Pages

04 May 2012

Week 1: Copyright Issues, PT1-3: Information Overload (To Copy or Not to Copy)


To copy or not to copy, that is the question. Copyright is a topic that many question and try to manipulate.  There are many who have played on the borderline of copyright. It is a topic that not many are aware of or find too boring to read about. In my current workplace, copyright and fair use are not really touched upon. It is only mentioned twice throughout the entire program and only for a brief moment. This is an area in which myself and the other instructors would like to increase knowledge of. At the current moment, the students only locate images by searching through the browser and using hi-res images only regardless what the copyright now might be on the image.


I believe that one’s work should not be used or manipulated without permission from the original artist unless it is used for educational purposes only. There are many who have created some amazing pieces with other’s work. On the contrary, Moll (2003) believes that there are three levels to design and that one should “steal” to become a great designer. In the article, he is quoting Picasso who was known to have said, “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” The levels of design Moll mentions are Level 1: Copy, don’t create; Level 2: Steal from yourself; and Level 3: Steal from discrete sources. He states that for him to have become a web designer, one should first copy other well-created designs. Then reuse one’s own previous designs that weren’t finished or used. The last level, Moll mentions to hide the sources used to create the design. He suggests to search through magazines, books, Websites, historical artifacts, cultural compositions and other rich design sources to find forgotten or unused ideas. I found this thought process to be interesting, especially with all the laws about using other’s work. I myself have mimicked another’s work but only to understand how the design was created. It was used as an educational purpose and not for commercial. What do you think about that?

When I was an undergraduate, I had taken a course called Business Practices within Graphic Design and we discussed the copyright laws. The instructor provided us with a great article that provided information on not only copyright but also trademarks and patents. It was definitely informational and can be overwhelming if it is not explained thoroughly. The class was engaging and many questions were asked during the discussion. Copyright can be tricky but it is something all should be aware of.

Sources:
Borchard, W. (2012). A Trademark is Not a Copyright or a Patent. Cowan Liebowitz Latman Attorneys at Law. Retrieved on http://www.cll.com/article-detail/a-trademark-is-not-a-copyright-or-a-patent 5/4/2012.

Moll, C. (2003). Good Designers Copy, Great Designers Steal. Sitepoint. Retrieved on http://www.sitepoint.com/copy-great-designers-steal/ 5/4/2012.

2 comments:

Nykoli said...

Hi Rosa,

You mentioned some thought provoking points. Using other's work even for educational purposes has a limit on it, doesn't it? And, as I read it, although I stand corrected, if you can teach a lesson without it, then you shouldn't use it. As educators, we are constantly 'borrowing' from our colleagues. (Although I realise that is a different situation as many of us haven't copyrighted our lesson plans, our bulletin boards...) But because we constantly borrow, we may not realise when we are actually 'stealing' from others.
I find Moll's ideas interesting, for how many times have I heard 'you don't have to reinvent the wheel'. I tend to agree that we should 'borrow' from others, I do believe that we should give credit where credit is due.
It is all too convoluted for me. On the one hand, as I said before, I don't see the big deal, on the other I have a little understanding
I think it is all being blown out of proportion. Consider the video we watched- there'll be a part of American history which will be no longer available as it'll cost half a million dollars for copyrighting. Does that make sense? Who benefits from this?
Look at the creativity that's being put into making old things new again, taking a small piece of someone else's work and manipulating it in such a way that it is something different... I think that is absolutely fantastic, and if the 'new' artists become rich off of doing so then yes, the old artists should get credit and/or compensation. But on the other hand, if there's very little profit or none at all, I don't understand all the fuss.
I totally agree with you though, more of us need to be aware of these laws because as they say, 'ignorance is no excuse'.

jbb said...

Wow, great assessment of the info and your own experience in graphic design. The thoughts of the web designer you mention is exactly where the law doesn't recognize the traditional normal way that artists become artists: by copying the masters until they are good enough to make something of their own creation. Wonderful.

Post a Comment