Art + Its Sources: The Image As Information

Assigned Writings - Open Source Culture: Lessig, Lethem, Rip! Paper #1

Angela Possinger
VARTS 530
Professor Joy Garnett
February 11, 2010

Steps Towards Enhanced Sharing and Communication   

In the online lecture “Free Culture” presented by Lawrence Lessig, four points are highlighted as a refrain to clarify and simplify the complex issues of copyright, copyright law, ideas of originality and influence, the benefits of open access, and more. First, Lessig asserts that “creativity and innovation always builds on the past;” second, that “the past always tries to control the creativity that builds on it;” third, that “free societies enable the future by limiting the power of the past;” and finally, that “ours is less and less a free society.” A similar theme is represented in the article “The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism” by Jonathan Lethem, and the film Rip! A Remix Manifesto, written and directed by Brett Gaylor. Though the refrain is not an all-encompassing description of the issues and examples presented by the three sources, it serves as a guideline for the basic premises common to the diverse works.   

Excluding the nature of Lethem’s article as an ironic, plagiarized – or “collage text” (Lethem 71) – article about plagiarism, the points brought up offer particularly interesting insight into the nature of creativity as being, by nature, influenced by the past. In literature, the use and reuse of familiar themes is widespread, for “literature has always been a crucible in which familiar themes are continually recast” (Lethem 59). The use of past ideas and stories, Lethem argues, is not necessarily negative, for such classic works as Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, and Leonard Bernstein’s West Side Story could be considered as influenced by Ovid’s “Pyramus and Thisbe,” but the ability of each author to build on, adapt, and potentially improve the works is an ability that is inherently useful and important. Perhaps the retelling of familiar themes – rags to riches, trickster, or creation stories, for example – is often completed because these themes are worthy representations of the human experience through time.   

Both Lessig and Gaylor also comment on the influence of the past, and move towards discussion of the second refrain, that the past always tries to control the creativity that builds on it, by presenting the story of Walt Disney and the Disney’s Corporation’s protection of its cartoon creations; particularly, Mickey Mouse. A lengthy list of Disney animated full-length and short films, including such classics as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Pinocchio, the Steamboat Willie short, and many more, were directly influenced by classic fairy tales (particularly those of the Brothers Grimm) and other pop culture sources of the time. After the death of Walt Disney, the Disney Corporation in turn fought (and continues to fight) for strict control of Disney characters’ use. As Lessig noted, the “protection” of Mickey Mouse was considered one of the reasons for institution of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, which extended copyright to last 70 years after the death of the creator and serves as a clear and powerful example of the ability of the past to control the creativity of the future.   

The third claim, that free societies control the influence of the past, represents the idea that an ideal society would have fair copyright law and an underlying attitude of encouragement of creativity for its own sake, potentially in the absence of profit-motivated, uncontrolled corporate control of so-called “intellectual property” – termed the “copyright” in Rip! -  in favor of higher emphasis on the public domain – called the “copyleft.” Originally, as noted by Lethem, Lessig, and Gaylor, the intent of copyright law was not at its core to reward authors but to “promote the Progress of Science and useful arts” (qtd. in Lethem 68). While the specific nature of an appropriate treatment of copyright is difficult to define, the opposite is easier to illustrate with the many examples of how freedom of speech and expression is limited in certain situations that would presumably be considered inappropriate by the authors. These examples illustrate the final part of the refrain, that ours is less and less a free society. In particular, the case of arguably excessive lawsuits for the downloading of music by children and essentially non-criminal members of society was highlighted in Rip! Though the issue is multifaceted, the severity and intensity of the situation reflects a need to reconsider the way the issue is treated.   

Underlying the three works is the premise that culture more oriented towards an open-source philosophy, where information is more shared than proprietary, is a general cultural direction with the potential for an improved creative environment. The development of ideas, inventions, artworks, music, programs, and more is benefitted by the opportunity for collaboration, for the unique perspectives of individuals may combine in a way otherwise not considered. This philosophy is certainly one that applies directly to creation of artworks, particularly in the case of joint art displays, collaborative group projects, and the use of art in group-designed outreach and education situations, where both the opinions of many and the influences of prior projects or works are both vitally important. For example, a recent poster inviting students to participate in the Roger Williams University Student Garden included a borrowed image of a student working, the inspiration of Van Gogh’s “The Sower” painting, and ideas from garden participants concerning the poster’s content.   

