Sunday, July 29, 2012

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

Thursday, July 19, 2012

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.


Friday, July 13, 2012

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:







Friday, July 6, 2012

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
This site gives a total look at time line of the copyright issue involving Fairlee and the AP photo of Obama.
This site has archived articles about Shepard Fairey.
A blog giving thoughts about Fairlee’s actions.
Great article on technology and art using the example of  Shepard Fairey use of original photos for his art work.
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.