 |
| Creative Commons image from Google Images |
Copyright is something that I am directly faced with daily as I am a Graphic Designer and I teach Graphic Design. Since the first year students are concentrating so much on learning the programs and the elements of design they have a tendency to find images anywhere that belongs with their design concept. We constantly tell them to use images they get off Getty (they can download 60 high resolution images a quarter with our license), take their own or find them on another free image site. No matter what we require them to site the artist and location. The last couple of quarters I have told them about Creative Commons. Our librarians told us about it for us to use for our lectures but it is good for our students as well.
Listening to all of the videos I start to think oh, okay I understand, what they are saying makes since; then I go huh, I don’ t get it. The fair use in copyright is so gray. I get the limits of use and even the conditions make sense when they are discussed but then when you go to use it everything gets fuzzy. The main feeling I get from all the videos is that the world of copyright, as we now if from 10-15 years ago, is in flux and no one really knows what will happen and how it will end up. The Larry Lessig video really made it clear on what is happening now with copyright compared to what other revolutionary inventions faced.
The Shepard Fairey case is very interesting to me because that is in my area of expertise. We constantly hear that you can use something as long as you change it 30%. He took a photo and totally changed it by using a different medium, yet according to AP it was an exact copy. However, I think the issue is that he made a profit from his artwork. As I read the articles on this issue it seems he got in more trouble not admitting which photo he used then using the photo itself. Also the photographer is saying that Fairey should have asked him for the permission instead of AP — what a can of worms.
So here is my ending question: Is copyright different than copyright licenses?
Hi Dorreen!
ReplyDeleteYou are an amazing graphic artist, so I understand how your world is filled with copyrightable issues every micro-second… ok, pico-second! The creative world is truly in flux and thank goodness for companies like Disney who enforce the laws so well that it gives everyone else hope to know that protection still works well in certain areas. The Copyright cartoon with Disney clips made me think of you – graphical geniusness. Do you teach your students about copyrights? That seems like a valid issue that students could be made aware of in your world. The younger we educate people on this issue, then maybe we can regain our moral bearing to protect each other more. Your final question is very inquisitive. The copyright owner, holds all rights and can give other people a license to use their work for a certain price, time, and conditions. I don’t give legal advice though!!
Excellent question. I'm not sure what you mean by copyright license. Do you mean when someone is given the right to use a copyrighted work? If that's the case then yes. We know the basics of copyright, but if a creator gives a license to someone to use the work, the terms of the license would be entirely between the artist and the person getting the license. Creative Commons is basically a predetermined license to use the work in the manner set aside by the Creative Commons designation (or kind of license). That should be as clear as mud. :-)
ReplyDelete