As you learn and think about intellectual property, I'd like for you
to watch Lawrence Lessig's TED Talk: "Laws that choke creativity."
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. Remember, also, to
include your first name, last name initial and class (either
Online Class or Honors). Since we're near the end of the semester, your comment is due
by 11:59 p.m. Monday, May 2. Late comments will not be accepted for
credit.
83 comments:
Danielle Rubio (online class) I agree with Lessig because especially now I see things from my childhood being remade and remixed. Such as music, movies, Toys, and fashion. I do think this is a common phenom for different time periods. Copyright does halt some creativity from happening such as big celebrities/musicians not allow others to use or sample some of their work to make a remix or for inspiration. This stops from us experience many great things. An example I think of which resulted in such great creativity was Jordan Peele a comedian who turned into a horror movie director who makes these movies with primarily black actors used the song "5 on it" by Luniz a black artist, and made it sound spooky. That is creatively and a way to remix things especially things that lives deeply with the black community. Now yes he probably had to sign a copy right agreement of some sort but it is an example of how creative we can be with using materials already created.
Bailey R. (Online Class)- I agree with Lessig and his perspective on how laws are challenging creativity. I think that as the times go on, the laws must adapt to match the times. He was pretty ahead of his time because what he is arguing is only becoming even more true and prevalent since 2007.As a kid, I loved watching remixes and parodies online and I still do to this day. Creativity is such an important part of being a kid, we need to embrace it and allow children to be as creative as they like on the internet without having so many copy right laws to worry about and having so many things holding them backs. I really liked that he was trying to persuade adults to change their perspectives on laws that interrupt creativity by saying how times are different, and children now should be able to enjoy being creative just like they got to when they were kids.
Vayda O., Online Class MC 4301.280
I think Lawrence’s defense of the remixing of different creative ideas is fair. However, I can also see the frustration that some people have when it comes to these remixes of previously made creations. We see it with movies very often. People love to make reboots and live action adaptations of movies that were made years ago. While I think it can be interesting to see a new spin on old classics, I also think it’s just laziness. People who are in Hollywood and in positions of power to create should be doing just that as opposed to trying to remix something that someone already worked hard to come up with. The whole point of creativity is to create, not re-create. So I disagree with Lawrence.
Jazmyn U. (Online Class) Lessig had a great input on the laws. But I also believe that it also provides creators to really dig deep and doing something different. I mean I am in a creative class right now, I thought I was creative before.. but that quickly changed when I got into a creative ad class. There's so many was to be creative and remix different things but that can't happen. I did enjoy his perspective on the laws are making creative creators dig deeper
Esmeralda Z. (online) I totally agree with Lessig, this being from 2007 i think he had the right idea and he was fighting for that free range of creativity that we see every day today. Now a days everyone is trying to collab with brands and bring back all the brands from our childhood memories, but I can see how some creators have been held back because the lack of free range within copyright. It is so important to be able to do what we seek to do without so many restrictions, we advocate for free mind and creativity yet we still see restrictions even today.
After watching the video I agree with Lessig. There are so many ways to to be creative and make things your own when it comes to copywriting. I think that Lessig makes some great points on the laws regarding creativity within copywriting. I like how he mentions that kids in this day and time should be able to be creative and he tried to get adults to rethink the laws on creativity and the creation of content. Lessig says that there needs to be two types of changes; 1.) Artists and creators choose that their work be available freely (for non commercial use) and 2.) Businesses to embrace the free work that is available and make it grow. Amy M. Online class
I think Lessig’s opinions and insights in this video are very forward-thinking, especially since this was shortly before YouTube really took off as a powerful, mainstream platform. From watching certain creators on YouTube and hearing about their struggles with arbitrary/nonsensical copyright violations, I agree—for lack of greater knowledge on the issue—that current IP law often stifles (or imposes “prior restraint” on) creativity. Danny Gonzalez is one YouTuber I watch pretty regularly, and he has had several instances where YouTube has de-monetized or even taken down his videos simply because some large corporation has demanded it based on unsubstantiated claims of copyright violations. In those instances, YouTube did not even properly investigate the claims, only leaving it to the corporations to decide for themselves whether Danny’s challenges to their copyright claims were reasonable. What’s worse, YouTube’s policy on copyright strikes—as far as I know—is that a creator’s channel will be deleted after three strikes. These policies were probably not in place at the time that Lessig gave this talk, but they are definitely indicative of the issues that he presents. Although it is understandable that some artists/creators might not want their works reimagined in certain ways (and this should be respected), it would be really great if we could foster a culture like the one Lessig refers to, in which they are at least more permissive and generous when it comes to allowing others to use their works for non-commercial purposes.
-Hannah Rodrigue, Honors Class
Savannah, H. (online class) - After I watched Lawrence Lessig’s TED Talk: “Laws that choke creativity” I would have to say I agree with him and his perspective on the matter. As times have changed many of the movies, fashion, music, etc. have been remade or remixed and I think this is fair. I think as times have progressed and so has technology taking something that was old and forgotten about, making it new and known is not wrong but is also creative within itself. I love parodies, I think they are fun and creative, in the time we live in now they are becoming even more popular. I don’t think we should ever hold that creativity aspect from children and anyone else, it is a part of who we are and our personalities. I understand the importance of copywrite, but I also think that if there was less to worry about with copywrite people could be more creative. I did enjoy on his perspective of the law of copywrite and how common sense has not yet responded to the roles of creativity.
Paige V. (online class) - I agree with Lessig. I thought that his perspective surrounding the fact that copyright laws require people to be more creative because they can't necessarily take something else and just remix it. An example that is super common today is that people are constantly recreating old movies or just creating a live-action version of an animated movie. I think this limits the number of creative pieces that are out there because these remixes can sell better than an original piece. However, I think people can make very fun and creative stuff when remixing or reusing something, and having greater availability of free or unlicensed work may help with that.
