YouTube - terms of use... well, I am not known to take video footage (have the function on my digital camera...but have not yet used it) nor am I likely to post any video on YouTube, whatever it should be... So, on going to the Terms of Use page on YouTube, I am not too enthusiastic about reading through all of the guff.... in fact, this page is even further deterrent for me to post video to the net! Why do they have to make it so long and convoluted?
Flickr - terms of use - click on "terms of use" at bottom of linked page. Once again - a small thesis to plow through. In cost / benefit analysis the cost of reading this is certainly not outweighed by what I might perceive as benefits in doing so... At this stage, I have no photos that I wish to upload to Flickr, but when I do see the need to do so, I know exactly where to find the "terms of use" and know that these must be read and understood and agreed to before uploading images.
I am feeling less inclined to actually READ these as I have spent about 4 hours already on this weeks blogging tasks and really think that is plenty enough!!! I have neglected my painting project all day in order to do this!!! So, that's it - time to stop and think about sea weed!!!
By the way - tomorrow... or in less than 3 hours, I turn 30... yes, wow... no longer in my twenties, stressful.... must become a responsible adult over night... cannot see that happening!!!
Oh dear!!!
Ciao!!!
Friday, April 11, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Copyright - Keir Smith, Oh so criminal
Oh so criminal by Keir Smith. I watched this 5 times! In particular, I found the sampling of music complex, clever and highly effective. The film is an interesting and attention grabbing approach as a response to Australia's recent (2005) examination of copyright exceptions. It definitely provokes thought and discussion about copyright and issues associated.
Apparently this work is "illegal". However, assuming Australian copyright law is similar to NZ, I think he can safely get away with it:
Looking at "fair use":
- the purpose of this work is NOT for commercial gain
- the work is compiled as a 'criticism' which is apparently allowed under 'fair dealing' - the POINT of the work is about copyright and exceptions
- he has copied EXPLICITLY and is not claiming authenticity - in fact he uses clear text statements acknowledging the infringements he is making and inviting people to contest
- the segments he has copied are all very short (likely to fall within the proportions allowed by the act)
- I doubt the work has effect on the market value of any of the copied material - none of the material is degraded in anyway (none that I can detect)
- As for price - well that point defeats the purpose of the film in the first place. If he had purchased the rights to use the material then the point of the film would no longer be valid!
It is a tricky one. Peculiar and awkward to rule judgment largely because of the nature of the idea expressed in Keir's work - that being about copyright itself.
Copyright law is intended to protect the EXPRESSION of ideas. Keir Smith is actually EXPRESSING quite a unique idea, totally separate from the material he has copied to make up his film. The content of the copied material, i.e. the expressions of other people's ideas, in this work is actually COMPLETELY irrelevant to Keir's idea... so therefore, I do not consider this film illegal.
The digital age brings with it a number of associated copyright issues that need to be addressed or accommodated. I agree with both suggestions made in the written statement (go to link). Firstly, there is a need for a degree of open-endedness and assessment of each case specifically; as in this example, copyright issues are not always particularly black and white and a closer more careful assessment may be required (downside - this could be costly in both $ and time). Secondly, I also agree that some of the specific exceptions could be reviewed and amended to become more appropriate to copying issues of the digital age.
Apparently this work is "illegal". However, assuming Australian copyright law is similar to NZ, I think he can safely get away with it:
Looking at "fair use":
- the purpose of this work is NOT for commercial gain
- the work is compiled as a 'criticism' which is apparently allowed under 'fair dealing' - the POINT of the work is about copyright and exceptions
- he has copied EXPLICITLY and is not claiming authenticity - in fact he uses clear text statements acknowledging the infringements he is making and inviting people to contest
- the segments he has copied are all very short (likely to fall within the proportions allowed by the act)
- I doubt the work has effect on the market value of any of the copied material - none of the material is degraded in anyway (none that I can detect)
- As for price - well that point defeats the purpose of the film in the first place. If he had purchased the rights to use the material then the point of the film would no longer be valid!
It is a tricky one. Peculiar and awkward to rule judgment largely because of the nature of the idea expressed in Keir's work - that being about copyright itself.
Copyright law is intended to protect the EXPRESSION of ideas. Keir Smith is actually EXPRESSING quite a unique idea, totally separate from the material he has copied to make up his film. The content of the copied material, i.e. the expressions of other people's ideas, in this work is actually COMPLETELY irrelevant to Keir's idea... so therefore, I do not consider this film illegal.
