Author Archives: Jason Alley

Film Brown Bag part 2

In regard to the part of the documentary we got to see about David, it was very heartfelt, humbling, and touching to say the least. Your heart really went out to David in the scene in which it showed him dancing to Ke$ha’s song “We R Who We R.” There he was just a little ten year old boy having fun, as if everything was okay, despite his looming death. It was truly inspiring. But the fact that Ke$ha and her “crew” needed to profit off of this scene of the documentary almost makes me sick. The fact that this scene was almost deleted from the documentary to avoid charges, is terrible, as it definitely is crucial in showing David’s character and strength. There should be some exceptions to copyright, and in my opinion, this definitely should be one of them.

This scene about David reminded me a lot of Katy Perry’s music video for her song “Firework.” It is interesting how one artist can seemingly be so sensitive to the world problems that kids suffer from, while another artist can take away (maybe by accident) so much from that world.

Film Brownbag part 1

I never really thought about all of the small technicalities in putting together a film. All I ever thought of was the script and the actors memorizing the lines correctly. But when professor Sikand mentioned the example of shooting an important scene and it “getting ruined” by a car driving by playing an Adele song, I realized just how easily things could get complicated. The scene that the filmmakers were shooting now probably costs them double the amount of money, just from the brief background of a popular song. And because of this large amount of money being owed to Adele and her “crew,” a lot of smaller film makers will shy away from using their crucial footage, just because they can’t afford to pay for the few seconds of Adele in the backgroud. It is sad that a lot of important films are being thrown by the way side because of these types of monetary problems. This example reminds me of a quote from the epilogue of Vaidhyanathan’s book, Copyrights & Copywrongs, “Isn’t copyright supposed to encourage art?…Instead, more and more, excessive and almost perpetual copyright protection seems to be squelching beauty, impeding exposure, stifling creativity” ( Vaidhyanathan 185).

Brown Bag

The brown bag today was extremely interesting. I thought it was interesting to learn that a person doing a documentary would have to get writes for a song that just happened to be playing in the background. Hearing this made me really dislike our copyright laws. Although I understand why artist and producers would do this, I feel like this part of copyright has come to a bit of an extreme. Many directors can not predict a car passing by playing a song, yet they will get punished for having the music in their movie. I wish there was a way to work around this in our many copyright laws to protect these directors.

Documentary Filmmakers and Fair Use

Today’s brownbag brought up some really interesting points.  One point that Professor Sikand mentioned was that many times documentary filmmakers become discouraged by the price of licensing copyrighted works.  This is a shame because most filmmakers do not have the budget of a Hollywood feature film and upon realizing how much the licensing of a song for their movie can be, they often decide against producing or finishing their work.  This prevents many important stories from being told.  Professor Sikand did mention that their is a light at the end of the tunnel.  She mentioned that there are websites that feature music that can be used freely in movies as long as the artist is credited. While reflecting on the short clip we watched where filmmakers were discussing copyrighted works in relation to their films, I decided to look a little bit more into this issue.  While searching the web I cam across this website which highlights documentary filmmakers’ statement of best practices in fair use.

Brownbag: Social Media

The videos and discussion at the brownbag today led to the common problem copyright causes today: diminishing creativity.  Professor Sikand explained and showed many examples where creativity is stifled by copyright.  Its sad to know that many producers and directors cannot begin their career because of the initial costs due to copyright.  Theres much less incentive to become a movie director when your first film costs thousands in copyright compensation.  This brings me back to Vaidhyanathan’s quotation that copyright “rewards the established at the expense of the emerging.” What was most interesting to me was how rebellious directors become because of these laws.  Professor Sikand seems like a professor that would normally obey rules and laws, but when it comes to copyright she embodies the quotation: “its better to ask for forgiveness than permission.”  Her justification for this mindset is legitimate: If you ask for permission, the owners expect that you have money to pay for their work; on the other hand, if you just use the work and ask for forgiveness, you can be viewed as an innocent, destitute producer trying to make a living.

The website she showed us is very detailed and up to date in the laws of fair use with regards to social media.  It explains the rules and even gives tips on what steps to take if one of your works is in violation of fair use.