Mikayla M. (Honors)
I mostly agree with Lessig's opinion that there needs to be a balance for a more freer internet, but I would add a caveat to one of his proposals. Lessig believes that small creators should allow other similarly small creators to use their work but put a caveat that it should not be used for commercial use, and while I partially agree, I don't think this protects creators enough. I think if you use another artist's work, you should credit them and not just repurpose the work and claim it as your own.
It is not fair for the creators who put in most of the original effort, not only because they are not being recognized for their work, but if other people want to monetarily invest in an artist's future creations, they will end up losing money because they will be unable to find the original creator or potentially invest in someone else. I agree that we should allow artists to repurpose art and that it's fair use, but giving credit to the original creator should be standard practice.
Teal Waid (Online MC4301.280) -
I agree with Lessig and his views on how laws are challenging creativity. There are tons of ways to be creative in your medium of choice. There are a few platforms that heavily enforce copyright. YouTube is a big one. I doubt there is any successful youtube creator that has not gotten at least one copyright strike. I think that as society has grown and changed, it can be fun and creatively challenging to re-imagine already existing projects whether through parodies or remixes. However, I do believe that if someone is going to re-imagine someone else's work, the original artist should be credited somewhere. Otherwise, I agree with Lessig.
Erika Lucille De Luna — online
I think Lessing made strong points regarding a balance between the two extremes for and against copyright law. As it stands, copyright serves an understandable purpose, but it seems that it is sometimes applied too harshly in practice. He references Youtube copyright strikes to which I agree is one of the most relevant examples, wherein content is often rejected despite the arguable possibility of it passing standards of fair use. To address this, I think there should be more appropriate policing surrounding the exercise of copyright strikes that balances the need to protect artists’ intellectual property while still fostering an environment of creativity. Putting more autonomy into the artists’ hands seems the most “common sense” way to do it, as Lessing says, because artists standards of what is and isn’t okay when it comes to the repurposing of their work can be highly variable. I hope that there will be future deliberations in our judiciary or legislation that open themselves up to this idea as art and speech are directly adjacent to one another, and if America is founded on the latter, than it must prioritize some dogma surrounding the former as well.
Monica. A (Online Class)
I agree with Lessig that preserving creativity is important. Laws like copyright are everywhere and can limit what can be created or further explored. As well with the idea of more free, where artists choice helps others experiment with new ideas. Creativity needs to build from an origin and currently that's really hard to attempt. However, I do see the issue with bigger corporations stealing smaller businesses art/work for profit, I think that is unfair and needs to be addressed. Overall, I think their should be a healthy balance but leads to the free side.
After watching Lessig's TED Talk, I do agree with many of his perspectives and viewpoints. As society changes and new generations grow older, the definition of "creative" changes. I think it is beneficial to try and recreate or remix older ideas into more modern ones, as this will allow current generations to learn about products that were made before their time.
With that being said, copyright is still a huge and very important aspect when it comes to creating content online. Especially today, where the internet and things like YouTube and other video platforms are so large and a way of income for many people, copyright is imperative to protect their content.
- Kaylee H. (Online Class MC4301.280)
I agree with Lessig's opinion to an extent. I think it is great that people are able to take inspiration from certain media and create their own version or add a spin to the original. However, I think it stops becoming a good thing when there is no loner original ideas and everything is just a remake of something that existed previously. For example, like Disney movies, all of the remakes are flopping, but the new movies like Encanto and Turning Red are thriving.
Abigail D. Online Class
I personally agree with Lessig's opinion. I think that we are seeing so much content be recreated that trying to stop it would just cause people to do it in secret. I like the fact that individuals can use music or other audio to ad value to their work and having the ability to be inspired by someone else's work makes their work just that more special and unique. I think it is ok to use someone else's work as long as the original author gives consent or you are transforming it into something unique to you.
Eva Nobles, online course:
Lessig says that the internet is the chance to reignite the culture of reading and writing, not just read-only consuming. I believe he's correct in a certain way, but is it really such a good thing? Every day I see thousands of comments and posts from people around the country and the globe, spouting their opinions as facts. We have definitely reinvigorated the read-write culture, but it's brought an impressive amount of issues along with it. The internet has created a space where everyone feels they are an expert on what they are talking about, and no one wants to listen. We've always been creating content, and I think that's something that Lessig may overlook. Before the internet, we were still creating things. Just not sharing them across the globe. Some days I wonder if that was a good thing. Not to say the widespread amount of information is a bad thing, but one could argue the inequality in access to this information around the world increases the negative outcomes of the internet. Again - Lessig was correct in saying the internet was a way to reignite the read-write culture, but did it ever really go away?
Going back to the main point of the video with laws killing creativity, I can argue they're doing the exact opposite in modern digital spaces. With copyright laws comes creative commons and people getting credit for the work they create. With boundaries to creativity come even more creative ways to get around these boundaries or even creating your own. For example, NFTs are a way to remain creative and still get the credit you're due. Do I think it's a mature technology that everyone can use right now? No, but I do think it proves that laws don't stifle creativity and rather encourage it. You want to claim the things you've made, so the public makes that easier. If we're all content creators, we don't want other creators to steal our ideas. NFTs are a way to prevent that easily (in the future).
Browder, Makinley (online class)
I think I personally agree with Lessig's opinion. I think that the internet is ever changing and will continue to be a place for people to recreate the same stuff the way that they want too. I wish that more people would do their best to create original ideas instead of stuff that is made from ideas and older versions of stuff. I think it is great to remake stuff and bounce new ideas off older stuff but I think in the long run original ideas will carry with the public more than the spin offs and recreations of stuff. People should always make sure it is ok with the original creator before turning those older ideas into something new.