The digital age brings with it a number of associated copyright issues that need to be addressed or accommodated. I agree with both suggestions made in the written statement (go to link). Firstly, there is a need for a degree of open-endedness and assessment of each case specifically; as in this example, copyright issues are not always particularly black and white and a closer more careful assessment may be required (downside - this could be costly in both $ and time). Secondly, I also agree that some of the specific exceptions could be reviewed and amended to become more appropriate to copying issues of the digital age.
Copyright - 12 Monkeys - Universal Studios and Lebbeus Woods
Wow!!! YES Totally a copy (check it out), and compared with the above music case, this case looks to me as MORE than just unconscious copy. The similarities between the picture drawn by Lebbeus Woods and the chair in 12 Monkeys go right to the fine detail - most notably the chair itself - its form, colour and detail and its positioning in the room on a vertical rail, the structure of the room and the qualities of the materials from which the floor and walls appear to be made (for details, go to the above link).
I had never know of this case and to think that it was ruled by the judge that this was indeed a copyright infringement and that Universal Studios would have to pull the movie and remove these chair scenes, that's HUGE!!! I think Lebbeus Woods was most within rights and reason to have pursued this case and correctly won. It was pretty big of him to see the lighter side and take a settlement instead!!! (Wow, I hope some big corporate copies me - so I can generously take a settlement payment!!!).
So, what copyright infringement happened with Devil's Advocate?
I had never know of this case and to think that it was ruled by the judge that this was indeed a copyright infringement and that Universal Studios would have to pull the movie and remove these chair scenes, that's HUGE!!! I think Lebbeus Woods was most within rights and reason to have pursued this case and correctly won. It was pretty big of him to see the lighter side and take a settlement instead!!! (Wow, I hope some big corporate copies me - so I can generously take a settlement payment!!!).
So, what copyright infringement happened with Devil's Advocate?
Copyright - Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd.
Click here for the link.
Very interesting! I consider myself to be pretty in to music - I listen to music most of the day (radio or CD), collect CDs, am interested in a range of music genres and eras... I have heard songs that struck me as having greater similarity than "He's so fine" and "My sweet Lord".... at least on first hearing.
Okay - so the greatest similarity is the melody... here's my scoring (5 exactly the same, 1 not alike in any way):
*MELODY 4.5 Yes, agreed - motifs in the melody are actually the same, however, the entire track is not the same in its melodic organisation.
*HARMONY/CHORDAL STRUCTURE 2 Hmmm... in terms of instrumental I find hard to isolate these - would really need to see them written down.... but yes there are singing girls for vocal harmony in both, but the lyrics and notes that they sing are, at least to me, totally different as is the timing that they join in, in relation to the melody.
RHYTHM 2 In "He's so fine" the beat is clearly emphasised from the beginning of the track - on the 2nd and 4th beat of the 4/4 timing - it then breaks in to an almost reggae type rhythm for the mid section (especially with what sounds like xylophone in the percussion). In "My Sweet Lord" the rhythm is set by the acoustic guitar for the the first half and the emphasis is more on the 1st and 3rd beat over this section. Half way through the track the percussion is brought in and the pace picks up a little and the 2nd and 4th beat are emphasised... So, a wee similarity here but then, how many other tracks in the world have this beat?
TEMPO: 2 and then 3 To explain - "He's so fine" is pretty fast from the beginning, "My Sweet Lord" begins much slower, then picks up pace with introduction of percussion, however, still not as fast paced as "He's so fine".
LYRICS: 2 and then 1 The only vague similarity is that Harrison is talking about "really want to be with you" and "I really want to know you"... and the Chiffons sing about "wish he were mine" and "to be held in his arms" ... but one is a man speaking to the Lord and the other is a woman expressing carnal desires!!! Not the same!!! As the track continues and Harrison's chorus sing a "Hare Krishna" "Gurur Sakshaat" "Parabrahma" "Tasmayi Shree" etc... the lyrics are not the same!!!
INSTRUMENTS: 2 Pretty much only as similar as any two bands when compared - guitar and drums feature in both. However, "He's so fine" is predominated by the piano for chords and melody where as this is done by acoustic guitar in "My sweet Lord". "He's so fine" has additional instruments like and xylophone? and shaker, the drums sound different as well.
