Copyright
From Mod Mania
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc Copyright is a set of exclusive rights that are automatically granted to the creator of a piece of work. Copyrights can be applied to many types of creative, intellectual or artistic forms of work. Copyright covers different intellectual and artistic forms of work. This “work” includes poems, thesis, plays, literary work, movies choreographic work, music compositions, audio recordings, paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs, software, radio and television broadcasts (including live performances). Industrial design can be covered by copyright laws, however some ideas may need to be covered by a set of laws outlined as Intellectual property.
Several exclusive rights typically attach to the holder of a copyright: - to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies) - to import or export the work - to create derivative works (works that adapt the original work) - to perform or display the work publicly - to sell or assign these rights to others - to transmit or display by means of digital audio transmission (XM Satellite Radio, Sirius)
Copyright laws only cover ideas that have been expressed in material form. It is not designed to cover ideas or concepts, styles or techniques used to produce the work. This means that thoughts and ideas remain free. Anybody can then create a piece of work based on that idea. This is a sensible and fair way to regulate an intangible public domain. However, this is the birthplace of an ongoing dilemma. According to copyright law, the person who first produces the work is deemed the “creator” of the work and thus the creator of the “idea”. Another problem occurs when two or more people claim to have thought of the idea first when it is nearly impossible to prove that he/she thought of an idea first. (unless it is expressed as material form or registered as intellectual property.)
Both copyright and intellectual patenting face the problematic concept of “originality”. We live in a society where information is readily available. As a result of technology and globalisation we are now able to access and share information quicker than ever before. It is become more of a user- producer based system where digital culture begins to blur the borders of copying and originality. The question to be answered is- 'how does one continue to create “original” work without being influenced by such a large cultural phenomenon?' Perhaps it is time to accept that original is no longer that, but simply a modification of an old idea. The term 'original' can be considered obsolete, as well as the term innovation. Its replacement; Revolutionary.
Innovate : bring in new ideas etc; to make changes. Any technological based product of the 21st century is now labeled as innovative. A term so often used as a marketing technique that its meaning has become warped. It is a misconception that innovation is a completely new idea. Innovation is the creation of a new product by modifying an old or existing product. However, copying still seems to have a stigma attached. It should not be forgotten that one must first copy in order to modify. And without modification we have no innovation. Copying should not always be looked at negatively. “The simplistic binary split of the original and the copy looks at a copy as something that takes away from the original or diminishes the value of the original. We need to look instead at copies as additions to the original”1
A lot of the cultural heritage we have today is a result of copying. Buildings, historical places, monuments and artifacts are all considered worthy of preservation for the future. Copying then becomes a means of carrying on important information such as architecture, science and technology, all of which are considered vital for the continuation of specific cultures.
Open Content License-
The Free software movement was created as an alternative to copyright. Traditional software licenses are specifically designed to limit the users rights and potential use of the program. The GNU General Public License (GPL) is a license that is designed to grant the user fundamental freedoms. These are: 1.Users Should be allowed to run the software for any purpose.
2.Users should be able to closely examine and study the software and should be able to freely modify and improve it to fit their needs better.
3.Users should be able to give copies of the software to other people to whom the software will be useful.
4.Users should be able to freely distribute their improvements to the broader public so that they, as a whole, benefit.
This licensing model is very different from the traditional closed content license, however, the GNU GPL is based on the copyright laws to ensure the freedoms are not removed. The fundamental condition of the GNU GPL is that any derivative work or adaption of the software must be licensed under the same terms and conditions. This is to prevents people from making a derivative piece of work and then licensing it as a proprietary code. Therefore, the software no longer remains free for everybody.
Open Content License is a system used by those who wish to have their work circulated without too many unnecessary restrictions. The creative Commons License allows people to license different kinds of content based on an open content license. It offers a flexible system of laws that can be enforced according to your desired level of restriction you wish to place on your work. The Creative Commons License is based on two major concepts:
1.Commercial Use. This gives you the option to decide whether you want anybody to make commercial use of your work. As the creator you have the right to state that your work is for non- profitable purposes.
2.Modification/ creation of derivative works. This gives you the right to determine whether people can make derivative works of the original. However, whether or not you chose this option people are still allowed to access, make copies, distribute, display and perform your works. If you do allow people to make derivatives of your work then you may impose certain conditions. You may impose a condition that the derivative work must regulate under the same license as your work. You may also prevent other people using the derivative work.
It relies on a large public domain of information that sets the foundation of “sustainable creativity”. Copyright restricting creativity.