Tristen Rich (Online Class)
I personally agree with Lessig on remixing or recreating people's work as long as you are doing it the right way and getting permission for it. I feel like NFT's are important in our future because, they set boundaries on what we can do to remake songs or remake movies without stealing the original people's ideas. I believe that people should ask the original creator's permission to be able to remix their music or movie without completely stealing from them. For instance, the music artist Dua Lipa, released the song levitating, she actually got sued from it because, she put three other artists songs into her own song without asking permission.
Elise Tobias (online class)
I agree with Lessig on his solutions to the argument made about how to handle copyrighting with technological advances. In the beginning of the video when he was talking about Sousa's Read/Write vs. Read-only, I was thinking about how much that has changed in recent times, which Lessig later addresses. When Lessig says that creators should know when they put stuff out there, it is free for amateurs to remix but not commercial use for business, I agree. It is common sense that with platforms such as TikTok and Instagram, that remixing content is inevideble so laws should work around them and not against them. I love how he said it gives everyday people a voice to say something differently.
Sara Thomas (online class) The free range of creativity was definitely ahead of the times thanks to Lessig. I definitely think that there is a right way to go about using the work of others to re-create new artwork. There needs to be original curated ideas, but for when there isn't, I think that there can be beautiful pieces that come from other artists, so long as they are being credited for the reused art. If newer artists were not sparked by old ones, and their art work never represented past artists, then this generation might not be as aware of icons and famous works as they are now. There is a beauty is bringing alive what may appear as old and forgotten. Not saying that they are, but for their reappearance in this new era, it is a true gift to some, so long as the credit can be attributed thanks to those famous whereabouts.
Kara Valentine
MC 4301.280 (online)
This is difficult territory to definitively classify as effective/agree or ineffective/disagree.
I feel that I, having been born in '91 and being a little older than my fellow classmates, have a different perspective. I've read several comments in this feed from students saying they grew up watching such remixes on creative works, and therefore generally approve of the practice. The reason I feel the age difference is relevant, is because I don't relate to the consumer notion and general acceptance of remixed work based on exposure because the majority of my childhood took place before mass access to the internet, so the art I was exposed to was, for the most part, original. And so the concept of copyright laws being restrictive to artists and limiting creativity wasn't a factor.
However, there are many layers to this issue because at some point, every story line and lyric will have been written, every riff played, and picture painted, etc. Therefore, what is "original" must have some leniency in order to evolve and encourage further artistic endeavors.
Laura Richardson (Online Class). I agree with Lessig's views a lot in this video. I think that larger corporations/capitalism have made it harder to be creative in the modern day. Large corporations like Disney have made it hard to be creative with things like copyright laws being changed and flipped around. I'd love to see laws like these changed in the United States so that we are able to be more creative in the world. I think in some ways social media has made it easier to be creative but I also think social media has made way for others to steal content even more easily. I'd like to see concepts like copyright law revisited in the US so we are able to be more creative.
Michaela Norton (online class)- I agree with Lessig's views and comments on copyright and editing/making changes to someone's work when using it. We often see others reusing someone else's work now a days and it would be too hard to stop everyone from doing it. I do think it is still better in some circumstances to create your own original content, rather than copy someone else's.
Madison M (online class)- I agree with Lessig, with that being said I think with this being from 2007 he has a pretty good idea on the idea of freedom of creativity which I feel like we have an even better grasp on today. I think in some ways it's almost impossible to be fully 100% creative yourself because somewhere someone will say they have created something similar but being able to have your own creative freedom of someone else's work is also a huge thing nowadays with covers and renditions or new ideas off someone else's.
Carleigh Dilley (online class)
I agree with Lessig's views to an extent in this video. Large corporations and conglomerates along with capitalism have made it difficult to be creative in this day and age. Even though this video was made a while ago, it is still very relevant today. I believe that creative ideas thrive more than adaptations of other ideas. This can be seen through recent Disney movies. The original movies like Turning Red performed really well versus remakes or sequels to previous movies.
There were a lot of great points made in Lessig's TED talk which made me agree with him. After listening, I quickly realized that copyright does in fact put a limit to expression and creativity. He used three great examples that were about cellphones (talking machines), airplanes, and broadcasting. The one that stood out most to me was the airplanes one. It wasn't only a good example, but it was a good analogy to use when comparing where an airplane can go, too copyrights. With less strict copyright laws, we are more free to create.
Meliza S. (online class)
I agree with Lessig. He made many valid points about how creativity is restricted due to laws. His perspective made me think of the Creative Commons video we watched. He seems to be looking for a solution to allow creativity to run free. I thought it was crazy that some portions of the multimedia industry were monopolized and did not produce work from people of color. I think this is extremely dangerous to our community to only allow select groups to participate. Everyone deserves a platform to showcase creativity. At the end of the video, he hit on technology which is still a hot topic 15 years later. Many people want to prevent kids from using technology. I believe this also blocks creativity and would prevent collaboration.
It is interesting how the idea of art and creativity is evolving. At this point, we are all accustomed to YouTube remixes, memes, and other forms of content that are heavily inspired/taken from mainstream media. I think that this style of creativity is limited by the government and those in power, but some of that limit is necessary. We all teeter between the world of copyright and the overcorrection of turning the internet into the wild west. Personally, AMV and similar videos were my introduction to the internet. We need to maintain balance and our earlier discussion of the creative commons makes sense here. It is more lenient than copyright but still protects the original creators. The internet will only grow more powerful in the media space and we need to develop ways to handle this growth.
I think Lessig is right. Creativity knows no limits and when something is put in place, such as copyright, then creators are limited to what their imagination lets them create. This is because copyright makes it harder for these creators to put in effort for what they create but are held up if someone has copyrighted something. A lot of big wealthy corporations also make it way more difficult because of all the copyright they create and small creators run into roadblocks because of this.
