Although I am an avid user of youtube and other media sharing websites, I had never given much thought to copyright issues, and didn’t even know that Creative Commons existed. I will definitely be following the progress of Bill C32 in our Parliament, and will be careful to cite digital images and videos that I use in school assignments in the future. I think that there needs to be more awareness of these issues within the university community so that we are better able to advocate for the protection of right-holders and the creative freedom of media users.

By far my favourite thing about this course was the ability to explore my own interests within the context of course assignments and class discussions. In that spirit, I will end now with a link to a great article that explores the copyright issues of one of my favourite television shows, Glee. “Copyright: The Elephant in the Middle of the Glee Club” by Christina Mulligan argues that the creative culture promoted by shows such as Glee is endangered by unbalanced and restrictive copyright laws. Perhaps if the students at McKinley High had taken SocSci 3H03 with us, they might campaign harder for the rights of consumers to create the types of mash-ups and video remakes that have been popularized by the show.

For the Found Footage Editing Exercise, Morgan and I decided to use a film from the Prelinger Archives called Body Care and Grooming. The purpose of this film is to educate university students about proper grooming and hygiene. In my opinion, the suggestions made by this film are over-the-top and outdated. Rather than encouraging individuality and self-expression, the film encourages young adults to conform to a specific style of dress and grooming. I found the film’s declaration that “natural hair beauty is possible” especially comical, since the film encourages young women to spend endless amounts of time washing and brushing their hair. For our edited film, Morgan and I decided to focus on the segments of the film dealing with hair care. Our goal was to make the film seem like it promoted vanity and self-indulgence, rather than health and hygiene.

The original film makes use of many of the editing techniques discussed in the Goss/Ward reading to get its point across. In most scenes, close-up shots of the actors are used to show the simple beauty and clean skin and hair of the young actors. Live action shots of the actors completing daily grooming activities are interspersed with animations that illustrate the scientific aspects of hygiene. This educational component enhances the meaning of the live action sequences. Fades are used to transition between scenes. This is less distracting that a sharp cut and gives the film a more professional feel.

For our edited film, we selected four different scenes to manipulate: a girl shampooing her hair, a girl brushing her hair, a girl fluffing her hair, and a girl getting out of the shower with a smile on her face. We chose these scenes to emphasize the lengthy processes that a girl must go to in order for her hair to appear “naturally beautiful.” The scene where the girl is brushing her hair was repeated four times to emphasize the excessiveness of this action. We separated the original audio and video, and decided to play the phrase “natural hair beauty is possible” repeatedly while the images ran. Taken together, the chosen clips, repetitions, and audio are intended to convey a different meaning than the original film. Instead of being an educational film that teaches students how to properly care for their bodies, our film exaggerates aspects of self-care in order to make the girls in this film seem silly and vain.

Credit: Jayel Aheram on flickr

 For this project, my group decided to contrast sounds of war and peace. We layered three different audio tracks and changed the speed and repetition of one of those tracks to alter its meaning. The first track was firecracker noises, which were meant to sound like bombs. The second track was of an airplane, which was meant to evoke the battlefield. The third track was of a man saying “Peace, love, joy, hope, compassion, unity, equality.” The voice on this third track sounded peaceful and calm. In combination with the words being said, this track was supposed to contrast with the war sounds of the firecrackers and airplane.

After importing the three tracks into Audacity, we decided to loop the words “peace, love” in order to emphasize those words. For each repetition, we changed the speed, so that the words sounded warped and dragged out by the final repetition. For me, this effect implied that the speaker’s ability to campaign for peace and love was getting harder in the face of war. By the end of the track, the words were so distorted that it was hard to make sense of what was being said. This was meant as a commentary on how war challenges our ability to maintain hope for a peaceful resolution and the return of our loved ones.

