Thursday, 24 April 2008
Saturday, 9 February 2008
Narrative Sound and Image part 1
Narrative Sound and IMage. 9th February 2008.
Went to the library and found a number of books relating to the subjects mentioned in the brief.
Paul Nash.
Already knew his work even if I didn’t know his name. I like some of his work, especially the wartime Battle of Britain and the wrecks of the German aircraft in“Totes Meer” (Death Sea).
I also liked “The Cherry Orchard”, “Dymchurch Wall”, “Vimy Ridge”.
“The Ploughed Field” I loved it reminds me the lines in the sand after the tide has gone out.
The rest of his work I found muddled and messy.
Victor Pasmore.
Only like a couple of pieces of his work “A Winters Morning” and the haunting “Chiswick Bridge”
The rest I felt was messy, especially his colour work
Andy Goldsworthy.
I did like his Sycamore Stitched together work awesome the colours are vibrant. The Autumn is a special time of year, with the slow constant changes in colour. Unfortunately little of his ice work was depicted in the book I borrowed.
I was not impressed with the rest of his work which I found contrived and very out of place.
Patrick Heren.
OMG is this Art?????
Did not like any of his work, to my mind it is the work of a five year old let looses with the paint pots. Plenty of messy splodges created using a 3 inch house brush, in my opinion this is dross!!!
Barbara Hepworth.
Very much in the style of Henry Moore or is Henry Moore in the style of Barbara Hepworth. One can see similarities between the works of both artists.
Like Moore I love the sculptures with the use of string / wire. The work using wood is particularly stunning and beautiful; the grain created in the wood is awesome and she has found some lovely pieces.
I did not know of either of the musicians mentioned in the brief but I managed to find, via Amazon, a CD of the works of Nyman. "The VeryBest Of Michael Nyman".... Film Music 1980-2001.
I listened a few times to his music, in the hope to glean inspiration for the brief. Two tracks on the CD “did something for me”, they were
.1 Chasing sheep is best left to Shepard’s, and
.2 Knowing the ropes
I have plenty of ideas but I need to get these down on paper.
Went to the library and found a number of books relating to the subjects mentioned in the brief.
Paul Nash.
Already knew his work even if I didn’t know his name. I like some of his work, especially the wartime Battle of Britain and the wrecks of the German aircraft in“Totes Meer” (Death Sea).
I also liked “The Cherry Orchard”, “Dymchurch Wall”, “Vimy Ridge”.
“The Ploughed Field” I loved it reminds me the lines in the sand after the tide has gone out.
The rest of his work I found muddled and messy.
Victor Pasmore.
Only like a couple of pieces of his work “A Winters Morning” and the haunting “Chiswick Bridge”
The rest I felt was messy, especially his colour work
Andy Goldsworthy.
I did like his Sycamore Stitched together work awesome the colours are vibrant. The Autumn is a special time of year, with the slow constant changes in colour. Unfortunately little of his ice work was depicted in the book I borrowed.
I was not impressed with the rest of his work which I found contrived and very out of place.
Patrick Heren.
OMG is this Art?????
Did not like any of his work, to my mind it is the work of a five year old let looses with the paint pots. Plenty of messy splodges created using a 3 inch house brush, in my opinion this is dross!!!
Barbara Hepworth.
Very much in the style of Henry Moore or is Henry Moore in the style of Barbara Hepworth. One can see similarities between the works of both artists.
Like Moore I love the sculptures with the use of string / wire. The work using wood is particularly stunning and beautiful; the grain created in the wood is awesome and she has found some lovely pieces.
I did not know of either of the musicians mentioned in the brief but I managed to find, via Amazon, a CD of the works of Nyman. "The VeryBest Of Michael Nyman".... Film Music 1980-2001.
I listened a few times to his music, in the hope to glean inspiration for the brief. Two tracks on the CD “did something for me”, they were
.1 Chasing sheep is best left to Shepard’s, and
.2 Knowing the ropes
I have plenty of ideas but I need to get these down on paper.
