I learned some things I didn't know today. For example:
- I didn't know that if you checked your ATM and found money missing, that it was you who was responsible for showing how it went missing.
- in Feburary 2009, facebook made amendments to its privacy settings that allowed the site to take ownership of anything the users posted on their profile, even if they deleted their account.
The idea of personal Onus of Proof and the lack of control I have over my face book page alarms me. Although this sort of ties into the Spin thing that we were talking about in Professional Writing and Publishing, if you'll let me draw paralells.
With spin, it's basically taking any situation and turning it to your advantage. The way they word the terms of service for certain companies does the same thing. With the bank, they don't really care how it happens as long as they get the money.
My notes say Agenda Setting, which is basically the same thing as Spin. Choose the setting you want, angle your agenda towards it, and you can almost convince anyone of anything. The correct wording is paramount, and as a result of learning all of this I've been reading through my contracts and anything else I agree to very, very carefully.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
play vs work
now THIS is a subject that interests me. The idea of being able to make real world money out of a video game? Quit my job and take up playing a game all the time? Sign me up for that. I love video games. They're a form of escapism that, if the story is told properly, you can really become immersed in.
My favourite games are all survival horror games. Well, aside from Fallout 3, which is like a great massive multiplayer game, only it's not, and you're the only one playing it.
One thing that the lecturer said this week was that "All games have rules, but not all have goals" and this struck me as very very true. Many, many games I have played over the years served little to no purpose, other than to hack at things until they exploded in a bloody mess. A game with a purpose, I think, is a game that makes you think. A game that makes you sit there and gasp at the screen because something just struck you that you hadn't thought about before. A lot of media can do that, I guess. I know there have been television shows that have done that to me. They can be used as an educating tool, hilighting ignorance or bias and showing people ways to get over it, even if it is just through residual guilt.
The idea of Alternate Reality Games though, that's an interesting one. Escapism is a way of ...well, escaping the world as we know it. I can see how some people might be drawn into these games, like Second Life, or World of Warcraft. And the way that people make money off the games fascinates me. I'm not very good at finance and things like that. Commercially challenged.how they do it completely escapes me, and not everyone can. But it also, tying into the previous entry, raises issues of copyright. If you create content in game, is it really yours? I know people who have created content for games, so does that mean they're breaking the law?
But role playing, or real life games, are the most fun. Seeing what the world would be like if something happened, or if we were all different somehow, is interesting. And all sorts of fun.
My favourite games are all survival horror games. Well, aside from Fallout 3, which is like a great massive multiplayer game, only it's not, and you're the only one playing it.
One thing that the lecturer said this week was that "All games have rules, but not all have goals" and this struck me as very very true. Many, many games I have played over the years served little to no purpose, other than to hack at things until they exploded in a bloody mess. A game with a purpose, I think, is a game that makes you think. A game that makes you sit there and gasp at the screen because something just struck you that you hadn't thought about before. A lot of media can do that, I guess. I know there have been television shows that have done that to me. They can be used as an educating tool, hilighting ignorance or bias and showing people ways to get over it, even if it is just through residual guilt.
The idea of Alternate Reality Games though, that's an interesting one. Escapism is a way of ...well, escaping the world as we know it. I can see how some people might be drawn into these games, like Second Life, or World of Warcraft. And the way that people make money off the games fascinates me. I'm not very good at finance and things like that. Commercially challenged.how they do it completely escapes me, and not everyone can. But it also, tying into the previous entry, raises issues of copyright. If you create content in game, is it really yours? I know people who have created content for games, so does that mean they're breaking the law?
But role playing, or real life games, are the most fun. Seeing what the world would be like if something happened, or if we were all different somehow, is interesting. And all sorts of fun.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
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)
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)
Monday, August 31, 2009
Copyright!
Copyright. What a thorny issue. I think the main problem I had with copyright was the issue of ownership. Yes, a person owns their ideas, but I also, as a person, believe that ideas should be shared. The originator of the idea should be acknowleged, but...well, like I said. It's a thorny issue.
