Author Archives: jasmijnvanhouten

Copyright – Reading The Fine Print

The Lectorial regarding copyright on Monday prompted us to think about what rights we have regarding work we create, and how these copyrights may be affected by sharing work online. We not only have to take into consideration whether we have used any copyrighted work, but also which of our rights we are giving up by posting through different services. We were shown Twitter’s terms of service regarding copyright:

Screenshot taken 7/5/16

Twitter’s terms of service. Screenshot taken 7/5/16. Source

By posting on Twitter, you are granting them a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty free license, which is perhaps a whole lot to be giving away for free.

This led me to consider Instagram, which is a popular app/website which is used frequently by photographers and artist to share their work. It has often been criticised for its policies. However, it’s terms of use are similar to those of Twitter: whilst you retain ownership of your work, you are granting them a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license. This means they can use your work wherever they want, anywhere in the world, for free.

Instagram's terms of Service. Screenshot taken 7/5/16. Source

Instagram’s terms of Service. Screenshot taken 7/5/16. Source

It’s important to remember that once you post something online, you have no control over what happens to it. An important of example of this is when last year, artist Richard Prince screenshotted people’s Instagram posts and hung them in a New York gallery, and sold them for a pretty 90k. He did not ask their permission, those affected did not find out photos of them were hanging in a gallery until their friends told them about it.

So be careful out there, kids.

Instagram’s First Masterpiece?

Credit/Source: Arcadia Missa/Amalia Ulman

 

Amalia Ulman, an Argentinian artist, posted a series of photos on her Instagram account in 2014, mostly selfies taken on her phone, that appeared to chronicle her life. She posted about pole dancing classes, having breast surgery, breaking up with her boyfriend and becoming a ‘sugar baby’ to make ends meet. She received criticism from her peers – who believed it all. However, these posts were all part of an art project playing on stereotypes of women online. She had manipulated her followers into believing this fake life.

This is an interesting case that demonstrates how audiences can be easily manipulated through online media. Despite post-broadcast theories regarding active audiences, who are supposed to be critical of media texts, Ulman’s followers easily believed her posts to be the truth.

We discussed in the workshops today some of the cons of social media and the internet. Whilst this means of communication can be instantly gratifying and spread quickly, it is perhaps not as reliable as more traditional media produced by institutions who have to abide by codes of practice. Most audiences who are communicating via social media have no such liability, and it is therefore easy to spread misinformation.

“The idea was to experiment with fiction online using the language of the internet,” said Ulman about the project.

 

Fan Culture

Whilst Brian skipped over the fan culture part of the Lectorial on Monday, I decided to revisit it because it’s an interesting topic and it relates strongly to my group’s PB4 topic. In the post-broadcast era, ‘fandoms’ are no longer relegated to socially isolated groups of Star Trek geeks. This is due to the rise of ‘participatory culture,’ which has been enabled through the development of new technologies and thus new forms of communication. The Internet has given fans spaces to create communities, and connect with other fans around the world. One of these spaces that springs to mind is Tumblr, which can almost be considered the ‘home’ of modern day fandoms. Thanks to the interconnected nature of fan culture in the post-broadcast era, fans have been given a voice, and thus a power as an audience, that they previously did not have.

Audiences are now able to engage with media texts in different, increasingly interactive ways. A fan might produce ‘fan art’, post it online, and have it shared hundreds or thousands of times with other fans. This culture of sharing amplifies the voice of fans, thus decreasing the distance between producers (knowledge culture) and fan culture. Sometimes, these fandoms are able to influence producers through their responses to texts.

I believe the saturation of fan culture, especially in social media, has normalised these ‘fannish modes of engagement.’ It’s no longer considered a social faux-pas to be a fan of something, and to actively share and discuss pop culture texts.

 

 

Source

PB4 In Class Discussion

In the workshops today, we discussed our annotated bibliographies in our groups. We each chose one of the texts we had researched and thus presented 4 texts in total to the class.

It was really helpful to have some feedback of our ideas in a supportive classroom context. It was also interesting to hear the ideas other groups were working on, even if it wasn’t the same topic as us, as other ideas still have the potential of adding depth and variation to our own ideas.

It’s always interesting to see how different people or groups of people tackle similar tasks. Everyone has a unique approach that works for them. Also, it was good to see an in depth discussion happening amongst the whole class.

The People Formerly Known As The Audience

This article was posted online by Jay Rosen in 2006. He extolls the powers of the blog, hailing it the ‘modern printing press,’ due to its ability to give more authors a voice. Information can now flow form citizen to citizen, rather than from institution to citizen. Rosen contends that audiences are more powerful and active, and thus there is a ‘new balance of power.’

Interestingly, this article was posted 10 years ago, before social media, smartphones and Netflix became ubiquitous. The user communities that Rosen would be referencing back then, would have been replaced or morphed into different spaces. Yet, the argument he makes is increasingly relevant today, as audiences continue to interact with each other in different ways.

One of the responses, by Mark Howard, raises an interesting point to consider. Rosen’s article is quite aggressive in tone, suggesting that all audiences have a desire to be active and reclaim power from institutions. However, Howard considers that there is perhaps a subset of audience that wants to be passive, and indeed, there are media producers who depend on passive audience. Home shopping channels come to mind, for example.  If all audiences were critical of the media they were presented with, I doubt these channels would exist or make a profit.

