Transparency, Social Media and Cultural Patterns » copyright

The Copyrighted Public Space

@collentine — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:48:03 +0000

The public space is important for people to have a space to live and feel free. Unfortunately with the progress of commercialism the public space is shrinking and becoming more sparse. What you can do in an open area is becoming more restricted at some places.

One example of the restriction of public space is that in Sweden (and many other places) we are not technically allowed to take pictures of what we want. I’m not sure of the exact details but I remember a lecture this spring with Staffan Teste, a copyright lawyer, ~~that told us we were not allowed to take pictures of famous buildings (e.g. city hall) since the copyright was owned by the creator~~ that said according to Swedish copyright law it is not allowed to publish the picture of City Hall on Internet without asking the copyrightholder (the architect) first. Not being able to use pictures of what we want becomes a small problem.

If you walk by a mural or a graffiti piece you like it has copyright by creation that limits the use and spread of the pictures. This is probably against the will of the creator but we still have to find the creator and ask if it’s ok to use the picture since copyright is automatic. Even billboards and advertisements with a hint of creativity has copyright protection. Showing the pictures in this case is important for a high diffusion where as many as possible can take part of the pictures.

Another very interesting article I found the other day is about a guy that lost an eye in a hunting accident. He replaced the eye with a prosthetic eye that doubles as a video-camera. This raises a lot of interesting copyright issues about where he can go and what he can do if he constantly records everything. There is some very interesting comments in that post as well.

[pic: CC-BY-NC-ND Xavier Donat]

Copyright Worked In The Past But Not Anymore

@collentine — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:57:39 +0000

As some may have noticed this blog is NOT under a (c) copyright protection. I’m putting all my content on the blog under a Creative Commons (CC) license, cc-by-nc-sa. The CC license I use means that you are allowed to use all my material as long as you mention you got it from me and share your derivative work under the same license, but you are not allowed to use it for a commercial purpose. This flexible use of work under a CC-license is often misconceived and seen as “free”. The person using my work still has obligations toward me even though allowed to change and modify it as they want. CC doesn’t mean I can’t make money on the work, only that I can’t make money on people using it for “personal use”. If someone wants to use it commercially they still need to contact me and pay for it. Enough on Creative Commons for now, I only wanted to explain an alternative a bit more before talking about copyright.

The thought behind copyright, as I see it, is that it is a one-way monologue where the viewers are meant to only take in the work and can’t channel the work into something new. This restricts the flow of communication and creation that would otherwise occur. I believe copyright was a good system but that it is outdated today and should be changed or removed.

Before copyright existed a lot of good work was created (or compiled) e.g. The Illiad, Macbeth, The Garden of Earthly Delights. This shows that copyright is not needed in order to be creative, as many persons usually claim. During this period it was hard to copy work and it took a lot of time.

The period after copyright was invented is when it made sense and was a useful system. The cost of copying something was cheaper, both in time and material e.g. copying a book required a printing press. Mass media worked in a one-to-many relationship and intellectual property needed to be copied and re-produced for a cost of time and material in order for more persons to consume it.

The need for copyright changed when information could be digitalized, the cost of making a copy suddenly decreased to almost zero (both in time and material cost) and re-production could be shared and used by many at once. The way that the society worked had also changed from the traditional broadcasting of media to be more interactive (2.0 terms) where “passive viewers” became participants and creators. Letting information flow freely would benefit these creators and more creative work would emerge, both from derivative works and own creations.

What defines this blogger?

@collentine — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:01:15 +0000

My blog will focus on the same areas as I do on twitter:

Transparency – Net Politics (piratpartiet), Copyright, Integrity
Social Media – Integration, Technology, Web 2.0
Cultural Patterns – Design, PR, Marketing

But who is this person blogging to you?
I’ll make use of some descriptions others made about me and my group-work

translated to English?

Flexibel Ifrågasätter ofta men är blixtsnabb på att anpassa dig till gruppens ståndpunkt (även om den är motsatt) och stött den stenhårt och entusiastiskt… ett riktigt grupproffs
Effektiv Skicklig på att arbeta smart och inte lägga ner jobb på onödigheter
Med God Självdistans Vågar sticka ut och går att skämta om dig
-Anonym

*Initiativrik och drivande i grupparbetet. Positiv med mycket tålamod.
*Upplever att du, som jag, ibland har svårt att ta kritik som vi tycker är obefogad
-Anonym

Du har alltid kritiskt granskat arbetet på ett mycket positivt sätt. Ditt kritiska öga har fått våra arbeten att bli mycket bättre! Du skriver bra texter och är en superkul person att jobba med!
-Anonym

*Otroligt kunnig
*Inte rädd för att säga vad du tycker och tänker
*En person som alltid gör ditt jobb och gör det alltid så bra du kan
-Anna