And now I'm cursing myself for not taking more detailed notes.
Ooh, a subject I do like. Fair use. The subject of fairuse is hotly debated. Is it fair if the originator doesn't like it? is it fair use if the person's been dead for a couple of hundred years? I mean, I'm hardly one to bitch about fair use. I'm downloading a soundtrack for a video game right now. Is what I'm doing illegal? I've spent more money on this game than I have anything else this year. Haven't I paid my dues? According to law, no. And I'm inclined to agree, which is why I'm also buying the soundtrack in hard copy off amazon.
That's what annoys me about copyright and fair use. People bitch about wanting to have things free for the people, but then won't go out and buy the original to support the artists.
Transformative works, however, are a whole different kettle of fish. I love making music videos. They're so much fun, even if I'm not very good at them. They pass the time, they allow for creativity and new interpretations, etc etc. For me remediation, I chose to do a music video. Whether that was a good choice or not I couldn't tell you. I'll have to wait till I get my results back. But the actual act of creating something, even from using someone else's source, is satisfying. It shows a love for the subject matter (or a hate depending on the purpose of the remediation)and a different interpretation that might not necessarily have been picked up by the casual viewer.
I think that's why read only media irritates me so much. Especially i-tunes, which only allows sharing of a song three or four times before it becomes unreadable. I love sharing songs with my friends. Our music collection grows on the singlular songs we share with each other. I usually (when I can find the album) go out and buy the album itself.
And, onto the last part of my notes (hooray) creative commons. My own artwork is under a creative commons license. Boiled down, it means that they can display my work as long as they credit me, they can do derivative works as long as it's under the same license, and they're not allowed to make money off it. Which I'm glad for, but because the license is on an american website, I'm not sure how that works into the Australian market.
An except from the site itself says :
And also
For further reading, their copyright policy can be found here.
And now I'm cursing myself for not taking more detailed notes.
Ooh, a subject I do like. Fair use. The subject of fairuse is hotly debated. Is it fair if the originator doesn't like it? is it fair use if the person's been dead for a couple of hundred years? I mean, I'm hardly one to bitch about fair use. I'm downloading a soundtrack for a video game right now. Is what I'm doing illegal? I've spent more money on this game than I have anything else this year. Haven't I paid my dues? According to law, no. And I'm inclined to agree, which is why I'm also buying the soundtrack in hard copy off amazon.
That's what annoys me about copyright and fair use. People bitch about wanting to have things free for the people, but then won't go out and buy the original to support the artists.
Transformative works, however, are a whole different kettle of fish. I love making music videos. They're so much fun, even if I'm not very good at them. They pass the time, they allow for creativity and new interpretations, etc etc. For me remediation, I chose to do a music video. Whether that was a good choice or not I couldn't tell you. I'll have to wait till I get my results back. But the actual act of creating something, even from using someone else's source, is satisfying. It shows a love for the subject matter (or a hate depending on the purpose of the remediation)and a different interpretation that might not necessarily have been picked up by the casual viewer.
I think that's why read only media irritates me so much. Especially i-tunes, which only allows sharing of a song three or four times before it becomes unreadable. I love sharing songs with my friends. Our music collection grows on the singlular songs we share with each other. I usually (when I can find the album) go out and buy the album itself.
And, onto the last part of my notes (hooray) creative commons. My own artwork is under a creative commons license. Boiled down, it means that they can display my work as long as they credit me, they can do derivative works as long as it's under the same license, and they're not allowed to make money off it. Which I'm glad for, but because the license is on an american website, I'm not sure how that works into the Australian market.
An except from the site itself says :
As we are a U.S. based company the laws which govern deviantART are those of the United States of America.
By agreeing to abide by the deviantART Submission Agreement and our Terms of Service you are also agreeing that you will abide by the laws which govern our website.
And also
The bottom line is: Just about anything that is on this site, on the web, on TV, on CD's, on DVD's, in books & in magazines is probably copyrighted by someone.
