CCV Week 12 - Remixing With Copyright Law In Mind

This is our last week of class and the topic is remixing and copyright law using StephenColbert's interview with Lawrence Lessig as the focal point of study.  Lessig, an advocate of change to the copyright law as it is now, has written a book titled “Remix:Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy.” 

Wikipedia gives an excellent bio of Lessig.  In it they note “he is a director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University and a professor of law at Harvard Law School. Prior to rejoining Harvard, he was a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. Lessig is a founding board member of Creative Commons and Rootstrikers, and also is on the board of MapLight.  He is on the advisory boards of the Sunlight Foundation and Americans Elect.  He is a former board member of the Free Software Foundation, Software Freedom Law Center and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.”

Lessig certainly has an estimable career and believes firmly that copyright law needs to be changed in order to move this society forward.  As it is, in Lessig’s view, the law makes criminals of our young instead of encouraging them to be creative and collaborative.

I find myself still believing firmly in the copyright law, but I am also going to try and look at copyright law through the eyes of Lessig.  His focus is more on video and music copyright rather than text.  He brings up the examples of kids mixing copyrighted music with YouTube video and in turn used by the same media companies who issue threats when that said music is downloaded.  What Lessig is looking for is a more lenient copyright law that would allow for downloading of music by kids for their own creative purposes. 

A suggestion for remix of the Colbert interview with Lessig was included with this assignment.  It was optional.  And, as I thought of ways to do it, I realized it could be done with music with a Creative Commons license.  Also, I find I cannot do it out of respect for Lessig. 

Resources:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/215454/january-08-2009/lawrence-lessig
http://www.amazon.com/Remix-Making-Commerce-Thrive-Economy/dp/1594201722#_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig

CCV Week 11 - The Long Tail Theory

The Long Tail theory explains expanding sales in the niche markets.  Chris Anderson, editor in chief of Wired magazine, writes about this phenomenon in his book published 2006  titled “The Long Tail: Why the Future ofBusiness Is Selling Less of More.”  

Using marketing resources such as reviews by customers and recommendations of similar products, companies such as Amazon, Netflix, Google, iTunes, Audible and eBay have expanded their sales from mass market products to more select niche items; in essence, selling less of one or two well known items to selling more of a variety of items not usually seen on shelves in stores. 

Anderson points out that accessibility of production tools (such as GarageBand for musicians or Audacity for radio show hosts now podcasters) and the internet for distribution of those products are also necessary to both produce a niche product and allow access to that product.

Thanks to the internet my world is enriched.  I have choices I never had before.  I can explore different interests through Amazon, Netflix, Google, iTunes, Audible and eBay.

I can give extraordinary gifts.  I can help support artists through purchase of their crafts or music. 

If I owned a business I could expand my customer base through the internet. I also could expand my inventory.  If I wanted to try my hand at podcasting or blogging or vlogging I could set up a website or build an audience and perhaps start a new successful career.

Indeed, the phenomenon of the “Long Tail”  affects everyone’s life by giving more choice.

Resources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail

http://www.longtail.com/about.html

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html

http://www.amazon.com/The-Long-Tail-Business-Selling/dp/1401302378

Week 10 - Thoughts about Podcasting

As an avid listener of National Public Radio shows in the drive to and from work each day, I questioned the value, success or even usefulness of podcasting when this venue was introduced this week in Multimedia Apps and Tools.  But the more I read about podcasting the more I see it as a viable form of broadcasting.

A few reasons to support the value of podcasting can be found in an interview with former radio show hosts Dave Jagger and Geri Jarvis at About.com titled “Dave and Geri: When Radio Turned its Back on Them - They Turned Up the Heat:  How Two Long-Time Radio Personalities Are Leveraging Podcasting” by Corey Deitz, About.com guide.  Jagger notes that podcasting is “having a conversation with the listener and at the same time trying to engage them to participate as well. Like radio... but not!”  He also notes the listener is able to stop the podcast, reverse it, and listen again to segments of the podcast.

Dave and Jeri’s podcasts can be found at their website: http://www.daveandgeri.com/.

A few other podcasts that look interesting can be found at these websites:
http://www.otrpodcast.com/  (Old Time Radio Shows)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts  (BBC Podcasts)
http://www.podcastingnews.com/content/  (Podcasting News)
http://www.npr.org/sections/technology/  (NPR’s audio stories)

And my favorite podcast:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/series/techweekly (The Guardian’s Tech Weekly Podcast)

A great definition of podcasting with useful reasoning about podcasting in general can be seen at Google Plus Today.  In essence it states that podcasts are audio files that can be downloaded to a portable digital media player and listened to at the listener’s convenience. 

