This is the first of two articles/chapters that are new for me on issues from this collection of essays, (Copy)write: Intellectual Property in the Writing Classroom, which is an interesting collection about the stuff we’re talking about with these two articles. This piece seems pretty straight-forward to me– albeit a bit repetitive in places. Though it’s good to repeat the issues of why we want students to do work with things like mashups in the first place: to better understand the way culture is consumed.
Recent Comments
- Sarah Tompkins on Finally, the final & the END OF TIME!
- Steve K. on Finally, the final & the END OF TIME!
- chelsea on Finally, the final & the END OF TIME!
- Steve K. on FWIW: “These Adorable Robots Are Making a Documentary About Humans. Really.”
- Danielle on FWIW: “These Adorable Robots Are Making a Documentary About Humans. Really.”
- Steve K. on FWIW: “These Adorable Robots Are Making a Documentary About Humans. Really.”
- Sarah K. on FWIW: “These Adorable Robots Are Making a Documentary About Humans. Really.”
- Tim S on Peer Review Group 2
- Tim S on Tim’s review of “Everything is Miscellaneous”
- Tim S on Tim’s review of “Everything is Miscellaneous”
- Tim S on Tim’s review of “Everything is Miscellaneous”
- Sarah Tompkins on Peer Review Group 2
- Sarah Tompkins on Peer Review Group 2
- Sarah Tompkins on Peer Review Group 2
- Bryan A on Peer Review Group 1
I read this article before the Johnson-Farris one and was happy to see the copyright/plagiarism issues we’ve been discussing this week applied to the composition classroom. I agree with Hobbs and Donnelly that writing is becoming increasingly collaborative as a result of digital technologies and that this creates even further difficulties with the concepts of ownership and intellectual property.
I also found the concept of “copyright confusion” interesting…Hobbs and Donnelly call for educators to be better informed regarding copyright laws so that they can get the most out of them in their classrooms (allowing students to create mashups/remixes, etc…which they claim is an important part of cultural criticism, creativity, and learning). Specifically, they state that “educators who create rigid rules about the (non) use of such copyrighted materials sacrifice the opportunity to help young people think more deeply about ethical and legal issues of repurposing,” (291)
I wonder if this supposed misunderstanding (or even fear?) of copyright laws in classrooms is something that could be worked on with what Johnson-Farris suggested in the “Moving Beyond Plagiarized” article: more carefully defined policies in schools.
http://www.daniellebreann.wordpress.com
Like Danielle, I agree with Hobbs and Donnelly that writing is becoming collaborative as digital technologies improve and exist, which, as this article discussed, is creating problems due to copyright laws.
More specifically, the confusion associated with copyright laws. I thought the quotes from the teachers were interesting: “Teaching is just better when we can pull from a lot of different sources” (278). Not only is teaching better, but for the students the learning process is better, too. “Imitation is a way to learn…so if students can’t take and use the most highly developed messages that society creates, it’s a handicap for them and the whole society” (279). I agree with this quote, too. I think of this as looking or watching an example. It reminds me of the “How to” Youtube videos that so many people watch. It’s a good thing those are not copyrighted(?) because many people learn tricks and processes from them.
http://timstorm.wordpress.com
The YouTube “how to” videos is an interesting idea– I could see that as a fun project for such things!
And I also agree that this uncertainty about fair use causes teachers to take on stances where they are too cautious and don’t allow for anything (there were some good examples of this in this article, like the teachers who would let students do mashups for classes but not to post on the web), but then there are also those professors who swing too far the other way and want to let anything go because they don’t understand fair use and/or just don’t think it matters.
It’s complicated, but in an interesting way for sure.
This was a really interesting article. I especially liked reading the teachers’ comments. The one about learning from imitation that Tim mentioned stuck out to me, because it was something I hadn’t really thought of in terms of academic education (only developmental education I suppose).
The notion of “popular culture” spoke of the issues with Monday’s Cloudgate: “they regard existing popular culture as available raw material for new work” (280). I think we are coming up with the problem between things being seen as public and corporations taking ‘public’ away from the public. Another good point that made me think “yeah!” was that students can quote from written, copyrighted samples, so why can’t we “quote” from them in the media we create? Following the same guidelines as writing, some media out there already allow us to “quote” from them, provided we give attribution and perhaps a few other things.
This was really interesting to think of in the classroom setting and I definitely see how it is a tricky one. Thinking back to some of my own presentations, I broke copyright. One, in particular, presents a problem because though I used images/songs from Mulan to highlights points from the book in a more down-to-earth manner, it was also a commentary on Mulan and the values that movie instills. Of course, I don’t have rights to Disney (nor do I think they would have given them to me for this), but the project would not have been the same without the analysis. In this sense, copyrighted material was crucial to a fuller learning experience for me. I think providing education for copyright for both students and educators starting in lower grades would really help combat some of the issues we are facing.
http://msyapin.wordpress.com
Well, I’m already intrigued because they mention zines, and I love zines. I’ve loved them for awhile and yet have struggled to conceptualize them in terms of how they are put together, especially in terms of credit/citations. I actually just got a zine in the mail today that referenced an eating disorder foundation toward the end, to point to where their statistics came from…and it was rather informal, but still pointed clearly enough so that I could look it up. As an academic, I find myself having difficulty cutting and pasting, borrowing, playing with, remixing….without immediately being concerned with whether or not I’m doing it “right.”
I think this chapter is especially relevant now that we’re starting the book reviews. The comic helped to explain how copyright/fair use works, and I’m somewhat familiar with the Creative Commons on Flickr, though not so much beyond that space. It also helps me to understand what “right” means, and it’s not as narrow as I thought. I think one of the key points is that composing today is more participatory than it was in the past, or maybe it’s more accurate to say that we participate differently now than we did before the digital age.
This reminds me of a conversation I had recently with a former professor, about how he makes his course packs through the publishing companies by choosing available readings and putting it together… I had my students buy two books this semester, because I wanted to use several chapters from each, but we aren’t completing either book and I feel bad. How do we deal with the benefit of pulling from multiple sources without a) violating copyright and b) making our students purchase a ton of books? Does it count as fair use when it is used for educational purposes?
I love how the authors outlined the benefits of multimedia composition, sharing with an audience, and how that impacts student writing. I see references here to the creative process, to flow, and I’m looking forward to spending more time with this chapter.
http://parablematernal.wordpress.com
Tim, I also really appreciated that quote about imitation, because I think it’s something that people tend to forget, whether intentionally or not. With kind of an obsessive focus on originality, it’s easy to loose sight of the fact that many people learn by watching others or following the steps that others have followed. I remember an article (I think) that talks about master’s classes in music (though I believe art applies, too), where students imitate the craft of the master musician or artist in order to learn his or her techniques and then later apply those skills to their own music making (I’m fairly sure this article was related to tutoring/writing center theory, but I just can’t find it. If anyone else knows it, let me know).
In addition to the content, I also really liked the process behind this article: talking extensively with people who are educators about these issues in order to come to consensus. With an issue as complex as this, I’m sure complete consensus (at least the sort that might 100% satisfy every legal mind) is probably not possible–especially, too, with technology changing and developing in new ways so rapidly. But I think the strategy Hobbs and Donnelly document may be the next best thing, and may give legal minds, and perhaps more importantly, other educators, an idea of what in education is widely considered acceptable under fair use terms.
“How do we deal with the benefit of pulling from multiple sources without a) violating copyright and b) making our students purchase a ton of books? Does it count as fair use when it is used for educational purposes?”
Chelsea, I’ve wondered this, too. I know how strapped some of my students really are for cash, I know college is expensive, and I just hate to add to that financial burden. At the same time, they need to read things. It’s such a tough balance…
I can see how copyright laws can make teaching difficult and I can also see how they make learning difficult as well. I tried to print a scholarly journal article off of the internet today, but it wouldn’t allow me too because I didn’t have permission. It’s rough when someone has extensive research on a topic you’re looking into for a class, but you can’t look at it without paying fourteen dollars to download it.
Did you try accessing it through your emich account, Sarah?
I think the ideas presented in the article about teaching the teachers (so they can teach the students) is a fair one. “Anything that is not originally produced is typically
devalued, and relying too heavily on others’ resources is considered plagiarism” (281). I find myself falling into this category…I certainly recall a lot of time given to warning against plagiarism, with barely a whiff of the doctrines of fair use.
Really, though, if something is out there invading the public space, let’s say there’s an ad on the bench where you sit to catch the bus, then one sense the owners of the ad have foregone their privacy; the viewer didn’t choose for it to be in that space. I think in this sense I have to agree that most of the media that exists out there belongs in the category of communal cultural identity. “Copyrighted materials are like our cultural landscape”, and we all own it, to a certain degree, when it inhabits our public spaces (278).
I hope this will end and students will be conversant in copyright laws and practiced in multiple mediums. Composition as a whole will be better for it (not that it’s bad now).
http://visiblycynical.wordpress.com
I can respect your idea about having schools provide more definitive guidelines, but I bet they are reluctant to do so because laws are so “slippery.”
Copyright laws remind me of what EMU Professor Charles Simmons said about journalism law and ethics, it was something along the lines of know the laws and protect yourself because what worked in one case won’t necessarily work in another. And this idea was touched upon in the chapter when Hobbs and Donnelly recommended not only learning the laws but developing a code of best practices.
I agree with Tim that the YouTube how to videos are a novel “public service” and am frankly surprised corporations haven’t shut them down somehow, so they could keep charging crazy prices to fix/upgrade/unlock/or whatever John Q. Public is/was trying to do with his purchased technology. Sorry just the cynic in me creeping out, but with so many proprietary things in the market I’ve just become more sour on corporations. Software, power cords, batteries, connecting cables, adapters, toner cartridges—-where does the hunger for money end and the novelty of information and innovation pick up? Okay…I’m off my soap box.
Melissa, I would argue that depending on the amount of Mulan used and whether it was the “heart” of the movie or not, you may have been within fair right usage as it applies to critique/criticism. I don’t know it’s tricky stuff…especially when taking on a company like Disney–they are so touchy.
Copyright is such a tricky area to navigate and seems that it’s ever evolving and changing nature is almost impossible to keep up with and even know whether the content you are re-interpreting is copyrighted because there is so much information out there.
The section that resonated with me the most was, “Developing Audiences for Student Work,” because it discussed the idea of a larger community “peer review” and feedback critical to the learning process and how a larger audience teaches well beyond the in class peer review format/structure.
As cited in the article, “When students are able to tell their stories to audiences that include not only their teachers and peers but also parents, community leaders, and other adults, the results can be powerful and long lasting. As Goodman wrote, “carried from the margins into the screening rooms of mainstream institutions, these stories of anger, confusion, and sadness reverberated in lasting ways.”
Again, what I see here is that the impact of this type of critical feedback connected with the students’ more because of the personal investment into the project, thus creating a more emotional response. As we know, the feeling associated with our work, whether it be for good or bad, stay with us for a very long time.
But, what I really appreciate about this approach is 1) valuing student work in a community setting outside of the classroom and 2) demonstrating the importance of civic engagement. As Hobbs and Donnelly observed, in many cases, students who aren’t normally heard are given an opportunity to share through these types of experiences.
I think any opportunity for youth to be a part of and included in something that connects academic learning and community is an invaluable teaching tool, if done appropriately.
Any time when audience is crucial to a project, I think it forces students to be very aware of what they are trying to represent, say, or demonstrate. By being conscious of these ramifications, there’s more than just academic learning, but also a decision making process that weighs the ethical and moral implications. As educators, I think it’s certainly important to make your students realize and understand these aspects when approaching any project.