Manipulation

On page 25 in Practices of Looking, changing an image to get a certain look or reaction is discussed. The book uses the example of O.J. Simpson’s mug shot. Newsweek used the image as it is, while Time changed it and created his skin darker and they also heightened the contrast (pg. 25). This shows us just how people and companies try to get us to look at an image a certain way or think a certain way. I know that this is said a lot, but who really actually thinks about what has been done to each image they see? I know I don’t, unless it is obvious. I don’t always believe what I see, but I don’t think about what small changes have been made to an image. When I really look at an image with a real intention then I will think what the designer or artist did or didn’t do, but if I am just casually looking I don’t pay a whole lot of attention. But then again that is probably why people and companies continue to manipulate images the way they do, and nobody really tries to stop them.

Differences

On page 13 in Practices of Looking there is a painting of some fruit and dishes. On the next page there is another painting of the same looking fruit and dishes, except everything has a face on it. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the original painter sued the painter who created a similar painting. I think that the court would decide that the newer painting falls within the Fair Use Doctrine. I think that it is more of an actual parody of the original piece. In Rogers v. Koons Koons just made the photo into a sculpture and added some color. This is not enough change for it to fall under the Fair Use Doctrine. To me the message in Koons piece was the same in Rogers’ piece. But in the two pieces on pages 13 and 14 of Practices of Looking, to me, the meaning has changed and therefore it is okay.

Rogers v. koons

I find the case of Rogers v. Koons to be interesting. The case was discussed in The Practices of Looking. Art Rogers took a photograph of a man and a woman holding puppies. Jeff Koons obtained the image from a postcard, removed the copyright label and sent it off with instructions to a studio to have a sculpture made of the photo. Rogers then sued Koons for copyright infringement. The court ruled the case in favor of Rogers because Koons piece was not a parody of Rogers’ wok but was a copy of it, even though the medium was different (pg. 210). I agree with the court’s decision. I sometimes think people try to copy pieces and give the lame excuse that it is a parody. In some cases it truly is a parody and I have no problem with that, but in other cases it isn't. I think sometimes people get away with too much.

Cirque du Soliel and the word "cirque"

With all of the copyright stuff that we read in class, I was looking at Cirque du Soleil stuff and found that they had a copyright issue a few years ago. Cirque du Soleil had a competitor (a weak one) that opened its doors and was called Cirque Dreams. Cirque du Soleil didn’t like that Cirque Dreams could use the word “cirque.” Cirque du Soleil took Cirque Dreams to court to try to get the word “cirque” off of the competitor’s name. The court ruled that Cirque du Soleil couldn’t have a word like “cirque” all to themselves because it is like the same situation that companies can’t have the word “the” all to themselves.

Manga

In Lessig’s book he talks about the manga market and how piracy is a big thing in Japan over manga. He talks about though, how the piracy is actually benefitting the market and is making it more productive (Lessig pg. 27). With more people hearing, seeing and purchasing manga this way, the more it becomes popular and the more it is wanted. This can even be beneficial to the copyright owners because people will want more of it. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the piracy would stop all of a sudden.

Recording Artists

In Lessig’s book he states that recording artists have less power than the recording industry or the composer (Lessig pg.57). I think that the composer should have more power or control over the recording artist even though it is their voice that is being heard, and even though they are more known for the song. It is as if the artist is asking the composer if they can use their song, so I understand why they have more power. 

Old Copyrights

It is hard to think that because of copyright extensions that many, old, less famous works will most likely be lost. Since the older works are protected people can’t get them for free, and because of that people won’t be as willing to get them, or won’t be able to reproduce them so the public can have them. This is because if someone or a company wanted to reproduce older works that are protected, they would have to contact the copyright owner, but since the works are older and less famous the owner will be hard to find (Lessig 221). Hopefully these works will be able to be found again.