Wk1 - Response to Christine

I enjoyed your comment on teaching digital natives to respect intellectual property. I want to tell you that I couldn’t agree with you more, but yet I am beginning to wonder if we are fighting for a worthwhile cause. I teach 7th grade computer, and I see students taking things off of the Internet all the time to include in their projects, and they really do not see the point of why I ask them to give credit to the original creator. I think the way they see it is that if a person was willing to put their creation online where they know it can be seen by millions and can easily be copied, then why does it matter where they got it from? What they are copying could very well already be a copy of something else, and so forth. If you do not want to have your creation copied, then you should not post it online. What are your thoughts on this?

Microsoft Clip Art Gallery

Christine's Original Post:

There is a lot to think about from each position on copyright laws. Each of the different views express a point that is very valid. In my opinion, as technology changes laws and reasonable use has to change also. The students who have been raised in the digital age, digital natives, have only known the somewhat open door policy of the Internet. And, unless they are taught about intellectual property from the beginning then they will continue to have a lack of respect for what someone has created. I agree that when someone creates something they should be compensated and given credit for or even have the right to say no to others using it, but I also think if it can be improved upon significantly to the degree that it changes the original creation, and then someone else should share in the credit and still get the consent of the original artist.

The Fair use and Shepherd Fairey case makes me look closer at my original statement of fair use. In my opinion, what he created does not change or improve upon the original photo for him to claim the result as his.  Since the original photo was very recognizable, it should have been clear to the artist that permission to use it was needed and the original AP freelance photographer should have been compensated or credited.

In the case of music that has been sampled and still recognizable the same thing applies. Not enough has been changed to make it clearly another person’s work.

I found the case of Bridgeport v Dimension films and De minimis use very interesting.  I am still unsure of how the verdict came about and how they were able to identify that snippet of music as theirs. Also I was curious to know if the original Dr. Dre song was completely digitally created and did they admit to sampling from this particular company and because it was so digitally enhanced was it the same piece of music. I do not see how it infringed upon the original copyright.

In comparison to other countries, the United States has some of the tougher copyright laws. Again I think it is time to make changes to the laws in this digital age. Since access to technology and knowledge on how to create or duplicate something has been made accessible to the consumer, new copyright laws need to address that.

I think Creative Commons has the right idea. Its rules are very clear and it still allows for creativity to develop.  I think all genres should join in. Intellectual property has to be protected so that it does not stifle creativity of the original creator and those who want to use it, legally.