Many possible directions for enhanced collaboration exist, including the ability to search for reusable, mixable material through Lessig’s website, www.creativecommons.org. The very nature of the works as accessible to all – and the film Rip! as “re-mixable” by all – is an encouraging example of the potential for improved sharing of ideas by the simple act of allowing your work to be shared.

Works Cited

Lethem, Jonathan. “The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism.” Harper’s Magazine Feb. 2007: 59-71. Print.

Lessig, Lawrence. "Free Culture." OSCON 2002. 24 July 2002. Internet. 4 Feb 2010.  

http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html

Rip! A Remix Manifesto. Dir. Brett Gaylor. Digital. National Film Board of Canada, 2008.

     

Assigned Writings - Open Source Culture: Lessig, Lethem, Rip! Paper #2

Kristie Schmitt
February 11, 2010
VARTS 500
Copyright


Of the three pieces, “Free Culture” lecture by Lawrence Lessig, ‘The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism’ article by Jonathan Lethem, and Rip! A Remix Manifesto film by Brett Gaylor, Rip! A Remix Manifesto had the greatest impact on me because it was most modern and visuals always have the largest influence on me. When looking at the three pieces as a whole, I was initially almost frightened because I realized all of the things that I unintentionally infringed on copyright. These were things I would never have even considered to be infringement, such as reproducing someone else’s photograph that I liked through my own lens or reproducing a song on the piano by another artist/writer or photographing a building that someone else designed and created, etc. Granted I have intentionally infringed on copyright of some things, such as music, but I did not realize these other infringements, which I thought were perfectly innocent, until after these three pieces.   

After my initial ‘scare’, I then began to ask questions about what copyright really is. Yes, maybe I photographed a building that someone else designed, but I photographed it in my own way, so does that make it my original expression or is it still an infringement? After these thoughts/confusions, I honestly just got angry, because it seems like practically everything we do creatively could be seen as some form of infringement, which is only limiting creativity, which is the exact opposite of what copyright is meant to do.

The first quote of Lethem’s article said by John Donne specifically grabbed my attention; “All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated….” This quote, in my opinion, perfectly exemplified ‘open source’. It is basically saying that all mankind should work together in bettering the creativity that we have. It should not be that one person creates an object and that is the end of the creativity process for that object. Creativity should be able to build on each other to make bigger and better things. Gaylor, in the Rip! A Remix Manifesto, solidifies the open source process by stating that ‘sharing is beneficial!’ I agree with both of these statements that creativity should be shared because only through a group effort will we be able to achieve the most efficient and effective creative works possible.   

I personally like Thomas Jefferson’s vision of copyright, stated through Lethem’s article, that ‘enough incentive should be provided to allow for creativity, nothing more, and thereafter allow the free flow of ideas.’ The whole idea behind his vision of copyright was that second comers may have a better idea than the original creator to improve the work. I completely agree with Jefferson. How is it fair that just because someone came up with an idea, they own it and nobody else can create or improve on that idea? This just seems limiting to me, which again is the exact opposite of copyright’s intentions.   

I think my favorite concept from these three pieces was ‘usemonopoly’ from Lethem’s article. This was the best way to term exactly what copyright has turned into. Copyright has become corporations owning use of creative materials to generate profit. Furthermore, Letham’s article went on to say, “the loser is the community, including living artists who might make splendid use of a healthy public domain.” I do not think he could have said it any better. In copyright’s attempt to generate creativity, it has in turn prevented artists from creating masterpieces that build on the masterpieces of the past. Copyright today is a ‘usemonopoly’.   

The “Free Culture” lecture by Lessig was the least captivating for me, but I drew the main conclusion that basically everything is either copyrighted or patented. I was left with the same conclusion as the other two pieces, as far as where do you draw the line as to what is infringement of copyright and what is not? It seems like such a fine line between what is and what is not that I’m somewhat scared to produce creative works. I understand how copyright is meant to enhance creativity by keeping constant new and fresh ideas entering into society, but the laws are just so strict (or maybe unclear would be the better word to use) and the line of infringement seems so fine, that it actually limits, and scares people, such as myself, away from creativity; I have no desire to be sued anytime soon!   

