Visual Theory

| | 4 comments »

Wordle link 2

| | 0 comments »
Wordle: authorisanonymous

What is a multimedia author?

| | 0 comments »
Firstly, a multimedia author is anonymous; the author is a sexless, ageless, unidentifiable entity known only to the world wide web by a username, an IP address, or a location. As Focault says, the author becomes identifiable and mentioned only when necessity demands that he or she becomes "subject to punishment." On the web, anyone can be an author, until plagiarism and copyright become an issue, and then the question of authorship is debated.

Secondly, Focault says "the author-function is not universal or constant in all discourse." As the world progresses, the idea of authorship changes and morphs depending on the popular discourse and attitudes of the time. In written text, when published on sheets of paper and bound by leather, a single author or groups of authors place their name or names on the work denoting their authorship, their ownership, their copyright. Multimedia authors are free from claiming official authorship - they are not bound by the laws of paper and pen. They may avoid recognition, they may disperse their work without a title, a claim, or ownership of the work. A multimedia author does not have to tie his or her name to the work to lend it credibility. A multimedia author does not have to worry about copyright - copyright is a choice in the free community of sharing, the forum for all, the blank canvas, the internet. The internet is a new society open to all, governed by its own as yet unwritten rules.

The work of a multimedia author expresses the creativity and innovation of the creator - the author is a ghost, the author is "dead" (Barthes), the author is invisible. Yet, unlike text published on paper, the multimedia author is alive. The author can revisit the work, recreating, reinventing, remixing the original. The multimedia author is never finished.

Worldle Project

| | 0 comments »
Wordle: Alex-Twilight

Research Proposal: Twilight Videos

| | 0 comments »
My project will explore the practice of fans creating their own versions of Twilight videos on YouTube. These videos question the idea of authorship, because the creators borrow from Stephanie Meyer's original creation, but also add to the extensive works of unique and creative multimedia publications available on the web.

There are 355,000 hits on the website when you type in the keyword "Twilight," and this number increases extraordinarily with each passing day - adding to the cult-like following that Meyer's work has inspired. These videos range from fan-created trailers, to remixes, to spoofs, to parodies,to alternate endings, and to a range of creative inventions. While this practice is like fan-fiction, some of the videos borrow images and clips from the movies or use the same central storyline with different actors. Other videos transform the movie and plot in a more comical manner, such as "The Twilight Puppet Saga" and the "Twilight Trailer Spoof." Overall, the videos remake the original subject matter of Stephanie Meyer into an expression of creativity and multimedia prowess.


These videos lead to multiple questions about ownership and credit: Can the creators of the videos claim full "credit" or "ownership" for their ideas? Or do they have to credit the actors, the directors, the authors, etc.? Is this practice of "remixing" or "plagiarism" legal? Since the images and scenes are used without permission, could some sort of legal repercussions occur? How does the author, Stephanie Myer, relate to the videos? Is it plagiarism because they "steal" and "borrow" from her work? Who is considered the author for this new form of multimedia expression?

My topic rethinks authorship because the creators of the videos borrow from the same central theme. The creators present their own point of view, remixes, and expressions of the saga, and then publish their work in an online forum for the entire world to view free of charge. Yet, while these videos are unique and innovative, they still infringe upon the ideas and copyright protected work of the original author. In order for these videos to exist without consequences on the internet, it is necessary to redefine the term authorship as well as extend upon the terms plagiarism and copyright? Are these video directors creating a new, 21st century, multimedia form of publication and ownership?

References

Hetcher, Stephen. "Using Social Norms to Regulate Fan Fiction and Remix Culture." http://66.102.1.104/scholar?q=cache:DPYIDz1VnXMJ:scholar.google.com/+hetcher+fanfiction&hl=en. 9/15/09.

PlagiarismdotORG. "Resources." http://www.plagiarism.org/. 9/13/09.