Our project for the Week 10 is to create a podcast which I will post next week and which brings me to free apps for podcasting.  Most how-to articles and books about podcasting suggest Audacity and GarageBand.  In a one-day workshop I attended the instructor suggested Podomatic for that workshop.

There are many more aspects of podcasting that prove interesting for discussion and can be covered at another time.

Resources:

http://radio.about.com/od/podcastin1/a/aa073009a.htm

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/podcasting-for-dummies/id129278483
http://www.podcastingnews.com/topics/Podcasting_Software.html

Week 9 - Vlogging "On the Road"

This week's project is to create a video showing an aspect of our lives - where we live or something we do.  I chose to create a video of Lake St. Catherine State Park which has a wonderful beach for swimming.  I also filmed School Street which would be equivalent to another town's Main Street.

Both videos were filmed while walking which resulted in movement in the film, less so with the Lake St. Catherine video.  Since then I have been researching ways to correct that problem and found that YouTube does correct the problem to some degree.  Another option which provides an in-depth correct is Deshaker which is used with VirtualDub, a video capture application that is licensed under GNU General Public License.

At this time I am posting the videos that were corrected with YouTube.

"On the Road at Lake St. Catherine"

"On the Road in Pawlet, VT

Week 8 - The Making of a Vlog

The project this week is to make a vlog that will teach something.  I chose to teach how to cover a book for a library.  It took two different digital cameras and four filmings to finish the project.  This film is far from perfect but you will know how to cover a book that will last for years in circulation.

Week 7 - Kindle 2, Text–to-Speech Function, and Copyright Law

On February 9, 2009 the Kindle 2 with text-to-speech function was put on the market by Amazon. 

By February24th in a op-ed piece, Roy Blount Jr., president of the Author’s Guild, proclaimed the Author’s Guild opposition citing the copyright law which grants those rights to the individual author.  By offering the e-book with an audio function, Amazon was infringing upon the individual’s copyrights.

February 27th saw Amazon announce the fact they would adapt the Kindle in an effort to include a way to turn off the text-to-speech option on individual titles.  That did not prove to be the end of the strife that followed the release of the Kindle 2.  A good chronological telling of the events that followed the February release of the Kindle 2 is told by Daniel Fyre in the “Braille Monitor.”    In essence the National Federation of the Blind decided to get involved.  They formed the Reading Rights Coalition which would stop the Authors Guild from trying to eliminate the text-to-speech function of the Kindle 2.

According to a 2012 how to piece by Matt Skaggs offered by “Salon,” an online magazine which is part of the Salon Media Group the text-to-speech function of Kindle is offered only for titles that the author has granted those rights.

I have to say I do agree with the Authors Guild.  In my view that audio version is a derivative piece of work and ought to be covered by copyright.  Using Skaggs’ directions to turn on the text-to-speech function, I wonder how a person with a sight impairment could find the way to the text-to-speech operation.  Certainly something easier or more accessible needs to be created for the visually-impaired.  I have not done any further research as to what is available other than audio books offered by libraries.

And I do know there are free text-to-speech apps available.  I have not tried them and cannot attest to their usability. 

Part of the National Federation of the Blind Association’s argument for Kindle’s text-to-speech function was the accessibility of newly published books.  For Vermont residents members of Vermont’s Green Mountain Library Consortium offers free audio books to its patrons.  Many of these books are newly released or best sellers.  Compatible devices for the audio books are listed at the Green Mountain Library Consortium site.

There are many perspectives to this text-to-speech application on Kindles and all are understandable. Each viewpoint set forth by the representatives of authors, the visually-impaired and Amazon presents a reasonable side to the debate.

Resources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/opinion/25blount.html

http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/05/04/digital-storytelling-copyright-law-and-e-book-audio-readers/

http://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm09/bm0906/bm090603.htm

http://techtips.salon.com/turn-text-speech-kindle-2304.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon_(website)

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/02/copyright-fight/

http://dvice.com/archives/2009/03/kindle_2_the_re.php

http://ireaderreview.com/2009/05/05/kindle-dx-vs-kindle-2/

Week 6 - Copyright, Fair Use and the Graphic Arts

A prime example of how delicate the line between fair use and copyright law is shown clearly in the legal actions by Associated Press and Shepard Fairey over a photo Fairey had taken from Google images and altered in an artful manner with the use of a graphic art applications such as PhotoStop and Illustrator. 

This image was used as a poster by the Obama campaign.