Finally, after reading Lessig and Lethem’s pieces, Rip! A Remix Manifesto, was the perfect way to sum up both of their ideas and add the visual impact into the argument. This film states things such as, “Culture builds on the past, but the past tries to control the future” and “Our future is becoming less free.” While our culture should build on the past, the past controls the future by limiting what we can and cannot use based on copyright restrictions, which is resulting in our future becoming less free.   

I think the most eye opening point of this film was at the end with the scene of the photographer in Times Square… that’s an infringement of copyright?! That is unbelievable to me! Here is Times Square, one of the largest tourist attractions in the country, if not the world, and snapping a photograph is an infringement of copyright due to all of the ad space displayed? That is ridiculous and really just made me angry because snapshots of your trip to NYC should not be illegal!   

At the conclusion of all three pieces, I am really still just left with so many questions about what infringement truly means. Lethem’s article talked about shop owners being sued for playing background music in their shops… my brother is a Deejay, is he infringing on copyright each time he plays a song a party or a bar? I play the piano, am I infringing on copyright each time I play a song written or composed by someone else? I also love to take photographs (apparently never again in Times Square), but again where do you draw that line about what is infringement and what is not? With all being said and done, these three pieces have made me dislike the idea of copyright. All it is doing is limiting creativity and not allowing for improvement. The copyright laws need to be looked at and clarified. I think we should return to Jefferson’s original vision that copyright should be instated for the initial creativity and then allow for the free flow of ideas to improve on that creativity. As Donne said, “All mankind is of one author… translating into a better language….” The most effective society will only be one that works together to improve and create, and with copyright as it is now, that will never happen.

+++

    

Assigned Writings - Open Source Culture: Lessig, Lethem, Rip! Paper #3

Kali Johanson-Lang
Joy Garnett
VARTS 530.01:: Art & It’s Sources: Image as Information
February 11, 2010
Writing Assignment: Sum up the ideas inherent to both the Lessig lecture and the Lethem article
   

By now we understand that copyright was born to promote creativity without the need of permission to take and build upon. It was not established to regulate derivative works; yet, somehow the law insists on controlling copies and use. Though terms exist claiming to permit general use of material such as fair use and public domain, the finite definitions of these and related terms provide loopholes for regulatory action. Lawrence Lessig discusses messy formal and legal issues of copyright in his 2002 lecture, titled “Free Culture,” while Jonathan Lethem expands his views on the subject to specific examples of and seemingly endless possibilities of copyright manipulation in his article, The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism, published in a 2007 issue of Harper’s Magazine.

Lessig places responsibility on lawmakers for corrupting the initial intent of copyright for the sake of establishment, and urges society as a whole to amend this detriment. He claims, “1. Creativity and innovation always builds on the past; 2. The past always tries to control the creativity that builds on it; 3. Free societies enable the future by limiting the past and; 4. Ours is a less and less free society.” It is upon these four fundaments that Lessig bases his argument. One of the most well known instances that best fits Lessig’s model (and that Lethem also refers to) is the Disney Corporation. Many of Disney’s cartoons are romanticized versions of fairy tales previously told by the Brothers Grimm. Disney’s first introduction of Mickey Mouse was through a parody of “Steamboat Bill” reintroduced with Mickey as “Steamboat Willie.” Mickey Mouse has been around for over 80 years and should have become a member of the pubic domain decades ago, but because of alterations and copyright extensions he remains under copyright. The Disney Corporation has gone to great lengths several times to keep Mickey from joining the intellectual commons from which he was derived. ‘Apologists,’’ like the Disney Corporation, need to uphold the status quo of copyrights can primarily be attributed to the progress and proliferation of technology and copy devices, namely computers and the internet. Such people seek to control use. Lessig identifies different ‘uses’: unregulated use (reading, giving, selling, etc), fair use (uses that would be protected under copyright, but the law permits, e.g. quotations), and copyrighted use. The Internet controls what was regarded as unregulated use; thus, unregulated use is now regulated. Fair use is regulated because of technological replications. Even things in the public domain have limited access because the law regulates copies of such items. Lessig suggests that the only way to combat copyright issues is to practice and promote transparent creativity and the free sharing of knowledge. He urges us to establish a common base that people can build upon and add to.    