Despite the abundance of information available on the internet and the new options that the internet makes available for allowing people to discuss ideas, it seems that our society has become more apathetic in the internet age. Instead of attending a rally to support a controversial policy, individuals can now hide behind their computer screens, voicing their opinions on blogs or clicking to “attend” an event on Facebook. Rather than reading the newspaper, many people simply scan the headlines on Google News, or have stopped reading the paper all together. The internet has given us the ability to create innovative tools for engaging the public in social issues, but it seems that this ability has mostly been left unused.

In contrast, the Graffiti Research Lab has created an online community that not only engages individuals in activist activities, but encourages its members to bring online activism into the real world.  The Graffiti Research Labs creative visual expression of political issues is having a positive impact on the public by encouraging socially conscious individuals to express their opinions in public and by bringing these messages into the public in an engaging, creative manner. In Anna’s presentation on the GRL, I was especially struck by the ingenuity of the Korean Beef demonstration. This project brought an important social issue into the public domain in a creative, non-permanent manner, combining the novelty of surprise with public engagement. For this project, members of the GRL projected laser messages onto the sides of buildings in crowded public areas. The surprise of seeing a lit-up message on the side of an otherwise boring building got the attention of the people who were in those areas and made sure that they saw the important messages being projected. By using a technology that can be easily controlled by whoever is holding the laser pointer, the GRL members were able to have random members of the public laser their own messages onto the sides of buildings. Unlike traditional graffiti, laser graffiti is not permanent. I think that this emphasises the goals of the GRL to enhance the public domain, rather than harm owners of private property or degrade the urban landscape.

In addition to its public demonstrations, I think that one of the strengths of the GRL is that it makes its technology available for activists to download from the website. Many people have an important message that they want to voice, but do not know how to go about voicing this message and getting attention. The step-by-step instructions and downloads on the GRL website encourage individuals to go out into the public and share their important ideas. This component of the online GRL community fosters further dialogue about social engagement and creates an atmosphere of sharing and inclusion. From this perspective, I think that the GRL is a great model for social activism that other, less-successful causes could learn from in order to increase awareness of their causes and goals.

Watching a re-run of The O.C. last week, I realized once again the important role that editing has in creating dramatic tension and excitement. In the scene I’ve posted below, main character Ryan confronts his brother Tray after finding out that Tray assaulted Ryan’s girlfriend Marissa (gotta love those soapy story lines!). I’ve chosen this clip as an example of how strong editing can evoke certain feelings in viewers and add an extra dimension of intrigue to an exciting event.

At first, the shots cross-cut back and forth between Ryan in his car and Tray at home. A dramatic confrontation seems inevitable, and this parallel editing builds tension as Ryan’s car is shown pulling up outside of Tray’s apartment. Ryan knocks on the door of the apartment, and a reaction shot shows Tray responding to the knock. After Tray opens the door, the camera cuts back and forth between Ryan and Tray in a series of over-the-shoulder shots. These quick paced shots increase the tension, and the choice of a shaky hand-held camera for recording the scene adds a dimension of realism. At 1:03, the camera pans back and forth from Tray’s face towards the gun in his outstretched arms, slowing down momentarily as both Ryan and Tray consider their next courses of action. After Ryan attacks Tray, the cuts speed up once again. This effect mirrors the erratic, fast paced violence of the scene, and also allows the actors to hide elements of their stage fighting. For example, at 1:47, the camera shows Ryan kicking Tray, when in reality he is probably kicking a punching bag or nothing at all. The camera then cuts to an outside shot of Marissa pulling up in her car. This echoes Ryan’s earlier arrival outside the house and indicates to the audience that another confrontation is about to occur. After Marissa shoots Tray at 2:38, the fast-paced cutting changes to slow motion shots. This indicates that the climax of the conflict has passed and that the confrontation between Ryan and Tray is about to conclude. An aerial shot at 3:02 shows an overview of the result of this confrontation. This dramatic change from close-up to long-shot re-orients the viewer, reminding them that the aftermath of this event will affect the lives of three characters in a traumatic way.

