All posts

My immediate knowledge concerning copyright came from how licensing worked using Soundcloud and uploading your music. When publishing a track you're given the option of choosing an "All Rights Reserved" or "Creative Commons" license. When I had previously done a quick internet search to find the difference between to the two it seemed that in general, a Creative Commons license is more liberal with its sharing options and while you can enable certain permissions with an All Rights Reserved license you have to specifically choose under a category what a person can or can't do with your music. Besides music publishing, I have lots of experience with citing sources in MLA format. Following the readings I'm still not sure about the differences between specific licenses yet but I definitely have gotten a sense about the guidelines for using other people's property in your own work.

After reading the sections on copyright and fair use, I was surprised to realize all of the details that go into citing something, even the image of a cereal box. First, I find it odd that we don't learn any of this information earlier in our education, at least I never really knew about the importance of copyright laws, besides plagirization in essays, until my freshmen year of college. In a world where technology has become a major integral part of our society and work life, we have unlimited access to text, images, and graphics that are not our own. Sure, we can cite the name or author of these art forms, but in the end we could still be punished legally if we do not receive permission from the creators. In education, the fine line between what is acceptable/what is not when using various works is slightly more blurry because it depends on the purpose behind its usage and the size of the audience it will reach. How do we know, then,  when it is appropriate to utilize images and texts that aren't ours? And how do we properly cite them? read more

The images that I used for the gallery, were taken by myself using my own two hands and camera. They are stored and saved on my computer. read more

The images I found for lesson 3 were from Google, so they are easily accessible. I didn't embed any citation information, as I think I've heard previously that you can use images from Google for educational purposes, and the book clarifies that. However, I think there is a misconception that any image found on Google can be used for any purpose, which is far from the truth. If you look up, "Alyssa Hernandez pittsburgh," my image will come up. That doesn't mean anyone can take my image and use it for whatever purpose, as it technically has a copyright on it, unofficially. At least, that's what I've heard anyway; I've heard that any artist/creator has an unofficial copyright on their work, and if someone else tries to use it, the original creator (if there is no official copyright) must provide proof that they created it first. However, I have also heard that as long as a user modifies found images, they are free to use them for whatever purpose. read more

I thought that it was interesting to read this article and think about everything that is copyrighted. I also starting to think about hollywood and pop culture. The first thing that came to mind was celebrities that have their own brands, like the Kardashians. So I googled, "Can Kim Kardashian copyright her name?" This came up as trademark which I quickly learned is very different. A "trademark"  is to assure the public that products and services are indeed coming from a certain person or entity (forbes.com).

Prior to the reading, I felt that it was actually very difficult to infringe upon most copyright laws. I was well aware of the fact that most of them have very tight-knit specifications on what external users can and cannot do in terms of material use, but I didn't realize how easy it was to enforce and elaborate on those set rules. Though they seem overtly specific, the copyright laws typically cover a very broad spectrum of elements within overall product design. Something as simple and (seemingly) obsolete as the font used on Coca-Cola cans can easily infringe upon copyright laws if the proper precautions are not taken and clearances are not obtained. I think that the way these laws are enforced is a bit excessive sometimes, but I fully understand the reason behind their nitpicking; if I was the first soda company to make a marketable soft drink containing cocaine, I wouldn't want it being mistaken for some cheap Pepsi knock off. read more

Output: read more