Sampling

Project one was to create a sample to convey a message. I thought this was going to be simple but when putting my pictures together from the net I had to choose carefully what I wanted to put on there. The second one was to create the same message but with my own copyrighted pictures (rights that I had to the pictures). I of course then took pictures of my own to use for my sample.
This brings up the idea of ownership. Since I made the piece of art so now I own it. But the first picture was taken from the internet, so do I truly own it? Can't someone just take the same art piece that I made and tweak it a little and now say that they own it? Of course they can, am I going to get mad over it, No. They could even use my second piece of sample and change it to their own preference. I wouldn't mind at all. If they are making money off of it would I be mad? Maybe just a little mad, but I didn't create the whole concept. They just branched off of mine and made it into their own. I'm sure that if someone remade my samples it might even turn out better than what my originally looked like. That's the idea I want put out there. If the change is better then why not allow it? People are always trying to look for more efficient ways to do things. These samples are pictures of everyday items just put together in my own way. Does someone one the exclusive right to a picture of everyday item? I hope not or else everyone selling items on eBay would be in big trouble for their display picture.

Copyrights and ownership

Lessig brings up the concept of getting a copyright for ideas which the one who produced it will be able to keep and publish for his or her own rights. The cost for this would be $1. This is a great idea. Many who are worried about others taking their ideas can protect them and for a very cheap fee as well. Others who aren't so worried about this can let the public take and change their works. The law has changed so much to protect the creator that it forgets that creativity can come from other works. Many similar fairy tales are told all over the world. Who has the exclusive right to them? Many are remade into movies, books, etc. Once they are published then are the creators of those movie, books, etc get the exclusive right? No because the origin of those stories come from different locations. People who tried to recreate those stories could be sued but aren't because the storyline doesn't belong to one person, it belongs to a community or culture.
Take music for an instance. Many musician or artist remake old songs. Now days you can't find an artist who isn't singing the same lyrics of an older song. The beat or temple may be changed but the lyrics are still the same. Or vice versa: many may change the lyrics but the background music is the same, nothing has been touched except for the lyrics. Yes, Lessig brings up that they may have paid for the rights to use these songs but why can't the public get the same rights? It always comes down to money. Whoever can afford to pay a fee can have ownership over a work.
This is also where creativity comes into play. Many artist likes to get credit for the creativity of their work, but its off the work of another. If someone was to bring up this in a face to face interview I'm sure that many of the artist would feel uncomfortable talking about it. Many movies and books also hold similar storylines. When does one author sue another over the same storyline. Sure they may have tweaked it a bit but isn't it still the same story, just different names? Creativity can be to build from another's work, but if the author or producer isn't okay with the public using his or her own work then get a copyright patent for it. Its that simple but the corporate and laws suppresses the public from creating change.

Educational uses

While reading Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig, a lot of the stories struck out at me. One was about characters and how they came to be. It was interesting because Walt Disney remade a cartoon from another show. But did that other show file lawsuit? What right did Disney have to copy another character. If anyone was to make an image of Mickey Mouse and redistribute it on national television Disney Inc. would have a field day. Of course there's the concept of the inventor. Many are entitled to their works and if someone is profiting from it besides them from the same work then of course it's wrong. But when it comes to changing the ideas and concepts that's where many have put in the time to improve or better an already out there idea. Where's the harm in that? Science is based on someone else's work and challenging it (some even prove other's wrong). Who truly has ownership? Many who can afford to pay for patents and lawyers to protect their rights will do that. For the less fortunate person you'd have to get permission and most likely pay a fee.
Another story that I found interesting is the story of a student who has worked hard to improve technology. He of course is a student at a technology institute. What made me so wrapped with emotions on this case was that this "search engine" was what the school was allowing other students to make and yet he was the one to get punish for it. Most of all is that his content on file wasn't created by him or deals with music. Yet the RIAA had the notion to file a lawsuit against him. Where does creativity and ownership draw the line. When is it okay to persecute someone who's education was to change the technology around him or her? Of course he dropped the case by a settlement, but what message did the RIAA expect to convey if they are going after students? Yes technology is changing fast but when the law stops the innovation of change (and probably for the better), many will begin to fight back.