IN addition - "My sweet Lord" has a lead-guitar rif that features in introduction and through the track which is totally unique to this track and nothing similar appears in "He's so fine".
Here's what I think - Harrison's melody is, on closer listening, strikingly similar... agreed. I agree with the suggestion that it was UNCONSCIOUSLY copied... After all, is how many songs would they have been exposed to and have influence their music subconsciously at each composition?! There are only 13 notes to play with, and plenty of commonly used chord sequences, there is bound to be some melodic overlap between composers at some time. To me, the tracks are so different in many ways other than the melody, that one has to really sit, listen and carefully analyse in order to appreciate that the similarity in melody is more than just vague.
I am not sure how harsh the penalty was, but feel, while it is necessary to enforce and uphold the law as an example to others to take more care with copyright, I would personally be a bit lenient / gentle with the penalties for this!
Like I said earlier, I can think of a number of more strikingly similar tracks that I would have issue with if I wrote the original!!
Very interesting! I consider myself to be pretty in to music - I listen to music most of the day (radio or CD), collect CDs, am interested in a range of music genres and eras... I have heard songs that struck me as having greater similarity than "He's so fine" and "My sweet Lord".... at least on first hearing.
Okay - so the greatest similarity is the melody... here's my scoring (5 exactly the same, 1 not alike in any way):
*MELODY 4.5 Yes, agreed - motifs in the melody are actually the same, however, the entire track is not the same in its melodic organisation.
*HARMONY/CHORDAL STRUCTURE 2 Hmmm... in terms of instrumental I find hard to isolate these - would really need to see them written down.... but yes there are singing girls for vocal harmony in both, but the lyrics and notes that they sing are, at least to me, totally different as is the timing that they join in, in relation to the melody.
RHYTHM 2 In "He's so fine" the beat is clearly emphasised from the beginning of the track - on the 2nd and 4th beat of the 4/4 timing - it then breaks in to an almost reggae type rhythm for the mid section (especially with what sounds like xylophone in the percussion). In "My Sweet Lord" the rhythm is set by the acoustic guitar for the the first half and the emphasis is more on the 1st and 3rd beat over this section. Half way through the track the percussion is brought in and the pace picks up a little and the 2nd and 4th beat are emphasised... So, a wee similarity here but then, how many other tracks in the world have this beat?
TEMPO: 2 and then 3 To explain - "He's so fine" is pretty fast from the beginning, "My Sweet Lord" begins much slower, then picks up pace with introduction of percussion, however, still not as fast paced as "He's so fine".
LYRICS: 2 and then 1 The only vague similarity is that Harrison is talking about "really want to be with you" and "I really want to know you"... and the Chiffons sing about "wish he were mine" and "to be held in his arms" ... but one is a man speaking to the Lord and the other is a woman expressing carnal desires!!! Not the same!!! As the track continues and Harrison's chorus sing a "Hare Krishna" "Gurur Sakshaat" "Parabrahma" "Tasmayi Shree" etc... the lyrics are not the same!!!
INSTRUMENTS: 2 Pretty much only as similar as any two bands when compared - guitar and drums feature in both. However, "He's so fine" is predominated by the piano for chords and melody where as this is done by acoustic guitar in "My sweet Lord". "He's so fine" has additional instruments like and xylophone? and shaker, the drums sound different as well.
IN addition - "My sweet Lord" has a lead-guitar rif that features in introduction and through the track which is totally unique to this track and nothing similar appears in "He's so fine".
Here's what I think - Harrison's melody is, on closer listening, strikingly similar... agreed. I agree with the suggestion that it was UNCONSCIOUSLY copied... After all, is how many songs would they have been exposed to and have influence their music subconsciously at each composition?! There are only 13 notes to play with, and plenty of commonly used chord sequences, there is bound to be some melodic overlap between composers at some time. To me, the tracks are so different in many ways other than the melody, that one has to really sit, listen and carefully analyse in order to appreciate that the similarity in melody is more than just vague.
I am not sure how harsh the penalty was, but feel, while it is necessary to enforce and uphold the law as an example to others to take more care with copyright, I would personally be a bit lenient / gentle with the penalties for this!
Like I said earlier, I can think of a number of more strikingly similar tracks that I would have issue with if I wrote the original!!
Copyright Law - some thoughts!
Well, this is a domain that I really know little about nor have much experience with other than abiding by the notices by the photocopiers!!!