Current problems with the legalities and technicalities of copyright might cause us to question why we continue to copyright at all, but a future with no patents means that people will be forced to pay whatever industry giants want, which could be high. Establishment is threatening and in some cases excluding future competitors. It is people- law makers- that instills the power of copyright- not the copyright itself. A creative society that craves and thrives off of free flowing information and resources is possible, but only with an active revolution of its people against copyright law manipulation.    

Jonathan Lethem feeds off of the same momentum as Lessig, but takes his argument a few steps further. He begins his article in a fitting manner- with a quotation from John Donne that seems to say it all: “All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...” Lethem goes on to cite numerous icons from contemporary pop culture that make historical references including Bob Dylan’s reference to old Hollywood films, Shakespeare and F. Scott Fitzgerald. Lethem notes, “Dylan’s art offers a paradox: while it famously urges us to not look back, it also encodes a knowledge of past sources that might otherwise not have a home in contemporary culture… His originality and appropriations are as one” (60). The concept of originality and appropriations as one also suggests collage, which Lethem argues could be considered ‘the’ art of the 20th century as it became a central device in such movements as futurism, cubism, Dada, pop art and others. Creativity and invention are created out of a plethora of information and ideas that have previously been mentioned. They are regurgitated, reconsidered and brought into new light to reveal a different view. Even Thomas Jefferson suggested that “…Second comers might do a much better job than the originator with the original idea” (62).   

Besides acknowledging that all ideas are inspired by something, Lethem confronts the notion that some people think that anything with value should have an owner. The author notes, “…value… lies not [within] material qualities… but rather in [use]” and use is defined by audience, which is out of the control of the creator (62). So, then, since the user defines use and each user might discover a different use, could the item of value not belong to each individual participant? This solution sounds like the definition of public domain, but still copyright laws seek to limit public use. Existing copyright laws are “…attacking the next generation of creators for the crime of being influenced, for the crime of responding… by doing so they make the world smaller, betraying what seems to me the primary motivation for participating in the world of culture in the first place: to make the world larger” (65). Lessig, too, reiterates this point.    

Lethem goes on to compare gifts versus commodities. Commodities are material items that are bought and sold, usually with little feeling involved. Gifts, on the other hand, carry inherent thought and feeling. Gifts, the arts, hold “…ample value that… [material] ‘property’ doesn’t capture” (65). How can this value be sold, bought and owned? The arts are gifts of culture, but they are considered items of intellectual property that are being bought and sold. Lethem references other gifts that are not available for purchase such as family life, sexuality and socialization, and of them notes, “… paying for many… things can ruin them” (65). In these cases, monetary values assigned to such things diminish the ultimate value. Also, when we view art, no matter the media, aren’t we socializing with it? Regardless of which sense we’re using to explore the art, as viewers we’re forced to acknowledge and interact with it in some way. We can’t put a price on socialization. It is impossible to own the act itself. Lethem suggests, “A gift economy may be superior when it comes to maintaining a group’s commitment to certain… values” (65) because there is an understanding and appreciation value that exists without money.    

Copyright law has been long skewed from its initial intent. It is now not only considered legal law, but inherent law, as though the author of a work should have and maintain sole proprietary rights to it. Copyright law is imperfect, and lawyers refuse to progress along with society to change copyright laws accordingly. Technology makes copyright boundaries more “bizarre and arbitrary” because copies used to be easy to keep track of (62).   

Lethem advocates, as also implied by Lessig, that a public commons used by everyone and controlled by everyone and no one only by common consent, will provide a healthy habitat for the growth and progress of creativity. “[Public commons are] not just an inventory of marketable assets; they’re social institutions and cultural traditions that define us… and enliven us…” (67).  They’re gifts that give us feelings. The idea of sharing is so elementary it almost seems silly that it’s being challenged so thoroughly. “The primary objective of copyright is not reward the labor of authors but ‘to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,” but the growing, selfish belief in private ownership to only benefit a few is doing nothing for the public good (68).

