Protecting Yourself And Your Art : Social Media And The Fight For Ownership

Is Vanilla Ice's song “Ice, Ice, Baby” an example of plagiarism? Of course, it is, and Robert Matthew Van Winkle, who known professionally as Vanilla Ice knows it. Vanilla Ice became famous for a while, not because of his talent, but because of the copyright of someone else baseline. Some people said that since the words were not the same, then it wasn't plagiarism. It was just an artist sampling another artist's music which happens all the time. To me, I believe that this is an example of plagiarism. Vanilla Ice can't go and change one beat in someone's music and call it new and original without giving the person any credit. He thought changing the rhythm of David Bowie’s “Under Pressure” baseline and not giving him credit would avoid him from any trouble. Vanilla Ice’s song “Ice, Ice, Baby” is an example of plagiarism, with evidence provided of what he did wrong, and what he could have done to avoid this type of consequences.

If the image is no longer unique and exclusive, the art object, the thing, must be made mysteriously so,” (Berger 44). Therefore, the final step in the exploitation of power is mystification of its origins. Over time a concept will build its image and solidify its strength through results, showing the public its value until it becomes integrated and thus, hidden within society. There are several examples of power that has become formally accepted or internalized by the public and it is difficult to see how they exploit power because their origins are mystified. For the concept of originality in art, we can see how its status may have risen because of the definition we give to “originality” rules that have commercial purposes or vice versa. Some examples include companies that have copyright issues to protect names and identities that belong to them, or schools that incorporate rules about plagiarism. The idea of originality has already become internalized within our society that assigning a market meaning with it, just seems natural. If our judicial system has already incorporated ideas of “originality”, then not many people will see any problems with it. However, it is important to look at the origins and realize how a power came to be to prevent it from being exploited. Another covert concept integrated within society

An example of appropriation is Charles Meere’s oil on wax on cardboard artwork titled ‘Australian Beach Pattern’ which was appropriated by modern day artist Anne Zahalka titled ‘The Bathers, from the series Bondi: playground of the Pacific’ in 1990. The use of appropriation is clearly adopted by Zahalka from Meere’s artwork evident through the setting in which is a beach side on the sand for both, featuring individuals and families from a range of age groups all participating in a certain activity. They are both busy landscapes with a lot of clutter and disorder, they are detailed and have many aspects to the artworks. It is obvious that Meere’s artwork was

‘Copying, reinterpreting, quoting, and translating are all terms that have been utilised as alternative descriptions for the phenomenon known as “appropriation”, the action of taking or making use of something without authority or legal right. This practice often involves borrowing, mimicking, or even stealing, and it is highly contested and criticized in the contemporary art world’ (Gorman, C 2013, p. 215). Appropriation in the postmodern decade brings various aspects such as cultural exchange and finding identity. From the number of contemporary artists used the appropriation in their artwork covers a wide range of media. Appropriation art, sometimes cause responses varying from astonishment and suspicion to praise and acceptance, depend

It can be considered legal if made if it promotes the original artist like brand names in songs, or if not being used to take away the market of the original artist or harming their image. So, I think it is legitimate art if handled carefully. One of my favorite actors in his recent speeches, said “Art is more important than the artist.”

Social media is quickly evolving in front of our eyes and it is almost impossible to reject and hide from this new form of media. Not only is it an important part of socialization within peer groups but now it is used to market and motivate people to become a part of a larger community. It is undeniably changing the way one communicates and how one finds and shares information. Most websites offer communication through the use of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn and many various blog formats. With new apps on smartphones and photography and video made digital, media can be created, edited and shared quickly and once it is in this new digital cloud it is not yours anymore. Through these new advances in technology one can share things

Throughout history, the issue of appropriation in art has become a heated debate on whether it is good or whether it is bad. Appropriation is fundamentally the act of taking something from somewhere else and placing it into a new context. In art, appropriation is seen as using (or taking) someone else's artwork, manipulating it and ultimately changing the whole meaning behind the work. It is seen as a significant issue as many people (including art critics, art historians and art enthusiasts) see appropriation as whilst, others see it as being inappropriate and immoral, and see the growth in appropriation as being a destroyer of art. It is of the opinion that art indeed "feeds off itself" and every artwork, art movement, and art period is

"Do you agree or disagree that laws relating to copyright and intellectual property are still valid in social media?"

Today’s digital artists work in an environment where information and access to design inspiration are, literally, at their fingertips. Many in the industry use the artwork of others in order to inspire their on artwork and provide content for their projects. However, I have noticed that many fail to give the proper credit to the artists’ whose work(s). Digital media and internet has transformed the world of copyrights in many ways. The digital environment has made it very easy to distribute and re-distribute content (Kankanala,2012).

Performers frequently describe a system of rules as being open source or free software. The term open source adverts to thing that people can change and share because of the reason that, its design is publicly approachable. This term developed in the context of software evolution to delegate a particular approach to make computer programs. Nowadays, nevertheless, open source delegates a wider set of values that we call as the open source way.

“Intellectual Property”(IP) provides an intangible property rights protecting a product or creations, and regulates the uses of different sorts of ideas and insignia such as industrial design, literature, and artistic works inclusive of symbols, names and images. It is enforced by means of patented inventions, copyrights and trademarks where each protects distinct subject matter and promotes a unique social goal. Patent law protects functional products, processes and designs. The inventions must be new, useful, and non obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art. Copyright law protect expressive works where it has to be original, incrementally creative, and fixed in a tangible medium of expression.

These are all guesses, however. At the very least, there is some possibility, even hope, that we could have a world in which much more of intellectual and inventive production is free. “‘Free’ as in ‘free speech,’” Richard Stallman says, not “‘free’ as in ‘free beer.’”61 But we could hope that much of it would be both free of centralized control and low cost or no cost. When the marginal cost of production is zero, the marginal cost of transmission and storage approaches zero, the process of creation is additive, and much of the labor doesn’t charge—well, the world looks a little different.62 This is at least a possible future, or part of a possible future, and one that we should not foreclose without thinking twice. Yet that is what we are doing. The Database Protection Bills and Directives, which extend intellectual property rights to the layer of facts;63 the efflorescence of software patents;64 the UCITA-led validation of shrink wrap licenses that bind third parties;65 the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention provisions66 — the point of all of these developments is not merely that they make the peer-to peer model difficult, but that in many cases they rule it out altogether. The free software and open-source software movements have produced software that rivals and, many would say, exceeds the capabilities of conventional proprietary, binary-only software. 52 Its adoption on the “enterprise level” is impressive, as is the number and

according to which whoever intended to copy, print or share an art work made by

When it comes to appropriation in artistic practices, I feel as though there are two defining lines or codes of ethics that relate to the topic in a creative context and with a cultural context – artistic appropriation, the topic of artistic freedom in practices that reference or borrow existing elements of other work, and cultural appropriation, the issue which spans between being ‘inspired’ by other cultural groups to potential exploitation, a lack of representation to a caricaturistic type of racism. The two types of appropriation are complex, controversial, and often come together to form two sides of the same argument – do we have the right to borrow and if so, from whom and how?

The social media revolution has been led by Twitter and Facebook. Twitter and Facebook combined have over 750 million users. (Carpenter) Along with new comers, Instagram, Pinterest, and host of lesser known mediums; opportunities for copyright infringement have substantially increased. Along with this ease of access comes the challenge to monitor one’s self for sharing content. Social media can make gaining sharing music, books, photos, articles, and video media easier and can cause individuals, community groups, and businesses, among a few, to commit copyright infringement without realizing the mistake.