Fascinating stuff - I had not realised that copyright applies immediately when an idea is expressed (recorded, written, filmed etc)... so, that means, now that I have selected my copyright licence, anyone who actually uses my material without attribution and/or derivatives is actually breaking the law!!!
I listened to the podcast (go to the wiki to get the link) where Richard Niven, Solicitor and Copyright manager, discusses copyright law (I hope I have adequately referenced here?). Very interesting! I personally make the choice to BUY CDs rather than burn or download. I personally don't think it fair to cheat the system in this way - after all its the musicians that really stand to lose if no one actually pays for their creations... however, I must confess... and I am feeling awkward to admit this in a public forum.... I DO own an MP3 player on to which I put my fave tracks from the CDs I OWN! I had not realised that this was not strictly legal, however, feel comforted that this was discussed as being awkward... afterall, that would mean the MP3 players as devices are actually illegal - they require the user to break the law (how else would you get MP3 files - legally?)... weird. Interested also to hear that this is likely to change (or has done???) with the review of copyright law (please see the aforementioned reference). It sounds like this form of "format shifting" so long as you own a copy of the CD (and retain it) will be permitted.
Interesting too, that taping a TV programme to watch later (if you can not be there to watch it when aired) is only legal if the copied form is kept only as long as reasonably necessary...i.e. delete or tape over once watched!
And how much responsibility will be put on the Internet Service Providers? will the 'P' soon stand for 'Police'? - that is really changing the role of the ISP and putting a huge onus on them to keep the law in check....
Its all a wee bit scarey - mostly in that I feel still slightly unsure about the law and nervous to put a foot wrong... well at least I know that my intentions are not for commercial gain, I do not plan to degrade anybody else's work, or claim it as my own, and any copying will be only for myself and personal education purposes... so, so long as I attribute the author / artist and stay within the copyright act in terms of % of works copied, I should be okay.... however, its THIS BLOG that makes me nervous....
Fascinating stuff - I had not realised that copyright applies immediately when an idea is expressed (recorded, written, filmed etc)... so, that means, now that I have selected my copyright licence, anyone who actually uses my material without attribution and/or derivatives is actually breaking the law!!!
I listened to the podcast (go to the wiki to get the link) where Richard Niven, Solicitor and Copyright manager, discusses copyright law (I hope I have adequately referenced here?). Very interesting! I personally make the choice to BUY CDs rather than burn or download. I personally don't think it fair to cheat the system in this way - after all its the musicians that really stand to lose if no one actually pays for their creations... however, I must confess... and I am feeling awkward to admit this in a public forum.... I DO own an MP3 player on to which I put my fave tracks from the CDs I OWN! I had not realised that this was not strictly legal, however, feel comforted that this was discussed as being awkward... afterall, that would mean the MP3 players as devices are actually illegal - they require the user to break the law (how else would you get MP3 files - legally?)... weird. Interested also to hear that this is likely to change (or has done???) with the review of copyright law (please see the aforementioned reference). It sounds like this form of "format shifting" so long as you own a copy of the CD (and retain it) will be permitted.
Interesting too, that taping a TV programme to watch later (if you can not be there to watch it when aired) is only legal if the copied form is kept only as long as reasonably necessary...i.e. delete or tape over once watched!
And how much responsibility will be put on the Internet Service Providers? will the 'P' soon stand for 'Police'? - that is really changing the role of the ISP and putting a huge onus on them to keep the law in check....
Its all a wee bit scarey - mostly in that I feel still slightly unsure about the law and nervous to put a foot wrong... well at least I know that my intentions are not for commercial gain, I do not plan to degrade anybody else's work, or claim it as my own, and any copying will be only for myself and personal education purposes... so, so long as I attribute the author / artist and stay within the copyright act in terms of % of works copied, I should be okay.... however, its THIS BLOG that makes me nervous....
Copyright - My Licence BY-NC-ND
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 New Zealand License.
There you have it - you can quote me, borrow my images, link to me etc - so long as you reference me!!! If you are not sure, then contact me personally!!!
Cheers!!
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
My First Exhibition
Well, not really! But anyway, here is the poster I have designed with photoshop (a first) to advertise my ficticious exhibition... Read that... FICTICIOUS!!!
I.e. DO NOT TURN UP AT MY HOUSE unless you come with Baileys!!!! (In that case you are always welcome!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