+++

Assigned Writings - Open Source Culture: Lessig, Lethem, Rip! Paper #4

Jessica Lundberg
Special Topics in Visual Arts
Lessig, Lethem and Rip

The ideas found in the Lessig lecture, the Lethem article, and the Rip documentary are all in favor of artists being inspired by others. I believe that if copyright laws were enforced a long time ago, that we would not have the masterpieces that we have today. As we talked about in our class, essentially nothing is original. Each color a painter chooses has been admired in another source which then made them want to use it to make art with. Each melody of a blues song has been inspired by the blues forefathers that created the genre in the first place (which was of course inspired by traditional African American music, and so on…). The word inspiration is synonymous with stimulus and incitement. Our minds have to be stimulated by some outside source if we long to create anything we would like to call “brand new”.

I see this group of a lecture, article, and documentary as support for those all artists, whether they are writers, painters, printmakers, graphic designers, anyone… who appreciates the use of others’ work to improve their own. When an artist creates something that has taken on something from another work of art I believe that is the ultimate act of flattery. I would love if someone else made something new and wonderful after viewing and taking in something that I have made. The laws taking so much out of the public domain is extremely limiting in the sense that if I wanted to do a piece with the image of Mickey Mouse I better be prepared for a lawsuit. I find it perplexing as to how these, let’s call them, copyright police, determine what is stolen and what is mere inspiration. If someone is able to copyright a certain species of tomato, what’s stopping anyone from taking ownership of the color of dirt? If the money driven people we’re dealing with here get their way, that seemingly insane thought could become reality relatively soon.

So what can we do to help this cause? Lessig asks this very question in his lecture and I don’t actually know how to attack it. Maybe if there were a way to get artists of all areas of work together, to begin a project, to set an example of how brilliant work “plagiarism” can produce we could show all those evil law makers how detrimental copyright can be to the art world. How great would it be if we got some of the top visual artists, to take each other’s works and put them together in a way that created a huge plagiarism master work that in fact was beautifully illegal? The same could go for written works, performance art, and music. Girl Talk I’m sure would be in to play this game. It’s a lot like the exquisite corpse we are learning about in the Mixed Media class with and edge and intent to make a difference in the legality issues of art. The remix, new blend of different art works is something that should be admired and desired, not shun and rejected.

Luckily there is hope. The fact that the lecture, article, and documentary that we’ve studied exist proves that there are people trying to get this message out there. The more artists that emerge in this new genre of the remix (despite the scare of facing jail time) the better chance we have to make a difference and stop the copyright movement before it takes over.  I know a lot of college students that would be upset if Girl Talk were taken away from their Saturday night parties. Something should be done, for their sake if anything.

Assigned Writings - Open Source Culture: Lessig, Lethem, Rip! Paper #5

Andrew Foley
VARTS.530.01
Joy Garnett

18 February, 2010

Open Source Culture   

Letham and Lessig’s individual arguments pretty much argue the same point. That free culture has been limited by a, ‘you sue me, I sue you’ world.

Letham’s article suggests that no idea is a new idea rather that an idea evolves over time as it improves on past ideas. This may refer to music, literature, or Hollywood films. According to this theory; The Simpsons, The Flintstones, South Park, and Family Guy would not have been able to be created as arguably the writers and cartoonists could not have created these characters on their own, but rather have improved upon previous cartoon characters and storylines. For example Mickey Mouse is directly based on Buster Keaton’s Steamboat Bill, and Mickey would cease to exist thus never creating the Disney Corporation nor their movies and theme park. The irony behind the article is that almost the entire article is plagiarized, as he gives credit to the authors and works he plagiarized from. Letham’s argument does not refute Lessig’s ideas at all; instead it fully supports and reinforces Lessig’s argument as both authors preach from the same soapbox.

Lessig argues that creativity is “strangled by the law” and offers the remixer’s creed.