While The O.C. is certainly not known for award-winning acting or intellectually stimulating storylines, I think that credit should be given to the editors of this episode for creating an engaging and thrilling scene appropriate for a season finale. This scene is exciting and dramatic – the perfect cliffhanger for a soapy teen drama.

On June 2, Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, and James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages introduced Bill C32 to the Canadian Parliament. The bill is an attempt to modernize the Canadian Copyright Act bytaking into account new technologies such as social media, MP3s and other digital devices. As a student, I am particularly interested in the bill’s changes to copyright laws concerning education. In “Protecting Ourselves to Death: Canada, Copyright and the Internet,” Laura Murray urged the government to protect educational internet use under fair dealing terms, rather than exempt or levy educational institutions that want to access or reproduce copyright material for educational purposes. The new bill does exactly that by allowing teachers and students to use copyrighted materials in both the physical classroom and in online lessons. Education is now included in all fair dealing provisions, and exemptions specific to education have been added to the new bill. For example, teachers and students are allowed to use, copy and share copyrighted internet sources within the course environment. Online articles, diagrams, and tutorials are all included in this provision. According to the government’s official webpage on the new bill, the reason for including education under the fair dealing provision is to allow teachers to integrate new technologies and creative techniques into their lesson plans.

In my opinion, the most significant aspect of this bill is that it legalizes activities that teachers and students already participate in. Most of my professors use copyrighted images in their Powerpoint lectures, and my teachers in high school were always photocopying relevent newspaper articles to share with the class. I don’t think that this law encourages any more classroom innovation than would have existed without it, but at least educational institutions can now support their technologically savvy educators without fearing lawsuit or legal repercussions. It makes sense that education would be included under the fair dealing provision, since research, private study, commentary and criticism are already included in the provision, and are activities carried out by teachers and students. As it becomes easier to reproduce and distribute copyrighted materials, I think that copyright laws are only going to become more restrictive. Thus, it’s important that at this time, the government has chosen to protect the creative rights of students and teachers now and in the future. Just as teachers have always taught students to avoid plagiarism, I think that teaching students how to avoid breaking copyright laws will become an important component in school curriculums. With Bill C32′s support of fair dealing in education, it is more likely that educators will teach their students to support copyright law in turn.

The Prelinger Archives are a collection of 60 000 films collected by archivist Rick Prelinger since 1983. The online component of the archive is a selection of 2000 of these films, converted to a digital format and uploaded to the internet for accessible viewing and downloading. The online collection is hosted by the Internet Archive, a non-profit internet archive offering access for researchers, historians, scholars and the general public. The films in this collection are ephemeral, meaning that they were created for one-time or short time use, for purposes such as advertising, education, industry and politics. Ephemeral films are a valuable documentation of historical places, events and practices, as they reveal past persuasions and anxieties, and are a more accurate depiction of past lifestyles than highly dramatized theatrical films. In 2002, the Archives were obtained by the Library of Congress, Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division. The Prelinger Archives’ ties to the Internet Archive and the Library of Congress lend credibility to the site and ensure that the films on the site are authentic primary documents. All of the films hosted on the Prelinger Archives website are in the public domain, and users are encouraged to download, use, reproduce and share the films freely. Derivative works are permitted for both personal and commercial use. These rights are granted by the Creative Commons Public Domain License. Students, researchers, film makers and members of the public use these resources for academic work, filmmaking, mashups, social commentary and general interest activities.

Ephemeral films are an important component of our cultural heritage and our understanding of history. Without cultural artifacts, society has no way to learn from past successes and failures. Ephemeral films should be seen as historical artifacts that are able to tell a story and share important historical information. Digital archives such as the Prelinger Archives protect society’s right to know and to remember historical events. By preserving primary documents and making them accessible to the public, students and researchers are able to witness first hand the films that were watched in the past and generate their own opinions of the past based on this material. Digital archiving is an important part of the archiving process, as the digitalization of books, films and other historical works is an economical and efficient way to protect works from deterioration and loss. Laura Murray argues that copyright law discourages preservation efforts by limiting the amount of works that can be digitally copied for preservation. The Prelinger Archive’s Creative Commons license is therefore extremely important for preservation efforts, as it ensures open access to historical material for digital copying and preservation. In the same way that important historical documents are readily available at the library for research, visual media should be available and accessible online. It is important that historical documents are not only preserved, but are available for the public to learn from, discuss and explore.

