5.+My+Report

The internet today consists of 5 different digital data types: these are text/hypertext, audio, video and animation; all of these different multimedia types are protected automatically by copyright in Australia. Today you will hear both sides of the argument on whether works put together made by other people can be considered creative and it’s against the law in all circumstances even though it is protected as well. As well as both sides of the argument you will also get an insight on my personal opinion. **How is it creative if one is taking someone else’s work and using it in as their own?** although if it is covered by copyright law then it must mean the original creator of the work used must have been attributed or credited in one way or another, which is the right thing to do. According to (Dictionary.com, 2010) creative means: “resulting from originality of thought,” and my understanding is something unique and original; depending on how much of someone else’s work is used can also vary it’s creativity level. For example the whole song Africa by Karl Wolf has been adapted from the 1982 version Africa by Toto, when you listen to them, they are almost identical, but in the newer version by Karl Wolf there has a been a few changes i.e. a different beat, rap and new lyrics have been added to appeal to a younger generation. Now to record this it would've been passed by copyright with consent etc. but I’m sure that a lot of young people who listen to this newer song didn’t even know it was a remake, I sure didn’t until just recently. This is unfair to the original creator who was credited but not given as much recognition as deserved. Back to whether this lacks creativity or not, I think it does. The idea is not original and technically this is against the law in all circumstances as it is almost the same as original. Also according to the Copyright Act, it is an infringement of copyright to change the work in an offensive way, on the You Tube video clip for Africa by Karl Wolf (the newer version) the persona of 'Africa' has been changed to someone who some would say, inappropriate but really is just the norm for the 21st century generation.  Something that is going through the legal system right now is the court case between the band Men at Work and the owners of the rights to the song Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree from 1934, Larrikin Music. Men at Work have been accused of taking 2 bars off Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree and using it in their own song Down Under, which topped the charts in the U.S, UK and Australia. To have such a big court case around just 2 bars of copied music seems a bit over the top, but even the slightest inkling that something may have been copied is a big thing. So as you can see that using someone else’s work without saying anything, until someone notices is against the law in all circumstances and it is highly evident in the case here. (NME News, 2010) Since I left you by the Avalanches is a great album, including the popular songs Frontier Psychiatrist and Since I left you. The whole album is made entirely out of samples from different styles of music, genres, movies and some of their own beat. At first there was no intention to release the album, so they weren’t worried about copyright, but after much recognition including an ARIA award, some songs were altered and the release date was pushed forward (Wikipedia). This song is a perfect example of a mashup, as mashup is a collaborative piece of work made from 2 or more sources, (mashup can apply to songs and videos) (Rankin, 2001). They are quite popular these days among artists/DJs and video makers, YouTube is an especially popular place for these projects and a great sharing place for ideas. Since I left you has been accepted by copyright and society as any other song or video and therefore has the right to be considered creative (in my opinion they are a lot more interesting that it’s normal/original version). Even though creators of mashups use other people’s works they would’ve had to get consent. There is also a lot of thinking behind these projects and to create them especially when you use more than just a few sources. The use of digital data in your own production is not the problem at all as seen with mashups, but it does become a problem when work is used without creators consent. Looking back at the Men at Work case you can see that it can become quite a big thing. If work is used with consent or annotated and attributed (depending on how much you use) then it is not against the law in all circumstances. Nowadays there really is no original ideas i.e. storylines and topics of a song. A lot of creative works branch off other people’s works, hence RnB or Punk remakes of old popular songs. Even in film. Take Alice in Wonderland for example. It was first a children’s book that became popular around the world, so Walt Disney made it into an animated film aimed at readers. This was so popular that again in 1999 a real life movie was made with stars like Whoopi Goldberg and Gene Wilder (IMDB, 1999-2010). Again in the 21st century another version of Alice in Wonderland was made, with big names like Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter (from Sweeney Todd), to suit the 21st century it was even made into 3D with elaborate costumes and special effects (IMDB, 2010). All these versions of the original story were popular, but notice none of them are technically are original, even though the changed the story slightly to suit different audiences, all were just branches off the book. This isn’t original but each movie had a big response and each was as good as the last, especially with the last movie and the special effects and costumes. None of these movies broke the law did they? Neither did they lack creativity. **MY OWN OPINION:** Personally I disagree with the statement “ **The use of digital data covered by Copyright in a multimedia production reflects a lack of creativity and is against the law in all circumstances.” **After researching both sides of the argument I agree that plagiarism is definitely not fair and morally incorrect, but I do agree that mashups are creative and aren’t against the law because the original creators would’ve been asked or credited, if not then it is against the law. Creativity is hard to rate but I think the most creative works are those that are adaptations or branches off the original.
 * The use of digital data covered by Copyright in a multimedia production reflects a lack of creativity and is against the law in all circumstances. Discuss. **
 * FOR: **
 * AGAINST: **