Was Shepard Fairey part of President Obama’s campaign staff or hired by staff to create that poster?  The answer is no.  Shepard Fairey is a street artist who came to the attention of the traditional world of art after creating that poster image of President Obama that resonated throughout America.  President Obama’s campaign workers used that image for campaign gatherings as well as for fundraising purposes.

The poster in question was created early in 2008.  Since then Fairey has used the image commercially on such items as sweatshirts and done quite well.  He also created a mixed-media stenciled portrait from that very image which the National Portrait Gallery, located in Washington, purchased in 2009.

Mannie Garcia was the original photographer of that particular image of Candidate Obama and on temporary assignment for Associated Press in 2006.  Fairey did not give credit to the Garcia or Associated Press for that photo. 

Different articles, blogs and opinion pieces in various papers give different versions of Garcia’s reaction to his photo being used as a basis for Fairey’s graphic art image.  A Wall Street piece claims Garcia was irritated and believed photography on the web was not free for use.  A Philly Enquirer blog claims Garcia was not angry.

In the end it was Associated Press who asked for licensing terms from Fairey for use of the photo from which Fairey has profited.  Fairey subsequently sued Associated Press claiming they had no rights to his end product since hechanged the image to the degree that it became another image and not a copiedimage.  Since then they have come to a settlement.

If Associated Press or Garcia had used a Creative Commons license for that image or Fairey had sought out the source of the photo to ask permission to use with a credit, this disagreement may never have happened.  (I believe it would have happened  in any event but would have settled quickly.) In his suit against Associated Press, Fairey claimed the changes to the original photo transformed that image to a totally different product, therefore, protected under Fair Use.

Copyright laws exist to protect the owner of a piece of artwork and for good reason.  Fairey did alter the photo but it was still similar – very similar – to the original image.  Fairey certainly is very creative and is able to turn a very good photo into a very successful piece of graphic art.  But he did not take that original photo and acknowledgement of the photo’s origin needed to be given.

Resources

http://blogs.phillynews.com/inquirer/sceneonroad/2009/01/a_last_word_hopefully_and_upda_1.html

This site gives a total look at time line of the copyright issue involving Fairlee and the AP photo of Obama.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/f/shepard_fairey/index.html

This site has archived articles about Shepard Fairey.

http://anarchyjim.digitalanarchy.com/adobe-photoshop-plugins/obamas-poster-uses-stolen-photo/

A blog giving thoughts about Fairlee’s actions.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123716866712036921.html

Great article on technology and art using the example of  Shepard Fairey use of original photos for his art work.

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

Find out about Creative Commons here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/shepard-fairey-ap-suit-dropped_n_807800.html

More information about the Shepard Fairey Vs. A.P. lawsuit.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/hope_for_copyright/
The Fairey suit told from the perspective of the legal aspects of copyright and fair rights.

Week 5 - David Lasnier, iTouch artist, talks about his art with Wired.com.

David Lasnier graduated from Villa Arson art school, Nice, France, in 2000.  From that point he has worked as a video artist who occasionally draws.  Last month Lasnier started creating art on his iPod Touch with Brushes and uploading the art to the Brushes Gallery at Flickr. And there has been a result from his foray into digital arts. Lasnier is now painting again, using acrylics on canvas as his medium.

The app, Brushes, was the winner of the Apple Design Award in 2010 and was used to create the cover of the June 1, 2009 issue of The New Yorker.  It costs $4.99 at http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/brushes-iphone-edition/id288230264?mt=8/.

In the interview at Wired.com Lasnier talks about the limitations of the iPod and how it increases his creativity which in turn increases his productivity.  He spends one hour creating an image!  The objects he chose to work with are everyday objects such as the corner of his spiral notebook, ink jar and staple remover.  He mentions the fun he had with each image. 

.

According to Lasnier digital art as he is creating it is not marketable.  How feasible is it to print?  And look how readily available it is through galleries in The Cloud. 

Do I agree with him?  He certainly has a point.  Have you ever tried to print out a color document and had it match the exact color you had painted?  In my view a printer cannot mix colors as an artist can.The only place it remains as creative as the artist meant it is in The Cloud.

But there is a progression toward viewing digital art as an art form.  The Austin Museum of Digital Art - located in Austin, Texas - sums their philosophy of digital art quite aptly at their website:

"AMODA defines digital art as art that uses digital technology in any of three ways: as the product, as the process, or as the subject."

My foray into the digital arts world has included the creation of two paintings. They took quite a bit of time and effort.  I first used ArtPad and then decided to use SumoPaint because it offered more tools which I thought would be necessary for this course.  It certainly was fun. 

