I am sure the Wizzz and your $13,000 payment taught your students extra lessons. They probably were not previously exposed to such a situation. Having to pay so much to do this taught your students a bit about copyrights and royalties I am sure.
In the case of the Obama Hope poster the alteration of the image was initially considered enough to escape persecution. Altering an image in my opinion is a lot like the sampling / remix situation in music. I believe adding the girl’s image onto the President’s birth certificate and in the situation room during the Bin Laden raid is parody, acceptable under fair use. Did the girl or her parents give permission for their part in it? Probably not but I believe that everyone who publishes images are fairly vulnerable to fair use distribution of their image.
Deborah Sanders wrote:
Way before I began teaching on a permanent basis I was a caregiver aunt as well as a mother. As a result, I was always involved in various school projects with either my sons or other children. It was during these times that I first became aware of the complexity and legal restrictions regarding copyright issues. When it became necessary to acquire photographic or clip art images for my little ones educational needs -- naturally, I choose to copy images from books and/or magazines. One of the places I frequently went to for photocopies at that time was Kinkos. In most instances I needed enlargements and sometimes laminating, which required going to customer service. When copying certain kinds of material I was informed by the customer service representative of the restrictions involved as well as the copyright laws that they were governed by. I became aware of the number of parents and teachers who would try to duplicate copyright material. I quickly learned the catch phrase “educational purposes” from a fellow parent/teacher. Presto! - if I advised the Kinkos representative that the copies were to be used for educational purposes, I would be allowed to make the necessary copies. This trick worked for many years -- until copyright infringement lawsuits increased - then my catch phrase became null and void. Educational purposes or not, the time came when parents and teachers were unable to duplicate copyright material for any purpose. This is where Creative Commons has become a delightful polish to my repertoire of image sharing ideas. I must say I’m learning and following the easy protocols which include: giving credit where it is due, not using the material for my own personal gains and, if used on a blog, I will provide the link so others will know how they can or cannot use the material.
Upon leaving corporate employment (IBM) and becoming more immersed into my academic interest in the field of education, I enhanced my theatrical talent and began producing plays for students to perform for their parents. During this time period the Broadway play “The Lion King” was an astonishing hit with the elementary students. Since there was no motive for personal gain, two other teachers and myself decided to produce our own version of this play. The year after that my colleagues and I came up with the idea to produce a play to obtain money for scholarships for music lessons, instruments and dance lessons for students in the Newark area. We had to pay $13,000.00 for the rights to produce our version of “The Wiz” - entitled “The Wizzz”. This experience gave me some idea of copyright rules and regulations.
As I watched the TED video -- the segment on Remix - Recreating/Reinventing a new piece of work proved to be another gray area of copyright regulations that digs deep into the soul of Creative ART! I was all but rolling over in my chair as I watched how the use of technology turned the esteemed, politically polished image of President Bush into a halariouse singing President! I can’t help but giggle when I think of the Royal Wedding’s little Bridesmaid. The 3 year old bridesmaid is holding her ears because the sounds of the air planes overhead is too much. She was so adorable, but she quickly became an exploited child. There is a video on the Internet that has gone viral. The Media interprets her jester as “Enough Already.” My question is: who gave the creator of the video free will to place this child’s face within clips -- such as -- The Donald speaking “You’re Fired”, the British singer Susan Boyle from American Idol, Tom Cruise’s famous jump on Opera’s couch, then on the President’s Birth Certificate and the situation room at the White House. Is this legal? Would this type of image usage be called a Remix -- is this Fair Use? Who is it “fair” to? I would be furious if this was done with the image of my child. These are the gray areas within the framework of copyright laws, which I’m unsure of.
Follow me to Deborah Sanders blog
No comments:
Post a Comment