Hugo J MC 4301.280
I liked hearing Lessig and his explanation on copyright and I believe he had great examples. I feel like people should be allowed greater expression on internet websites like YouTube, without fear of copyright strikes. I realize too that there were less restrictions on what users could post on Youtube in the early 2000's. As social media grows, more restrictions are imposed on the public. I think this hinders growth on creativity. I am curious to see what takes place in the future.
Lily P. (Online Class) I agree with the statements that Larry Lessig made. For example, the first point explaining how today's culture has shifted dramatically due to things such as streaming and social media. As this was achievable due to the advancements of technology. Another aspect would be how there are laws and protections in place for artists in regards to remixing old songs into the artist vision to fit their style of music that they hope to create for the current generation. Without these advancements such as Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) there would be less variety in the music industry and it would be more difficult for artists, especially minorities to release their material out to the public.
Kelsi H. (Online Class) I thoroughly enjoyed Lessig's TED Talk and agree with what he had to say. Copyright is such a complicated, difficult subject when it comes to what creators can and cannot use. Technology and media play a part in almost everyone's life nowadays. I think copyright puts a huge block on creativity because it is very specific in what people can and cannot use. I liked when Lessig discussed how content should be able to be used for other purposes as long as it's not commercial. He also talked about how reiterating someone else's creative works should not count as copyright as long as it's not the exact same thing. Overall, I think he had a lot of great insight when it comes to the media today and how creative works should be used.
Rachel F. Online Class
Throughout all of Lessing's speech, he manages to find a balance between the two extremes of copyright laws. After listening to his speech, I agree that copyright laws limit creativity and expression. I believe copyright is still an important attribute of the business world. With social media today, copyright is facing a new perspective. I think the copyright should remain laxer and the internet and social media as a whole. This will allow individuals to continue to be creative and expressive on these platforms, which is what they are intended for. Overall, I believe Lessing had a great insight into copyright in today's society.
Chris Boeke (Online class) I would have to say that I agree with Lessig. Remixing in art and media is an incredible phenomena and has influenced far too much of what culture is today to be restricted by lawmakers that don't understand it. I think it gives creatives the freedom to reinterpret material in a way that is unique to them. This uniqueness is often lost on people who think that it is mere copyright infringement. The laws surrounding the use of previously existing media to create new media should definitely change with the times.
Surid Kaphle (Online Class)
I agree with Lessig. Individual creativity is being lost today and with all the new technology. Creating and expressing oneself is something that everyone should have access to, which unfortunately current copyright laws hinder. His points throughout the speech were very accurate and more relevant today than in 2007 when he gave this TED talk.
I do agree with Lessig that copyright laws are robbing today's generation of creativity in a way that has proven to be popular in our day of age. I think that the usage of common sense was very important here because if artists and people with the capacity are not making content and creative arts for the purpose to be shared and transformed throughout time, what are they making it for? I've seen people's wedding videos get removed from Youtube because they danced to a certain song and I think we have to ask ourselves, as a society that is at its peak of creatives, when is it all too much? To what extent will people go through to own something and call it theirs or make a profit. I think the laws do create a random, and almost unnecessary barrier to creating, I do not think copyright laws should be completely eradicated but they definitely are not going about it in the right way.
Breah L. Online class
Abigail Burns- Honors
I agree with Lessig’s argument, mostly because it proposes a balance. Artists have the right to censor how their music is distributed especially if they are smaller artists who need each stream or album by they can get, or larger artists who have many people working for them and rules are very strict under labels. We also know, that because this generation is so user-generated, we can all be creators due to social media platforms such as TikTok and YouTube. I think Lessig’s proposal of having artists decide allows more room for using music for remixes. There are two specific examples that are prominent in today’s culture that would have been suppressed if copyright was extremely censored. The first is remixing in today’s music, and the huge part it plays in modern music. Think of any song on the top 40, and it probably has a remix built-in. I also think about what TikTok would be like if songs were censored. Remixes and videos users create have allowed many artists to gain platforms that would have otherwise not taken off such as Doja Cat. Her song Say So was an extremely popular song that people would dance to and make videos of in 2020. After that trend, Doja Cat’s career skyrocketed and it wouldn't have taken off as fast if it hadn't been for its exposure on TikTok.
I find Lawrence Lessig's argument very interesting especially in the content innovation era that we are in today. Lessig make a very good point that copyright, and laws alike, seem to put a cap on the creativity of amateur creators, and I agree. I think that laws need to be re-evaluated in certain situations and I think this would be one of those times. Just as Lessig said about the trespassing laws. The old laws were not useful for the innovation of commercial air travel. I believe that money has become a big part of content, and it has made the industry "exclusive" and greedy. I agree with Lessig's solution to make content free for amateur use, and I think that artists and creators should be open to that. Creativity leads to innovation. I think that we should be embracing the change, not try to restrict it.
Lindsay G (Online class)
I agree with Lessig that the copyright laws are taking from todays generation of creative freedom. I believe that common sense plays an important factor because there should be some sort of credit to the original creator. At the same time I can see that it puts a limit on creative freedom so although there are pros there is defiantly cons.
Stephanie Flores (Online)
I agree with much of what Lessig said. Copyright laws restrict many people's creative freedom and giving artists the opportunity to choose if they want their art to be allowed for use in non-commercial projects is a great idea that he mentioned. There are many famous songs that we love that use samples from other songs and that does not mean those songs are any worse or less deserving of attention. Especially in music where there is only so many music notes, I feel like doing remixes or using samples with credit to the original artist does not make you a bad artist. Everyone takes inspiration from others who came before them.
Liz Hawkins (online)
I agree with what Lessing said, copyright laws are very restricting to one's creative freedom. I think that laws need to be re-evaluated for specific situations. Everyone can be inspired by someone else. Therefore, it is hard sometimes to define copyright and if laws are put into place, creativity will be over with.