Reynolds, Emily. "Screams, Vampires, Werewolfs and Autographs: An Exploration of the Twilight Phenomenon." http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd2908.pdf. 9/14/09.

"So You Wannna Write/Read FanFics?" http://www.liannesentar.com/fanfiction/fanfictionhelp.html. 9/14/09.

Draft of Research Proposal - Twilight YouTube Videos

| | 1 comments
My project will explore the practice of fans creating their own Twilight videos on YouTube. These videos question the idea of authorship, because the creators borrow from Stephanie Meyer's original creation, but also add to the extensive works of unique and creative multimedia publications available on the web.

There are 351,000 hits on the website when you type in the keyword "Twilight," and this number increases extraordinarily with each passing day. These videos range from fan-created trailers, remixes, spoofs, parodies, alternate endings, to a range of creative inventions. While this practice is like fan-fiction, some of the videos borrow images and clips from the movies or use the same central storyline with different actors. Other videos transform the movie and plot in a more comical manner, such as "The Twilight Puppet Saga" and the "Twilight Trailer Spoof." Overall, the videos remake the original subject matter of Stephanie Meyer into an expression of creativity and multimedia prowess.


These videos lead to multiple questions about ownership and credit: Can the creators of the videos claim full credit for their ideas? Or do they have to credit the actors, the directors, the authors, etc.? Is this practice of "remixing" or "plagiarism" legal? Since the images and scenes are used without permission, could some sort of legal fallout occur? How does the author, Stephanie Myer, relate to the videos? Is it plagiarism because they "steal" and "borrow" from her work? Who is considered the author for this new form of multimedia expression?

My topic rethinks authorship because the creators of the videos borrow from the same central theme. The creators of the videos present their own point of view, remixes, and expressions of the saga, and then publish their work in an online forum for the entire world to view free of charge. Yet, while these videos are unique and innovative, they still infringe upon the ideas and copyright protected work of the original author. In order for these videos to exist without consequences on the internet, it is necessary to redefine the term authorship as well as extend upon the terms plagiarism and copyright.

Links:
http://www.multiplum.com/mostly/storyboard/remixed-i/08/2009/
http://www.plagiarism.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u718MmV0dg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dompotjTeIA


Plagiarism and Copyright

| | 0 comments »
"The Rise of the Plagiosphere" presents a very daunting and bleak view of the future of writing. While the plagiarism software originated with the intention of protecting work, it seems apparent that the more advanced it gets, the more inadvertent plagiarism will occur. In relation to the class topic, this new software seems to question the definition of plagiarism. Every seemingly innovative and creative phrase of aspiring web writers can be drawn into question by MIT's new software that detects paraphrased sentences. The software seems to put a limit on creativity: if a phrase or sentence contain similar words as another publication on the internet, which the article points out contains billions of pages, that the utterance is no longer unique and fresh, but borrowed, illegal, and plagiarized. This new software threatens to put a damper on the creative works of writers in the whole wide world - their creativity will be stifled by the discovery that someone else has created a work with similar words and structures - each new idea will become old in a mere click of the mouse.

On the other hand, Lethem's article presents an entirely different perspective on plagiarism by suggesting that most artist's throughout history have purposefully or inadvertently plagiarized in some form or another. T. S. Eliot, for example, in one of his most renowned works "The Waste Land" borrows from so many different sources that it would be almost impossible for an ordinary reader to recognize the allusions without his personal notes detailing the original source. From this, Lethem questions the purpose of copyright in the century ruled by technology. What can we gain as a society from fining a 12-year-old boy thousands of dollars for downloading a song from the internet? With Lethem's perspective in mind, the idea of multimedia authorship and creativity grows exponentially. If every published work is allowed to be borrowed, recycled, and then spit out into an entirely new medium as it has been done for centuries, then how can plagiarism exist? The web has simply provided artists a new medium by which to create: the internet presents a boundless forum to present new ideas, borrowing from the old, and creating innovative pieces of creativity.