This lecture included 3 points which all lead up to one vital topic. The man speaking is a well known lawyer . He feels that he has created a solution to the problem of young people and their illegal use of technology and copyrighted material. The topic is referred to as "User Generated Content."
The first thing that was mentioned was a man named John Philip Sousa who in 1906 rejected the idea of what he called "talking machines". He felt that they would ruin artistic development. What previously existed was a read/write society which he felt was being replaced by a read only society. In other words, he felt that the voices of people were taken away and their creativity was being displace due to these internal machines.
The next point mentioned was celestial copyrights. He explained that around 1945, people began to wonder if plains should have permission by land owners before they fly over their land. 2 men named Thomas lee, and Tennie Cosby took the argument to supreme court stating that their chickens were fallowing the plains and running into walls. Justice Douglas felt that this argument was a waste of time and that these men could not win their case. In this situation, common sense revolts.
The 3 and final topic leading up to his claim was ASCAP. He mentioned that terror was being created by broadcasting and business spreading content. Between 1931 and 1939 rates raised b y 448%. In 1936, BMI came into play. It was more democratic and even included African American music. In the year 1940, the ASCAP threatened to double their rates, but they cracked a year later. The lawyer stated that in this day in age, our amateur culture isn't using things such as youtube for money, but just for fun.
The lawyer played 3 funny videos to get his point across. He played an anime video which included a familiar sang played on the show the Muppets. The video was funny because two unrelated things were played together. It was simple, but effectively funny. The second video showed a man dressed as Jesus Christ. He pranced through the streets moving his mouth to the words of "I Will Survive". At the end, the Jesus character gets hit by a bus. This video was humorous, then slightly disturbing, and then became recognizable to me as a potential controversy. The final video that was played included George Bush along with other political leaders. They were edited to seem as though they were singing a love song, while images of marching soldiers carrying flags flashed periodically. This was the funniest of them all. Anything that pokes fun at Bush makes me laugh.
The point that was being made here was that anyone can do this sort of thing. As long as someone owns a computer they are then able to easily recreate their own things using content stolen from other people. This is evidence that their is not such thing as privacy. We use other peoples creativity to branch off and display our own. These are what the lawyer calls our "tools of speech". But doing this is actually illegal due to copyright and then categorizes the user as a trespasser, just like the plains flying over the farms. The comparison being made, proves that asking people not to use other people's content, is not insensible. It will always happen and can't be stopped. Teens and young adults in our society are pron to fight the law and therefore reject the idea of the copyright.
The controversy is weather or not this is a negative thing. This particular lawyer looked to the government, which he said provided him no help at all. He then came up with what he called a private solution. He felt that the use of all materials originated by other people should be legalized. In order for this to happen he felt that 2 important things had to happen. He stated that artists must embrace the fact that their work can be used freely among amateurs, but not for commercial use. The second thing that has to be done is that businesses must embrace and enable it as well. The major key to the solution is the artists choice to accept this new trend. Because technology has made our generation different, children are no longer passive, but live against the law.
I realize that one day this topic could effect me personally and directly. It is important for me to be aware of this because in this day in age, computer aided art is very important. What I learned here is that almost anything that can be found on a computer can be stolen and used in a different way. Original ideas can be misconstrued. It is possible that I will become offended if someday my work is used without my permission. And yes, I would be offended. I don't feel that this is okay, but I do understand that it can't really be stopped. When artists post work on the internet, they are making it available to other people. That is the risk that they are taking. My hope is that people could be respectful enough that if they did use my work, they would use it in a non offensive way.
This was done by a talented photoshop artist named Jose Luis Cid. He has so much cool stuff I couldn't decide which images to post. You should really check him out if you haven't before. Most of his work is abstract. He sort of creates his own reality in his work. The piece on the right is called "Soul Machine".
The next artist that I found interesting was Rohit Suvarna This artist focuses on realism. The various tools in the photoshop were used to replicate reality. This technique is displayed in the piece entitled "Angelia", in which Angelina Jolie is depicted. As you can see, this drawing done on photoshop looks almost like it could be a photograph.
The third artist is named Alex Poltavskiy. He often depicts odd characters who you wouldn't see day to day. Unlike Rohit Suvarna, he depicts the face in a very different way. His work takes on more of a cartoon style. He's pretty cool though!