Lucy Emmerson (Online) I fully agree with Lessig in that laws do challenge creativity. It’s interesting as a society how we grow and continue to evolve at a really rapid pace that these laws become quickly outdated yet we don’t think that it’s a complete necessity to keep updating them as we move along. I fully appreciate and understand the importance of why we have copyright laws, and that it is meant to protect the authenticity of other people's work. However, they aren’t specific enough which ends up hurting artist more than helping people‘s
Ashley Moorhead ONLINE: I agree with lessons statement that the copyright laws are overstepping boundaries when it comes to creativity. Every posted to the internet nowadays are subject to copyright. If you use a singular piece of imagery for your business from the Internet you are most likely violating the law. It is sooo hard to distinguish what is copyrighted and what is not. Lessig talks about how using copyrighted work creatively by making it into your own should not be against the law. I feel this to be absolutely true. You took time and effort to edit something to make it totally different almost like an artist tracing a photograph and adding some of his own flair to it. This now makes that sketch that artists own original work of art so why would the same scenario not apply to digital media, It is the exact same concept.
Camryn Cole: Honors
I agree with Lessing's points. I agree with the importance of protecting the creative work of an individual. However, I also believe that is important that content is not limited to future creators. Lessing specifies this balance in his argument and reiterates the cultural importance that creative content has in today's society. Certain steps need to be taken to ensure this balance fits all creators, but the concept is definitely not an impossible task.
I agree with many of Lessing’s points, times have changed and there is an evident increase recreation of culture. Innovation has led to many advancements, but current laws help certain people and others are outdated, as time shifts so should laws. I think we have grown in copyright laws; artists have more control but now it’s becoming limiting to the future of creative media. Parodies, renditions, redesigns, and inspired work affects everyone. If the content isn’t being used in a malicious or greedy way, I think people should be able to create something new out of existing media.
Haymanot Eshetu (online)
It is shocking to me that this is even a conversation that had to be had! The world prior to youtube and the accessibility of pusbishing your own pardy content is so far removed from my experience. This Ted Talk came out when I was 5 years old, only 2 years after the launch of youtube. I believe when you publish something as an artist, you are putting your work out there to be critiqued, which includes parody. Everyone should have the right to add commentary on public work, and for some that method is parody. Just because we disagree with the commentary, or it has no merit to the artist's original intent shouldn't have any baring under the law. This in my opinion ties back to the idea that there is no such thing as originality, and at the end of the day we all are inspired as artists by something.
Samantha Pennell (Online class) I agree with Lessig and how laws are challenging creativity. Times have definitely changed and I think he knew what he was talking about before it even happened. His points have become more and more true in todays society. Even as I grow up and get older, there has been so many changes with the media, entertainment and even copyright. There are so many creative individuals, especially kids trying to figure out their path and the copyright laws are making it difficult to aspire to create something individuals like. It is hard now a days to create something that hasn't already been done. I think it should be allowed to take a piece of work from someone and then make it your own. That is how media and ideas are evolved from the past.
Desarae Saathoff, Online Class. I agree with Lessig. This video was made over ten years ago and is still relevant today. The law challenges our creativity every day with a video that allows people to be creative. The idea of remixing previous content into newer content that people relate more with is something we are already doing. It is a talent to be able to take something and use it to say something different. It shouldn’t be seen as a hazard because of copyright laws. So I agree with Lessig’s outlook on this, and if people saw this video, we wouldn’t have seen such drastic measures because of copyright. I also agree with him because I am a part of the generation that he discusses. I’ve seen the remixed videos, and I can say that seeing that content was revolutionary.
Ryan P. (Online Class) MC 4301.280
When I first watched the video I had some mixed feelings and couldn't decide if I agreed with Lessig but after watching it a second time I do mostly agree with what he said and with his idea on how to fix the issue of copyright and the difficulties that creators deal with. Creators should have the ability to decide if their content can be used freely in a creative sense by others rather than for commercial use by corporations and such. Remixes and collaborations can really change things in today's age since there are so many different forms of media now that can help expand and teach so many others who also want to create. This copyright issue really hinders some people and it denies creativity because of bigger corporations that take advantage of these laws now.
Natalia R (online class)
I really enjoyed hearing what Lawrence Lessig spoke about. He is a lawyer and legal activist, so it was very interesting hearing his point of view on creativity and how laws affect creativity. I completely agree with what he believes in. He claims that laws need to be adjusted based on how ahead we are growing in technology. The copyright laws we have today are very restricted, however there should always be credit given. Altogether, I think as long as credit is given it is fair because at the end of the day your own creativity is still being used.
Haley Bass (Honors)
For the most part, I agree with Lessig's analysis. The original purpose of copyright is to ensure that creators are able to receive fair compensation for their work. After all, if one assumed that their work would be stolen and that they would not be compensated, why would they make any more work at all? This original purpose however, has been lost on us. Taylor Swift (though I love her) and her team are not going to go hungry or give up on the music industry because I include five seconds of "Wildest Dreams" in my YouTube video. I appreciate that Lessig acknowledges that our solution to the copyright problem will almost certainly not come from any body of government. Instead, the culture of copyright holders must develop alongside the culture of content creators. As long as the original spirit of copyright is maintained, our culture is infinitely richer for the work of content creators.
Lynsey R (Online class) - I enjoyed listening to this video because it gave me a new insight of thought on this topic. I agree with Lessig and his views on how laws are challenging creativity. Times are changing, especially more than ever now within the society we live in today and this is very relevant to what occurs within creativity. I remember being in elementary school and enjoying to watch parodies and remixes, even today I still do. I agree with him that laws should be based on the technology we are currently in. I also stand with fairness because credit should be given when its due but with the copyright laws being as restricted as they are today it makes that difficult to do so. Overall, I think if credit is given there shouldn't be restrictions because the credit is ultimately being given and the basic concept/idea is still there.
