DTC 356 Blog #6 .... The Final Take Aways

The most important take away concept of this unit is that our current system of copyright and ownership is not working in our evolving digital society. We learned that the copyright system as we know it today was created for the authors of print media long ago. It was explained in Many articles including  the article “The Musician as Thief : Digital culture and copyright law” by Daphne Keller, that  copyright was set up so that they could make a living off of their creation, and not have to worry about other creators stealing their work and claiming it as their own to make money off of it themselves. This is what it was originally intended for, after the death of the author, the copyright existed to help the family, and then it was no more.

            That being said, as the world evolved and changed in the way society values creations, so has the copyright system. As many of the creations ended up being absorbed into corporations, the copyright laws have changed to favor them. The copyright law changed to the life of the author plus 70

http://wallsistah.com/mickey-
mouse-hd-wallpapers-wallgood-com/

years. This was changed because of the Disney Corporation. Relatively recently, the characters of Mickey, Minnie and their friends were about to go into the public domain, as they were created by the Disney corporation’s founder, Walt Disney many years ago. However, the corporation refused to let them go, as they are an iconic part of their business…so they were able to get the copy write law changed to an extended period of time. This bought them time until they could get the laws changed to allow businesses to hold the copyright of an item.

You see, at the moment, American Copy Write Law is set up to favor the individual. This excludes corporations, and organizations, no matter what their nature. This has caused issues not only for corporations, but for cultural institutions as well. Copyright does not protect any content if more than one person created it, especially if that content was created long ago. This issue applies to indigenous groups all around the world. Their cultural content, such as symbols, stories, songs, and artifacts cannot be covered by copyright. Due to this, many have been used in ways that are not only inappropriate to how they are supposed to be used, but completely without permission.

This often happens by corporations, and they do not share any of the profits with the groups that created the content. As they are a group that cannot usually pin down who created the original content, it cannot be copyrighted. An example of this is the Maori tribe of New Zealand. In the video “ Guarding the Family Silver” it was discussed how the cultural content of their society was technically in the public domain, and so it was used, improperly and without permission in many different applications. These included T-shirts, car designs, video games and toys. One of the main examples was the Bionicle Toys. These toys used names and other aspects of the culture freely. It turned out that they were being used in a highly inappropriate way. It took a lot of force to get the company to comply and fix these issues.

 In a video game discussed in the movie, there was another instance of inappropriate use. Traditional female chin tattoos where placed on a male character. While it may be a challenge to stop the use of these cultural pieces of content, we need to change the way our society views copyright to aid in the groups that they originated from. While the ultimate goal is a form of true group copyright holdings, the goal for the near future is a set of restrictions on the copyright, such as the Mukurtu program that is discussed in the Jane Anderson video. While a program like Mukurtu does not give the groups copyright of the content, it does allow them to set restrictions on who can see and access what type of information. This would be to insure that the songs, rituals, symbols, etc. are used in an appropriate way.  They would ensure that anyone accessing the information had the correct credentials, such as being initiated up to a certain point, or was the correct gender. While this does not solve the issue of who gains the economic control of sensitive content, it does help to control how that content is used.

            However, there are issues with the copyright system as a whole for non-indigenous content. As of right now, the copyright program is rigid at best, t does not allow for the creator to do anything but take the copyright. This becomes problematic for the creation of new content. Building off of old content creates new content. It has been this way since before the digital age. After all, as Daphne Keller, says in her article, “New art builds on old art.”  However, the current copyright system does not allow this. There is a program working to fight this, called Creative Commons. Creative Commons allows the author of the content to explain how much copyright they want. They can say that their content must be used with attribution, or no commercial involvement, the list goes on and on.

            It is important to have a culture where individuals are comfortable sharing their work. The laws need to be equitable, and fair for all parties involved. That way, our society can move forward. Our society is like Legos, we build off of what has come before us.

DTC 375 blog # 9 Cameras in the 1990's to Today

https://www.flickr.com/photos/s
queakymarmot/448482439/

When reading chapter ten, Snap Shot, I began thinking about cameras, and how much there technology and role in society has changed since I was a little kid. I remember when I was little my parents had a camera; of course it took roles of film. Each role of film held twenty some pictures. When we would go somewhere, or have a family get together, my mom would come prepared with a couple roles of film to switch out. Even with that however, you were very careful with what you

photographed, as you were very limited on how many pictures you could take, and film was expensive. It was expensive to get the film

http://www.olympus-global.com/en/
corc/history/camera/popup/om_om3ti.html

developed as well. I had a plastic fisher Pryce camera that used real film! But I dropped it, and it broke… that was a sad day in first grade. After that, I would save my allowance, and purchase a disposable camera before an exciting event.

http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-FinePix-
XP50-Digital-Blue/dp/B006T7QTNK 

 I remember the first time we went to Disneyland, it was 2001, and they had an hour photo lab on Main Street in the park. That way a family could develop their film and get the pictures back so they could see what was on the film before they left. With digital cameras, and instantly being able to see the image on the camera, that little shop is no longer. When Digital cameras were just becoming popular, we did not have one, but my little brother’s friend’s family did. My mom took a picture of them together in kindergarten in 2003 with our film camera, and his little friend wanted to “ see it” he didn’t understand that non digital cameras did not have the ability to call up pictures for viewing. A little earlier, when my brother was a toddler, my mother went through several roles film trying to get the perfect picture of us for a Christmas photo to send out with her annual letter.

