aina

Professor Eric Faden (Bucknell University, USA) compiled a rather humorous video “A Fair Y use tale”, which collaborated Disney characters to explain the rules, the legalities and the limitations involved in copyrighted material. Although the main purpose of the video was to explain the aforementioned copyright systems, the video itself questioned the rules and regulations of the term ‘copyright’ by utilizing characters and adjusting the scenes that do not ‘belong’ to him as the producer (Prof Eric Faden), but belong to the Disney enterprise.

Copyright is defined as “ a legal device that provides the owner the right to control how a creative work is used. A copyright is comprised of a number of exclusive rights, including the right to make copies, authorize others to make copies, make derivative works, sell and market the work and perform the work. Any one of these rights can be sold separately through transfers of copyright ownership.” By not mentioning where I derived this definition from breaches copyright law – plagiarism – therefore for safety reasons, I hereby acknowledge that this definition of ‘copyright’ is from www.nolo.com J.

In the video, Faden mentioned that the use of ‘copyrighted’ material is “forbidden without the permission granted by the copyright owner.” As an example, many of Disney’s fairy-tales are based on old folklore stories that have been told in the community – in the public domain – for centuries, yet how did and how was Disney allowed to claim copyright ownership for these stories? Furthermore, because of Disney’s colossal success in movie production and advertisement, their supposed ‘original’ work – ‘copyrighted’ to their enterprise – is now out of hands from the public – where they originated from in the first place. Therefore, some old story teller out there who thought of these stories originally remain unrecognized! Where is the justice in that? Did Disney ask the public to use their stories? NO!!

Faden mentions in the video that “with permission and appropriate payment”, copyright material may be used by others. This capitalist notion is now almost always used to ensure the creator/artist/producer is the sole ‘OWNER’ of their ideas, product and other forms of work in the community. This is fair in a way – one deserves the right to take claim for their original work. However, how far does this right go and what are its limits? We now live in such a money-driven selfish environment. As Faden mentions, “copyright now lasts a lifetime.” Does this mean, that when a particular person who created or thought of an idea passes away, their children, grandchildren, great great great grandchildren and/or relatives profit from the work they were not technically responsible for?

Faden adds that copyright material can be used in the public domain, given that it is for used fairly: for teaching, news reporting (public interest), parody and in critical comment. And, they must NOT change the marketed commercial value of the product.

In light of the above arguments, Pavlosky’s article “Barbie in a Blender” refers to the 1999 case between MattelÓ vs Tom Forsythe. MattelÓ filed a lawsuit against Utah artist Tom Forsythe whose art-work displayed Barbie dolls in nude poses among kitchen appliances (shown in above pictures). MattelÓ claims that this was copyright infringement. The court declared that MattelÓ pay Forsythe $1.8m for legal and court fees and claimed Mattel’sÓ arguments as “frivolous and unreasonable.”

This small victory against major corporations which thrive to copyright EVERYTHING has paved way for organizations such as ‘Freeculture’. Freeculture.org is a website created by International student who believe free speech should be celebrated and that public intellectual capital and open cultural space should be protected from privatisation and exploitation.

As we live in the digital age, there continues to be an increasing forms and methods for the delivery of ideas/art/products. It is absolutely necessary to ‘copyright’ original works for the benefit of the original creator. ‘Copyright’ also somewhat restrains plagiarism and the re-creation or re-vamping of works in a derogatory manner. There needs to be a limit as to when copyright ends, who should be credited and who is allowed copyright privileges in the first place.

~ by aina nott on October 4, 2008.