The Open Publication License is a system that allows you to change the nature of either the creative commons license or the GNU documentation License. Clause 6 of this license allows a person to impose certain restrictions to alter and transform the license from being a free license to a relativity non free license. This clause give the licensor that ability to prevent further modifications and distribution without the permission from the licensor.
Origins of Originality
Both copyright and intellectual patenting face the problematic concept of “originality”. We live in a society where information is readily available. As a result of technology and globalisation we are now able to access and share information quicker than ever before. It is become more of a user- producer based system where digital culture begins to blur the borders of copying and originality. The question to be answered is- 'how does one continue to create “original” work without being influenced by such a large cultural phenomenon?' Perhaps it is time to accept that original is no longer that, but simply a modification of an old idea. The term 'original' can be considered obsolete, as well as the term innovation. Its replacement; Revolutionary. [Tosika]
It may be that “[our] digital culture has begun to blur the borders of copying and originality” but the question is not simply wondering how do we create “original work” – Because when was anything really original anyway? The phrases we utter, the clothes we wear, cars we drive, couches we watch TV on and even the TV programs we may watch – how much of this would you call original? Not much I bet. I want to take a look at what it means to actually be original. Ok so an ORIGIN is a starting point. You can have an origin on a map, a computer program or even a family origin. It is the point at where something begins and it can not always be accurately defined. How many people do you know who can tell you the EXACT origin of their family line? Similarly, when you are travelling from ‘A to B’ when does ‘a’ start? How can one originate at ‘a’ when you had to travel to ‘a’ in the first place? So it can all get a little confusing.
Interestingly if you check a dictionary “originality” is commonly defined as creativity. As Industrial design students many of us share a common identity as “creative people”. Would you call our recent mod projects creative? We’ve had mobile phone mods, music mods, cars and clothing, I’d definitely put these new modifications of old objects into the “Creative” collum, but I do wonder about the originality. Sure the idea of ‘modding’ a particular object by one person may be original to them, but whose to say no one else has ever thought of it before, or even done a very similar mod themselves. In fact, many of us depend on someone having completed a similar mod previously and written about it on an internet blog somewhere for us to find. In this case the idea is not original, but the creativity is not lessened.
Lets look back into history for a moment, think of all the “art movements” you can remember. Art Deco, Art Nouveau, the Baroque and Cubism fashions, Expressionism, Fauvism, the Impressionist and the Gothic architecture cathedrals, it seems one could sit here and name them forever. Interestingly no one seems to mind that in those times students would learn for many years to mimic the particular painting “style” of an artist, and continue to produce artworks in the copied technique shamelessly throughout their lives. I assume these artworks are not therefore completely “original”? Surely under our copyright laws of today this type of work would not be approved. Naturally the differing forms of architecture and building design in the past and current times also follow a styling trend. Fashionable interiors and exteriors of many of the new homes around Melbourne in particular, while viewed as modern and chic, they plainly reference the ones of a more traditional nature.
Then we have the artistic forms and the industrially designed products that are so “creative” they really must be original right? Wrong. We all have inspirations. I once listened to a milliner who talked about fishing flies as his inspiration for many of his beautiful feathered hats. If he can copy the intricate feather work used to attract fish to fishing rods, and then enlarge the scale and design hats – is that original? Designers and Mathematicians have been copying naturally occurring flora and fauna forever. The patterns, colours and arrangements that are present in just a humble garden flower are more complex then one realises, and they have provided countless forms of inspiration to many a “creative person”. Still original?
Let us move away from the world of art and design for a moment and take a glimpse at humanity. When we are young we learn to speak by mimicking the sounds we hear from our families. Soon we are taught to recognise these as language. At school we learn from out teachers and friends. We are taught right from wrong, how to say our timetables and how not to get caught talking in class. This pattern continues throughout life – as human beings we unconsciously soak up the information that surrounds us. This accumulated information forms a background for out thoughts, ideals and beliefs. Fast forward a few more years and now when I draw a chair, I draw it with all the other chairs I have ever seen in my life, in my mind’s eye.
We are uncontrollably conditioned by our surroundings and this affects the information we regurgitate back into the world. As a result, our creativity is simply a reaction to the world in which we exist, and hence, is limited by it also.
So when do creativity and originality coincide? How it is that one word can define the other when the two are so autonomous? One can not help but wonder why it is that we obsess over that which we call ‘intellectual property’ and find reason to impose copyright laws on our apparently “original” work. Because what is originality anyway? How do you suppose we go about tracking the origin/s of a particular idea, that is determines by every moment of your life?
It is not original works that are born of creativity, but creativity that is inherent of our origins.