Timia C. (Online Class) I agreed with argument Lessig was trying to make and that laws shouldn't try to contain or limit creativity. The example he gave about air and land right made it very easy to understand that some laws are just being made because someone is upset but if we used common sense we would understand that no law or limitations need to be in place. As generations grow and find new creative outlets, there will always be push back such as censorship or the FCC but that has always happened, now it's just deciding of if it's really needed and will it make things worst if implemented.
Kathryn B. Online class
I 100% agree with Lessig. I really loved his main talking points and how he compared the business model of the music industry and the challenge of broadcasting technology. I also thought it was interesting how he brought up the internet as a medium for remixing and prompts the question if remixing is piracy. I remember reading this book one time called “Steal like an artist.” The book was about how it’s almost impossible these days to have original ideas. And it’s okay to spring inspiration from other pieces of work. Technology will always be improving and changing and sometimes that terrifies people that may not have grown up with that technology. Personally, as a photographer, I’m constantly checking myself and wondering if or how much am I breaking the law while being creative. I’m constantly using digital art and other mediums to create all types of prints. I definitely agree with this lecture that the cc laws prohibiting the remaking of music should be rewritten to fit within the realms of current art forms. Remixing or resampling is completely different than straight up copying someone else’s work.
Jake Cameron (Online Class)
I'm in full agreement with Lessig's stance on copyright laws. My expertise in digital media is in video games, and I will relate this TedTalk to that. I'm always staying up to date with recent video game news, and copyright drama seems to always be at the forefront. Massive video game studios have been copyrighting certain mechanics or techniques in their video games, and this practice will regress the industry. Can you imagine if no other games were able to be influenced by Mario? The simple idea of "running left to right and jumping" has evolved so far by other game developers taking inspiration from Mario, and the industry would be worse off if it was not legally allowed to make their character "run left to right and jump". These days, studios are copyrighting certain movements and physics that relate to how hair moves in video games. Creativity is diminished greatly if a creator can't look at something else and want to push its boundaries.
I agree with Lessig's argument and found it insightful. When he was talking about how the copyright laws should change as technology changes I agree because a creator should be able to look or listen to things from the past and be inspired by them. An example that comes to mind for me is Jack Harlow using snippets from Fergies song "Glamourous" and making his own song called "First Class" because he loved to listen to Fergie growing up. Another example that comes to mind is movie remakes like the new remake of She's all that called He's all that. I think Lessig's statement that artists and creators should embrace the idea and choose that their work is made available more freely. I feel like as long as credit is given where credit is due then copyright laws could lessen.
- Jaidyn Hatchett (Online class)
Sydney Moore (online class)
I agree with Lessig's view on copyright laws and creativity. I see things being remade and reused all the time and I think that in some ways it is cool, but like Lessig said and gave examples of, it can prohibit individual creativity and uniqueness. I think it's crazy that movies and shows coming out since I was born are still being made into sequels or being remade and that kids being born now are still watching it. In our culture with social media and trends on platforms, copyright laws should not be as strict, and I agreed with Lessig that we cannot rely on the government to do that, but on the artists and supporters of them. I just think that laws should be adapted to modern times and the majorities mindsets, not the few.
(Online Class)
I think Lessig made a very informative and insightful argument. Lessig had a serious tone about the information through out the TED Talk but also had a light hearted tone to make light of the hard facts. I think it also important to think about the issues in today's world now for the future of the world tomorrow. I like how he mentioned in today's culture, kids are sampling old and new music, putting them together, and remixing them to be anew. I agree with Lessig on how he doesn't agree with stealing content or music, but also that there is nothing wrong with remaking it into something else. How this sort of creativity is important to this digital generation. I like how he said artists and creators must embrace or to choose that their work can be made more available. That the competition can teach a lesson. Technology has made a profound impact on the different generations.
Kaitlynn Turner- Honors class:
I agree that the internet has the potential to revive read/write culture, AKA the creation of new ideas and content that is intrinsically motivated rather than extrinsically motivated by money and success. That being said, I do think a lot of internet creation culture has changed since this talk was made. Once we saw the rise of viral youtubers, tik-tockers, etc. we’ve also seen a rise of people who create and share content with the hope of going viral/becoming paid influencers rather than posting for intrinsic, creative reasons. This reduces the amount of truly novel content, BUT that doesn’t mean novel content doesn’t exist. The type of recreations that Lessing highlighted are different from what I’m referencing- I am referencing, for example, viral tik tok dance videos. Or YouTuber trends of scripted, clickbait videos such as “CHEATING ON MY GIRLFRIEND PRANK” etc. We don’t need more of those, but we don’t need to restrict creation of them either. Even the fact that those exist spark people like me to make comments like this in response to them.
I do agree that the extremism that Lessing references are wrong- I think in MOST situations, any level of extremism is bad. I’m certainly leaning more on the side of abolishing copyrights altogether, however, artists need to be paid and recognized for their work. I like the idea of artists and content creation platforms embracing the idea of sharing work freely for noncommercial work. Competition is great for creativity, and sometimes restrictions can encourage novel ideas- BUT, people often need free content to make their ideas come to life. For example, I am a copywriter. I have minimal video-editing skills, and about 0 music making skills. I would love to make videos, but I need free content to make it happen. I can’t always afford to pay my music-making and video-shooting friends to make stuff for me to use, and they can’t always afford to make it for free. Though stock videos, stock music and stock photos exist, the content available is limited. I would love to see the emergence of a platform that encourages artists to offer free-use materials in the name of content creation so that people who don’t have a ton of creative connections or monetary resources have access to more inventory for making cool things and spreading new ideas!