The ArtPad image titled “Summer in Vermont” can be see at ArtPad where they show the creation of the image from the very start.  The SumoPaint image titled "Fall is Here" is shown below.

Resources:

http://www.wired.com/culture/art/multimedia/2009/02/gallery_brushes

Interview with David Lasnier

http://www.amoda.org/about/digitalart.php

Austin Museum of Digital Art

http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/

Digital Arts Gallery

http://www.digitalartistdaily.com/

A magazine for digital artists

http://www.withdigitaleyes.com/pgs/digiart.htm

A digital artist's website

"Fall is Here"

Creative Commons

Week Four in Multimedia Apps and Tools at CCV

This week’s blog assignment is to write about Creative Commons.

What is Creative Commons exactly?  It is a non-profit organization which offers artists of all media (art, music, and print) the option to alter the copyright to his work.

Sharon Housley at RSS Specifications (http://www.rss-specifications.com/creative-commons.htm) writes a clear picture of the exact nature of Creative Commons.  She lists the different ways an artist can change his copyright as follows:

NonCommercial - A non-commercial license lets others copy, distribute, perform creative works and derivative works, but only for noncommercial purposes (anyone using the creative works cannot profit from it).

ShareAlike - A ShareAlike license allows others to distribute derivative works under a license identical to the one held by the original copyright holder.

NoDerivative Works - A NoDerivative Works clause allows others to copy, distribute, display and perform the exact copywritten works and no derivative works can be created.

Attribution - An Attribution license means creative works can be copied, distributed, displayed, or performed and derivative works can be created, provided that appropriate credit to the original copyright holder is given.

Many artists use Creative Commons to offer their art free of charge to the public.  They may want more exposure for that specific work or for themselves as an artist.  I hesitate to write more an artist’s reasons to acquire a Creative Commons license because each artist would have his own personal motivation - which might not include business reasons.

There are a number of sites that offer music, art, and published works with Creative Common licenses.  Here are a few.

Magnatune

http://magnatune.com/

This site offers music of all genres for a monthly membership fee of $15.00.

Free Music Archive

http://freemusicarchive.org/

This site offers music with creative commons licenses at no charge.  You do need to register for an account and they have a donate button located at the top of the page.  Recently they have added a page to include individual subscriptions to DRAM (Database of Recorded American Music) which has only been offered to universities and libraries.  A donation is required for the individual subscription.

These sites offer listings of free video, photos, and music.

http://freemusicarchive.org/curator/creative_commons

http://www.socialbrite.org/sharing-center/free-music-directory/

http://top40.about.com/od/top40andpoponline/tp/freemusic.htm

http://www.socialbrite.org/sharing-center/free-video-directory/

There is an interview with John Buckman, founder of Magnatune, at Rules for the Revolution which was hosted by Colette Vogele which is required before writing this week’s blog.  It proves very interesting and certainly clarifies Buckman’s stand on free downloading of music.  His website offers free music downloads with a membership requiring a monthly fee.  Buchman believes musicians should keep their rights to their music.  He also explains Creative Commons and describes how his company works. 

Colette Vogele is a copyright attorney at Microsoft as well as a President and co-founder of Without My Consent (a website for artists who have their works taken without regard to their copyrights, founder of Rules for the Revolution  where Ms Vogele offers podcasts about copyright laws and Creative Commons.

There are a number of other sites with Creative Commons projects and one has rapidly become a favorite of mine.  It is called The Commons and was put together by Flickr and The Library Of Congress. You will find photos there that are part of the public’s photo archives as well as have the opportunity to share any information you have about the photos posted on the site.

A list of other Creative Commons projects can be found at this site http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-creative-commons-projects-pay-attention/.

 

 

What I mentioned in this post is just a bit of what is available that will describe or explain Creative Commons and how they help artists. 

Week 3 – Kevin Kelly talks about “the next 5000 days of the internet” at Ted.com

Kevin Kelly’s discourse on the future of technology at Ted.com left me with some reservations about open-source software and the progression of technology in our lives.  Some of his comments stood out more than others.

At one point he talks about the next 5,000 days on the web culminating in construction of “a single global machine” that works the same as a brain.  “The difference is the machine is doubling every two years. However your brain isn’t doubling every two years.”

 He goes on to say, “If we say this machine right now that we made is about 1 HB (human brain) and if we look at the rate this is increasing, in 30 years from there will be 6 billion HB’s. So by the year 2040 the total processing of this machine will exceed the total processing power of humanity in raw bits and such.”

