on referencing, texts and sugar crashing (also perhaps copyright)

Referencing is kicking my ass. I keep forgetting to reference the actual text in my work. APA referencing has so many rules that it feels like I'm trying to navigate a minefield with a stick. Not exactly the best method and I'm more likely to get blown up. And I'd rather keep my limbs intact, thanks.

Although I do like having this laptop so I can update this blog DURING my tute.

now, onto the lecture.

We talked about copyright. My own work is under a creative commons copyright agreement. I'll have to look it up (ahh, here it is) but the creative commons license notes I took are as follows.

CREATIVE COMMONS

Creators choose a set of conditions they wish to apply to their work:

- Attribution: you let others copy, distribute, display and perform your copyrighted work – and derivative works based upon it, but only if they give you credit in the way you request.

- Share alike: you allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the one that governs your work

- Noncommercial: you let others distribute it for non-commercial purposes only.

- No derivative works

---


Also, Fair use.

Fair use factors are:

-The purpose and character of the use

-The nature of the copyright work

-The amount of sustainability of the portion used

-The effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
--

So as far as I'm aware, nobody can post my work or create a derivative work without asking me. Which is an interesting idea, but doesn't work so well in practice. Another thing I have noticed (with regards to
DeviantArt in general) is that most people do not pay attention to a Creative Commons license. It's free, which might be a part of the problem, but websites and other people can take and modify it however they wish without asking permission, and there is little to no recourse for the artist. Because the website is based in America, unless you're american you don't have access to their legal system.

So I can see where copyright might be problematic. The remediation and transformative works clause was fairly interesting as well. I think it's 10% of the primary source can be used before it becomes plagarism? But remediating isn't the same as transforming. Remediating is just spreading, honestly. Opening it up to new avenues. Transformative works takes the actual text and makes it into something different, based off the original. At least, that's what I got out of it.

(I am, however, on a sugar crash)