Jeremy Torres - Online Class
I would say I agree with Lessing and his message for change. I believe Lessing did a great job of offering background to this situation by first introducing and explaining the obstacles BMI has endured and overcome. Lessing then did an excellent job of tying BMI towards his message for change and goes as far as introducing a plan for this change. Towards the end of his Ted Talk, Lessing states, "Because, as BMI demonstrated, competition here can achieve some form of balance. The same thing can happen now. We don't have a public domain to draw upon now, so instead what we need is two types of changes. First, that artists and creators embrace the idea, and choose that their work be made available more freely. So, for example, they can say their work is available freely for non-commercial, this amateur-type of use, but not freely for any commercial use. And second, we need the businesses
that are building out this read-write culture to embrace this opportunity expressly, to enable it, so that this ecology of free content, or freer content, can grow on a neutral platform where they both exist simultaneously so that more-free can compete with less-free, and the opportunity to develop the creativity in that competition can teach one the lessons of the other." I believe this is a viable plan for artists and consumers to have more leeway for their works and consumption of these works, while also not disrupting the monetary value of the art.
Sean Roche (Online Class) - I agree with Lessig's opinion on creativity and copyright laws. My friends know all too well how much I complain about how I see the same movies over and over again just being remade. I agree with Lessig how I think that remaking the same work over again stifles peoples creativity and individuality. I think the copyright laws should be adapted to these days with ever ending advancement in technology and constant new social media trends.
Brooklyn Medina (Online Class)
I thought that Lessing made great points. It's shocking to think of how much of an issue this has grown since 2007. When Youtube first became a platform I would watch videos like the ones he showed all the time. I was so unaware of the effort to "halt" this kind of content back then. I particularly liked him comparing this time to an "age of prohibitions" where people live against the law for breaking these rules. I think that people can create amazing things by remixing content without completely stealing it and that these harsh limitations also limit creativity.
Vanessa Boyer (online class) I completely agree with Lessings points and about how current copyright laws are actively stonewalling creativity. Aside from mainstream media and movies, these harsh laws and regulations stop even common people and small businesses from being able to fully explore their creative efforts.
Tylor Doege (Online Class)
I think Lessig made a lot of solid points in his argument and overall I agree with his stance. I do think that it is crucial to protect the original artist's work; however, I agree with him when he argues that copyright laws and restrictions tend to muffle an individual's creativity. It's cray to think that the laws have not experienced updates considering the various technological advances that society has seen as he mentioned in his speech. This remains true today, now more than ever. These restrictions need to adapt to the technology we have today, especially with the expansion of social media
Ty E. Online
After watching Lessig's Tedtalk I completely agree with him. The creation of copyright laws and the massive amount of loopholes it takes to be creative in our day and age only hurts the creative process of our society. Like Lessig said I do not agree with theft of content but we should be able to put our own spin on the world around us. For example, what if Shakespear's Romeo and Juliet was never allowed to be remixed? Think of all the love stories that would never have been created because it played off that classic tale.
Ashton K. (Online Class)
I would say that I agree with Lessig's viewpoint and that he brings up great points about how creativity is being blocked. The strict laws restrict so many great things from flourishing. I think he also did a great job of addressing BMI and all the great things it has done, but then using that to support his side as well. I did not realize how extreme the lack of free content that is accessible to individuals trying to create something. Whether that be the lack of accessible music or videos, I think the expectations and laws that are set to constantly have new content are so restraining.
Cassidy S. (Online class) I agree with Lessig. We need to have our thoughts, work and art made "freely" in order for it to grow. As individuals in the mass communication field, we don't want our work to be stagnant or the same old things everybody is used to, so we should be able to put our own twist on our content. But there are so many restrictions when it comes to content and copyright, and of course there are loopholes to that, but it becomes tiring. I do think that there should be some restrictions, such as respecting and gaining consent for original content, but we don't want to be living in a digital world with too many of those restrictions.
After watching this video, I do agree with Lessig's points he brought up in a video on how creativity is being hindered. Yes, credit should be given, but not so much that it is limiting people's creativity. I notice artists in the music industry taking some songs and making them their own, along with TikTok people will take a sound and create their own video, causing millions of videos with different content but the same sound.
Jordan Young
Honors
What Lessing stated in his Ted Talk was spot on. In today's society, once something is on the internet, it's common knowledge that it's for the public to do whatever with it. Lessings speaks about this in his presentation. There is a place in today's digital world for artists to control what happens to their art. However, consumers today drive what goes viral by taking the work of a creator and remixing it. A great example of this is TikTok songs and videos from decades ago viral due to someone adding their own touch. Furthermore, I agree with Lessing's assertion that a cultural shift in copyright laws would be the only way to protect against concerns of content theft. The unregulated use of others' creations is too ingrained into a generation's life that a government effort would be doomed to fail.
Katie K (online class) I agree with Lessig's perspective on copyright laws and restrictions. It is crucial to protect the work and art of creators. However, strict laws and regulations can seriously limit creative freedom for all artists and creators. While I believe the original art should be protected by its original creator, other creators should have creative freedom to bounce off their ideas. However if a secondary creator wants to bounce off of original work, they should be required to give credit where credit is due.
Mya W. (Online class)
After watching Lessig’s talk I agree with him. He makes a lot of solid points. While this Ted Talk took place in 2007…. It’s very evident that it was sure to be a growing concern throughout the years. YouTube was blooming in 2007 and while I was watching videos it’s amazing to see how much YouTube is different now in terms of copyrighting. While it is important to copyright certain things it’s also stopping the flow of creation. I like when he talked about sampling music as well since that is one of the main things a lot of us are unaware about. Taking theft of content is not right, however when it’s used to enhance or remake a story I think it’s interesting!
Yulissa Romero (online class) - I personally agree with what Lessig said. Technology and social media can be such a creative outlet. A lot of people know how to work around copyright laws. But even then it limits what people can do out of creativity, but with certain copyrights laws there’s only so much you can do. Copyright laws should move and progress as the future changes. As technology changes, it’s growing and we still have the same laws that we’re implemented in the past with not as much technology.
