Category: Leon Eckert

Ecstasy of Influence discusses one topic I’m quite interested in. Plagiarism and copyright.

I must note that I do agree that in academic world plagiarism is unacceptable and any major piece of information should be credited to source. However, on a grander scheme of things, such as internet, there should be no copyright laws unless one is trying to make money from almost identical product. Copy right on pictures, videos, even music, should not controlled. By trying to enforce regulations, companies and government are denying people their basic rights and their freedom. People are free to express themselves in any forms until it is potentially harmful towards other individuals. Sampling a song to create something new, or using a track which perfectly describes the emotions, feelings, message you are trying to send is creativity in its purest form and it shall not be punished.

The only acceptable scenarios where copyright makes sense is when people are trying to sell your product without any effort put into altering or modifying it. Such goes for applications and stolen ideas ( Facebook for example ).  But can one consider those thing art?

Story depicts a man holding cocktail molotov in a Pepsi bottle in his hand. This picture will later be reproduced as paintings, prints, puzzles, and many more formats. Copyright cases on copyright cases. Something about this picture attracted people. What attracts them is similarities or references they can find to their lives. Everyone could interpret it in the way they see it. Photographer managed to catch not only the right moment, she captured all the emotion coming from that man. The photo was complete success, however what made it what it is right now is the fight for ownership of this picture.

Photographer wanted the artist to pay for the plagiarising her work. However, is it plagiarism, he found inspiration in this picture, and he tried the show the world the way he sees it. He is trying to share HIS vision. Once you made your art available to public you have to be ready that people are going to try and copy it. Some will try use it in their corrupt schemes, however others, they might see something no other saw. Others will be able to interpret their ideas through your art.

I think that copyright on web is complete and utterly idiotic. Internet was created to communicate and share ideas, results, discoveries and art. One can not expect that something you post online will not be copied by somebody out of millions internet users. And in my opinion thats the beauty of it. You are able to share your vision, your creations with people who will either appreciate it and try to replicate it or will create something new out if, enriching and pushing human creativity beyond it limits, hopefully.

I am not saying that you should not give credit to the original creator. Giving credit would be the most moral solution. Everyone would be fair towards each other. Unfortunately, it will never work, some people don’t think about copyrights, some don’t care, some ignore and most of us just way to lazy to cite or credit someone.

In Europe Article 13 have passed, which enforces multiple copyright laws on internet. What it means is that people are being censored, if you don’t give credit you don’t talk. It always starts from small regulations and ends up in anti utopian scenario, ex. 1984 G. Orwell, where government control everything, big brother sees and hears everything, it tells you what to say, what to think and what to do.

More people are focusing on the copyright fights, more government will have reasons to limit our access to information. So my solution would be, think twice before posting anything online, do you mind people seeing copying and sharing it, and how will affect your life.

On the Rights of Molotov Man is an article about the copyright battle over an image of a Nicaraguan freedom fighter. The article shows the development and spread of the image, full of many different iterations of the image showing it in different contexts and with different motives. While some versions of the image are being used for purposes similar to the original purpose of the image, such as many of its uses in Nicaragua, others are far from the original image’s message, Pepsi for example. I feel like the reproduction and sampling of this image is totally okay as long as credit is given where credit is due. As long as the image is cited, it should be fair game to do whatever one wants with it because, after all, it is just a collection of numbers. Without sampling and instead requiring for each artist to find their own subject matter, there could be no commentary on pop culture and people would be constrained to much simpler, basic designs. So in conclusion, I would like to make the argument that the ability to recycle and sample media is crucial in order for creativity to evolve to the next level.

After reading “Ecstasy of Influence”, my view on copyright has completely changed. Before, I believe that copyright is a protection of the right of people who do creative work and to give them credit for what they have created. Now I start to think that maybe copyright is just an excuse for the capitalists to monopoly the production of commercial products that can make huge profits. If the law really wants to protect one’s ownership of his/her own creative ideas, merely ban others from “copying” those ideas is not enough. It should also ban others from talking about or thinking of those ideas without citation, since talking about or thinking of an idea of another person can also be seen as a form of “copying”. However, one will not be charged of violating the copyright of others if he talks to his friends about an interesting idea of other people or thinks about other people’s idea. One is charged of violating others’ copyright only when he/she tries to make a profit using others’ ideas or his/her actions hinder others from making a profit. So, when people talk about copyright, are they really thinking about “rights” or is it just another tool used by capitalists for monopolization and the maximization of profit?

Art can be translated in many ways, but fact can’t. Fact should be objective, which means that it cannot and should not be translated—once it is translated, it becomes something subjective and thus it is no longer a fact. Susan Meiselas took the photograph of Pablo Arauz in order to show the true story behind him—the rebel against the control of Samoza family. She wants to preserve the original story, since it would be disrespectful of Pablo if his action of rebellion is twisted into other meanings and is used for purposes other than the advocation of the spirit of revolution. However, for many people like Joy Garnett, who don’t know the story of Pablo Arauz, the image of “Molotov Man” is merely a symbol that is open to interpretations. They use the “Molotov Man” as a tool of expressing their own opinions. After their recreation of the photograph, “Molotov Man” becomes something completely personal. I think there’s nothing wrong with Joy’s recreation of “Molotov Man”, because after all “Molotov Man” is not Pablo Arauz, so it doesn’t necessarily have to bear the story of Pablo.