Topic 2.2: Fan-Created Transmedia Content

1. While film websites are ubiquitous today, what joys and challenges emerged when Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings production embraced official and more importantly, unofficial, websites about their films during production?
2. Are there particular fan websites that you use or have used in the past? What is the relationship between these sites and the official sites for the television show or film in question?

Topic 2.1: Remix // Mashup // Copyright

1. Lessig argues that video, audio and other forms of media should be remixable in the same way that textual sources can be cut-up, such as citations in an essay. Should different media forms have different copyright restrictions; does taking a 10-second 'quote' from a feature film in a remix video equate with quoting 50 words form a published book in an essay or a published article in a journal?
2. If some remixes and mashups should be legal, even using copyrighted works, can we define what's 'remix' and what's just copying? Does remix involve fundamental changes in form, in length, in meaning or something else? If you had to offer a legal boundary between a legitimate remix, and an authorised copy, could you?
3. Should the intention of a remixed work matter? For example, in the US, 'fair use' means that political expression is largely protected, even using material under full copyright. So, for example, the 'prezvids' Tryon discusses are 'legal' as long as their intent (as political expression) is obvious. Australia, however, dosn't recognise the same right of political expression.  Do you think intention matters (and if so, how do you 'prove' the intent of a piece of media)?

1. I  think that different media forms should be subject to differing copyright requirements as each separate form of media creation presents a different form of cultural artifact even if they are converging through similar distribution channels. If you take a quote from a book to use in an essay or in a public journal, or use a 10 second video clip for a video report there are different consequences of the copyrighted contents use – there are economic concerns, gains in reputation and cultural values in question.
   
   If there is a direct economic gain, intended or not, to the creator though the use of copyrighted material then obviously copyright laws should be invoked. However if it is for a cultural purpose only such as an educational purpose where no economic profit is wanted or intended that I think these should be except to encourage production of non-commercial creativity.
   
   There are some grey areas such as the political sphere where the use of copyrighted material in political campaigns do generate economic gains for certain interest groups thus I don’t believe that these should be exempt from copyright laws, but I also believe that the use of such material for parody and satire successfully cover the use of such material and give people the right to express their opinions on political ideals.
   
   I see copyright changing in different ways at the moment, perhaps most interesting to me is the ways YouTube is striking deals with record labels that would mean YouTube pay a fee each time a copyrighted song is used on their website this allowing the users in the YouTube community to create free of the fear of being sued by record labels. It is a sign that perhaps record labels are seeing the value in “remix culture” – especially as it is providing a secondary revenue source paid for by YouTube’s advertising model. A stream of revenue garnered from user promoting their artists for free online at no cost to them.
   
2. If the remix or mashup adds value to the original, or changes its context, than I don’t think it can be classed as copying, as copying to me means being identical or very similar to the original piece of work, with the same intent of the original.
   
   
   
3. I think intent is important. If you intend to use the piece of media to express and idea or concept within a different cultural context, or via a different media format than the original, than this should be allowed as the intent of the ‘new’ piece of media was never intended by the creator of the ‘original’ piece of media (i.e. its an original set thoughts using pre-prepared media artifacts that are re-ordered to create a new context for them to be viewed).
   
   If a creator intends to copy an idea and express no new thought or context than this is unacceptable whether it is for non-profit or not as it adds no value in anyway and thus adds to the ‘noise’ in a time of media abundance.
   
   The only way I can think of to prove the intent of a piece is to either make it freely re-mixable through methods such as Creative Commons thus making it of no value to the creator other than reputation and experience. If a piece of work is intended for financial gains license as so through creative commons so intent can be seen through the licensing terms.

TOPIC 1.4 Photography 

1. Has the process of becoming ubiquitous (ie almost everywhere) made photography in the digital age less important or more important?  How has this change occurred?
2. When a photograph obviously becomes digital information, does that change what photography means, or does lowering the barriers to participation mean most users have a better understanding of what makes a (good) photograph?
3. In the era of Photoshop and filters (such as those in Instagram), how do we decide which photographs to ‘trust’?