Of course now, that wouldn’t be an issue… all we would need is a digital camera with a memory card. I remember in middle school everyone had digital cameras, and they took them everywhere, even school. This was true in high school as well. Then all of the sudden with the creation

of the smart phone, digital cameras stopped being brought to school. It was easier just to take pictures
with the phone. The smart phone had accomplished what the other cellphones before had failed at… it provided a good quality camera, just as good as a digital camera, and an easy way to remove the pictures to a computer. If they just used their digital camera casually before, many people I know don’t even use theirs anymore. The last time I went on a trip, I just used my IPhone as a camera.

DTC 356 Blog # 5 Michael Jackson's Beat It!

In today’s digital world, there are many examples of songs that build off of other songs. They either pull samples from previous songs, or they cover them altogether. If they sample them, they may pull lyrics, musical rifts, or even segments of completed song. If the song is covered, then it may be an exact duplicate, just done by another band, or it could be remixed. Today, I am going to talk about a very popular song that has been covered over the years. I will also discuss a bit about free use and copyright laws.

First off, we have the song Beat It! By Michael Jackson. This is an iconic song, and is one of the King of Pop’s most popular. What most people do not know is that he pulled a sample from a previous song in order to create the song. The song is untitled, and Denny Jaeger created it in 1981. The sampled portion is in the middle of Jaeger’s six-minute song of synthesized electronic piano music. In the song Beat It, the sampled music is recognized in the very beginning, the first 15 seconds of the song. Despite the fact that part of one song was used in this one, the part that was used was so insignificant compared to the bulk of either song. Therefore, I don’t think that the song Beat It is truly transformative of the other song. I do believe that it is innovative. While the sampled bit in the beginning of the song is interesting, and gives the song a unique start, it could easily be removed, and the listener may not even notice it is gone. In the four minute and eleven second song, fifteen seconds is only six percent of the song. I would hardly call that completely transformative of the song excerpt. Instead, I would consider this song innovative and creative. Just as Michael Jackson pulled from another song, this song has been sampled and covered as well. It is not stealing, as that rift was only four percent of the six minutes and twenty seven seconds of the original song. It would not be enough to take significant income from the original artist. I do think it is covered under fair use.  

 Like the sample of piano synthesizer, this song has been rift and covered as well. Each time it has been covered, the artists covering it have added their own style to it. One such artist is the bad Fall Out Boy. Fall Out Boy is a pop punk band. Their version of the song has a much more rock feel to it then the original version. However, Fall Out Boy recorded the song as a tribute to Michael Jackson. The video the band created is full of references to his videos and performances, everything from the iconic Thriller dance, to the sparkly white glove. Covering songs is however covered under copyright law. This is true especially if the artists are covering the song as a tribute to the original artist. Which Fall Out Boy was. Other forms of use that can be legal are parody and satire. While it is a work of creativity, it is not original, it is simply an older song remixed and played in a new way. It is not stealing, and it is covered under fair use laws.  It is simply transformative. 

Works Consulted

"Beat It by Michael Jackson on WhoSampled." WhoSampled. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. <http://www.whosampled.com/Michael-Jackson/Beat-It/>.

FallOutBoyVevo. "Fall Out Boy - Beat It (MTV Version) ft. John Mayer." YouTube. YouTube, 16 June 2009. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk8Pb17pcQI&list=PL43F055B69DE7633E>.

"Michael Jackson Beat It." VEVO. Vevo, n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. <http://www.vevo.com/watch/michael-jackson/beat-it-digitally-restored-version/USSM20800056>.

"Michael Jackson's Beat It sample of Denny Jaeger's Untitled." WhoSampled. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. <http://www.whosampled.com/sample/220453/Michael-Jackson-Beat-It-Denny-Jaeger-Untitled/>.

Art in Video Games DTC 375 Post # 8

http://blog.appszoom.com/wp-content/uploads
/tumblr_mls9a6s5Jk1s3vtalo1_500.png

For the first time this semester, I have decided to 
break away from the stock blog option, and I was thinking a lot about the concept of art in video games. In video games, the style of art varies. Sometimes there are games with art that is so hyper-realistic, one does a double take at first write freestyle.

http://highdesertdaily.com/wp-content/uploads
/2014/02/Call-of-Duty-Ghosts2.jpg

glance, as they mistake it for reality, or live action video. On the other hand, video game art can look like mere 8 bit pixels. For some people, the art can make or break the game. Amongst some gamers, the hyperrealism is everything. They want a set realism to simulate action in real life. Lots of games, such as the Call of Duty series, and Grand Theft Auto series follow the realistic visuals. Other games, such as the Mario Kart games, or Papers please do not. Each game visual type has its own niche, and sometimes it is the graphics that make them successful.

