Keep the Lights Burning!

History is defined by who is telling the story, and is shaped as much by what is shared vs. what is left out. Just think of the elementary school version of Christopher Columbus vs. the High school version of Columbus. The ability to critically investigate, challenge, and retell our stories is such and important freedom, and must be protected.

Tupac: Resurrection (“this is my story”) is a beautiful portrait of Tupac’s immense yet brief life and portrays his brilliance and conflictions. While the documentary does not critically examine Tupac’s life, I feel it opens it all up allowing the viewer to make personal conclusions.

As a fan of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, I never knew how they could do what they do. My introduction into the fair use provisions of copyright in this weeks reading shed some welcomed light on the subject, and now I basically understand the several categories of re-use that are permitted. The rights to re-cut and remix media, once again, are so important! Indiscriminate piracy software could greatly limit the online media libraries of future generations greatly inhibiting perspectives. It’s easy to imagine this getting scary really quickly. There is a media battle underway as large corporations grab for “ownership” of visual media archives. I’m happy to better understand the fair use provisions that protect this rt medium.
In the spirit of hip hop and rap music, I wanted to share this video from 2007 that I only recently discovered. Brother Ali is one of my favorites. Enjoy!

SL as a test run for real, real-world problems

Apparently my computer does not support the Second Life Viewer software, and so after hours of trying to access the virtual universe (I did create an avatar, but I guess she’ll remain digitally paralyzed for eternity) I abandoned hope. I did find a conference that was held by USC two years ago in Second Life, the title of which was Philanthropy and Virtual Worlds: Considering Civil Liberties. I understand Linden Labs is a private company, which of course means it has no obligation to protect civil liberties within Second Life itself, however, it is interesting to see how the discussion of civil liberties is unfolding in the virtual world. It confounds me that here in reality we are still unable to define what rights people have in the real world (as we saw in Unconstitutional) much less on the Internet, and yet discussions are unfolding online whose very subject matter is civil liberties. Does Linden Labs own the material that emerges from these digital discussions? Do they profit from them? And finally, how do the laws of the real world differ from the laws in a virtual world like Second Life?

The Global Kids’ Online Leadership Program posted two videos that were produced before and during the conference. This video discussed how one teen used the virtual infrastructure in Second Life to express concern over adults presence in the teen section of Second Life, and how his civic obligations enacted real change within SL. Blue Linden, the creator of Teen Second Life ends the video with the optimistic phrase “If teens learn to change the laws of virtual worlds, perhaps they will take their new found civic skills to the physical world too.” I’m curious to see if virtual civic responsibility really has any effect on civil liberties in the real world.

The conference apparently raised a host of issues and concerns regarding the legality of free speech in SL, as is discussed on this site Second Thoughts. The gist of the concern is that SL is virtual, every action that occurs within it is also virtual. Essentially it boils down to words only, since no actions occur in the physical reality. While there may be property damage in SL, in the real world it still only falls under free speech, and thus is not punishable. There is no such thing as Virtual Robbery. So when Linden Labs is faced with the decision to terminate accounts, what set of laws are they operating under? Well, since it is their company, it is their prerogative. To me, it is really ironic to have philanthropy and civic discourse within a non-real domain that operates as a private company. Second Life is the ultimate privatization of thought, which I guess is one of the things Web 2.0 is best at.

Daniel's Avatar 2010 Cinema 19 CCSF

My Second Life Avatar for Cinema 19 CCSF

documentary story telling, multi-user communities, and viral worlds

if think that gaia online communities is whats happening now,
all the younger generation use this website because of the cartoon like
avatars of which are captavating to both younger and older generations,
you can watch movies, play video games, interact with others in virtual towns,
you can shop, dress your avatar into several different interesting color full outfits,
read news articles, create your own virtual pets.I found this website by my nephew and his
friends, they are teeny bopers who keep up with all the newest latest social networks and websites.
http://www.gaiaonline.com check it out i think you will enjoy it, its much better then second life in my opinion.
www.gaiaonline.com