Wednesday, 2 January 2008
Copyright Case Studies
Copyright Case Studies
Hot off the Press, from this months Computer Arts Magazine
The Copycat Creative.
Freelance artiste Sally Swannell has been thriving in the greeting cards and stationery sector for the past five years. One day, whilst walking down her local high street she came across what looked like a copy of one of her illustrations on a greeting card and calendar.
“The whole design had been copied with a few ‘subtle’ changes,” says Swannell. As a member of the association of Illustrators, she sent them her original design and the ‘copy’: “I felt it was too close to my original I had to do something about it.” Her query is currently being assessed by the AOL’s ethical advisors, and she awaits advice on how – or if – to proceed.
Swannell has found the experience to be utterly deflating. “This isn’t just a nine-to-five-job – I put my heart and soul into it. I love what I do, but all the same I earn my fees. When you’ve spent a lot of time on a piece, its galling to se a badly executed copy somebody has thrown together off the back of your original.”
“I’ve no respect for an artist or designer who copies another’s work. We’re all under commercial pressure. I’ve had requests to ‘Do something the same as that’, but I’ve never gone down that road. I feel it’s totally wrong.”
Its one thing for an illustrator to stumble across work bearing a startling resemblance to their work, but what happens when two pieces of virtually identical corporate branding belongs to a government agency and one of the world’s largest software houses?
This was the situation facing the Scottish Arts Council (SAC) and Quark, when the latter unveiled its new corporate identity in 2005. Quark’s hand drawn upper-case ‘Q’ was identical in all but colour to the SAC lower-case ‘a’, which was also hand drawn. At the time, the SAC put out the following statement: “The similarities of the design of Quark’s new logo and ours are indeed uncanny.” For its part, Quark said: “We engaged in extensive checks to discover any similar existing logos. We evidently didn’t find them all.”
The SAC logo was designed by Glasgow-based Graven Images, founded by on of Scotland’s leading graphic designers, Janice Kirkpatrick. How did she feel when the Quark logo was unveiled? Indignant? Angry? Deflated?
“I found it amusing.” She reveals.
There was a big hoo-hah in the press at the time but there was never any accusation of theft.” She adds; “In our business, we are very process-driven; we don’t just pluck things out of the air. I think its very diffe4erent from the fashion industry, where there are huge issues of counterfeiting. Everything is grounded in research. I never thought it was a rip off idea. Quark is a reputable organisation and it of all organisations would not do something that was illegal.”
Quark binned its controversial new logo, unveiling a radically different version in March 2006 – but not for plagiarism reasons, Kirkpatrick explains: “It was an issue of legal ownership, and I don’t think there was any conflict.”
Sitting back and doing nothing is not an option for many designers who have had their work cribbed – certainly not a certain Australian fashion designer who’s engaged in a global one-man campaign to battle plagiarism in the design industry. You Thought We Wouldn’t Notice is an open blog site dedicated to identifying work that seems too similar to an existing creation to be entirely coincidental. Fields covered include design, art, animation, retail, advertising, fashion and even graffiti.
The site’s founder – who wishes to be known simply as Rone “(The site has pissed a lot of people off, because they have been caught out”) – set it up after he and his friends saw their street art, pop up in places they never expected.
Melbourne–based Rone remembers: “One time, my art was sent to me by a fashion website in an e mail ready for all their subscribers to download and use. People using it for commercial gain didn’t feel right.
The site, he says, is designed to keep copycats on their toes and enables artists who’ve been copied to voice their side of the story and gain support from colleagues and peers.
It now attracts IP lawyers from Europe and the US, who contribute blogs outlining creative rights in various areas of different countries. The aim, explains Rone, is too attract IP lawyers from other countries to help out in delineating rights, in exchange for links from the site.
“I’d like the site to become a strong deterrent to plagiarism.” He says.
“There’s really no excuse for copying someone else’s work – especially corporations with budgets bigger than an artist’s lifetime wages.
Copied in whole from: Computer Arts January 2008 magazine (Pages 36-37)
The Blog site for: You Thought We Wouldn’t Notice
http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice/blog3/
I found this to be a poor messy site even if its concept and ideas are good…good luck navigating it
Hot off the Press, from this months Computer Arts Magazine
The Copycat Creative.