1. creativity and innovation always build on the past
2. the past always tries to control the creativity that builds upon it.
3. free societies enable the future by limiting the past
4. ours is less and less a free society

In 1710 the British suggested limiting copyright, but in 1740 after the Scottish produced some books that had entered the public domain, the British turned around and said “wait, copyright is forever.” In 1774, free culture was ‘created’ because copyright was stopped and in 1790, creativity was left unregulated and copyright only covered printing, not other forms of art or their derivatives; control was minimal.

In 1928, Walt Disney created steamboat Willie, a direct parody of Buster Keaton’s Steamboat Bill. Walt Disney created movies and shows that were taken from the public domain and were remixed to build the corporation. Disney was able to reproduce works from the public domain and build upon them. However, this may be considered hypocritical as Disney has essentially created the greatest copyright law of all time nicknamed the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act” in which every time the copyright is about to run out on Mickey Mouse, Disney extends the copyright so that no one can do to Disney Inc what Walt Disney did to the Brothers Grimm.

Fair use is a term of copyright that says someone does not need to ask for permission to use, just to give credit where credit is given. When the internet was created most everything was unregulated and either part of the public domain or was considered fair use. However, pretty quickly, the net’s unregulated become regulated and fair use and unregulated items no longer existed. People who would teach others how to hack things online help drive the formation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law created to protect anything put on the web even if the use is permitted under the law.

Over time, the US has evolved a strict system to regulate creativity. As we grow as people, we become proud of our accomplishments and our advancements, however, we live in a world where people believe their ideas are personally owned and hold value like a patent. I strongly believe if we allow large companies to contract artists we will have lost free culture, because I agree with Lessig and Letham: the people who control are not the people who create.

+++

Assigned Writings - Open Source Culture: Lessig, Lethem, Rip! Paper #6

Peter Siegenthaler

Response to Lessig and Lethem 

I have already used the word 'utopian'  to describe the values of Lessig, Lethem, and anyone else who speaks, writes, or fabricates on similar principals. I stand by this qualification, and assert the word's neutrality; I believe anyone with ideals wishes to see a world in which they are more communal than individual. While I would argue with many of the actions taken by such individuals in this matter, I will not disagree with the root of their argument. There is no such thing as intellectual property. 

From my own perspective, even claiming the rights to a physical object is ludicrous,  so more so is to claim a stream of music, or an image created, by any means, out of a series of preëxisting images or objects. 

For example, what happens in the act of opening a camera's shutter to allow a pattern of light to imprint upon the film inside? The light is recorded, and when processed, it represents, on paper, recognizable objects, people, etc. The light reflected off a cup is not a cup. The light reflected off of me is not me. In this sense, a recording of a song is in no way the idea of the song, it is simply a way in which to hear the song, later. 

It is clear that human desire to receive both social and monetary credit has gotten in the way of pure expression. It is an inconvenience to be threatened with large debts in the case of infringing upon the copyrights of others as they stand in our present legal system. 

I end my summary here, for the message is simple, no matter how many talking points into which it is broken. 

I am compelled to reflect on the history of the creative spirit in western humans, and I am disinclined to believe that this all began going contextually downhill in 1709. In fact, I would expect nothing less of the humans existing in that place at that time to apply codes of conduct to creative production. But before then, what was art? It may have been free for all, but it was nameless; you were a monk crouched somewhere illuminating manuscripts receiving no credit to your name or wallet. This is not to suggest that I value recognition, because I do not, but it is the way that system worked. When copyrighting laws emerged, the system was modified. I appreciate and understand  the so called changing of "business models". 

Confusion arises here. The business model must change, according to Lethem. If that is the case, how was it that a copy of one of his novels came to my possession, covered in copyrights, clearly manufactured by a company with machines that created clean cut volumes? Why did it cost the man who gave it to me 20 US dollars? When does the system one desires to change, change? When the individual with the desire does something about it. 

I do not aim to critique Lethem's authenticity, I know from reading his work how authentic he is. It is this limp, semi-protest he offers, with one of his own feet in the past, and the other in his personal utopia. While I share many of his hopes for the future of the intellectual exchange, it is the most well-intentioned hypocrisy I have witnessed.