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.

Categories

I never realized that there was so much about categories, and how humans use categories on a daily basis until I read a section from the book Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. In the section that I read the author discusses how there is no "correct" way to categorize (pg. 9). I knew that people categorized things differently, but I never really gave it any actual thought until I read that part. Now when I think about it, it is obvious that different people are going to categorize differently. The section that I read also discusses how categories were originally looked at are now being questioned and focused upon. In turn this puts into question many things, and already established ideas will be put into questioned (pg. 9). I never thought categorizing had so many connections to hymn thinking and human ideas.

Selfie

A few days ago I watched the first episode of “Selfie,” on ABC. The show is about a girl who is self-centered and can’t make real world connections. She relies on her phone and social media to connect to people. In the show she sets out to try to change herself to be a better person with the help of a guy who is not connected to social media. The show is a critique of social media and media in general. It is about how people think how others perceive them. I thought about the first project that we did in DTC 356, the web ego essay. I thought how the show and the project related to one another when it comes to digital footprints, and how people judge on what that footprint might say. The show is a comedy and is overall pretty good.

Copyright

People and companies are always thinking of ways to keep material under copyright after its long period of protectiveness is done. An example of this, which is used in the book Practices of Looking, is the book Gone with the Wind. The author’s estate wanted to keep the book protected, so the estate contracted out an author to write a sequel. The sequel would then be copyrighted by the estate because it was written under contract. The original book would then be protected because the sequel used the same characters and ideas of the same characters that the first book used.

As time goes on more and more people, estates and companies will try to creatively keep their copyright protection. What I don’t like is that the law is set up a certain way, but people always seem to try to go around it, and they get away with it. And the law doesn’t do a whole lot about it. To a point it is unfair this way to other copyright holders, and is hurting them. If the law isn’t being followed or totally enforced, then why have it? I think there should be a time limit on copyright that is a long limited time to make sure there is no monopoly, as it is now. However, I think the law needs to be enforced more, or it needs to be reviewed again to make sure that it is fair.

Are Those Photos Real?

When I created my storyboard comic, entitled “Super Lego,” I wanted to give the photos I took a comic book look. I applied filters to the images to accomplish this. However, I wanted to make sure there was also no question as to whether the photos I took were real photos that actually depicted a real Lego scene or not. This relates to a section of the book Practices of Looking where the book discusses how some photos aren’t real and are digitally manipulated to appear real (pg. 217). Digital manipulation has the power to go back through time in images and change them. Some of the time it is amusing and not a big deal when someone inserts themselves into an old photo to make a statement. Other times digital manipulation of photos is used to hide a truth that someone doesn’t want to be revealed when the photo is supposedly supposed to tell exactly what is happening; the truth. Digital manipulation in photos allows designers and artists to achieve what they want and helps them to do so, when they sometimes don’t capture the exact photo that they want.

Comic Information Structure

Here is a comic by Marvel that is based off of the Cirque du Soleil show KA. I like the way this page is set up with the main action happening in most of the page, and then with the boxes on the side showing more detail. The way the information is presented here enables me to mot only see the main action but also the up close, finer details.

For the storyboard style comic I decided to build scenes out of Legos. I then took pictures of the Lego scenes and uploaded them to Photoshop. I then applied filters to get the photos to look more cartoon like. One of the challenges I faced was having enough Legos to do certain scenes. Another challenge I ran into was trying to get the photos to have the same look and style, since each photo was different. 

I decided to go with scenes that were mostly set outside. I did this to make the comic more relatable to the real world, and because it was also the easiest way for me to make scenes with the Lego pieces I had. The reason why it is more relatable is because I could use colors in my scenes that were also found outside. This way I didn't have to use different, weird colors for ordinary things. I wanted the comic to have a more comic feel to it instead of looking like real Legos, but at the same time I wanted the Legos to be recognizable. That is why I did the filters I did. I also wanted the faces to be able to express what was going on in the scene, so I drew on the faces. I tried to keep the faces and basic colors of objects in the photos as close to real life as I could. With the faces, colors I chose and scenes I was a able to do, I am overall happy with how the comic turned out. 

Looking and Thinking Part 2

This post relates to my previous post. I found an example (show below) of an advertisement where different people will think different things. I looked through some advertisements and then came across this one. At first I thought it was funny because of the "tough guy" becoming soft. I also thought it was funny because the website I was looking at also had other funny advertisements, so it was natural for me to think of it as being funny because that is what kind of advertisements I was looking at. After my initial reaction I started to think how some people may not find it as funny. Some people may find it that the advertisement is trying to say that bikers and such are not caring or don't give to charities. The advertisement has stereotyped a group of people who they look at and don't see as charity givers. It may be funny to some, but maybe not all.

Looking and Thinking

When I look at something like an advertisement I don't think about who created, I just know that it was created by or for whatever company the advertisement is advertising for. I never really thought about me not thinking about the individual or team who created it until I read about Producer's Intended Meanings in Practices of Looking on page 52. Now when I look at an advertisement I am wondering who made it. I find it very interesting how one person can look at an advertisement, for example, and think one thing while another person can think about something else. One reason why people look at things differently from others that was discussed in the book was because of the things we see around a piece or what we have seen before it. Now I think I'll always wonder what others are thinking about when I look at an advertisement and other works.

Who to go After?

In Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity piracy comes up a lot. In one part of the book, the author discusses how the Internet is making it easy for people to share content that is copyrighted, which robs the copyright holder of potential money (pg. 17). While the people who share content that is copyrighted are wrong to do so, I think that sometimes the people who are trying to stop piracy from happening try to go after the individuals who do this, when they should really go after the people or companies who allow it to happen. Instead of going after each person who shares copyrighted material by using a tool on the Internet to do so, they should go after the makers of the tool and stop them from allowing users to pirate material.