Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Misrepresentation of Intellectual Property in the Media
I have to admit that I, like most Americans, am guilty of assuming that intellectual property laws were grouped together under the same basic principles and ideas. I agree with the article that by doing this the majority of people forget what the actual laws are about. For example it makes hardly any sense to think of a copyright law protecting an artist's right to a painting in the same sense that a trademark law protects the formulation of Coke. This way of thinking makes these laws more vague in that they are only distantly related to one another. I agree with the article that overuse of the term "intellectual property" disguises the details associated with copyright law, patent law, and trademark law which sometimes helps certain companies that claim some of their products as "intellectual property". Applying only this term would mean that anything that is a product of your intellect is protected under law, which ignores the concept of fair use. This over generalization may seem like a small detail, but it is important that society is well educated in the details of these laws due to the fact that the information age has made the works of others so remarkably accessible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I definitely agree that the general public, most of us included, have no idea about how the various intellectual property laws are broken up (unless you've had to take Media Law in the J-school, of course). I think though, that as loosely worded and imprecise and confusing as intellectual property law is, it's fairly common sense. Maybe it's just me, but when I download music or software or even pictures for school projects, something inside me KNOWS its ethically wrong (Kant, I guess), but I, along with most of us, do it anyway (greatest good??). I clearly take the act utilitarianism view on this one. It's been a more difficult line for me to draw lately as I've been putting together my graphic design portfolio. Although many of the pieces I've created included copyrighted photographs used under fair use for educational purposes, now that I'm publishing on my own website with hopes of getting a job or freelance clients, that fair use is gone and its commercial use. Where intellectual property gets downright annoying for me is when it's far beyond common sense and into technicalities. If I legally downloaded royalty-free stock images at my internship through their paid subscription, but used them for other work, is that legal? According to shutterstock.com's terms of use, not at all. But when it comes down to it, you're exactly right. Most Americans don't know much about intellectual property law, but individuals posting YouTube videos and copying photos isn't really going to hurt much of anyone. If you sold T-shirts on campus with Mickey Mouse on them on campus, Disney's not going to go out of business. But if a retail chain starts carrying unlicensed shirts, it's going to have an impact. The people who are REALLY affecting the marketplace DO know the law and that's the real reason it's in place, at least in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with autumn that the general public is unaware of how the different intellectual property laws work. I know that before reading this section in our book and listening to Jennifer Jenkins speak I did not know about the different laws. It makes sense that these different laws would exist but I definitely was never away of them. I think if more people were aware of these different laws and how they work, they would be more willing to follow the laws. With a better understanding of these laws, I know that I will make a bigger effort to remain within the boundaries of these laws.
ReplyDeleteSince basically everything is now copyrighted as soon as it is produced, where is the line drawn for intellectual property? Technically, these companies don't need to try to mislead the public by calling things intellectual property. Their ideas are already protected. This doesn't ignore fair use, fair use just is applied on top of these laws.
ReplyDeleteI agree- the over generalization of the term "intellectual property" is a bad practice and it has potentially harmful ramifications for future creative endeavors. Your post made me go back and think about Moor's article on the field of computer ethics. Being that computers permanently altered the way we view intellectual property, should there be another set of laws designed solely for the protection of materials created with new technologies? Just as its problematic to lump copyright, trademark and patent law into one category, we could face similar consequences by applying these concepts to new forms of creativity. I think a new body of law that examines the use of new technologies would erase some of the inconsistencies found when applying these existing law to new practices.
ReplyDeleteI understood patents and trademarks prior to this course, but I did not realize how lumped together intellectual property was. What I'm wondering about, since we seem to be undereducated, why aren't we learning more about copyright law when we learn citations? We are already acknowledging another person's work, so why not learn how they achieved this copyright and its implications.
ReplyDeleteI think that people have lost sight of intellectual property laws/concerns with the increasing prevalency of material on the Internet, because everything is public--it seems that if someone is willing to post their things on the Internet, which is public domain, honestly it seems silly to think that no one will/should/could capture your text/picture/video, because anyone can and inevitably someone will. If you are truly concerned with your material being transferred to other places/websites/computers, you probably should keep it off websites that millions of people can see. When I take a pictures from websites and put them in my Powerpoint presentations, I have never once thought about hte fact that I am violating copyright laws - it's the Internet, and they're available to me, so it seems reasonable that I can use them.
ReplyDeleteAs things get more complicated with new technologies and types of “intellectual property,” the laws should also become more detailed. There should definitely be more considerations made about how to protect different types of work, but they should avoid overprotection. The laws should protect only to the point they need to. They should stop others from taking credit for individuals achievements, but they not prevent the harmless sharing of information.
ReplyDeleteHonestly I never was even aware of all these laws. Like many mentioned above because the internet is so public it never crossed my mind that there are so many laws in what you can take off the internet. I think that the laws needs to be more widely understood so people understand. I also think there its a very shady area to determine what is legal and what is not due to a few situations. We learned that it is legal to make a copy if its for teaching, scholarship, research, criticism, commentary and news reporting, but how do you determine that is what it was taken for? We need intellectual property so our rights are protected from people making money from products of our intellects and imaginations but how we do we go about making them so people can abide by them?
ReplyDeleteSimilar to the aforementioned thoughts, I too often do not consider it illegal to use a picture from the web in a presentation or use a song to accompany a slideshow. When a website is available to millions upon millions of people, the author has a responsibility to understand its reach. Certain material or information, such as scientific findings should be protected and there are laws in place to do so. Current laws may need to be revised to include new technologies; however, it is important to remember that sharing of information stimulates much of society and is not necessarily always harmful.
ReplyDeleteLike others, these laws are something I did not know about prior to taking this class. With regard to the issue of copyright in the Internet, it is interesting to think about the claims not only due to the economic, educational and political significance of the issue but also due to contradictory characteristics of both the Internet and copyright. The Internet is an increasing phenomenon that is a large part of the future of our countries communication. For instance, it is said that the population of the internet is increasing at 10 percent per minute!
ReplyDeleteA big concern when it comes to copyright and internet is that our current legal system and political structure may not have the capacity to deal with problems the Internet might come across. As of now, it still seems that the characteristics of the internet as a new media has not been clearly identified in social, political, economic, and cultural senses. That being said, it makes sense that there is little consensus about whether the current regulation systems, such as the First Amendment. as well as copyright that can be applied when talking about issues with the Internet. While on the other hand, whether there will need to be new regulation systems made up based on different characteristics involving a different philosophy than what we use for the traditional media.
I think often the uses of "intellectual property" on the internet are harmless. Does it really hurt anyone if I post a picture on my facebook page which I didn't take? Is the photographer even using the picture to make money always? Or maybe they just want to share their work with as many people as possible. I don't think there should be an issue unless someone other than the creator are trying to make money or take credit for the "intellectual property".
ReplyDelete