Kelly states three consequences of this. “We are giving it a body.  We are re-structuring its architecture and thirdly we are going to become completely co-dependent on it.”

There is so much he said before and after those few quotes I have written here and each point resonates.  But it was at this point I began to wonder if he was talking about a concept I had just heard a bit about – singularity.  Singularity is described as “the technological creation of smarter-than-human intelligence” at the Singularity Institute website.  Other words used to describe Singularity on the Institute's website are as follows: “Artificial Intelligence, direct brain-computer interfaces, biological augmentation of the brain, genetic engineering, ultra-high-resolution scans of the brain followed by computer emulation.”

Then I went searching for more on Kevin Kelly and found that he "dismisses singularity."  He sees it as only one scenario according to a 2010 Singularity Institute interview listed on YouTube and on the Singularity Institute weblog.  Right at the start Kelly notes that he has one side of himself “that likes to keep technology at arm’s length.”   He goes on to say that “we really do not know what intelligence is.”  Kelly also talks about his past experiences in this interview.

Just watching the video at Ted.com does not give a total view of Kelly and the more I found about his ideas the more interesting and less ominous they became.  The 2010 Singularity Institute interview certainly helped made more clear what he meant by become “co-dependent” as a consequence in the scope of thought about a single global machine with links or “portals” to it that need no storage because everything will be in the cloud.

Resources

http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_kelly_on_the_next_5_000_days_of_the_web.html

http://www.singularityweblog.com/kevin-kelly/

Ted.com

http://singinst.org/

"Computing on the Cloud"

“Computing on the Cloud” has been part of my online experience since 2004. At that time I started University of Vermont’s School Library Media Sequence. We accessed articles and other information through an online system similar to Moodle and posted a number of times each week to that forum.

Before that my online presence included searching for information, accessing a game or two and sending emails through Microsoft Outlook. I can remember playing one game once and thinking I would not do that again. It seemed so risky!

Now I look to “Web 2.0” for email, e-books, Google Docs, blogging, social networking through Facebook, taking online courses, an internet telephone, as well as information and databases for my professional life. I also have an account on a library site where I keep track of items checked out. I use a pharmacy with an online system that is located in a neighboring town. "Computing on the Cloud" is an incredibly useful and amazing organizational way of computing.

And now the risky side of these amazing apps and tools has reared its ugly head.  I just read “Computing In the Cloud: Who owns your files?” by Laura Sydell posted at NPR. This article is one of the reading requirements for week two in this course (Multimedia Apps and Tools at CCV). The article (podcast also available) chronicles one person’s loss of email and photos posted “in the cloud.” One day a password stopped working and all was lost. Thankfully NPR intervened. As a result Google checked into the situation and restored access stating
“some sort of security issue” according to Sydell in her article.

Have you ever read the user agreements to those accounts you use? I haven’t. I just downloaded Google Drive today and checked “I agree to the terms and conditions of use” without reading the particulars. 

After reading Sydell’s piece I am wondering if I ought to invest in the latest Microsoft Office Suite and an external hard drive allowing for backup of all my documents, emails and photos. Perhaps I ought to find that "Terms and Conditions of Use" where I checked my agreement and read it.

As I am writing this I know I will not be doing that until I purchase my next computer.  However, I will purchase a flash drive.  And I will continue my Google account as well as all my other “Web 2.0” connections.


                                                                  

Multimedia Apps and Tools - First Week

This is the first week of Multimedia Apps and Tools at Community College of Vermont.

I am hoping to become familiar enough with technology to use what it offers with ease.

The first step in this course – use of a digital camera, downloading and editing a photo, uploading the photo to a profile – has been intensive.  I am not saying it was difficult just full of minute decisions and chances that prove to be wearing.

And now I am even questioning the language I use as I write.

Everything I do in this course will either be observed by others or graded by a teacher.  That thought alone produces anxiety.  But that is what this course is about – moving beyond the beginning stages of something new where negativity reigns until the content and form becomes so well know it becomes ordinary.

This is also my first class in Moodle but not my first online class. 

My technology knowledge, for the most part, is self-taught.  The remaining knowledge comes from librarycourses offered at the University of Vermont.  In fact, a requirement of one of those library science courses was to start a blog.  I have since deleted it and will say no more about it. 

Yes I read blogs and find them helpful.  Those helpful blogs are about education, technology, and writing.  I even read EHow blogs and find the concise directions those bloggers give most useful.

Time to move onto another assignment posted in “Week One” of Multimedia Apps and Tools.