The glimmer of hope from Professor Sikand was her explanation of the site for free music.  With our counter argument to copyright being exposure, im glad that this site is in existence. I thought it would be slightly difficult to find this type of website, but once I looked up “free music for exposure” in google, the first 3 websites were Noise Trade, Ustream, and NumberOneMusic; all of which were created to share music in hopes to promote emerging artists.

 

 

Disney Sued for Copyright Infringement

In this recent case, Disney was accused of copyright infringement for using the idea of dog faces with signatures as a tshirt.  There was an original drawing by a design company with the same idea and the original creator thought that Disney stole this conception.  Initially reading the article, I thought Disney was careful about their “copy” and tried to made sure none of the dog faces or signatures were identical.  If this were true, Disney would probably win the case because copyright protects, ” “idea/expression” dichotomy in copyright law, which is supposed to mean that you only protect the specific and defined expression — not the general idea.”  But after this article was posted, commenters reading the article actually pointed out numerous faces that seemed to be copied from the original.  21/27 faces on Disney’s copy were similar to the original.  The question now is: Can disney be accused of copyright infringement for copying these dogs faces, even though the faces symbolize exclusive breeds that have those types of faces naturally?  Disney symbolizes imagination, creativity, and make-believe.  But did they actually imagine and create this idea? or is it all make-believe?

Obama- style Poster Maker…

My group is using the Fairey vs. Associated Press court case for our second portfolio paper.  In this case, the artist Shepard Fairey, the creator of the iconic “Hope” Obama poster, is accused of copying the photograph taken by an AP photographer. When I was doing research for this essay I stumbled upon multiple sites titled “Obama Poster Maker”. These sites enable anyone to upload photographs and digital produce them in the style of Fairey’s poster. How does copyright law deal with this? Does Fairey own this technique or is it just an ability anyone with Photoshop or googling skills can freely apply to any photograph?

TACO BELL!

Taco Bell has a very popular Doritos Loco Taco. This translates to “Dorito Crazy Taco” which means that the taco is a crazy taco that is made out of Doritos. Here is a link to the picture of it. If you look at the logo, you will see that there is a Trademark symbol next to the word “Doritos”. This is because Taco Bell does not own the rights to the word “Doritos”.  Every taco that Taco Bell sells, multiple companies will make a percentage of a profit off of it; Taco Bell will make money because they are the business selling the tacos, and Frito-Lays (the company that makes the Doritos) will make some money because Taco Bell is using their chip as the taco shell.  If you rinse all of the seasoning of a Doritos taco shell off, does that void the agreement between Frito-Lays and Taco Bell? Because technically without the seasoning, the taco shell wouldn’t be a Dorito.

The Cat NOT in the the Hat! A Parody?

The parody book “The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody” by Dr. Juice used Suess- like rhymes and illustrations to tell the story of O.J. Simpson’s double murder trial. The book depicts O.J. Simpson, wearing the Cat in the Hat’s distinctive red and white striped stove-pipe hat, and holding a bloody glove. An example of a line from the book: “One knife?/Two knife?/Red knife/Dead wife.”

Parody falls under fair- use according to the Copyright Act. However, what defines parody? According to the book, “Mass Media Law”, parody must “reflect the content of the original work not just the style or method of presentation”(523). In fact, Dr. Suess Enterprise sued because they did not believe that Dr. Suess’ image should be allowed to be commingled with a murder trial. Penguin book lost the trial because the court found that it was more a parody of the O.J. Simpson trial that used Suess’ shtick.

http://www.imaginelaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1181191.htmlThe disputed work

Posters for President

I made posters for my brother when he was in middle school when he was running for student government president and I thought of a campaign to incorporate his name into well known logos and slogans. He didn’t make any money off of these posters, but he gained recognition by his peers for having cool posters that people can recognize. I may have violated copyright laws by making these posters by using other people’s intellectual property, but I think it was okay because it was my idea to use those logos and think of an artistic way to incorporate his name into them.  Since no one made any money, it was purely an art project that benefited my brother. Do you think that companies would be angry that I did this? I don’t think they will because I don’t mean anything to them and I didn’t make millions of dollars off of my alternate designs of their logos.