Question: In light of our discussion on the importance of accessible archival material, should producers of historically significant media be required to submit their creations to the public domain?

On the other hand, my opinions about the creativity of Brazilian youth or the cool beats of artists like Girl Talk do not amount to much more than opinions. From an academic perspective, I did not find Gaylor’s arguments very convincing. Gaylor’s manifesto is based on the idea that although times have changed, the past continues to control the freedom of our present and future. Reviewer Laura Murray takes issue with Gaylor’s use of the term “free,” explaining that his crusade for the free sampling of music belittles pressing social issues and delegitimize the real reasons why copyright law should be less restrictive. Remixing has a great entertainment value and is a fun and creative outlet, but like Murray, I think that the campaign for less controlled copyright laws should focus on the ways that remixing can enhance past works of art, rather than merely “sample” from it. Girl Talk and other mashup artists have created amazing tracks from the work of other artists, but do so without the artists’ permission. If everyone used each other’s material without permission or credit, the creative industry could be in danger of collapse. In an extreme situation, there is the possibility that artists would feel that their works are being too freely used or misused that they would feel uncomfortable releasing their work to the public at all. Copyright law protects the interests of creators and rights-holders, ensuring that creative work is not used in a way that contradicts the values or beliefs of the original creator.

It is easy to see the value in both liberal and strict copyright laws, but the one-sided approach taken by Gaylor does not add to productive debates about how stringent copyright law should actually be. In Murray’s article Protecting ourselves to death: Canada, copyright, and the Internet, David Vaver refers to copyright law as a system for nurturing common cultures. I think that through discussion and debate, copyright lawyers, activists and the general public have the ability to generate new ideas and revisit old ones about copyright law in the hopes of reaching a middle ground that protects both creators, consumers, and our common culture.

Many internet users are creatures of habit, logging into the same website, search engines and email accounts day after day. My own home page is set to google.ca, and I am welcomed by the google logo each time I open my web browser or return to my home page to enter a search term. The monotony of this process is occasionally broken by a google “doodle,” a playful re-imagining of the Google logo to commemorate holidays and other special events. Last week, a Google logo to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Pac-Man included a playable version of the game right from the Google homepage!

Google is very explicit in its Permissions that these special logos are not to be recreated elsewhere without permission. Fortunately, all Google logos from 1998 onwards are archived on the Google Logo webpage, and provide a fun and fascinating look at the occasions we have celebrated over the last 12 years. Some logos are restricted to certain countries, while others, such as logos commemorating the Winter Olympics or New Years are shown on google webpages worldwide.

In comparing and contrasting the 700+ images on the Google Logo archive, it becomes clear that the images are successful because they conform to a series of rules that allows viewers to easily recognise the letters G-o-o-g-l-e and the meaning behind each specific image. Most of the logos use the familiar blue-red-yellow-blue-green-red colour pattern of the original Google logo. With some exceptions, the logos all use the same serif font, with illustrations and embellishments around the letters. Some logos, such as the one commemorating Jackson Pollock’s birthday on January 28, 2009, purposefully obscure the letters, as a nod to the abstract imagery created by the artist. The google logos make use of a range of techniques discussed in our Anatomy of Typography class. For example, some logos vary the construction of the letters (see 50th Anniversary of the Lego Brick, January 28, 2008), decrease the width of the letters (see Invention of the First Laser, May 16, 2008) or change the angular treatment of curves (see Australian Election, Nov 24, 2007). The archives show that the Google logo can be changed in an infinite number of ways, but it takes a skilled designer to balance innovative design with recognizable branding. A strong understanding of how type is constructed is one way that designers and viewers alike can gain a stronger appreciate and understanding of these types of images.