Hannah S. - Online Class
I agree with Lessing's take on copyright laws. While artists should never straight-up steal someone's work and give inspiration credit when it is due, they should be able to use others' work for inspiration. Copyright laws, as all laws I believe, should move with the times. In today's world, there are so many mediums to produce content on and trends change often and quickly. Because of this, it is difficult to produce truly original work so artists should be allowed to draw inspiration from others. Additionally, having content available helps others learn and grow together.
I agree with Lessig’s ideas. Though copyright laws are beneficial in many circumstances, I can understand that they heavily restrict the creative freedom creators or artists have for their work. Some of the laws or guidelines within the copyrighted work may be too secure and undeviating, making it very hard for the common person to take inspiration or ideas incited by the original piece. I understand why people want to protect or officially own their creations, but bigger companies that copyright things make less sense to me.
Parker B. online class
Devyn Lucas (online class)
I agree with Lessig. Strict copyright laws that restrict remixes and parodies, or just funny references are really restricting peoples creativity. He's not saying you can take someones work and call it your own, but simply being able to use it to branch off of or using it in a different day. It's not like when someone takes the same movie, script and all and just changes the cast.
Karleen F. Online
I agree with what Lessig spoke about. Technology has completely changed how we live daily lives, however, but we are restricted with what we post because of copyright laws. Though I like that we are protected by those laws and in what we create I do believe that there should be certain creations that should be out for free use. For example, many creatives take what they see and alter it so as to not copy the works of others. It still allows for the original work to be shown but in the eyes of the creative and its altered look changes the beauty.
Aliyah W. (online)
I completely agree with Lessig. The use of copyright laws, or more specifically, how strict copyright laws have become, has placed a lot of restriction on the creativity of the internet. YouTube, for example, has strict copyright laws for creators. Although I understand the use of these laws, I do think that it is important for the sake of creativity that some of those laws are lightened. Creators should be allowed to integrate all kinds of content with fair use laws.
MeriAllen Krueger, Online Class
I think Lessig was way ahead of his time in identifying and describing the importance, impact and change of the evolution of online content on society and culture. I agree with his argument and I think his point with recreation and remix videos is important. To recreate a work of art into its own piece is an important part of art and even if the idea is used for silly online videos, its still fair and should be usable around copyright. The part that I agreed with the most was his comments about the differences between adults and their kids on the internet. Kids that have grown up online have truly grown up in a different culture than adults who grew up before it. It is so accessible now for kids to make art, and all kinds of content online and access or be a viewer to all different kinds of art and content and that shift is really undeniable and irreversible.
Ethan L. Online Class
I agree with Lessig, creative content has become greatly affected by copyright laws and with the innovative society that we live in were technology is continuously advancing they have become more strict. I agree that people should be able to use work inspired by other people as long as it has your own twist to it and give some form of credit. Lessig also mentions that artist should make their work available or "Freerer" so that more free can compete with less free developing creativity in competition.
I tend to agree with Lessig's overall thesis of expanding the use of creative materials by others to use in different ways in the pursuit of their own creative endeavors. As Lessig suggested, I believe this is the democratic option as we continue to navigate the thorny issues of copyright in a media-saturated world. While I respect the rights of content creators who hold licenses and copyrights to their work, I think the entire foundation of copyright enforcement is purposely threatening and intimidating to the average amateur, which is who Lessig seems to be advocating for. The typical amateur creator wanting to use a copyrighted song for a remix video they post on YouTube for the fun of it is most likely not going to have the legal knowledge or a lawyer on speed dial to ask about their rights in using that content. Personally, my own creativity has been greatly impacted by the intimidating laws regarding copyrights. I shy away from using anyone elses' work, even if it is public domain, in my own work even for educational purposes. In this regard, Lessig does speak the truth about the antidemocratic and imposing nature of these laws. I think the best thing he proposed in this video was allowing content creators to permit their work to be used for non-commercial use but not for commercial use. This seems like a great balance to strike: creators still get the monetary reward for commercial entities profiting off of their creations, but the typical amateur is protected from prosecution for using their creations for fun and harmless remixes or the like. I will say that I disagree with Lessig's focus on children and their role in utilizing media like this. Perhaps his argument is even stronger today when it seems like every 10-year-old kid has a phone and the entire world of social media at their fingertips, but I would argue that those who create the higher quality remixes that he showed in his presentation are most likely not kids. I think the emotional appeal of persuading the audience to agree with his propositions for the sake of childrens' creativity lost some impact because really this issue deals with teens/adults. Lastly, not to make Lessig's argument null and void (particularly because I think his argument is even stronger over a decade after he gave this talk in light of the influx of apps like TikTok etc) but shouldn't we be encouraging kids to be creating their own content, not mimicking and "remixing" the work of other people? I get the argument for using a famous song or drawing inspiration from a favorite movie, but perhaps Lessig should focus less on advocating for the right to use someone else's work and instead investigate why the creativity and imagination of children is increasingly limited to the confines of media produced by other people and not themselves.
Elektra Jordan - HON 3396E
Sarah P. (Online Class)
I for the most part agree with Lessig's opinion that there should be an equilibrium for a more liberated and accessible internet, but I would include a stipulation to one of his recommendations. Lessig believes that smaller creators ought to permit other similarly smaller creators to utilize their work but put a stipulation that it ought to not be utilized for commercial use, and whereas I somewhat coincide, I do not think this ensures creators enough stability and protection. I think in the event that you utilize another artist's work, you ought to credit them and it is not fair to repurpose the work and claim it as your own original creation. It isn't reasonable for the smaller creator who put in most of the initial idea and work ethic. Reasoning behind that is what if other individuals feel the need or want to contribute to the original artist and not just the remix. The original creator is left in a position where they can potentially suffer a loss in things like money, media coverage, and business opportunities. I agree that we should allow for more opportunity to repurpose artists work that is not for commercial use, let kids be creative with art that is influencing them with ideas, but still consecutively practice to give the original creator the proper credit they deserve.
Post a Comment