Tupac: Resurrection is a thoroughly entertaining movie and a great mash-up. The technique of using Tupac's own vocal reflections to narrate his life and death is brilliant. It is emotionally moving and an innovative means of storytelling. There is, however, a glaring problem with this work. The film lacks the one thing that makes mash-ups so effective: The Critique. This documentary poured over Tupac as if he was the Christ Child himself. Let's face it, Tupac was an arrogant, often-times ignorant, spoiled, self-centered little boy. Yes, he was exceptionally talented and he experienced numerous hardships in his young life. But his troubles do not excuse his life of public excess, ignorant public claims against people, and the violence and misogyny he promoted in his own community. Tupac was a fool who fell for the allures of fame. His death was premature and it was a result of either his naivete or his outright poor decision-making.

Watching this movie made me feel like I was being conned. The way that mild-mannered interviewer with the phony laugh let Tupac guide the interview and bait-and-switch her on all her "tough" questions about misogyny and violence was laughable. And the quick montage on Tupac's "big mouth" was almost insulting, the way it glossed over his immature and ignorant name-calling of the very stars who have paved the way for his success. The thing that makes mash-up style video so innovative is that is can be harsh in its criticisms without being outright preachy, and it serves as a great platform for sardonic humor and parody. For a mash-up to be good, it must be witty. Tupac: Resurrection has no wit whatsoever and it it completely partial to Tupac's story. It's unfortunate that Tupac's mother was the executive producer of the film. Surely, the filmmakers could have come up with something more deeply questioning and important. Instead they gave us a glossed-over biased portrayal of a troubled young man who had more to offer than an early demise. I would rather have seen a 5-minute mash-up about black male incarceration rate than this made-for-MTV life story.

Tupac Shakur and Mashups

I loved the fill Tupac: Resurrection. Although it was criticized for being one sided and not really answering any questions about him it is to be expected since his mother took part in the making of the film. Whenever a loved one is lost you want to depict only those sides of the person that were positive but since he was famous there were some issues that needed to be dealt with, such as the sexual assault case, that I thought were handled well. It would be nice to see a film on the same topic but from a neutral perspective. His mother, relatives, friends, and fans could never be neutral because they will only remember him the way they want to remember him. Those that hated him would also not be a good source because again they would only want to depict the negative side of him. It is sad that a person with so much talent had to be taken away from this world so soon. I know he is not a saint and if he was guilty of sexual or physical assault I am glad he his time and had to face our legal system. I consider myself somewhat of a fan but since I was just a kid at the time I never looked into his legal troubles, now i would like to do my own research. Despite all this his music was not all negative or a waste of talent. I think many of us that grew up in poverty and were exposed in some way to drugs and violence, white/black/brown doesn't matter, could identify with him and his music. I appreciated that he knew the origin of his name and here are some sites that I find interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BApac_Amaru_II and for those of you who speak Spanish http://gloria-davila.espacioblog.com/post/2008/05/30/canto-coral-tupac-amaru-alejandro-romualdo.

"Fair use is the part of copyright law that permits new makers, in some situations, to quote copyrighted material without asking permission or paying the owners. The courts tell us that fair use should be "transformative"--adding value to what they take and using it for a purpose different from the original work." -Recut Reframe Recycle, Center for Social Media.
I found this quote interesting because I believe that both this film and When the Levees Broke did just that. They took parts sof other works and used it to expose people to the topic being explored and to try to depict the way certain people viewed the material, such as Tupac's mother working on the film, Tupac himself, the depiction of people that suffered from Hurricane Katrina, and also shows the filmmakers point of view. To get the attention of the audience, in this case documentary film, you need to provide more then just interviews but include video's, photographs, among other things.

Mash-Up Spectrum: Tupac vs. Spike Lee

 I feel mash-ups can sometimes go all over the place. Other times you luck out. I feel Tupac Resurrection and Spike Lee's When the Levees broke fall on each end of that spectrum.

Spike Lee's film falls on the "all over the place" end. His film was one which I found myself getting lost and confides because of al the switching from film to tv footage and interviews. The only thing that really helped me stay on track was the fact that I knew it was about Katrina.

Resurrection was one mash-up that honestly kept me hooked in the whole time. I felt each different video tactic played together really well. One point flowed into the other which made it really cohesive.

In the online article Recut, Reframe, Recycle it says, " Many uses of copyright material in today's online videos are eligible for fair use consideration." This phrase is funny to me because the word copyright has been engrained in my mind since elementary school as can not be used. But the fact that online content can be used fairly is a good idea. That content can help build up and strengthen your point in a film and make it stronger.

One question I do have though is who decided and how do they decide what is fair content?

ScriptLance Freelance Programming

ScriptLance Freelance Programming

Resurrection proves to be yet another great example of how the distribution of media can cause awareness in our society. The video entails the life story of the famous Tupac Shakur’s life through interviews, photos, and home footage. The life of the rapper is messaged throughout the video giving viewers a more personal look into the life of the rapper.

From the recruit, reframe, recycle article, the public has the ability and right to make such videos without copyright infringement. Mashes up videos are creative, thoughtful, and convey messages to the audiences in a way different from a typical film. The use of our creativity in a way to support or cause awareness is something that should not be taken away. The fact that it may cause problems with filmmakers and businesses is a risk that comes with all media.

“The courts tell us that fair use should be "transformative"--adding value to what they take and using it for a purpose different from the original work. So when makers mash up several works--say, The Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur and 10 Things I Hate about You, making Ten Things I Hate about Commandments, they aren't necessarily stealing. They are quoting in order to make a new commentary on popular culture, and creating a new piece of popular culture.” This is exactly why the free will of media and American citizens should not be questioned or stolen. Long live free speech.

User-generated content

With the rise of user-generated content, we have seen a rise in the policing of internet media. The iron fist of the law has emerged in our digital world, and creative expression in the form of film manipulation is not secure against this monolith.

In the recent films we have observed this semester, there is an undeniable relation that these films share with our digital culture. Film has traversed the cinema, to now include the personal computer as its vessel. With this, there is an emerging art form that re-edits copyrighted films to tell new stories.

The concern that this emerging art form is in some way undermining piracy laws is largely unclear. I personally believe that there will always be a political force that mediates our creative entities. And in return, there will always be a legal force to control our creative destinies.

Thug Life

The movie Tupac Resurrection is a documentary put out in 2003 about the famous rapper Tupac Shakur's life. Put together from photos,music and live footage from Tupac's life, the film is also narrated by Tupac himself.The film guides us from Tupac's younger years in New York and follows his life out west and then on to stardom.The film mostly shows his life as a younger man who is trying to make a statement in the world and in doing so finds himself on the wrong side of many situations, until finally costing him his life at the age of 25.

While the subject of reusing copyrighted material is at the focus point of this weeks blog, I find it interested that we watched a movie about a rapper. I have always wondered in the past why so many rap song are cut with songs from the past. I just always figured that they must have gotten permission form the record labels or just have used these older song and reused them in their own song with out asking. But,I see from one of this weeks articles http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use/best-practices/online-video/recut-reframe-recycle that there seems to be a lot of gray area when it comes to using copyrighted material in things like mash-ups. It seem that there it's "OK" to use copyrigthed stuff if is for "fair use and has social value". I also found the video in that link interesting how they talked about how Youtube could soon be using software to sniff out material they could violate copyright laws and automatically pull those videos off their website.

It seems in today world of digital distribution that everyone wants their media instantly. It seems like CDs and DVDs will soon meet the same fate of the VHS and cassette tape.Digital distribution seems to be the main reason why place like Video and music stores are becoming a thing of the past and while companies like Netflix is on the rise.

Remix

Tupac Resurrection is a 2003 documentary about one of hip-hops most controversial and beloved figures. Photographs, home movies, and recited poetry help tell the tale of the hip-hop legend. The story is presented in a mash-up style video e.g., You Tube videos. A collective of TV appearances, interviews and recycled images of the hip-hop juggernaut.

One might ask the question, "how does a film like this avoid copyright infringement?" This film is protected under the United States doctrine fair use; a copyright law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without needing permission from the rights holders. Transformative is key word used on Recut, Reframe, Recycle article, adding value to what they take and applying it to their work differently than the original work.

I think a lot of time recycled media such as mash-up videos tend to lack creativity and usually come out looking like a bad "remix" video. Tupac Resurrection was more professionally put together than your average You Tube video, however the majority of the media used, I had already seen (as a kid growing up with hip-hop) so it was pretty boring and didn't really move me.

SloppySeconds@twitter.com

The only good thing I can say about the proliferation of mashups like Tupac: Resurrection is that they usually make me appreciate the older originals even more. This is a documentary that I would never, ever have watched on my own initiative and it’s not because I’m not interested in poetry, music, urban culture, or the message of the downtrodden. It's because I am intrinsically turned off by collaborative, watered-down, pastiche media. An homage to Tupac’s poetic and musical manifestations of the “thug life,” this film is understandably a collage because of course there is no new material. Tupac is dead, and thus what remains is remixed endlessly, by his fans, by music industry proteges, and here by his own family. This film works really, really well to advance the message of an artist like Tupac, but unfortunately most mashups have neither the authenticity or the transcendent qualities that this film embodies.

To tweet, or digitize, or mashup a work of literature or art may temporarily widen distribution, but it can also desecrate the beautiful achievements that separate us humans from the rest of the snarling animal kingdom. Great for an artist like Tupac, maybe, but what about painfully shy but incredibly gifted artists, writers, and philosophers? Those who by the test of time, not by new media have artistically shaped our concept of objective reality, the human condition, epistemology, and spirituality like Samuel Beckett, Michelangelo, and Thomas Jefferson? What about Emily Dickinson? Baruch Spinoza? Jesus? Aristotle?

Before even being concerned about desecration, there is the issue of legality. The Center for Social Media Article, Recut, Reframe, Recycle, defines the fair use clause of copyright law as “... a right to reuse copyrighted works without a license in some circumstances--most broadly, when the value to society is greater than the value to the copyright owner.” Any law that reconciles the First Amendment with the equally important right to profit from one’s own creative work, is both complicated and important. I have concerns regarding the subjectivity of the reconciliation between freedom of expression and the right to one’s own work. Who decides whether society benefits more from the rehash or the original? What if neither version is valuable to society at all? How does one quantitatively evaluate Dick In A Box? Isn’t the tawdry worthlessness of it what makes it hilarious to begin with?

Art and culture in cyberspace largely consists of rehashed versions of works of art that were created before the new technologies existed. The Internet has given us news without content, words without books, sex without seduction, and new media without new ideas. It’s new, and yet it’s already boring. Personally, I do not want public opinion seeping into my news, I do not want fan feedback corrupting my experience of my favorite musicians, I do not want audience participation in film or in the theater, and I vehemently do not want to read anything on a handheld artificially lighted “Kindle.” I want the analog or at least original version of everything, and I want it unadulterated. What else is art?

Fair Use

Tupac Resurrection is an eerie film in that the opening scene is narrated by the deceased person it depicts. The film goes on to use clips and images from Tupacs life and his influences to tell his story. This film is a mashup of epic size. It uses photos, audio, interviews, music, and clips from life defining television shows to get its message to the audience.

With numerous uses of copyrighted material, one has to wonder how Lauren Lazin was able to use all that material. According Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, as noted in an article on the Center for Social Media, because the film uses the clips to tell its own story, because the clips take on a new meaning in the context of the documentary, are protected under fair use. The article also argues that many of the mashups created online fall under the same category, however, they seem to fall victim to copyright rules and are pulled from sites because the site owners fear the work might infringe on someone else's intellectual property.

Lauren Lazin, however, did one thing many of the online mashups seen today do not do. She obtained permission to use the copyrighted material in her work. As stated at copyright.gov, "The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material.The Copyright Office cannot give this permission."

