This copyright issue has been circulating around me that initially I would not realize its existence. Now that I have stumble across the issue, it is quite apparent that there are two distinctiveness whether freedom to just produce anything is correct. The term ‘correctness’ is also full of ambiguity because morally correct and lawfully correct are different situations. I wish to underpin that freedom is still a very argumentative subject as having too much freedom is not necessary a good thing and constraint yourself in terms of freedom is also quite a pain.
Our society stress democratic culture- without just being able to voice our opinions or vote for the leader of our country. It was about copyright whether we can just derive anything and produce our own pieces of artwork- whether it is a story, a song, an artwork, an craft work, a dance, a music, a poem or an article. Particularly, what consists of fair-us? Who determines fair-use? There are people who have worked hard to generate their individual work, hoping to gain some reputation, respect and most importantly to make ends-meet.
Even though at the beginning, copyright is structured so that a creative culture is sustainable and people will produce because their work is sort of ‘protected’ and that they are not dominated by monopolies. We are probably aware that legally, we are not suppose to cross the business border of the owners’ work because technically your work affects their work in terms of profit and market values. However technological development has helped to mold a society that creates without needing to seek permission from the owners or the publishing company. You can quote a sentence and modify it just so that it won’t look ultimately similar but will a copy of that sentence affect the publisher or the book’s value? What if the work you are doing is only meant for personal use?
There was this social platform of video sharing: YouTube that genuinely show us as public that it is not cool to do mash up of other artists’ songs or movie clips to create your individual video because you have stolen their work and stealing is not right under the law statement. When it comes to major corporation, there is no way a commoner can handle a group of professional lawyers that will inevitable sued for your act of stealing and the act of affecting the commercialized work. YouTube will probably ask you to remove the video so that it will not continue to ‘pollute’ more audiences even though your video has only less than 50 views.
Discussing something less complicated- photos. When someone took a picture of a product that involves ‘marketing’ or is selling in a shop, does that violate the law of copyright especially when he or she put on social media websites? Fair use probably meant the restriction on copyright so that you can officially use someone’s work to create your own work such as parodies or mash-up of a song that only copies several notes?
Intellectual property refers to ideas that are exclusively protected such as on books, on songs and on films. The purpose of fair-use is to make sure that these properties will not act as barriers on free exchange of ideas in society. Trademarks are also important for companies to maintain their image and reputation in the eyes of public. If you were to use trademarks that may cause confusion among the public then it is likely that your action is copyright infringement.
I stand in the middle when it comes to two approaches of copyright whether it is the properterian or the democratic. I support that copyright should be balanced so that the public domain is able to use anything freely to produce their new work. However, I strongly agrees to some extent that the work of others should be protected under a certain period so that economically, it can be utilize in maximize. Even though, it is important for publishing company or film production, directors and authors to earn money from what they have produced, but a slight copy will not kill especially when it doesn’t affect their commercial development.