Can Netflix replace traditional TV?

According to this article on cordcutting.com, 75% of Netflix’s user base believes this to be true.

If anything is a good example of changes in how audiences in the post-broadcast era consume media, this statistic is. The idea of a ‘mass audience’, i.e. families gathering on the living room couch at 7:30 to watch a certain program, is outdated. Modern audiences are engaged and have agency, a long way from the ‘passive’ audience theories of the early 20th century.

Interestingly, however, is that the same article also cites that 67% of respondents don’t believe that Netflix can replace movie theatres.  In the Internet age of convenience, multi-tasking and distracting, going to the movies is one of the last few truly immersive experiences. Unless, of course, the person in front of you is on their phone the entire time. So, whilst there have been significant changes in how audiences consume media, certain more traditional ways of consuming media are still cherished.

Film Style in The Age of Innocence

Source

According to Bordwell & Thompson, style refers to the distinctive patterns of technique found in a film, which shape the effects the movie has on its viewer.

Style can refer to the style of a film, a director’s particular style, or the style of a group of films or directors. Importantly, style is created through the choices of the director, which can be shaped by limiting factors such as technology, fashion, dominant trends or stylistic norms.

The Age of Innocence, by director Martin Scorsese, features sound as a key part of its style. The film features omniscient non-diegetic narration throughout, which provide the viewer with key information about the plot and characters. Also, the recurring orchestral score ties together the film, as it provides both emotional cues for the audience and is relevant to the setting, especially in the opening ballroom scene. Sound also directs the audience toward important dialogue, such as in the scene where Newland and the Countess whisper to each other as the opera. The volume of the other characters conversation and the background music fades away so we can only hear the two characters speaking, thus reflecting the intimacy of their conversation – they are focused only on each other, just as the audience is focused only on them.

The mise en scene, particularly the costumes and settings, reflect the film’s 1870s setting, a pattern which continues throughout the film. Similarly, the editing is reflective of the film’s style, such as the fade out to blocks of colour, yellow, red and eventually white in crucial scenes. The editing also reveals Newland’s point of view, as by rapidly cutting between detail shots, we get the sense that he is observing his environment carefully, and we get to see what notices. This is repeated throughout, thus creating a pattern with this style of editing.

Moreover, masking focuses the audiences attention, such as in the scene where the engagement ring is displayed, where everything in the shot is masked out except the ring. This technique is relatively uncommon in Hollywood narrative film’s, so it stands out as being reflective of The Age of Innocence’s unique style.

South East Asia Festival

Back in March, I went to the South East Asia Festival in Carlton to take photos as part of my photojournalism class. It was surprisingly easy to get permission from people to take photos of them, despite that it took me a while to warm up to asking people as I’d never done anything like this before. It was a really good experience, however, and the food was delicious.

Pork Bun Girl

 

Annotated Bibliography Sample

I found this article through Google Scholar, through the RMIT library site so I’d have permission to view more of the articles. I also used this guide to help me write the annotated bibliography, which focused my evaluation of the article.

SOURCE 1

Jungee, K & Rubin, A M. (1997). ‘The Variable Influence of Audience Activity on Media Effects’, Communication Research, Vol 24 no. 2, 107-135 

The article explores how variations in audience activity helps explain why and how audiences react differently to media messages. The authors used three path analyses to prove their theories that communicators have a hard time influencing audiences who are not interested in messages, but that selectivity, attention, and involvement may facilitate media effects.

The researchers tested a broad range of hypotheses, and tested these using three versions of a questionnaire. It may be limited as it asked subject to reflect on their motivations for viewing soap operas, as thus the answers may be biased or inaccurate.

Although this article uses relevant theories and research to our research topic, it may not be helpful as it focuses on soap opera viewing and is thus out dated for studying the effects of modern media such as the internet on audience interaction and influence.

Copyright – Do Modern Audiences Feel A Sense Of Entitlement?

Source

In Australia, copyright is automatic and applies from the moment a work is created. Similar laws apply overseas, providing protection to content creators from having their work stolen or used without their consent.

However, this does not deter those known as ‘pirates’, from uploading copyrighted content, notable films, TV, and music, to the Internet for others to download. Time and time again, efforts have been made to suppress file sharing websites like The Pirate Bay, which is in now in its umpteenth domain name to prevent authorities in different countries from taking down the site. The Pirate Bay has become almost invincible, due to peer to peer sharing.

Plenty of arguments have been made that this rampant sharing of copyrighted content is hurting creators, like film studios, who claim loss of ticket sales because of films being shared online. So if the effects of piracy are so negative on content creators and copyright holders, why are people so reluctant to give up on piracy? There has been an overwhelmingly negative response to corporations and governments censoring torrent sites.

It is because modern audiences demand to access content at their convenience? If someone in Australia wants to watch the latest offering of Game of Thrones, they have two options: buy an expensive Foxtel package, thus paying a premium for a lot of extra content they don’t desire or need, or wait until the DVD release of the season a year later. Waiting a year to watch a show is an unpleasant option in today’s Internet world where online discussions are an integral part of the media experience and dreaded spoilers lurk around everywhere corner.

Some creators do support piracy, like Brazilian author Paulo Coelho offered his opinion on file sharing: “a person who does not share is not only selfish, but bitter and alone.”