing as bad PR" - so if original work is being reformatted and/or reposted by users, then in a sense, they are promoting the artist.
Kristen Pearson
Online
I agree with Lessig that copyright laws can alter a person’s creativity. Even though the video comes from 2007, the argument still stands valid especially with how much we as a generation use online platforms to showcase our work. We are influenced by so many creators’ work online and it would be detrimental if everything was flagged due to copyright issues. A person should be able to use a person’s work and praise it by using it in their own style while still giving the original creator the credit they deserve. Completely stealing someone’s work is one thing, but taking a work and transforming it into something new and original should have its own new set of rules of legality. Lessig makes many valid points, and I completely agree that there should be healthy and equal regulations on copyright laws and how we can protect a person’s work while not stifling another person’s access to content for their own creativity.
I agree with Lessig in his Ted Talk about copy right and the laws around it. I full think that there should be more room for creativity and if a creative makes it known that they had inspiration from a specific person and credits that person, it should be enough. Since everything is online and like he said, online media is the literacy of our generation, it is important to give creatives enough freedom to continue to create and feed off of each other.
Post a Comment