Freelance artiste Sally Swannell has been thriving in the greeting cards and stationery sector for the past five years. One day, whilst walking down her local high street she came across what looked like a copy of one of her illustrations on a greeting card and calendar.
“The whole design had been copied with a few ‘subtle’ changes,” says Swannell. As a member of the association of Illustrators, she sent them her original design and the ‘copy’: “I felt it was too close to my original I had to do something about it.” Her query is currently being assessed by the AOL’s ethical advisors, and she awaits advice on how – or if – to proceed.
Swannell has found the experience to be utterly deflating. “This isn’t just a nine-to-five-job – I put my heart and soul into it. I love what I do, but all the same I earn my fees. When you’ve spent a lot of time on a piece, its galling to se a badly executed copy somebody has thrown together off the back of your original.”
“I’ve no respect for an artist or designer who copies another’s work. We’re all under commercial pressure. I’ve had requests to ‘Do something the same as that’, but I’ve never gone down that road. I feel it’s totally wrong.”
Its one thing for an illustrator to stumble across work bearing a startling resemblance to their work, but what happens when two pieces of virtually identical corporate branding belongs to a government agency and one of the world’s largest software houses?
This was the situation facing the Scottish Arts Council (SAC) and Quark, when the latter unveiled its new corporate identity in 2005. Quark’s hand drawn upper-case ‘Q’ was identical in all but colour to the SAC lower-case ‘a’, which was also hand drawn. At the time, the SAC put out the following statement: “The similarities of the design of Quark’s new logo and ours are indeed uncanny.” For its part, Quark said: “We engaged in extensive checks to discover any similar existing logos. We evidently didn’t find them all.”
The SAC logo was designed by Glasgow-based Graven Images, founded by on of Scotland’s leading graphic designers, Janice Kirkpatrick. How did she feel when the Quark logo was unveiled? Indignant? Angry? Deflated?
“I found it amusing.” She reveals.
There was a big hoo-hah in the press at the time but there was never any accusation of theft.” She adds; “In our business, we are very process-driven; we don’t just pluck things out of the air. I think its very diffe4erent from the fashion industry, where there are huge issues of counterfeiting. Everything is grounded in research. I never thought it was a rip off idea. Quark is a reputable organisation and it of all organisations would not do something that was illegal.”
Quark binned its controversial new logo, unveiling a radically different version in March 2006 – but not for plagiarism reasons, Kirkpatrick explains: “It was an issue of legal ownership, and I don’t think there was any conflict.”
Sitting back and doing nothing is not an option for many designers who have had their work cribbed – certainly not a certain Australian fashion designer who’s engaged in a global one-man campaign to battle plagiarism in the design industry. You Thought We Wouldn’t Notice is an open blog site dedicated to identifying work that seems too similar to an existing creation to be entirely coincidental. Fields covered include design, art, animation, retail, advertising, fashion and even graffiti.
The site’s founder – who wishes to be known simply as Rone “(The site has pissed a lot of people off, because they have been caught out”) – set it up after he and his friends saw their street art, pop up in places they never expected.
Melbourne–based Rone remembers: “One time, my art was sent to me by a fashion website in an e mail ready for all their subscribers to download and use. People using it for commercial gain didn’t feel right.
The site, he says, is designed to keep copycats on their toes and enables artists who’ve been copied to voice their side of the story and gain support from colleagues and peers.
It now attracts IP lawyers from Europe and the US, who contribute blogs outlining creative rights in various areas of different countries. The aim, explains Rone, is too attract IP lawyers from other countries to help out in delineating rights, in exchange for links from the site.
“I’d like the site to become a strong deterrent to plagiarism.” He says.
“There’s really no excuse for copying someone else’s work – especially corporations with budgets bigger than an artist’s lifetime wages.
Copied in whole from: Computer Arts January 2008 magazine (Pages 36-37)
The Blog site for: You Thought We Wouldn’t Notice
http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice/blog3/
I found this to be a poor messy site even if its concept and ideas are good…good luck navigating it
Saturday, 1 December 2007
My Feelings and Thoughts about Copyright
Basically I feel the law is an ass, why should I feel any differently for Copyright? The Berne Convention clearly recommends a 70 year after the death of its author. Many countries only go part way, but cinematograph and photography comes off badly. Photography comes off the worst with only 25 years from the date of publication, why is this? As much love, devotion, work and time goes into producing a photograph as does a painting, so why the anomaly in the time periods?
I would never “borrow” somebody else’s work and call it my own, this is the worst kind of theft.
However I would copy/download images or text to use as inspiration, maybe to go into a folder. But I always acknowledge where I have obtains my images or text.
Currently I am working on a photographic montage and always say that my inspiration comes from David Hockney.
Would I copy programmes or music? Yes and I have no qualms about it, however I only copy for my own use and not to make money by mass copying and making money. The cost of programmes especially if you are a student is almost prohibitive and I would copy if I could. However I have just spent £200 on a student Adobe package and that hurt.
The cost of the main program is about £1500 for CS3. Bearing in mind that CS2 was only brought out just over a year ago and the professional would have to fork out £700 for get the upgrade from CS2 to CS3. This is extortion!
I would be very hurt if somebody copied my work and passed it off as theirs. Some would say that “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”, but I do not see it that way.
Would I “rat” on somebody who copies programs or music, no I wouldn’t.
Would I “rat” on somebody I know to be copying others work and passing it off as their own? Oh hell yes… no problems!!!
I would never “borrow” somebody else’s work and call it my own, this is the worst kind of theft.
However I would copy/download images or text to use as inspiration, maybe to go into a folder. But I always acknowledge where I have obtains my images or text.
Currently I am working on a photographic montage and always say that my inspiration comes from David Hockney.
Would I copy programmes or music? Yes and I have no qualms about it, however I only copy for my own use and not to make money by mass copying and making money. The cost of programmes especially if you are a student is almost prohibitive and I would copy if I could. However I have just spent £200 on a student Adobe package and that hurt.
The cost of the main program is about £1500 for CS3. Bearing in mind that CS2 was only brought out just over a year ago and the professional would have to fork out £700 for get the upgrade from CS2 to CS3. This is extortion!
I would be very hurt if somebody copied my work and passed it off as theirs. Some would say that “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”, but I do not see it that way.
Would I “rat” on somebody who copies programs or music, no I wouldn’t.
Would I “rat” on somebody I know to be copying others work and passing it off as their own? Oh hell yes… no problems!!!
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
Who is the owner the creator of the copyright?
Who is the owner the creator of the copyright?
Not necessarily its author or creator, a lot depends on who the creator is working for at the time. As a photographer for 30 years most of my work was carried out working for another photographer. However, the work I carried out on behalf of the other photographer, the copyright belonged to him and the work I did on my own, the copyright was mine.
Some Colleges and Universities make you sign a paper to state that any work carried out during your course of studies, the copyright would be theirs.
When you are working for another person or organisation then any work carried out during your normal working day, then the copyright belongs to them. Then there is the grey area of, if you have inspiration from work and then do the work at home, some could argue that the copyright still belongs to your place at work.
Commissioned or freelance work normally belongs with the artist but, there could be a contract whereby the copyright belongs to the person who gave you the work.
If you leave a job and then either work on your own or for another and you “pick up” where you left off with your previous job and use that work, you could certainly be in trouble.
Very often breaches of copyright means either an out of court settlement or actually going to let the courts decide if there is a breach of copyright. It is often a long, laborious and very expensive procedure, more often than not the case is sorted out before it ever gets to court.
One of the more notorious cases is between Orange and Easy-Jet who both use a similar shade of Orange as a trademark to their respective brands. Easy-jet/cruise are now nudging in on the mobile phone supplier, as if we haven’t enough choice? Orange phones have used the same colour Orange since its inception (pantone 151) and Easy have been using a similar shade of orange (pantone 021) for over a decade. It was only when Easy decided to encroach on the lucrative mobile market that Orange said it was too close to their colour and people may get the two confused.
Can a company own a colour? That is for the courts to decide.
Personally I find it laughable that grown men are arguing about a colour.
Easy is well Easy and Orange is ermmm Orange,
I would have thought their past reputation and standard sells their products.
Not necessarily its author or creator, a lot depends on who the creator is working for at the time. As a photographer for 30 years most of my work was carried out working for another photographer. However, the work I carried out on behalf of the other photographer, the copyright belonged to him and the work I did on my own, the copyright was mine.
Some Colleges and Universities make you sign a paper to state that any work carried out during your course of studies, the copyright would be theirs.
When you are working for another person or organisation then any work carried out during your normal working day, then the copyright belongs to them. Then there is the grey area of, if you have inspiration from work and then do the work at home, some could argue that the copyright still belongs to your place at work.
Commissioned or freelance work normally belongs with the artist but, there could be a contract whereby the copyright belongs to the person who gave you the work.
If you leave a job and then either work on your own or for another and you “pick up” where you left off with your previous job and use that work, you could certainly be in trouble.
Very often breaches of copyright means either an out of court settlement or actually going to let the courts decide if there is a breach of copyright. It is often a long, laborious and very expensive procedure, more often than not the case is sorted out before it ever gets to court.
One of the more notorious cases is between Orange and Easy-Jet who both use a similar shade of Orange as a trademark to their respective brands. Easy-jet/cruise are now nudging in on the mobile phone supplier, as if we haven’t enough choice? Orange phones have used the same colour Orange since its inception (pantone 151) and Easy have been using a similar shade of orange (pantone 021) for over a decade. It was only when Easy decided to encroach on the lucrative mobile market that Orange said it was too close to their colour and people may get the two confused.
Can a company own a colour? That is for the courts to decide.
Personally I find it laughable that grown men are arguing about a colour.
Easy is well Easy and Orange is ermmm Orange,
I would have thought their past reputation and standard sells their products.
Monday, 19 November 2007
COPYRIGHT in the United States of America
COPYRIGHT in the United States of America
It had a very complex method of copyright before the 1st January 1978 after this date it became a lot easier both to register and its implementation. All work is copyrighted for 70 years after the death of its author of if the work is unknown or written under a pseudonym then the period is 95 years from its publishing or 120 from its creation, whichever is shorter.
Pre 1st January 1978 it was for 28 years from the date of registration but during the final year it can be re-registered and extended for 47 years. Further legislation in 1979 extended the term to 95 years.
A copyright can be bequeath by will, is the new owner able to extend its original term???
Berne Convention for the protection of Literary and Artistic Work
First came into being in 1886 before the Berne Convention national copyright usually applied to work created in each respective country. The UK signed up in 1887 but didn’t implement large parts of the convention ruling until 1988.
Most countries of the world belong to the (WIPO) World Intellectual Property Organisation. As of 2007 there are 163 member countries of the Berne Convention. Members require that all members of the organisation recognise the copyright of authors in their respective countries. Its states as its main guideline that, all works, except photographic and cinematographical work, shall be copyrighted for 50 years after the authors death. Photography is recommended to be for 25 from when the image was produced and Cinema work for 50 years after its first showing.
Not all member countries have adopted this as the norm.
The United States only became a member, in 1989
References: -
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1
Accessed 18/11/07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
Accessed 18/11/07
It had a very complex method of copyright before the 1st January 1978 after this date it became a lot easier both to register and its implementation. All work is copyrighted for 70 years after the death of its author of if the work is unknown or written under a pseudonym then the period is 95 years from its publishing or 120 from its creation, whichever is shorter.
Pre 1st January 1978 it was for 28 years from the date of registration but during the final year it can be re-registered and extended for 47 years. Further legislation in 1979 extended the term to 95 years.
A copyright can be bequeath by will, is the new owner able to extend its original term???
Berne Convention for the protection of Literary and Artistic Work
First came into being in 1886 before the Berne Convention national copyright usually applied to work created in each respective country. The UK signed up in 1887 but didn’t implement large parts of the convention ruling until 1988.
Most countries of the world belong to the (WIPO) World Intellectual Property Organisation. As of 2007 there are 163 member countries of the Berne Convention. Members require that all members of the organisation recognise the copyright of authors in their respective countries. Its states as its main guideline that, all works, except photographic and cinematographical work, shall be copyrighted for 50 years after the authors death. Photography is recommended to be for 25 from when the image was produced and Cinema work for 50 years after its first showing.
Not all member countries have adopted this as the norm.
The United States only became a member, in 1989
References: -
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1
Accessed 18/11/07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
Accessed 18/11/07
Thursday, 15 November 2007
What is Copyright?
WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?
Copyright is the means of protecting various pieces of work that you have produced. Copyright is one of four areas in which its creator can protect his/hers work, the others include Design Rights, Patent and Trademarks
Pieces of work includes: -
Ø Music and Lyrics
Ø Web sites
Ø Software
Ø Photographs
Ø Film footage, plays and TV programmes
Ø Commercial documents and advertising
Ø Magazines and periodicals
Ø Designs and logos
Ø Artwork, illustrations and paintings
Ø Written illustrations and paintings
These are only a few of the many pieces of work that can be protected.
The dictionary defines copyright as,
“exclusive legal right to print publish, perform film or record material”.
Oxford Dictionary (1998) P186
Copyright gives the owner of the work an automatic right of ownership as long as the work is,
“original and exhibits a degree of labour, skill or judgement”.
UK©CS website
Ideas cannot be copyrighted, but the work that is produced from that idea can be.
If work is produced whilst in the employment of others then the copyright belongs to that group not the individual. Work that is produced by an individual who is freelance belongs to the person who created that work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary, and only the owner can bring proceedings in a court of law.
The duration of copyright differs depending on what the medium was used, for instance: -
Ø Literary, dramatic, musical and works of art
o 70 years from when the author dies.
o If the author is not known then 70 years from when the work was produced.
Ø Recording and broadcasts
o 50 years from when the work was released.
Ø Films
o 70 years from when from when the principal director, author or composer died.
Ø The written word
o 25 years from when the work was first published
Ø Broadcasts
o 50 years from when the broadcast was first made.
Reference
Oxford Quick Reference Dictionary (1998)
London, London University Press,
UK©CS The UK Copyright Service http://copyrightservice.co.uk/
Accessed 15/11/07
Copyright is the means of protecting various pieces of work that you have produced. Copyright is one of four areas in which its creator can protect his/hers work, the others include Design Rights, Patent and Trademarks
Pieces of work includes: -
Ø Music and Lyrics
Ø Web sites
Ø Software
Ø Photographs
Ø Film footage, plays and TV programmes
Ø Commercial documents and advertising
Ø Magazines and periodicals
Ø Designs and logos
Ø Artwork, illustrations and paintings
Ø Written illustrations and paintings
These are only a few of the many pieces of work that can be protected.
The dictionary defines copyright as,
“exclusive legal right to print publish, perform film or record material”.
Oxford Dictionary (1998) P186
Copyright gives the owner of the work an automatic right of ownership as long as the work is,
“original and exhibits a degree of labour, skill or judgement”.
UK©CS website
Ideas cannot be copyrighted, but the work that is produced from that idea can be.
If work is produced whilst in the employment of others then the copyright belongs to that group not the individual. Work that is produced by an individual who is freelance belongs to the person who created that work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary, and only the owner can bring proceedings in a court of law.
The duration of copyright differs depending on what the medium was used, for instance: -
Ø Literary, dramatic, musical and works of art
o 70 years from when the author dies.
o If the author is not known then 70 years from when the work was produced.
Ø Recording and broadcasts
o 50 years from when the work was released.
Ø Films
o 70 years from when from when the principal director, author or composer died.
Ø The written word
o 25 years from when the work was first published
Ø Broadcasts
o 50 years from when the broadcast was first made.
Reference
Oxford Quick Reference Dictionary (1998)
London, London University Press,
UK©CS The UK Copyright Service http://copyrightservice.co.uk/
Accessed 15/11/07
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)