CC – Crappy Content, Wk 2 Reading

it was never all going to be fun

All I can say is that at least Elliot gave us fair warning that this weeks content would be dry. Not so much that the content itself is extremely boring, more that a lot of it is quite self explanatory and well…obvious. That being said I did still come away with a few things.

kiwiThe first video was a general overview of creative commons and what it is. CC Kiwi, what a character. The video was helpful in explaining the different types of licenses and why we have them.

The second link was basically just Australia copyright laws and FAQ, pretty obvious things like you would not be able to link pirate bay on a blog for example because they are breaking the law against copyright.

The third link was the incredibly engaging Professor Lawrence Lessig who essentially reiterated the first two links but took it a bit further describing CC as a visual tool in respect to the licenses making it easier for all internet users. Side note, was it really necessary for the camera man to go from this Screen Shot 2014-07-29 at 11.30.36 am to this Screen Shot 2014-07-29 at 11.31.01 am??? He really needs to take a Nick Moore crash course in framing. ONWARD!

Screen Shot 2014-07-29 at 11.34.58 amScreen Shot 2014-07-29 at 11.35.54 am

The fourth and fifth video both used animated cartoons to talk about creative commons, what they mean and why we have them. I love the fact that these cheap cartoons are used for the simple fact that the content is so dull that on ever so slightly increases the chance of them being watch. To be fair, it made them watchable and the content remained in my brain long enough for me to get this onto the internet so that is something they can pat themselves on the back about. The final link was just boring legal stuff once again.

What I did find interesting about all these links, especially the Jack White example was the idea that music specially needs to have permission to be remixed, used in a video or to have album artworks, and music video content used. Would it be ok if someone for example used a song in a silly video they made at home. The video then becomes a big success on the internet. Is it ok to then later pay tribute to the original owners? The harlem shake is an excellent example of this. cc_harlem_shake_130213_wblog

I don’t know all the specifics but I do know that the original video was a college video that just randomly decided the song should be what it has become. The publicity for the song itself, be it as horrible as it is would have been incredibly. What happens to the original rights of the song?

For me personally this has always been a pressing problem with my films. On Youtube you need to acknowledge songs that do not belong to you as youtube detects them and will sometimes remove them from your videos. This is not an issue if the owner allows or gives permission but quite often they do not. EMI is a classic example, a music label so big I’m sure they don’t have time or really care about little home videos and approving songs. Making the transition to Vimeo, this is not a problem. You do however click ‘i agree’ when you upload a video that all the content is owned by you but the point is that unless your video becomes a hit no one is going to come looking for you to slap you on the wrist. Vimeo is way better anyways 🙂


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply