Sita's licensing sings

I have decided to discuss an interesting film I saw this week, Sita Sings the Blues. 

Sita is an animated film written, directed, produced and animated by Nina Paley. The film is an adaptation of Hindu epic, the Ramayana. What I found most interesting about the film wasn't the storyline or its controversial reception but the licensing arrangement behind it. 

On her website Nina Paley writes:

Dear Audience,

I hereby give Sita Sings the Blues to you. Like all culture, it belongs to you already, but I am making it explicit with a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License. Please distribute, copy, share, archive, and show Sita Sings the Blues. From the shared culture it came, and back into the shared culture it goes.

This is a very unique approach. In terms of the copyright implications, the Creative Commons License does not mean that an artist is giving up their copyright (Creative Commons Australia, 2012). It simply means that their work can be used more liberally. Thus, it actually encourages user-generated content. 

As discussed in a previous post the digital, globalised world has brought intellectual property to the forefront. In particular, we have seen that copyright restrictions can severely the rights of users to publish, share or remix the work of others. 

In the case of Sita, the licensing arrangement encourages audience distribution. Thus, instead of telling people they can't share and punishing them if they do Sita encourages the audience to share (Question Copyright, 2009. This, in turn, benefits Nina Paley who has become a pioneer in the fight for the rights of global media users.

Reference List:

Question Copyright,2009, The Sita Sings the Blues Distribution Project <http://questioncopyright.org/comment/8503>

The Chicagoist, 2012, 'Sita Sings the Blues Sparks Controversy in Queens'<http://chicagoist.com/2011/07/21/sita_sings_the_blues_sparks_controv.php>.

Creative Commons Australia, 2012, 'About the Licenses' <http://creativecommons.org.au/learn-more/licences>

Sita Sings the Blues, 2008, <http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/watch.html>

The blogosphere of the public sphere?

Over the last 6 weeks I have become a serial blogger. Not only have I been blogging myself but I have been reading fellow student blogs and taking more of an interest in professional bloggers. All this reading and blogging has got me thinking, what is with blogs? Is there such a thing as a blogosphere? How is this different to the public sphere?

German sociologist Jürgen Habermas defined the public sphere as a 'network for communicating information and points of view . . . the streams of communication are, in the process, filtered and synthesised in such a way that they coalesce into bundles of topically specified public opinions'(1995, p. 360). The public sphere is closely tied to the media. New media technologies, in particular the internet, have provided unprecedented opportunities for people to communicate information and public opinion. 

Blogs are one method of contributing to the public sphere. Roggeveen has written that a blog is a 'platform to push out ideas, information and links to other sources'(2012). However, 'when many blogs form a blogosphere you get a living ecosystem to exchange and debate' (Roggeveen 2012).

As the clip above demonstrates, it is arguable that a healthy blogosphere may just be the key to a functioning public sphere  given the access they provide for minority voices and political dissidents. However, as Roggeveen highlights, whilst society has seen an increase in blogs this does not necessarily mean they contribute to a blogosphere (2012). If people blog in isolation there is no blogosphere of the public sphere. 

References:


Habermas, J, 1992,The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere – An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 

Roggeveen, S, 2012, 'Is there an Australian Blogosphere?', Lowy Institute for International Policy, accessed online <http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2012/03/23/Is-there-an-Australian-blogosphere.aspx>

The Bollywood diaspora

Where people move across physical boundaries, whether through migration or otherwise, they often find themselves in a new and different cultural environment. This new environment may lead to different ways of identifying with their home culture. 

The concept of diaspora has been used refer to the 'large-scale migration or dispersion of people in general'(Moore 2012). Dudrah writes that diaspora means an 'interplay of migrant people, their successive settled generations, and their ideas in terms of a triadic relationship'(2001, p. 20). This means that there is a three way relationship between migrants, their new/home cultures and their 'diasporic consciousness' that moves between cultures to create a new, hybrid culture (Dudrah 2010, p. 20).

Bollywood cinema is an intrinsic part of Indian culture (Gowricharn, p. 2). Bollywood is not only popular in India but is also popular amongst Indians living abroad (Assisi). Dudrah writes that Bollywood films are an example of 'diasporic and global cultural texts' because of their engagement with Indian communities living abroad and the social and cultural identity crisis they may experience (Dudrah 2010, p. 20). 

Source: http://www.pukaarmagazine.com/?p=649 


For example, in the film Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge (The Braveheart Will Take the Bride)a young Indian couple living in England fall in love on a trip to Switzerland. However, the couple must deal with the woman's traditional father who takes her back to India to fulfil an arranged marriage. 

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112870/

This film is an example of the diasporic nature of Bollywood as it engages with the struggle between modernity and tradition experienced by diasporic Indian people. 


References:

Assisi, F, 'Bollywood Culture Binds Global Indian Diaspora', Planet Bollywood, accessed online, <http://www.planetbollywood.com/displayArticle.php?id=051806123941>. 

Dudrah, RK 2002, ‘Vilayati bollywood: popular Hindi cinema-going and diasporic South Asian identity in Birmingham (UK)’, The Public, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 19–36.

Gowricharn, R, 'Bollywood in Diaspora', University of Tilberg, pp. 1-9, accessed online, <http://www.svmk.nl/pdf/bollywood_in_diaspora.pdf>. 

Moore, C 2012, Topic 3: Making Cultures: Diasporas and the Media, accessed online via D2L. 

Cookie v Copyright

This week I have focussed on the role that we, consumers, play in the media and how the online content we generate can be limited by law. 

The internet has become a space for bloggers, journalists and consumers alike to contribute to the media agenda(Singer 2007, p. 116). However, online user-generated content is severely limited by copyright law. Copyright law gives exclusive legal rights of ownership to the original creator of a work for a period of time (Australian Copyright Council 2012). Those who infringe the copyright of another are liable to punishment under Commonwealth law. 

Simply posting a clip on YouTube could mean you are infringing copyright. For example, a few years ago Canadian bureaucrat Dr Stephen Duckett refused to talk to journalists because he was eating a cookie.

In this first clip we can see “© CTV Edmonton” on the right of the screen. This means that the clip is owned by CTV Edmonton and protected by copyright. An internet user, inspired by the CTV clip, later posted a parody on YouTube. 

  
The second clip is an infringement of copyright law. 

In the context of online copyright infringement, how can the law balance the rights of copyright owners with the rights of users? Christou and Maurushat  argue that there are various legal defences that users may be able to rely on (2009, p. 2). However, it seems to me that this could be another example of media users being trumped by the omnipresent, copyright owning, media oligopolies.....

References:

Christou, Sophia and Maurushat, Alana, 2009, ‘Waltzing Matilda’ or ‘Advance Australia Fair’? User-Generated Content and Fair Dealing in Australian Copyright Law,  Media and Arts Law Review, Vol. 14, No. 1. 

Singer, JB 2007, ‘Bloggers and other “participatory journalists”’, in C Friend & JB Singer (eds), Online journalism ethics: traditions and transitions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y., pp. 115–50

Australian Copyright Council 2012, An Introduction to Copyright Law in Australia, accessed online via <http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/>