Are mashup artists approaching the appropriate copyright holders in order to reproduce material? Is it the mashup artists responsibility if the creation is obviously not intended to infringe upon a copyright? If obtaining permission from a copyright holder were necessary for any reproduction, would this overwhelm the copyright holder? If the copyright holders could charge for the fair use of their creations by threating to withhold a copyright, would they? Could this create a new market (aside from the one where the copyright holders are sueing for infringement)?

The Recycled

"Fair use is the part of copyright law that permits new makers, in some situations, to quote copyrighted material without asking permission or paying the owners. The courts tell us that fair use should be "transformative"--adding value to what they take and using it for a purpose different from the original work."
http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use/best-practices/online-video/recut-reframe-recycle 

 I feel that the movie Tupac Resurrection was a perfect example of a well put together mash up video. As far as adding value to the clips and using it in a different way by show casing the life of a now deceased artist. As the content was mostly of when Tupac Shakur was alive. The documentary is based on the life of Tupac Shakur from his mothers background Afeni Shakur a Black Panther, his birth in New York, his move to Baltimore Maryland, Marin California, his music career to his death. Using many of his interviews from MTV, Arsenio Hall Show, and various public interviews. Being as popular of an artist as Tupac was and as open as he was with the media there was a lot of video to cut and paste together to create an 112 minute film.

"Unfortunately, this emerging, participatory media culture is at risk, with new industry practices to control piracy. Large content holders such as NBC Universal and Viacom, and online platforms such as MySpace and Veoh are already crafting agreements on removing copyrighted material from the online sites."
http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use/best-practices/online-video/recut-reframe-recycle 

I feel I have noticed the disappearances of some clips that I have seen on www.youtube.com from user edited mash ups from a show called the Office (I am sure there many more instances but this is only one I have experienced) . Well I use to search random funny clips from the show and notice that some of the clips I use to like watching would disappear probably due to copyrights of the clips. With that being said in my opinion the re cuts of some media to be viewed as the best off mash ups or re cuts of videos in my opinion are nothing to get your feathers ruffled up for. Media is out there to be shared and discussed. As long as you are not mashing up these videos to make a turn of profit without proper consent I feel it should be no problem. To use these videos as a source of satire or discussion is a part of culture to be discussed and shared. So as far sites such as you tube user platform video shares we should be able to post videos as we do to engage in a topical discussion!

The Low Down On The Mash Up

This is certainly new vocabulary to me, Fair use: part of copyright law that permits new makers, in some situations, to quote copyrighted material without asking permission or paying the owners. I'm not sure if there are so many mash ups and videos on you tube and other sites that I feel desensitized and don't really realize there is copyright laws. Has anyone else forgotten about this? Now that I'm thinking about it I feel it has gotten a little hard to control what is being posted on sites where you can share your own opinions and express yourself. After reading the articles online and watching the movie Tupac: Resurrection I'm feeling that these mash ups are a positive thing. There is one thing that is very negative however which you can't just forget about and that is the loss of money and control of the material. I certainly wouldn't like it if I produced a film and it got distorted and lost money because other people were taking away from it. But in the end as internet becomes a bigger outlet for self expression and and art form you have to expect these things will happen.
The movie Tupac: Resurrection directed by Lauren Lanzin and executive produced by Tupacs own mother Afeni Shakur I felt was a great mash up movie. With the help of his mother home videos and writings of Tupac would have never been put out there. I felt this helped give a more accurate account of his life, it defiantly dug deeper into his life. I liked the artistic level of the movie too it grabbed my attention and kept me entertained. With all sorts of different images, readings, and interviews by Tupac it was a media rich film. The documentary form of the mash up I feel is more effective than the say short clip on You Tube because a lot of those short films are are for fun and are remade to be funny.
In the article Recut, Reframe, Recycle I watched the short clip and I agree with the woman speaking. It is part of our pop culture and it is a platform for discussion. I don't feel people making mash ups is really all that bad it's an art form to me someones point of view on something and most of these mash ups are very entertaining. They spoke of putting filters on You Tube and I'm against that. If they have created this website that is one of the most popular websites it the world where people have the freedom to create and open new windows then don't all of the sudden take that away. Can a mash up really be all that bad? Or is it just entertaining?

