Month: May 2010

Copyright: A Day in the Life of Jack – by “Matthew C”

~ bradevanrosen ~ Leave a comment

For our final project, Logan, Michael, and I created a short film about a normal college student named Jack who tries to go through a day following copyright law.  He soon realizes how difficult the task is and hilarity (hopefully) ensues.  A scholarly professor type keeps a running tab throughout the day of Jack’s various violations and provides brief explanations of some of the legal issues.  The film should illustrate the massive gap between the letter of the law and the way we live our lives.

We were inspired by articles like the Tehranian reading in which a law professor racks up multi-million dollar damages for seemingly innocuous behavior.  By portraying the logical conclusion of copyright laws, hopefully we’ve helped in the crusade to unmask absurdity.

It’s been a great class and I hope everyone enjoys the video!

Because of issues with the file size, the video had to be uploaded as 8 separate clips.  The following is the link to the first clip of 8. The rest of the clips will automatically play when the first one is complete.

Re:Re:Re:Mix. A project by Brendan Griffiths and Brian Watterson. – by “Brendan G”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 1 Comment

Re:Re:Re:Mix is a project about the issues and implications surrounding fair use and copyright law. In 2007 YouTube released Content ID, a system that enables copyright holders to choose in advance whether they want to track, monetize, or remove their content from YouTube entirely. The system uses fingerprinting technology to identify a copyrighted work by comparing audio and video tracks. If either match, the video will be flagged by the system and the copyright holder will be notified. The problem is that Content ID doesn’t consider fair use. And it can’t, because only a human can discern between an infringing work and one that falls under fair use, a doctrine which allows for commentary, news reporting, research, teaching and scholarship, and criticism.

As makers we feel it is important to highlight these problems and inform other artists of their rights. All creative works are referential to some degree, and to prohibit works from entering the zeitgeist of Internet culture is in direct conflict with the original intention of copyright law: to promote the progress of science and useful arts.

re-re-re-mix.com