-
- The Mystique of Enlightenment: The Radical Ideas of U.G. Krishnamurti (1982) edited by Rodney Arms
- My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody.
- Copyright release found in this and several other publications of his conversations
Lessig
He proposed the concept of “Free Culture“.
-
In March 2006, Lessig joined the board of advisors of the Digital Universe project.[52] A few months later, Lessig gave a talk on the ethics of the Free Culture Movement at the 2006 Wikimania conference. In December 2006, his lecture On Free, and the Differences between Culture and Code was one of the highlights at 23C3 Who can you trust?.[53]
Lessig claimed in 2009 that, because 70% of young people obtain digital information from illegal sources, the law should be changed.[54]
In a foreword to the Freesouls book project, Lessig makes an argument in favor of amateur artists in the world of digital technologies: “there is a different class of amateur creators that digital technologies have… enabled, and a different kind of creativity has emerged as a consequence.”
In 2014, Lessig received Lifetime Achievement at the 2014 Webby Awards as cofounder of Creative Commons.[56]
When collage uses existing works, the result is what some copyright scholars call a derivative work . The collage thus has a copyright separate from any copyrights pertaining to the original incorporated works.
Due to redefined and reinterpreted copyright laws, and increased financial interests, some forms of collage art are significantly restricted. For example, in the area of sound collage (such as hip hop music ), some court rulings effectively have eliminated the de minimis doctrine as a defense to copyright infringement , thus shifting collage practice away from non-permissive uses relying on fair use or de minimis protections, and toward licensing . [20] Examples of musical collage art that have run afoul of modern copyright are The Grey Album and Negativland ‘s U2 .
The copyright status of visual works is less troubled, although still ambiguous. For instance, some visual collage artists have argued that the first-sale doctrine protects their work. The first-sale doctrine prevents copyright holders from controlling consumptive uses after the “first sale” of their work, although the Ninth Circuit has held that the first-sale doctrine does not apply to derivative works . [21] The de minimis doctrine and the fair use exception also provide important defenses against claimed copyright infringement. [22] The Second Circuit in October, 2006, held that artist Jeff Koons was not liable for copyright infringement because his incorporation of a photograph into a collage painting was fair use. [23]
Borges’s best-known set of literary forgeries date from his early work as a translator and literary critic with a regular column in the Argentine magazine El Hogar. Along with publishing numerous legitimate translations, he also published original works, for example, in the style of Emanuel Swedenborg or One Thousand and One Nights, originally claiming them to be translations of works he had chanced upon. In another case, he added three short, falsely attributed pieces into his otherwise legitimate and carefully researched anthology El matrero. Several of these are gathered in the A Universal History of Infamy.
At times he wrote reviews of nonexistent writings by some other person. The key example of this is “Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote“, which imagines a twentieth-century Frenchman who tries to write Miguel de Cervantes’s Don Quixote verbatim, not by having memorized Cervantes’s work but as an “original” narrative of his own invention. Initially the Frenchman tries to immerse himself in sixteenth-century Spain, but he dismisses the method as too easy, instead trying to reach Don Quixote through his own experiences. He finally manages to (re)create “the ninth and thirty-eighth chapters of the first part of Don Quixote and a fragment of chapter twenty-two.” Borges’s “review” of the work of the fictional Menard uses tongue-in-cheek comparisons to explore the resonances that Don Quixote has picked up over the centuries since it was written. He discusses how much “richer” Menard’s work is than that of Cervantes’s, even though the actual text is exactly the same.
While Borges was the great popularizer of the review of an imaginary work, he had developed the idea from Thomas Carlyle’s Sartor Resartus, a book-length review of a non-existent German transcendentalist work, and the biography of its equally non-existent author. In This Craft of Verse, Borges says that in 1916 in Geneva “discovered, and was overwhelmed by, Thomas Carlyle. I read Sartor Resartus, and I can recall many of its pages; I know them by heart.”In the introduction to his first published volume of fiction, The Garden of Forking Paths, Borges remarks, “It is a laborious madness and an impoverishing one, the madness of composing vast books, setting out in five hundred pages an idea that can be perfectly related orally in five minutes. The better way to go about it is to pretend that those books already exist, and offer a summary, a commentary on them.” He then cites both Sartor Resartus and Samuel Butler‘s The Fair Haven, remarking, however, that “those works suffer under the imperfection that they themselves are books, and not a whit less tautological than the others. A more reasonable, more inept, and more lazy man, I have chosen to write notes on imaginary books.”
[su_quote style=”modern-light”]Self-plagiarism is the reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of one’s own work without acknowledging that one is doing so or without citing the original work. Articles of this nature are often referred to as duplicate or multiple publication. ….Typically, self-plagiarism is only considered a serious ethical issue in settings where someone asserts that a publication consists of new material, such as in publishing or factual documentation. It does not apply to public-interest texts, such as social, professional, and cultural opinions usually published in newspapers and magazines. In academic fields, self-plagiarism occurs when an author reuses portions of his own published and copyrighted work in subsequent publications, but without attributing the previous publication.[34]Identifying self-plagiarism is often difficult because limited reuse of material is accepted both legally (asfair use) and ethically.[35] It is common for university researchers to rephrase and republish their own work, tailoring it for different academic journals and newspaper articles, to disseminate their work to the widest possible interested public. However, these researchers also obey limits: If half an article is the same as a previous one, it is usually rejected. One of the functions of the process of peer review in academic writing is to prevent this type of “recycling”. The concept of “self-plagiarism” has been challenged as being self-contradictory, an oxymoron,[36] and on other grounds.[37] For example, Stephanie J. Bird[38] argues that self-plagiarism is a misnomer, since by definition plagiarism concerns the use of others’ material. However, the phrase is used to refer to specific forms of unethical publication. Bird identifies the ethical issues of “self-plagiarism” as those of “dual or redundant publication.” As David B. Resnik clarifies, “Self-plagiarism involves dishonesty but not intellectual theft.” [/su_quote]
[su_quote style=”modern-light”]Factors that justify reuse Pamela Samuelson, in 1994, identified several factors she says excuse reuse of one’s previously published work, that make it not self-plagiarism.[35] She relates each of these factors specifically to the ethical issue of self-plagiarism, as distinct from the legal issue of fair use of copyright, which she deals with separately. Among other factors that may excuse reuse of previously published material Samuelson lists the following: The previous work must be restated to lay the groundwork for a new contribution in the second work. Portions of the previous work must be repeated to deal with new evidence or arguments. The audience for each work is so different that publishing the same work in different places is necessary to get the message out. The author thinks they said it so well the first time that it makes no sense to say it differently a second time. Samuelson states she has relied on the “different audience” rationale when attempting to bridge interdisciplinary communities. She refers to writing for different legal and technical communities, saying: “there are often paragraphs or sequences of paragraphs that can be bodily lifted from one article to the other. And, in truth, I lift them.” She refers to her own practice of converting “a technical article into a law review article with relatively few changes—adding footnotes and one substantive section” for a different audience.[35] Samuelson describes misrepresentation as the basis of self-plagiarism.[35] She also states “Although it seems not to have been raised in any of the self-plagiarism cases, copyrights law’s fair use defense would likely provide a shield against many potential publisher claims of copyright infringement against authors who reused portions of their previous works.”[35][/su_quote]
Both John Fogerty and Spinal Tap were sued for “self-plagiarism. Spinal Tap had to pay royalties to a copyright-holder to perform as the characters, and sing the songs that they themselves created.
- Shie
- Dreivative
- Copy and Paste?
