Keeping in theme with this week's readings regarding copyright I did a little YouTube surfing for inspiration. Hence this week's blog post is a visual one defining and questioning the validity of copyright. Irony of irony this post, at least in part, likely violates copyright - at least according to the criteria put forth by Brad Templeton. Oh well, I've always been a bit of a rebel.
An explanation of copyright set to a catchy tune.
This Dilbert cartoon is actually a parody of Garfield. So it falls within the bounds of fair use and thus is not a violation of copyright. Ironically my posting of it probably doesn't fall within those boundaries.
Ok, I've gone legit with this one. Here's Michael Moore's take on copyright law. I am interpreting Moore's s statements in the clip as permission to repost his thoughts on copyright...by posting the clip. A very literal interpretation indeed, however it does meet Templeton's criteria. It was fun being a criminal...if only for a few minutes.
Michael Moore came the closest to what Templeton said about someone giving blanket permission. Oral Copyright Commons?
ReplyDeletehave you seen youtube's copyright viedoe?
ReplyDelete(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InzDjH1-9Ns). I think cartoons help articulate a complicated law and help reach viewers of all ages. perhaps it's especially effective on the youngest copyright violators - those lawerence lessig worries so much about?
I like Michael Moore's take on copyright. He says he is in favor of people sharing his movies but he also admits that he does very well, as in makes a lot of money. When someone "shares" a Michael Moore movie it probably increases his profits indirectly by getting the word out about what he does.So I guess protecting copyright is more important when someone is dependent on as much income from their work as possible.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure re-posting these YouTube videos is in violation... it seems to me that YouTube videos are meant to be shared as long as you're not claiming to be the creator. Also, you're writing a commentary or critique... right? I think that falls under Fair Use. Oh, it's all so confusing! Yay, Michel Moore get's it right again! And thanks to modtechnic for the link, that was excellent!
ReplyDeleteI agree, Michel Moore's take is very interesting, but at the same time, I think it depends on where the first source comes from. Did someone buy it to share or steal it from someone, or something else. Or did they buy it from someone who does not have permission to sale it, and then they share it with a friend for free. Michel Moore has a way of making very complex issues seem simple when in fact they are much more complicated than he makes them sound.
ReplyDelete