Group items tagged

While it is true that oneof the goals of the Copyright Act is to discourage infringement, it is by no means the only goal of that Act. The Constitution grants to Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. We have often recognized the monopoly privileges that Congress has authorized, while "intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward," are limited in nature and must ultimately serve the public good. For example, in Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975), we discussed the policies underlying the 1909 Copyright Act as follows: "The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly . . . reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an `author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good." (Footnotes omitted.) We reiterated this theme in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349-350 (1991), where we said: "The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but `[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.' To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work." (Citations omitted.) Because copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works, it is peculiarly important that the boundaries of copyrigh

After watching the video I became interested in the blurred line between creativity and mental illness. 

creativity comes about as the result of creative re-use of others' work..

Parents and pre-school teachers are always correcting children, telling them to color within the lines. But CNN's Carolina A. Miranda tells us why we need to let kids be creative and color "outside the line." 

Creative Commons according to CC: The infrastructure we provide consists of a set of copyright licenses and tools that create a balance inside the traditional "all rights reserved" setting that copyright law creates. Our tools give everyone from individual creators to large companies and institutions a simple, standardized way to keep their copyright while allowing certain uses of their work - a "some rights reserved" approach to copyright - which makes their creative, educational, and scientific content instantly more compatible with the full potential of the internet. The combination of our tools and our users is a vast and growing digital commons, a pool of content that can be copied, distributed, edited, remixed, and built upon, all within the boundaries of copyright law. We've worked with copyright experts around the world to make sure our licenses are legally solid, globally applicable, and responsive to our users' needs. The link above shows major users of this.... site? What should we call Creative Commons?

What is creativity, where does it come from? It is kinda dry, but very interesting. 

So maybe everyone else knows about this but I just found out you can remix videos in Youtube that are in the creative commons. Pretty cool.

Tim Brown mentions one psychedelic drug experiment that helped the professionals to overcome their creativity-block (start from 11:57 for only 3 minutes if you don't want to watch the whole talk).

Remix: an act of social creativity; a new way of communitcating cross nationaly, cross culturally, spanning history and present/ fiction film and reality, displaying a relationship, creating a relationship.

Ways to "remix" magazines, or ways to work on our first remix project. 

A TED talk on how remix is not only created by society, but also influential to the spirit of creation and innovation present in the culture that molds it. 

"UCLA Professor of Law Neil Netanel discusses the evolution of sampling and the jurisprudence of sampling, and the current state of copyright law in regard to the practice. He also discusses where the line between "fair use" and copyright infringement is currently considered to be, and the risks that artists take on when they choose to sample existing works." Exactly what we talked about in class: uncertainty, dangers, chained creativity (fewer sampling due to the expense of clearing rights, as well as having to hide the samples deep within the track due to fear of lawsuits).

"Culture in Decline" homepage - the creator Peter Joseph, surrounded by all the most iconic images of our visual culture. All the images are so painfully familiar, so ingrained in our western minds, yet so upsetting and maddening. We close our eyes and cover our ears while our culture is declining because we don't want to know the truth. Instead of helping the ones in need, we lose ourselves in consumption (iPhones, Nike shoes, hamburgers, cars, bars, beauty salons, you name it!). It's time to wake up. Actually, the time to wake up is way past due: we're already late, and the damage is done. It's time for a serious damage control. (What I now have in mind for my creative project will require a portion of Peter Joseph's work).

I'm thinking of touching on global social problems in my creative project. "Zeitgeist" movies reveal and explain these problems in the best and most understandable way possible.

OMG. People's creativity.

(re)creating content is not about technique but importance is democratization of creation to say different things

A transcript from 2005 of the notorious Bill O'Reilly and his guest who discuss the remix

Lessig is interviewed about Remix Culture, the Creative Commons, and his opinion of copyright law. He basically claims that copyright law is out of date with technology and the needs of society. He specifically references the Kahle v Ashcroft(2003) case and MGM vs Grokster(2005).

This is a great remix of Mr. Rogers!  Also, it's about creativity!  It brings in the aspect of auto-tune into remix as well.

total creativity! how did they do it? what technologies did they use? can we do this? yes...we...can!