Is it better to kill 100 innocent men because there is a possibility that there might be one criminal among them, or is it better to let go 100 guilty men because there is a possibility that there might be an innocent man among them? In the movie âTwelve Angry Menâ, the humane spirit of America is highly praised. It is believed that a man is innocent when he cannot be proved guilty and therefore no punishment can be put on him. However, in the case of Adnan, he was accused of murder and put into prison simply because a testimony of a friend of him and that he cannot be proved innocent. I donât think is this the right way to deal with this case. Because we only live once and it is really unfair that a young man is deprived of his freedom for a crime that he âmightâ have committed. It is true that a young girl died of murder and this is also extremely ânot fairâ for her. However, does this mean that we have to find out a person to bear this crime, and it doesnât matter who? Our rationality makes us believe that for every cause there must be a reason and for every problem there must be an answer. However, we have to admit that our ability is limited and itâs impossible for us to find the answers to all the problem. And it is certainly not right to sacrifice the future of a young man in order to satisfy our sense of rationality.
Response To Ecstasy Of Influence – Justin C
Copyright can be a delicate subject in todayâs society. The proliferation of the internet has enabled many content creators to use content from other artists. While some this infringes on copyright laws, Lethem argues the opposite. While not explicitly stated, he takes a stance to resists the copyright laws set in America.
He first starts out his essay with examples of how notable works in the past have been influenced by other works of literature. This implies that no idea stems from one self but rather an influence of other peopleâs work. The implication of this idea is that no idea is completely original. Artists must be influenced by others in order to progress or create new pieces of work. Picasso once said that âGood artists borrow, great artists stealâ. If this notion of influence is true, then no one truly owns their content. Lethem in fact alludes to this by mentioning how Walt Disneyâs content stems from The Brothers Grim. Yet, the irony is that the company aggressively pushed for copyright on their content as if they owned it. The ownership of the content has been used simply for-profit reasons. While the idea in this essay isnât new, it does remind people of the controversy of the copyright laws in America.
Week6-The Ecstasy-of-Influence(clover)
I was so impressed by the words of John Donne. He considers every human being is an author and everything in our lives just like the article post on a column. Not just an article can be on column, the things happen in lives can also be showed in a way of pictures, sound, video to post in the record of lives. And he also leads to the point that every people is unique and you cannot use his works with permission. Then I was a bit confused when understanding what is plagiarism. The writer mentioned two explanation when there are two works that are quite similar. One is called cryptomnesia, the writer come to this idea by himself. The other is that he gets his works from others. Then how can we know what is the case? So I keep reading to find what is plagiarism. When reading further, I found that that the second case happens often. People steal works form the other books. Then I also noticed that this is quite a common things and it seems like a skill that can be learned. This phenomenon do not just happens in writing but also happens in almost all field which produce self-creating works.
This makes me feel a bit anxious and a bit worried. I am anxious because I was also searching for the method of coding online, and at first I forgot to cite the source, so to some degree it is plagiarism. I am a bit worried is that if I work as a creator and create a work of my own, maybe it will be plagiarism by someone. But soon I found my way there. When you are creating something, most of us get the some of the ideas from others works then we add something new to it which is great. When you are inspired by some artworks to create a new artwork, it doesnât mean you are plagiarizing. We just need to cite the source of others work. I will pay attention to this cause I found myself didnât do this that well and it will cause serious things when other sued you for plagiarizing which is a huge problem nowadays.
To help solve this problem, maybe the government can set up some rules to set plagiarism apart from inspiration. Also they can give some examples of plagiarism to help the creators better understanding the differences between plagiarism and inspiration,
Week6-Responce-to-on-the-rights-of-Molotov-Man(clover)
After reading this article, I’ve learned that every time you use other work, you have to be careful, and you have to think about copyright. In Susanâs perspective, she thinks Joy violated the person in the photo, which also let her be to claim the image of Pablo Arauz. Her intention was to praise the people of the time and the movement, but Joy changed the meaning of the picture. At the same time, Joy’s change caused a series of problems. This image was used over and over again for other activities that neither of them had anticipated. From this, we can see that every time this image is used, there are copyright issues involved. At the same time, every user seems to ignore this problem. If Joy at the time was able to think more about the copyright issue and whether he had the right to use this character to create a new paint., if other online spammers had been able to consider Joy’s copyright, the image would not have been so widely used without permission. From here we can see, in the age of the Internet, copyright issues are worth thinking about. Each time online work reprints and reuses, people should confirm the right of this work. Every web user should also consider whether a careless act of his own may push the original author into great trouble. At the same time, the government should also fine-tune the rules governing Internet copyright in order to better manage this issue.
Week 6: Response to Molotov Man – Taylah Bland
On The Rights of Molotov Man was a highly interesting read. I read it after Lethemâs piece on plagiarism and felt that the two complimented each other. Garnett and Meiselasâs essay conveys so many emotions and feelings that run through an artist. These emotions and feelings were particularly heightened in relation to the very real threat of an infringement of intellectual property and creative control. After being hit with potential legal action over the production of the Molotov Man, Joy Garnett is sent into a panic, unsure of her creative future.
What this essay really sheds light on is the question of can we really control art? Who really does own the rights to an image? Should anyone? How can we stop the reproduction and appropriation of artworks? What constitutes enough change to render a âno challenge’ to the original piece?
Susan Meisela responds to Garnett in the piece where she explores the incident of the Molotov Man. Meisela states âNo one can “control” art, of course, but it is important to me in fact, it is central to my work-that I do what I can to respect the individuality of the people I photograph, all of whom exist in specific times and placesâ (56). Meisela continues to recount that she presents art work with the main goal of contextualizing a time for these people depicted, yet Garnett has the opposite intention, to decontextualize (56).
To conclude the piece, Meisela states âI never did sue Joy in the end, nor did I collect any licensing fees. But I still feel strongly, as I watch Pablo Arauz’s context being stripped
away-as I watch him being converted into the emblem of an abstract riot-that it would be a
betrayal of him if I did not at least protest the diminishment of his act of defiance.â (58)
What I would question in Meiselaâs reply is who should actually be credited. The artist for capturing the work or the individual who is depicted? After all, isnât it their story? Their face? Their being in its entirety being depicted as an artistic piece? Whilst she encourages and demands the contextualization of her subjects, why is it the artist who claims pretty much all of the glory?