For further reading, their copyright policy can be found here.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Ho hum bang the doldrums
I ended up changing my remediation project, due to physical constraints. My hands are screwing up and I can't do the comic pages, like I wanted. I'm doing a music video instead, using footage from silent hill, similar to another movie I've made before. I'm hoping I don't need to download a lot of the footage again, because that might be problematic. Windows movie maker serves well enough with regards to making a video though. Since I've done it before, I might follow the same model as my old one, remediating Silent Hill Footage into a music video with a song by a band called Resicover, named I consume you. I'll make the song available for download later. (EDIT) Actually, changed the song. Whee. And the game subject. What. D:
The whole idea behind Silent Hill fascinates me. I'm not entierly sure why. I'm a huge horror fan, so that might have something to do with it. It just hits all the right buttons. And the good guys don't always win. In fact, usually the good guys are at fault for what's going on in the first place. I'm hoping I can get across just how much I adore this series and how much fun it is as I go through the process of remediating.
The whole idea behind Silent Hill fascinates me. I'm not entierly sure why. I'm a huge horror fan, so that might have something to do with it. It just hits all the right buttons. And the good guys don't always win. In fact, usually the good guys are at fault for what's going on in the first place. I'm hoping I can get across just how much I adore this series and how much fun it is as I go through the process of remediating.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Tute FOUR
I've been rather naughty, skipping an entry. I'll go back and write that later.
Today, we were talking about Participatory culture, at first. I gave the example of the book that James Patternson was writing with a bunch of other authors selected from a competition entry, and how those writers co-wrote the book through email and live chat interaction. We had a couple of interesting ones, from choose your own adventure books to riots, of all things.
It was culture jamming that interested me the most; the concept of taking something that's already in the media and changing the meaning. Case in point today, when we were asked to find an ad in a magazine and change the meaning. The one I found was an ad for Johnny Cash's new album. It was fairly innocuous looking, with the words CASH AMERICAN V across it, with a bunch of quotes from different reviewers down along the ad.
What I turned it into, however, is something a little different.
It's amazing what blacking out a couple of words can do. The bottom bit, if you can't see it, says Everyone's talking about Cash.
Today, we were talking about Participatory culture, at first. I gave the example of the book that James Patternson was writing with a bunch of other authors selected from a competition entry, and how those writers co-wrote the book through email and live chat interaction. We had a couple of interesting ones, from choose your own adventure books to riots, of all things.
It was culture jamming that interested me the most; the concept of taking something that's already in the media and changing the meaning. Case in point today, when we were asked to find an ad in a magazine and change the meaning. The one I found was an ad for Johnny Cash's new album. It was fairly innocuous looking, with the words CASH AMERICAN V across it, with a bunch of quotes from different reviewers down along the ad.
What I turned it into, however, is something a little different.
It's amazing what blacking out a couple of words can do. The bottom bit, if you can't see it, says Everyone's talking about Cash.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Lecture/tute two
So, the first assignment is on the Actors in media. Not just the actors who portray the characters, but the producers/fans/development team/ad executives etc.
I have a little chart I drew myself here, that says Actors = Components.
Authors: Original, series/episode/screenwriters/novelisations/fan Authors.
Media: NBC, Paramount, ParamountTV etc etc.
Star Trek was used as an example in the lecture, and the idea wasn't that hard to grasp. It threw me, calling them Actors, however. I guess I think of them more as the behind the scenes, although that's not necessarily true.
more on this and the nature of collaborative media later.
I have a little chart I drew myself here, that says Actors = Components.
Authors: Original, series/episode/screenwriters/novelisations/fan Authors.
Media: NBC, Paramount, ParamountTV etc etc.
Star Trek was used as an example in the lecture, and the idea wasn't that hard to grasp. It threw me, calling them Actors, however. I guess I think of them more as the behind the scenes, although that's not necessarily true.
more on this and the nature of collaborative media later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