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm8
43615744/tt0499549?ref_=tt_ov_i#

It is the same thing with movies. Hollywood seems to produce movies of varied styles. Some are more realistic looking and others are not. Occasionally, the way the movie looks can be its big selling point. For instance, back in 2009, the movie Avatar rocked the box office. While it did have a decent story line and interesting characters, many of my peers that I talked to all agreed to one conclusion. They thought that it was the groundbreaking special effects and computer generated imagery that made it a hit. Of course the resurgence of 3D was probably a huge hit. That being said, not every one actually liked it. Some people prefer a good story and true character driven films to flashy effects. Or they prefer humor. Just like the success of a movie depends on how well it can wow, or fit into a niche, the success of video games, and their importance is the same.

DTC 356 Post 4 : The Eye of Horus

Eye of Horus Wdjet Eye Smithsonian

An interesting object in the collections at the National Museum of Natural History is a small blue amulet of the Egyptian symbol, the “ Eye of Horus”. The amulet itself is made of blue faience, and it is believed to be from the roman period. It is believed to be from Upper Egypt, from a site called Abydos.  The collector Julia Whiting donated the amulet to the museum. While I could not find any background information specifically about this artifact and where it came from, I did read some information about the Eye amulets in general.

These depictions of the eye where often used as protection. This was not only true for the living, but for the dead as well. It was explained that they were placed with mummies. It is a well-known fact that standard grave robbers would break into tombs and steal artifacts that they thought would bring a profit to them. Like many ancient artifacts, these were meticulously crafted out of top materials, making them valuable to grave robbers. This is one way that the artifacts could move about the world.

That being said, standard grave robbers would not have been the only way these artifacts could have been removed. Centuries later, archeologists would be “ discovering “ the tombs, and not only cataloguing and studying them, but also taking there own souvenirs. This is also common, logical  At the museum they can be on display for all to see and learn from them. they also can be digitized and put online so that those who do not live near the museum can see for themselves as well.

http://www.novemberfire.com/shirtspopup/shirtpoppages/nft296s.html

knowledge. Over the years, rules and procedures work to prevent it, but in the beginning it most certainly happened. These artifacts would live in their private collections until they were put into a museum. In the immortal words of the character Indiana Jones “ It belongs in a museum”.

However, this poses some interesting questions. Since undoubtedly the museum did not get it from the original creator, only the person who donated it, where should the artifact actually be? It is definitely not an American Artifact, yet it is in an American museum. This leads into another question, where did the donator receive it from, how did it come into her possession? Perhaps she is the family member of the original archeologists that found it when they explored the tomb. In that case, should she really have been the one to “own” the artifact?  While it is gone from its original location now, whether that is a tomb or some other location, where should it really be kept? Does it belong in America? Should it be returned to Egypt? Unfortunately, I could not answer these questions with research. Beyond the small bit of information the museum provided, there was virtually no more information on this specific artifact. This was true for the museum website, and the greater Internet in general.

http://ip5cases.net/2012/all-seeing-eye-of-horus-iphone-5-cover/

While there may not have been much information on that specific artifact, , and how it is being

dealt with, a quick Google search proves that while the specific amulet may not be miss-represented or represented in an inappropriate way in the museum, often times the symbol it depicts as a whole is. The Google image search for “Eye of Horus” turned up many interesting results. Many were simply drawings of the eye, however, there were some less traditional images. These less traditional results included baseball hats, t-shirts, posters, souvenirs, tattoos, cell phone cases, an eye makeup line (Eye of Horus mascara and eyeliner), and much, much more. As a matter of fact, when one thinks of the stereotypical Egypt, and its symbols, the eye is bound to come up.

            That being said, the original meaning of the symbol is in fact religious. It is a representation of the eye of the Falcon ancient Egyptian sky god Horus. The different parts of the symbol represent different senses. Thought, smell, touch, sight, hearing, and taste are all included in the representation. Due to this, the symbol is also sometimes called the All Seeing Eye. It is also thought of as the representation of the goddess Wdjet. It is a symbol of healing and protection.

            While it was used frequently in ancient Egypt to adorn a variety of different things, it was used within reason, and in a respectful, correct way. Using the symbol on something for western profit in the twenty first century does not fall under that category.  The symbol was never intended for such frivolous uses such as makeup lines, or cell phone cases. The only instance I can think of that would be even close to its intended use would be the tattoos. However even those are most likely used in the incorrect way today. It is important to think about how to deal with artifacts, and where they came from, especially in today's digital world. 

Works Consulted 

Dun, Jimmy . "The Eyes Have It (Eye of Horus and the Eye of Re (Ra)." Tour Egypt. Tour Egypt, n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2014. <http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/eyeofhorusandre.htm>.

"Eye Of Horus" Wdjet Eye. n.d. blue faience. Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian. Washington D.C. 

"The Eye." Ancient Egyptian Religion and Mythology;  of Horus (Eye of Ra). Ancient Egypt Online, n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2014. <http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/eye.html>.