Reading Week 3 – Copyright and Creative Commons

I think it’s very important to distinguish the difference between Creative Commons and Copyright. They both work in different ways and effect us as online content creators.

Copyright has a wonderful way of automatically protecting your work once you place it out to the world. Most definitely not a bad thing, right?

The issue is, copyright often places some pretty hefty laws around those that want to use your work or just share it. This means that when you write that fabulous post that gets everyone talking, you’ll have Aunty Jan, Uncle Pat, Cousin Fan, Great Grandma Robin and even Step Mother February asking if they can all share your work. I mean, if we can avoid having the internet turn into a Grandpa’s 90th birthday, why don’t we use all that we’ve got?

This is where Creative Commons comes into play. The not-for-profit organisation allows anyone in the world wide web to structure their own license for their own work. Not only does this save your precious time from licensing every piece of your work, I mean, “ain’t nobody got time fo’ dat” but Aunty Jan, Uncle Pat, Cousin Fan, Great Grandma Robin and even Step Mother February, can now share your work, without having to ask for your permission. So now, we can avoid the slobbery kisses on the cheek and the questioning about where your boyfriend or girlfriend is.

So if we break Creative Commons down a little more, we can understand that it doesn’t counter copyright, but works along side it, making the sharing process between the author and reader, a little swifter.

Screen Shot 2016-03-15 at 4.54.43 pm

 

Screenshot image of text taken directly from: Creative Commons Australia: Licensed CC BY 4.0.

As we can comprehend from the above image, one must attribute the original owner of the work, even when they are transforming the original copy. Authors can select a Creative Commons license that either agrees or disagrees to their work being used for commercial purposes and whether or not someone can modify their work.

The Creative Commons license gives the author a lot of flexibility in terms of how their work is used once it is posted. For example, for this Media Factory blog, I added a Creative Commons license in the right sidebar of my blog, outlining that I have chosen the option of allowing my work to be shared and adapted, even for commercial purposes.

In all honesty, I am looking for people to credit my work if they are going to use or share it and this is why the Creative Commons license is important.

I think that because I now have the Creative Commons license on my blog, I feel a lot safer about the work that I do. I want to become more network literate and to be able to have an open opinion on particular topics that I like, whilst not feeling like someone is going to come along and rip me off. It also means now that I will take greater care when sharing others work, as I now understand how important copyright and licensing is to a creator.

/ Annotated Bibliography from Popular Culture /

So here is a post relating to the elective I am doing at the moment (Popular Culture).

I wrote this Annotated Bibliography to submit for the final assessment piece (we had to write 3 bibliographies).

I want to know what people think of the idea between Fan-Celebrity interaction. It was previously discussed in a lecture for Media 1 and I myself am definitely apart of this fan-celebrity culture which is why I am so interested in it.

Here it is below.. enjoy!

Ferris, K 2001, ‘Through a Glass, Darkly: The Dynamics of Fan-Celebrity Encounters’, Symbolic Interaction, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 25-47.

 

In this article, Kerry O Ferris examines the interaction between celebrities and their fans, further suggesting that perhaps there could be a theory developed for fan-celebrity interaction. The article explores the dynamic relationship between fans and celebrities, and the ways in which some “fans make and take advantage of opportunities for prestige encounters at public events” (Ferris 2001, pg. 25). However some fans actively pursue celebrities to create fan-staged encounters often blurring the line of being an, ‘active fan’ and showing similarities to ‘celebrity stalkers’. Whilst Ferris acknowledges the face-to-face contact between celebrities and their fans, she also brings attention to the interaction between fans and celebrities via mass media and the way in which it “can incorporate the fictional and the extraordinary into their real, ordinary, everyday lives” (Ferris 2001, pg. 25).

 

To form a deeper understanding of fan-celebrity relationships, Ferris collected observational and interview data over a two-year period from ‘active’ Star Trek and ABC soap opera fans. She describes active fans as “pursuing beyond interest, consumption and enjoyment of the television show”, whilst also “forming social bonds with other fans and participating in activities” (Ferris 2001, pg. 28). Collected were a series of twenty in-depth interviews with active fans (fifteen women and five males), who discussed their “television viewing habits and practices, personal histories of fan ship and fan-celebrity contact” (Ferris 2001, pg. 29).

 

The article provides a deep insight into the developing theory of fan-celebrity relationships, recognising that not all fans blur the line between ‘active fans’ and ‘celebrity stalkers’. Whilst also having collected subjective data from interviews, Ferris gathered notes whilst attending “conventions, autograph signings, and personal appearances at store openings” (Ferris 2001, pg. 29) in which fans can interact face-to-face with celebrities, providing an ‘in the field’ perspective. This enabled her research to have a multi-faceted approach supporting the theory of fan-celebrity relationships.

 

Whilst the article provides a range of data to suggest that there is a potential for a theory of fan-celebrity relationships, there are some limitations which include the fact that Ferris has used an unbalanced male to female ratio (15 females and 5 males) potentially giving an inaccurate result, as the results could be gender-affected. However, this ratio could perhaps suggest that there are in fact more female ‘active fans’ than there are male ‘active fans’, implying that further research within this area is suggested. Ferris also states that the data is focused primarily on fans, as it is “solely from the fans perspective” (Ferris 2001, pg. 30), giving no other outlook (that of the celebrity/celebrities involved). Nevertheless, this could also be seen as a strength of the data, as it is purely “naturalistic data” (Ferris 2001, pg. 30) which enables for the examination of “indigenous perspectives and meanings” (Ferris 2001, pg. 30) of these active fans.

 

The article is useful for individuals looking into the fan-celebrity interaction as it provides a multi-faceted approach to the developing theory of the contact between these two groups. Potential research into different fan-celebrity groups is however required as this article only looks at Star Trek and ABC soap opera viewers. In addition, it may also be necessary to gain a perspective from the celebrity’s viewpoint.