Tupac

“Fair use is the part of copyright law that permits new makers, in some situations, to quote copyrighted material without asking permission or paying the owners. The courts tell us that fair use should be "transformative"--adding value to what they take and using it for a purpose different from the original work.”- http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use/best-practices/online-video/recut-reframe-recycle  

This statement above is very informative and it makes sense. There are lots of mash ups online and in documentaries due to this Fair Use law. As the article in the Center for Social Media mentions, individual do not need consent from the owners. This is also a reason why there is so much mash ups on Tupac. 

Growing up in the middle of Los Angeles, I have always thought of Tupac as the Shakespeare of the Ghetto.  The documentary, Tupac: Resurrection is great mash-up style that flowed very well. Tupac’s mother Afeni Shakur is the executive producer so that is instant credibility to the film. Who else would know him more than his own mother? The film included private photographs, poetry, and journals which helped bind things together; this is one reason why the mash-up was successful. 

Tupac has inspired a lot of people from all walks of life to do poetry. Youth Speaks is wonderful and power organization that provide youth from all over the world to participate in change through spoken-word and hip hop. 

“At Youth Speaks, the voices of youth matter. Committed to a critical, youth-centered pedagogy, Youth Speaks places young people in control of their intellectual and artistic development. We are urgently driven by the belief that literacy is a need, not a want, and that literacy comes in various forms.”

Some of my friends are member of youth speaks and I see remarkable transformation that they go through. Their words are their source or strength and it is also a way to connect with the world. This is similar to what Tupac was saying in the documentary. He said that when he writes his poetry he is trying to connect with the person who is in the ghetto and is “thug life” (the kid in poverty that is experiencing the pain first hand). He says he is reaching out to that person.

distorting the message ...

The first time I saw the "don't vote" ad I was utterly dumbfounded....

WHY WHY WHY would anyone protest by not voting? How would not voting show discontent? Why would you give up your voice, your only voice, with regard to political policy? And what about all those -- in Guatemala, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Zimbabwe, shoot even Ohio in 2004 -- that waited for HOURS in line to exercise their right to shape public policy.

Please Vote.

my mash up...


the original

Resurrection 2 pac/politics of digital distributions

the artists, poets, and musicians need the right help to get their work to the consumers, who are the people who buy their films, poems, music, or paintings.You tube, face-book, my-space and many other outlets help the artist to be heard around the world, it is great for the artist now a days with all this paparatzi and new age media ,they get great exposure which may help sell more albums or films etc.The negative thing is there are thousands if not millions of bootleggers around the world of which whom pirate the artist works and basically steal the content with no permission or copyrights at all, then they turn around and pocket all the money for themselves, this effects the artists pocket and also no taxes are being payed by these ruthless bootleggers. The college kids who make mash-ups and spoofs of hollywood movies are not guilty of creating or commiting a crime.I feel in my own opinion that i actually helps promote small movies and large scale hollywood productions and can help promotions for smaller documentaries, so i agree with the fair use act and other copyright fair practices for short clips and movies, they are not actually stealing , they are borrowing a small portion.

The face of evil

Deliver Us From Evil gets under your skin and its subject matter is much too important to be overlooked. The trailer (below) uses Johnny Cash's version of "God's Gonna Cut You Down" and one would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't agree with that sentiment after viewing this film. According to the website bearing the film's name, the claims made in the film are considered to be highly controversial to the Catholic Church, but they are not to the majority of the public who have been hearing about abuse and cover-ups by the church for years. The website is run specifically to address what the creator feels are controversies surround the film and currently has no outside input included.

While some websites manage to create meaningful community around an issue in a participatory experience, most end up providing a forum for "crazies and haters" to make comments and threats that they would likely never use if they were not able to hide behind anonymity. Technology offers us a sense of privacy, and detachment, even as we're sharing these things with the entire Web. The online mentality is one of entitlement and total freedom, one in which no one has ownership over anything or responsibility to behave in the manners that they would in "normal" circumstances.